Sitting of 6 July 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BREDERO (BON ACCORD CENTRE, ABERDEEN) ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Bredero (Bon Accord Centre, Aberdeen); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
    HIGHLAND REGION (LOCHINVER HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Region (Lochinver Harbour); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to pay a ministerial visit to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting to Australia.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to lead the United Kingdom branch delegation to the conference.
    Mr. Couchman: When my right hon. Friend meets members of the Australian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, will she thank them for their warm hospitality to Members of this House when they visited them in Australia? During the Australian bicentennial, will she remind them of the close ties that we cherish between our two countries, and in that spirit of close affinity will she offer to our Australian friends a view of how the United Kingdom's economy has improved since 1979 so that our Australian friends see how they might lift their economy during the coming decade?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, we thank the Australian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for its warm hospitality to all members of the CPA groups who are to visit Australia this September. As my hon. Friend said, we
    1044
    cherish the very close ties that have come very much more into our minds in this bicentennial year, particularly the sail training ship, which has brought so much pleasure to Australians, which was a gift from this Government.
    It is notable that after Treasurer Keating took sound corrective action inflation fell from 9·3 per cent. in February 1987 to about 7·1 per cent. in December 1987. He has also delivered an economic statement that suggests that he intends to free the dynamic forces within the economy. He has also cut corporation tax from 49 to 39 per cent., following the economic example set by this country. We hope that it will bring as much success to Australia as it has brought to this country.

    El Salvador
    Mr. Michael Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made regarding the increase in human rights violations in El Salvador.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): In February this year we supported the extension of the mandate of the United Nations Special Representative on human rights in E1 Salvador. I discussed these matters with the Salvadorean Foreign Minister during his visit to London in March.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that during the first four months of this year 100 civilians have been killed, the vast majority of them by death squads? They had been tortured and beaten, their hands tied behind their backs and then executed. That is the way in which the death squads carry out that kind of punishment. Is the Minister also aware that in this sparsely populated country of 5 million, 10,000 children die every year through malnutrition and disease? That is also a violation of human rights. Will the Minister use his good offices and ask his friends in the EEC, who gave aid amounting to £14 million last year to El Salvador, and his other friends in America who give aid to that country, to put pressure on the Government of El Salvador so that the killing is stopped, human rights are observed and people are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve?
    Mr. Eggar: As I have said, we have made very clear to the E1 Salvadoreans our concern about reports of the increase in human rights violations this year. We recognise the scale of the difficulties and the problems that are associated with a destructive insurgent war. The UN Special Representative found no evidence to prove that the Government connived at human rights abuses, and acknowledged the President's real efforts to curb violations of human rights. It would have been helpful to the House if at the same time the hon. Gentleman had expressed concern about the abuses committed by the guerrillas. The UN Special Representative noted that there were a number of injuries to civilians as a result of a deliberate policy by the guerrillas.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not help in the slightest to spend our time knocking the democratic President and the Government of El Salvador? They have a difficult enough time maintaining the balance between, on the one hand, Nicaragua-backed insurgents and, on the other, brutal elements in the military.
    Mr. Eggar: I note my hon. Friend's comments. There are abuses of human rights in E1 Salvador, and it is correct to express our concern about them.

    Middle East
    Mr. McTaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new plans he has to further the peace process in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We shall continue to encourage the parties to the Arab-Israel dispute to respond positively to Mr. Shultz's initiative and to agree arrangements for an international conference.
    Mr. McTaggart: The Government have made many fine statements about this issue, but when can the House expect real action from them? Will the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raise with his European partners the need for a positive initiative? As a first step, will he arrange for a Minister to speak to someone from the PLO?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will know that this topic has been the subject of regular and serious discussion at meetings of European Community Foreign Ministers. It is only a short time since we had the opportunity of meeting the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, when we took the opportunity to impress upon him our sense of urgency, and in particular our concern, about the need to ensure that the access provisions for exports from the occupied territories are being permitted and put into effect by Israel.
    We have a regular dialogue with the PLO at official level. We have made plain the extent to which it is entitled to participate in the conference, when it is held, and we shall continue to do so.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, despite the Israelis' brutality and oppression on the West Bank and in Gaza, the PLO has maintained a very moderate position? Would it not be sensible at this stage to follow up the intentions of the Venice declaration and raise meetings with the PLO to ministerial level?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the extent of my hon. Friend's knowledge of, and interest in, this subject and that particular aspect of it. The PLO is well aware of those aspects of its policy that stand in the way of renewed ministerial contact: the need for unqualified recognition of Security Council resolutions, recognition of Israel's right to a secure existence, and renunciation of violence. However, that does not stand in the way of regular dialogue with the PLO at official level; nor does it inhibit our ability to play our part in carrying the peace process forward.
    Mr. Dalyell: Ought not either the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary to clarify the rules of engagement under which British ships are operating in the Gull?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That has nothing to do with the question; nor is it a question that is answered.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the middle east peace process
    1046
    must relate to the major war that is going on in the Persian Gulf? Does he have any plans in the present tragic circumstances to bring Iran to the conference table at the United Nations, to give it some chance of an honourable peace?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, we attach importance to the implementation of resolution 598 as the foundation upon which a negotiated settlement can be built. Iran has failed to accept that resolution. We support the work of the Secretary General in trying to secure acceptance of resolution 598 by both sides, and we shall give our full support to the authority of the Secretary General to that end.
    Mr. Kaufman: Further to the question that has just been put by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), will the Foreign Secretary say whether, before the Prime Minister issued her knee-jerk support for the United States over the tragic incident on Sunday, she gave a moment's thought to the effect of her comments on the British hostages being held in Beirut, whose fate is a matter of great concern to everybody in this country? As almost one year has elapsed since the passage of resolution 598 through the Security Council, without any action being taken to implement it, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now go to the United Nations and consult its other permanent members with a view to moving a resolution for a mandatory arms embargo on any country that will not accept resolution 598, so that some action can be taken to bring to an end an appalling conflict, which has killed 1 million people and is placing the whole world at risk?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am prepared to endorse without qualification the right hon. Gentleman's description of the tragedy and horrors of this long-continuing conflict. I am not, however, prepared to go along with his own knee-jerk reaction to the carefully prepared statement put out on behalf of the Government on Sunday in the light of the tragic incident with which he started his question.
    As that statement made clear, the whole world must deeply regret the loss of life involved in that tragedy. We therefore took care to extend our sympathy to the bereaved at the outset. But, in the light of the very concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about the continuation of the conflict, it is equally right to accept the general right of foreign naval forces present in the Gulf upholding the freedom of navigation, under article 51 of the charter, to defend themselves. The statement clearly reaffirmed—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not doubt this—the legitimacy as a matter of principle of action taken in self-defence.
    As for the incident itself, obviously it is neither sensible nor proper at this stage to make further comment until there has been fuller investigation of the details, and we must await the outcome of the United States naval investigation.
    As for the last point, I need no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman to underline the need for us to take every action that we can to bring about an early end to the Iran-Iraq conflict. It was British action that secured the implementation of resolution 598 in the first place; it was British action that therefore secured the first meeting since 1972 of Foreign Ministers last September. It is Britain that is still in the chair of the five permanent members committed to promoting action to implement it. I raised

    1047
    with the Soviet Foreign Minister in New York just three weeks ago the need for. further action, and I secured his response precisely to put teeth into resolution 598 by putting on the order paper and implementing an arms embargo resolution. We have not so far been able to secure the support of all five permanent members for that, but the House can he sure that it is not for want of trying on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Batiste: Given the welcome, though sudden, interest of the Iranian Government in the preservation of human rights, can my right hon. and learned Friend see any prospect either of a more immediate interest in the ending of the Iran-Iraq war or of the ending of the abnegation of human rights in that country or its sponsorship of international terrorism?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those aspects of the conduct of Iran and the Iranian Government which continue to cause dismay, at best, and shock, at worst, to other parts of the international community. That is why it is necessary, Iraq having accepted Security Council resolution 598, for Iran to do likewise. If Iran does not do that, I repeat that the Security Council should proceed to consider a follow-up resolution to enforce compliance.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the subsequent answer to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), why was my original question on the rules of engagement out of order?

    UNESCO
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet Mr. Mayor, the Secretary General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, to discuss the possible re-entry of the United Kingdom into the organisation.
    Mr. Eggar: I met Mr. Mayor during his visit to London on 22 June.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister has not replied to my question. The question is, did he take steps to begin a dialogue with a view to Britain's re-entering UNESCO? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it was a great mistake for Britain to leave that organisation, a view shared by our colleagues in the European Community. It would be a very good thing to set an example to the United States for a change.
    Mr. Eggar: During our meeting Mr. Mayor gave his impressions of the past six months, during which he had been a director-general of UNESCO. I gave him my assurance that we would continue to monitor developments at UNESCO carefully. At the same time, I made it clear that we need to see evidence that the necessary fundamental reforms at UNESCO have been achieved before we can even begin to consider our position on membership.
    Sir Peter Blaker: In contrast with what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, is it not clear that it was only the departure of the United Kingdom and the United States from UNESCO that brought an end to the corrupt and costly regime of Mr. M'bow? Mr. Mayor has made a good start,
    1048
    but is not more evidence needed of a lasting change in the actions and policies of UNESCO before we can consider rejoining?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. At the last executive board meeting in Paris there was a considerable amount of evidence that member states opposed even the fairly minor changes that Mr. Mayor has recently introduced. It does not make sense for us to decide whether we shall rejoin until after the end of the general conference of UNESCO, which will take place in 1989, because that general conference will show whether the member states are prepared to introduce necessary reforms over the subsequent five years.

    European Council, Hanover
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Council meeting at Hanover.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Council meeting at Hanover.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent European Council meeting at Hanover.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 30 June, the outcome of this Council was very satisfactory. We have confirmed that the way forward in Europe lies in the creation of wealth and jobs. British firms will be well placed to take advantage of the opportunities that the single market in Europe offers.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the rapid progress that has been made in the past year by the EEC towards trade liberalisation in accordance with the Single European Act? Will he confirm, however, that physical harmonisation does not necessarily mean uniformity of taxes and that the danger of full monetary and economic union is the possible loss of economic sovereignty to this country? Therefore, will any such proposals by the Delors committee be firmly resisted as being premature?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should like to agree with my hon. Friend about the important progress that has been made in the Community in completing the single market, to the benefit of United Kingdom industry and consumers, Under the German presidency, which has just finished, more than 50 such single market measures have been completed.
    Progress towards European monetary union has been a proclaimed objective in Community texts for many years, but any change in that direction that involved any major institutional change would require not only unanimity within the Council but ratification by national Parliaments, so the matter will be fully available for consideration over the many years ahead when it will be on the agenda.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in an upbeat statement last week on this topic, said that one third of the menu of things to be done had already been completed under the momentum of the. German presidency. I think I am right in saying that the

    1049
    next six months will be under the presidency of Greece, a country whose priorities may be a little different. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on that?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's comment that the national personalities and priorities of the member states vary from half year to half year. I expect that the six months that we spend under Greek presidency will be different from the six months that we have had under the German presidency.
    My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise the large number of measures towards the single market taken in the past six months. Indeed, since June 1985 about 200 measures have been taken. For the next six months, it is important to emphasise that the Hanover European Council, with full Greek participation and endorsement, agreed four priorities for the coming months: opening up of public contracts; liberalisation of banking and other financial services; mutual recognition of standards; and progress on so-called intellectual property—trade marks and patents.
    Mr. Dykes: With this harmonious and positive summit, and the fact that since the internal market campaign was launched by the Government the Commission office in London has been inundated with many more inquiries and expressions of interest by a public who are increasingly enthusiastic about the development of the Community, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as the member states get used to working more reciprocally in these legitimate areas with majority rule, this country would derive more benefit from that system of democratic majority rule that by insisting on a rearguard action to preserve outdated and anomalous traditions?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must confess that I was exhilarated by the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend's question for about its first 85 per cent., but I was dismayed that a member of the Conservative party should dismiss traditions quite as brusquely as he did. We are able to achieve the proper balance between those matters. In the provisions of the Single European Act we have retained and stressed unanimity in cases where it is appropriate, but, under the British presidency, as a talisman of our willingness to make headway, more decisions were taken by majority decision that in any preceding presidency.
    Mr. Rees: Were there any formal discussions about Northern Ireland between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister in Hanover?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had a meeting at Hanover at the conclusion of the European Council meeting and a short press statement was issued thereafter.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: At its last meeting, did the Council consider the view expressed by the Iranians that, at the monthly meeting with European ambassadors, the only empty chair is that of Great Britain? Would it not be in the interests of dialogue that that chair be filled, and is not dialogue now important?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will find that the seat that would be occupied by the British ambassador in Tehran is occupied by the Swedish ambassador, who looks after our interests there.
    1050
    However, on the wider question, we discussed in the House last week the obvious desirability of being able to establish normal relations with a country as important historically and prospectively as Iran, but I went on to make very clear the need for Iran to recognise the number of steps that it should take—suspending the sponsorship of terrorism, according proper guaranteed rights to diplomats, treating prisoners in Iran in accordance with consular rules, and abiding by the provisions of resolution 598. Those are the steps that need to be taken if the revolutionary regime in Iran is to come to terms with the way in which it should live in company with other nations.
    Mr. Corbett: What recent discussions have taken place at the European Council to secure the territorial integrity and independence of Cyprus and the removal of Turkish troops? Will the Foreign Secretary undertake to raise that matter with President Evren when he visits London later this month?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have certainly discussed the Cyprus question on a number of occasions, most recently in the context of the association council proposed with Turkey on 25 April, which did not in fact then take place. Certainly we attach importance to progress in Cyprus in response to the initiative of the United Nations Secretary General. Whenever either I or the Prime Minister meet the Head of Government or the Foreign Minister of Greece or Turkey, we raise the question on that basis, and I have no doubt that it will be discussed in the course of President Evren's visit next week.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the British Government are wholeheartedly committed to examining the possibility of the creation of a European central bank?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm that the Government wholeheartedly accept the commitment, in the study established at the European Council, for the consideration of concrete steps towards the objective, reaffirmed in the Single European Act, of progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. Those words have been endorsed by the House and by successive Governments for many years. How far and how fast that requires us to go towards the establishment of a central bank is one of the questions for consideration by that committee.
    Mr. Robertson: Has the Foreign Secretary noticed that the excellent Greek Government, on assuming the presidency of the Community, declared that one of their main priorities would be to press for social policies such as job creation, health and safety, retraining and sexual equality up to the completion of the internal market by 1992? Since those commendable policies were comprehensively rubbished by the Prime Minister at the Hanover summit, something which brought strong criticism from the German press, will the Government and the Foreign Secretary be supporting the Greek presidency in its objective, or will the Government yet again stand alone in ensuring that big Europe will be only for big business?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman retains one qualification—the ability to coin the odd phrase. The trouble is that the phrases that he coins have nothing to do with the real world. The European Council agreed on a programme of measures to be given priority in the months ahead. I have already identified them. They are measures

    1051
    designed to continue the liberalisation of the market in the European Community. The Community also agreed that the promotion of economic prosperity, and of economic growth by that means, provides the best foundation for employment and social measures. The unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is below that of the European average. Our percentage rate fell by 2·5 per cent. last year—faster than any other country in the Community. In the years 1983 to 1986 we created 900,000 jobs, which was more than the rest of the European Community put together. That is the best way to achieve the social progress that is wanted by all members of the European Community.

    Sharpeville Six
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made recently to the South African Government on the case of the Sharpeville Six; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations to the South African authorities Her Majesty's Government have made regarding the Sharpeville Six.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further appeals on behalf of the Sharpeville Six were made by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 14 June, by the Security Council on 17 June, by Heads of Government at the Toronto summit on 20 June, and by the European Council on 28 June. We have also raised the issue again direct with the South African Government.
    Mr. Lloyd: I hope the Foreign Secretary will accept the fact that international moves in this direction have already had an impact in delaying execution. If he really wants to be the Prime Minister's successor, and not simply her poodle, will he go along and demand of the Prime Minister that she uses her special relationship with President Botha to make it clear publicly that Britain is insistent on clemency being granted, and that it should be granted now?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House, including Her Majesty's Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, share the concern raised by the hon. Gentleman that clemency be exercised in respect of the Sharpeville Six. It is for that reason that we have participated in the various representations that I have already described. We have been in touch today, through our embassy in South Africa, to establish the present position. Legal moves are still taking place there. An application is still outstanding for consideration by the Chief Justice in South Africa, and the executions have been suspended at least until 19 July, and will be extended thereafter. We have already urged that all legal options should he used. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already once urged, in an appeal to President P. W. Botha, that clemency should be exercised, and that plea stands against the possibility of it being necessary at the end of the appeal process. We are all seeking, in any way that we think most effective, to procure the result that the whole House wants. We are convinced that those efforts are not likely to be any more effective if we accompany the plea for clemency by any kind of threat or menace.
    Mr. Winnick: As the Six could be executed during July, is it not essential that the Prime Minister makes a personal appeal to the President that they should not be executed? Despite what the Foreign Secretary has just told us, is he not aware that Labour Members—Conservative Members may think differently—are far from satisfied that the British Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the hangman's noose does not take the lives of the Six?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I beg the hon. Gentleman to be humble enough to accept, first, that we want as much as he does to see the exercise of clemency in this case and, secondly, that the pleas that have been made by Her Majesty's Government and the representations that have already been made once by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which were supported by the decisions that she arrived at with the rest of the Heads of Government in Hanover last week—representations that have the authority of Her Majesty's Government and are unaccompanied by threats and menaces—are far more likely to have an effect than the sort of threat that the hon. Gentleman would put beside them.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is difficult for President Botha to exercise clemency in this case, for two reasons? First, the Western world has given the South African Government no credit for the relaxations of apartheid that have taken place in recent years. Secondly, while the African National Congress pursues an indisciminate policy of terrorism and murder in South Africa, the white community especially will need the reassurance that a strong policy by the South African Government gives.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We all wish to see apartheid brought to an end as quickly as possible, but that process is more likely to be hastened by acknowledging progress when it has been made than by pretending that it has not happened. It is equally right to say that the process of reform is more likely to be set back by violence than the reverse. For that reason, we continue to drive home the case to the ANC and the South African Government that acts of violence set back the process of reform. That said, and although it is not our normal practice in any automatic way to intervene when sentences of death are imposed—we do so only once the legal process has been concluded, and then only in exceptional circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the great majority in the House, the Government and almost every other Government in the world, endorse the view, which I am invited to endorse, that it would advance the prospect of good government in South Africa and the end of apartheid if the South African Government were to see their way to exercise clemency in this case.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that the joint measures with which the Government have been associated command the approval of at least some of us on the Opposition Benches? Does he recognise that there is considerable concern about the extent to which the Government are prepared to pursue unilateral initiatives? Does he accept that the best possible argument in this case is one that is based, not on the somewhat arcane legal principle of common criminal purpose, but upon the humanitarian considerations that necessarily apply in this unhappy and unfortunate case?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is on the basis of the consideration that I have described that our appeal is based. We do not make pleas of this sort on any automatic basis that is likely to be discounted. Our appeal for clemency has been considered carefully in this case. We try to make that appeal in the fashion best calculated to be effective. There is no doubt whatever—I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me—that it is not likely to be effective if it is accompanied by threats.
    Mr. Wells: Do not the abhorrent happenings in Sharpeville, which led to this terribly difficult position in the courts in South Africa, reinforce the wisdom of the Government's policy of setting their face against further sanctions against South Africa, which would induce further economic difficulties in the townships and lead to an incipient revolutionary situation of a sort that led to the present position? Are we not able strongly to plead for mercy for the Sharpeville six because we have not supported sanctions?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am delighted to be able to agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. It is right that sanctions would be positively directed in the wrong direction. It is our experience and judgment that punitive sanctions so far imposed by other countries have failed to hasten reform, have reduced external influence and have strengthened the hand of those who are opposed to reform. As we have set our face against sanctions, we are more likely to have more influence, rather than less.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Foreign Secretary has properly rejected the racist baying from the Conservative Benches on this issue. He says that the Government wish all legal options to be taken before making further representations, and we naturally hope that those options will result in proper clemency being shown to these six innocent people. If that were not to happen, and it became clear within the next few days that these six innocent people faced hanging by the South African regime, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that the Prime Minister will demonstrate the concern which he says she feels by personally picking up a telephone and speaking to the President of South Africa to ask for the clemency for the six innocent people?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again the right hon. Gentleman has a gift for reaching out for the wrong end of the stick. Far from racist baying from the Government Benches, there is powerful support from both sides of the House for measured and effective action to secure clemency in this matter. We have already done all that we can for the present. In March this year, when the matter was first being considered, the Prime Minister asked President Botha to exercise the prerogative of mercy. A stay of execution is in force until 19 July and it may be extended beyond that. If the appeal fails then, as the Prime Minister told the House on 30 June, her appeal would once again go before President P. W. Botha. I do not think that his consideration of that is likely to be enhanced by the drama of a telephone call, and still less if it were accompanied by threats and menaces. The appeal will be sustained in the manner we judge most effective to secure the objective that the right hon. Gentleman wants.

    British Ambassador (Tel Aviv)
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if. in the light of the current state of United Kingdom-Israel relations, he will withdraw Her Majesty's ambassador in Tel Aviv for consultations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellor: No, Sir.
    Mr. McKelvey: If the Government are not prepared to recall our ambassador, can the Minister outline to the House how he intends to focus the minds of the Israeli Government on the deteriorating conditions between us and them? Will he tell them in no uncertain manner that we will not permit their agents to spy, burgle and counterfeit their way around London? Furthermore, will he tell them that many of us are gravely concerned at the fact that they continue to gun down Palestinians on the West Bank and elsewhere?
    Mr. Mellor: It is not just the hon. Gentleman who is concerned about that. Most hon. Members are concerned. I certainly am and so are the Government. On the general conditions in the occupied territories, we continue to make clear in all the fora open to us our dissatisfaction at the fact that the Israeli Government are refusing to take any steps forward. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the final declaration at the Toronto summit reiterated the sentiment, which is now commonplace everywhere, except in certain sections of the Israeli Government, that the status quo is now unsustainable and must be changed. On the matter of present incidents involving the activities of unauthorised agents in this country, our dissatisfaction has been made clear at the highest level. As a result, one diplomat was told earlier that he would not be welcome back to the United Kingdom, and another one has been dispatched home. We hope that the message is clear.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: As a general rule, is it not the case that when there are difficulties with foreign states, or matters arising that occasion disapproval, it is most important to have the fullest diplomatic representation?
    Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that, despite differences of opinion between the two countries, relations between Britain and Israel remain good? Further, does he agree that that is right, bearing in mind that those countries in the middle east supported by some hon. Members—[interruption.]—are either feudal oligarchies, military dictatorships or fundamentalist lunacies?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the House's reaction to some of his comments. Therefore, further remarks from me are redundant. Relations between Britain and Israel are good, but could be a great deal better if some of the points that I mentioned earlier were dealt with properly.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must continue to foster good relations with Israel and that, in the interest of both countries, we must seek peace in all the troubled parts of the middle east? Does he agree that the British and Israeli Governments could probably take a joint initiative and ask the United States and Iran for access to the black boxes from the

    1055
    crashed airliner and the tapes, which must be in existence, of the exchanges that took place between the airliner and the warships?
    Mr. Mellor: As my hon. Friend knows, a full investigation is under way to find out how the tragic incident earlier this week took place. We must await the results of that.

    Commercial Officers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure greater length and continuity of service among commercial officers deployed in Britain's embassies and consulates.
    Mrs. Chalker: Continuity is important, but is only one of a number of factors which determine tour lengths for United Kingdom-based officers. Commercial officers work in tandem with locally engaged staff, who offer continuity. Together they provide an effective and valued service to British exporters.
    Mr. Cran: In paying tribute to the importance that I know my right hon. Friend attaches to export promotion, which, if evidenced by nothing else, is evidenced by the size of the budget that she has contributed to it, may I ask whether she agrees that, while locally recruited staff are important, British industry places the highest possible importance on high-level commercial staff appointed by the FCO? Does she also agree that many companies feel that tours of duty, if that is the correct expression, for those staff are not long enough, and that consequently the continuity that companies expect is not there? Against that background, it is felt that an investigation should take place.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Foreign and Commonwealth service officers, but I must say to him that long stints in certain posts can give rise to problems.
    Mr. Kaufman: Yes.
    Mrs. Chalker: That is why we have decided that four years is about the right length of time for second secretaries and above who are appointed to commercial posts abroad. Where conditions are difficult, and for certain staff, the time may have to be shorter. I can assure my hon. Friend that representatives of British industry who meet the permanent under-secretary and me on a regular basis to discuss commercial issues seem to be very satisfied with the combination of knowledgeable, locally engaged staff and commercial officers, with the emphasis on high-level staff, who normally do tours of duty of about three to four years.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: In considering the whole question of length and continuity of service, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the position of scientific officers in our embassies, who render such distinguished and valuable service, not only to the scientific community, but to industry in Britain as a whole?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We hope that in the scientific field we shall get more interchanges with the private sector, because we can certainly gain from the knowledge of such people in
    1056
    commercial and scientific posts. There are exchanges at the moment, but there are not enough and we should like to see more.

    South Africa
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now consider applying economic sanctions against South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: We do not believe that the application of punitive economic sanctions against South Africa would help bring about the end of apartheid, which is the objective of the hon. Member and of Her Majesty's Government alike.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that if there was any doubt in anybody's mind either here or outside about the ideological empathy between this Government and the South African Government, it was surely dispelled on Monday night when the Prime Minister walked through the Lobby to support a private Bill to enable the South Africans to export more coal to Britain? That coal has blood on it. Surely it is time that the British people understood more clearly that the Government's opposition to sanctions is not about some mere technicality, but because they want to give aid and succour to the hated Botha regime?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman's question is almost not worth replying to. I can only say that if he continues to act as Scargill's voice in this House and to drum away at policies that will not help black people in South Africa, it will be a very poor show for him and for what he is supposed to stand for. The hon. Gentleman spoke about a decision of the House. The House is responsible for Britain's economy. There is no ban on the import of South African coal, and to have one would depend on a number of other people and not just on Britain. The hon. Gentleman does not help black people in South Africa by the way in which he approaches this issue.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend take every possible opportunity to speak privately to the leaders of black South African trade unions to ascertain their true views relating to sanctions, as opposed to the views that they have to express publicly to avoid attacks from the ANC?
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure my hon. Friend that we have many continuing contacts with leaders of black trade union leaders in South Africa. We intend to keep in close touch with their views, and we know of surveys that have been taken of those views. They do not wish sanctions to be introduced, but it is true that they sometimes fear to speak out about the real views of their people. While we do not believe that enough progress has yet been made, we very much welcome the successful establishment of black trade unions in South Africa, and we hope that it will continue.
    Miss Lestor: I warn the right hon. Lady that when I meet her later this week to discuss Mozambique I shall not deal only with the banditry and terrorism that is being practised by the South African-funded MNR in Mozambique, but will raise with her the question of the sanctions that South Africa imposes on Mozambique; for

    1057
    example, the slashing of the number of Mozambican miners it employs and the under-use of the port of Maputo. The Government acknowledge the damage that South Africa does to Mozambique with those sanctions by trying to compensate it through the aid programme. If South Africa——
    Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Lestor: No, I will not. If South Africa can destabilise Mozambique in that way, does the right hon. Lady not realise that sanctions imposed on South Africa by Britain and other countries would have the same effect?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady will have to sort out one or two things before she comes to see me tomorrow. Many Mozambicans have told us that it is precisely the denial of jobs in South Africa, which sanctions would cause if they were implemented, that would deny their families the income on which they depend so heavily. We shall go on aiding Mozambique in a positive way, just as we shall continue to aid black people in South Africa in a positive way, but I can tell the hon. Lady that she and I will have a lot to say to each other tomorrow.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any instance of sanctions achieving the objectives that they were intended to achieve?
    Mrs. Chalker: No, I am not.
    Mr. Anderson: Even if the Government reject economic sanctions, will the Minister consider sending a signal to the South African Government? First, will she instruct our ambassador in South Africa to ask for permission to visit Nelson Mandela in prison near the time of his birthday and convey to him a tribute from this House? Secondly, will she issue an ultimatum to the South African Government about Zwelakhe Sisulu, a former official guest of the Government, who is now starting his third year of detention without trial and who is now in hospital? Will she inform South Africa that unless he is released from prison we and our European partners will order the withdrawal of senior South African diplomatic personnel?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I do not believe that ultimatums will bring about what he and I seek, which is the humane treatment of Mr. Sisulu, who, we are sad to know, is now in hospital. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's ambassador in South Africa will make such visits as he can to those who need our help there. The hon. Gentleman should await the continuation of our policy, which has always been to represent to the South African Government our view that Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners should be released without any conditions.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to monitor the actions of Soviet troops towards the indigenous population in Afghanistan during their withdrawal.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There have been persistent allegations about violations of human rights by Soviet
    1058
    troops. We look to the Russians to withdraw quickly and end the misery that they have inflicted on the Afghan people.
    Mr. Brazier: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the recent article by Bernard Levin on the massacre of Afghan children by Soviet forces in the village of Kolalgu? May I put it to him that there are two lessons in this for the West? The first is that the West must continue to support and arm the Mujahideen until their country is free? The second is that we must continue to strengthen our own armed forces, as the Soviets are strengthening theirs, at the same time as talking to the Soviet Union.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend does well to draw attention to that article, because it serves to remind us of how quickly the horrors of that kind of denial of human rights can be disregarded and overlooked. The most important text is the report from the United Nations' special rapporteur, which, for 1988, identified more than 14,000 civilian deaths last year. Even the regime admits to more than 3,000 political prisoners, and torture is still being used in interrogation. It is plainly right that the world should continue to support the heroism of the Afghan people during implementation of the agreement for the withdrawal of Soviet troops. It is important also for us to continue to monitor that process carefully.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Secretary of State hold urgent discussions with the Government of Pakistan, in order to have an orderly run-down of refugee camps, and to prevent the Central Intelligence Agency from creating there yet another generation of well-armed extremist gangsters who will haunt the world long after the Afghan conflict is over?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a bizarre and distorted idea of what goes on in refugee camps in Pakistan. Pakistan deserves the admiration of the world for the part that she has played in accommodating a large proportion of the 5 million people displaced by Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. From my own experience of visiting those camps, I know that the overwhelming majority of those people want only one thing—the right to return to their own country. Their willingness to do that will be the best judgment of the effectiveness of Soviet withdrawal.

    Drug Trafficking
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he is considering to curb the international trade in narcotics.
    Mr. Eggar: We shall continue to play a leading role in promoting effective international co-operation. We are providing drugs-related assistance to more than 20 countries and expanding the vital network of drugs liaison officers. We are discussing assets and confiscation agreements with more than 40 Governments and signed the third such agreement, with the Bahamas, on 28 June.
    Mr. Field: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the success that the Government have had in curbing this

    1059
    pernicious and evil trade. Can my hon. Friend tell us how many agreements he has with customs enforcement agencies in overseas countries?
    Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is only through international co-operation that we can help to defeat the internationally organised crime of drug trafficking. Co-operation between customs works differently between different countries and in different circumstances, but, as a result of co-operation, we have with the Soviet Union recently made a very significant haul of cannabis. We have also been very successful in our co-operation with Spain, which has led to more than 60 arrests of drug traffickers.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister accept that the real problem arises from the demand and the criminal activities surrounding the supply of illegal drugs? Are any discussions taking place within the British Government and, indeed, internationally, on the possibility of legalising soft drugs to eliminate the criminal activity associated with the trade?
    Mr. Eggar: No, Sir. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is alone in the House if he really believes that that is the way to send the correct signal to drug traffickers and abusers. Drugs pose a major threat throughout the developed and developing world. The only way to hope to defeat that threat is by a combination of international co-operation and tough measures against drug producers and traffickers.

    Toronto Summit
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Toronto summit.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 June.
    Mr. Favell: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the discussions that must have taken place about how best to react to recent remarkable
    1060
    developments in Russia? Does he agree with the view expressed in today's leader in The Times that Western leaders have a hard job ahead when deciding how best to applaud Mr. Gorbachev's efforts?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was certainly a good deal of discussion of the events that have been taking place in the Soviet Union. In the concluding declaration the Heads of Government stated:
    "In the Soviet Union greater freedom and openness will offer opportunities to reduce mistrust and build confidence. Each of us will respond positively to any such developments."

    Chile
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made regarding the presence of foreign observers to monitor the impending plebiscite in Chile.
    Mr. Eggar: We suggested to the Chilean authorities earlier this year that they might consider inviting foreign observers. The Chilean Government have since made it clear that, while foreigners may visit Chile at the time of the plebiscite, and be present during voting and scrutiny, they will not recognise such foreign visitors as having the status of "observers". I understand, however, that the democratic opposition parties will be able to appoint their own observers at polling stations. I am also aware that a number of hon. Members have received invitations to visit Chile at the time of the plebiscite, from the organisers of the Parliamentary Assembly for Democracy.
    Mr. Maxton: In view of the appalling civil rights record of the Pinochet regime in Chile, surely the Minister must do much more to ensure that there are foreign observers to make sure that the plebiscite is carried out fairly by a Government whom the whole world distrusts on that issue?
    Mr. Eggar: We have already asked the Chilean Government, who have given us their response. At the same time, they stated that foreign observers in art unofficial capacity will be welcome to attend the arrangements for the plebiscite. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman wanted to go he could arrange an invitation.

Child Abuse (Cleveland)
3.31 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the report by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on the findings of her inquiry into the handling of suspected child abuse cases in Cleveland in the early part of last year. Her report, and her own short version of it, are available in the Vote Office, as is a statement that she is making in Middlesbrough this afternoon.
The whole House will be united in its condemnation of sexual or other abuse of children, and in its support for proper action to protect children from it, but it will be no less united in insisting that this must be achieved in a way that does not trample on the rights of parents and inflict unnecessary distress on the very children we wish to be helped.
It is clear from the report that this balance was not achieved in Cleveland during the period in question, even though many children received the protection they needed. The House would wish me to express the deep regret of all of us to those who have suffered as a result. It is perhaps hard to imagine the shattering effect on those parents who were innocent and on the children.
The report contains substantial criticism both of individuals, including the consultant paediatricians, Dr. Higgs and Dr. Wyatt, the police surgeon, Dr. Irvine, and the child abuse consultant, Mrs. Richardson, and of important aspects of the managerial response to the situation as it developed. It confirms that there was an overall failure to achieve essential communication and co-operation between police, health and social services.
It is for the authorities involved in the first instance to address those criticisms and take the necessary action. The Government expect that action to be thorough, speedy and effective. The help of the Government's medical advisers, of the Social Services Inspectorate and of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will, of course, be made available to assist those authorities.
At the same time, the Government are taking immediate action to ensure that the more general lessons of the report are applied not only to prevent a recurrence of similar events but to improve the handling of child abuse throughout the country.
First, as I have already said, the report confirms the fundamental importance of the professional people and agencies concerned with child abuse working closely together within agreed guidelines. It underlines the need for a balanced assessment of different strands of evidence, and for action to be judged in the light of all the circumstances of the family as a whole. It stresses the need to listen carefully to what the children have to say and to take it seriously, and it re-emphasises the need for parents to be kept informed, consulted, and given reasonable access to their children unless that would be against the best interests of the child.
Those lessons, including the report's recommendations for the creation of special assessment teams, are reflected in comprehensive guidance that is being issued today by my Department and the Welsh Office. Guidance circulars are also being issued today to the police by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and to the education service by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
1062
Education and Science. Detailed professional guidance on social work practice is now being tested in the field and will be issued shortly.
On the specific point of ensuring effective co-operation between different agencies, I am also publishing today a survey by the Social Services Inspectorate of current arrangements. I am glad to say that it shows a generally satisfactory picture. In the few cases where this cannot be said, we are asking the inspectorate to monitor the position closely and see that it is improved.
Secondly, the report indicates that medical examination is only one aspect of assessment, and in particular that the test of reflex anal dilatation should not on its own be taken as conclusive evidence of sexual abuse. That view is confirmed by the report of a sub-committee of my right hon. Friend's Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which we asked to consider these matters in parallel with the inquiry. Its guidance for doctors on the diagnosis of child sexual abuse is being published today and sent to every practising doctor. We are also publishing today, and distributing to the nursing profession, guidance for senior nurses on the management of child abuse work from my right hon. Friend's Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee. Copies of all the reports and guidance to which I have referred have been placed in the Library.
Thirdly, the report shows a clear need for better training for those who handle child abuse work. We have already included in the Health and Medicines Bill new powers to cover specific grants for social work training in this field. We intend to make available in 1989–90 a grant of 70 per cent. in support of expenditure of £ 10 million. We shall ensure that this major new programme means not merely more training but better training which takes account of all the lessons learnt from the report.
Lastly, I am glad to say that the report gives general support to the proposals for reforming the law contained in the White Paper on the law on child care and family services, published last year. The aim of the proposals is to make the law simpler and clearer and to strengthen the rights of parents and children. They include the replacement of place of safety orders by a new emergency protection order with stricter criteria and more limited duration. In addition, where an emergency protection order is obtained without the parents being involved, they will have a new opportunity to challenge the order after 72 hours. The Government are firmly committed to a Bill to implement the White Paper proposals, modified as may be agreed in the light of the report. That Bill will be brought before Parliament at the earliest practicable opportunity.
What I have announced covers the great majority of the report's recommendations. Others are being examined urgently. In particular, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor intends to issue a consultation paper before the House rises on the report's suggestion for an Office of Child Protection, with powers which could include scrutiny of local authority applications in care proceedings and calling for additional investigation or reports.
We are extremely grateful to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss for the thorough and comprehensive work that she has done, and to her three assessors—Professor Hull, Mr. Chant and Mr. Soper—who have supported her in her conclusions and recommendations. The issues with which they have had to deal are immensely complex, and the report reflects the inescapable fact that there is no single

1063
simple answer. In acknowledging that, it is right also to balance the picture that has emerged from Cleveland with recognition of how much valuable and successful work is done in this difficult field by doctors, nurses, social workers and police throughout the country. But the plain fact is that what happened in Cleveland should not have happened, and must not he allowed to happen again. The measures announced today are designed to see that it does not.
Mr. Robin Cook: I begin by joining the Minister in expressing the gratitude of the whole House to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss for her exhaustive and authoritative report. Her objectivity and skill in conducting the inquiry are confirmed by the fact that, in a situation marked by strong hostilities, she managed to command the respect of all parties to the dispute.
The full report commands more thorough debate than it can receive in the next half hour, and perhaps more careful study than it will receive in tomorrow's instant headlines. Those who study the report will find it a balanced report, which presents on the one hand a vivid and candid account of the nature of child sexual abuse, and on the other an account of the harrowing experience of those families when no abuse has been confirmed but who were set apart for months by the allegation of abuse.
Given the severe trauma caused by sexual abuse and by the false accusation of abuse, all parties in the House must regret the evidence in the report of the collapse of communication between those agencies with statutory responsibility for detecting abuse, and the inadequate communication within those agencies between middle and senior management.
The most effective way in which we can show appreciation of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's work is to act on her recommendations. I draw the Minister's attention to five heads of recommendation. I appreciate that some of these issues go beyond his departmental responsibility, and in view of the gravity of the matter I shall be happy if he wishes to reflect on his response and write to me afterwards.
First, may I pick up the Minister's point about the White Paper on child care, which is strongly endorsed in the recommendations? As the Minister will be aware, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss stresses that, in her opinion, it is urgent that the White Paper is turned into legislation. The Minister said that legislation would be brought forward at the earliest practicable opportunity. He will recall that the White Paper, in its foreword, contains the commitment of the then Secretary of State that it would be implemented
"as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows".
That was in January 1987.
I understand that it was not possible to legislate this Session while the inquiry was in train, but we now have the report of the inquiry. It stresses the urgency of legislation, and, while I understand that convention prevents the Minister committing himself to legislation this year, I note that he has on one side of him the Leader of the House and on the other the Prime Minister. I am sure that he will recognise that the public would not understand it if another Session were to pass without the House legislating on that White Paper.
Secondly, in preparing that legislation, will the Minister note the judge's support for family courts? Is it not clear that one factor in the Cleveland crisis was the rapid way in which it generated a bottleneck in court procedures?
1064
Therefore, will the Minister reconsider the Government's decision to amend the law first, and only then tackle the structure by which it is enforced? Would it not be more sensible to act on both fronts together?
Thirdly, will the Minister reflect on the stress placed in the recommendations on avoiding the necessity of removing the child from the home? Will he therefore consider whether it might be more in the interests of the child, and less disruptive to the family, to bar the suspected perpetrator of abuse from the family home, rather than always removing the suspected victim of abuse—a power that is now frequently available to states in America?
Fourthly, I was disappointed to learn that only £7 million is to be made available for additional training. That is doubly disappointing, as it is only two months since the Minister failed to find £40 million to extend the social work training period from two to three years. As a result, in 1992 Britain will be the only European country with a two-year period of training for social services. Lord Justice Butler-Sloss places particular stress on the importance, in basic training, of training to deal with child sexual abuse. It is difficult to see how yet another topic can be covered adequately in basic training when the Government have already resolved not to extend the period of that training. It would be regrettable if child sexual abuse were to become another example of local authorities being given extra responsibility, with no extra resources and no additional training to deal with it.
Finally, may I put it to the Minister that, with the passage of time, the real significance of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report, the real point for which it will be remembered, is the way in which it has documented the reality of child sexual abuse within our society? Her most important recommendation may remain her very first recommendation, which is the need to recognise arid measure the extent of that abuse. We must not let our revulsion at the practices that she describes find refuge in the belief that they do not exist; nor must we let the fact that grievous mistakes were made in Cleveland discourage us from finding and protecting the victims of real abuse.
I draw the Minister's attention to the conclusion of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, that one of the dangers of the Cleveland experience is that it may demoralise the very people whose duty it is to detect abuse. I invite the Minister to associate himself with her observation, which is of particular significance to those who write about our proceedings this afternoon:
"Social workers need the support of the public to continue in the job the public needs them to do."
It is time that the public and the press gave it to them.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for the way in which he introduced his questions and for the spirit in which he has approached the subject, and I associate myself with his concluding remarks. That is one reason why I recognised at the end of my statement that a great deal of valuable and successful work is being done around the country by all the people who are involved.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's questions in reverse order, I accept that it is desirable to have a clearer understanding of the scale of he problem. He will perhaps recall that when I announced the establishment of the inquiry I also announced our intention to make use of the experience of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in running child abuse registers,

1065
covering about 9 per cent. of the country's children, to generalise the system for collecting statistics and to build up a national picture. That work is proceeding. We are now receiving the returns for 31 March 1988, and we shall be putting them together with a view to having a clear national statistical return in place as soon as possible, which I hope will be helpful.
When I responded to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work's proposals only a month ago, I made it clear that one of the reasons why we were unable to accept them in that form was that we believed that the first priority was to bring about a number of improvements—I think I used the phrase "a balanced package of improvements"—covering some of the most obvious and immediate problems. Training was one of the problems that I had in mind. The expenditure that I have announced today will bring about immediate improvements in social work training, including that for existing social workers as well as future ones. I also made it clear that we wished to make improvements in social work training generally, including the crucial gap of inadequate practice placements. We shall provide additional resources for that purpose.
The guidance that we have published today makes it clear that the removal of the child is not the first and only resort in every case. That, I hope, will be clear to all from this experience. I shall also reflect on the other suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is hoping to make an announcement about the Government's approach to family courts later in the year. The Cleveland report considers that family courts could help in some respects, but it did not cover all the issues relating to family courts. However, the report recommended that there should be an Office of Child Protection, to which I referred in my statement. There is no doubt that such an office, together with the reform of child law, would be an important step towards the establishment of such a court. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor intends to issue a consultation document before the summer recess.
The hon. Member for Livingston kindly recognised the constitutional conventions surrounding the translation of the White Paper into legislation. I have to tell him, especially with my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister sitting on either side of me, that I could hardly go further without falling over the edge of the constitutional conventions, but I am sure that they heard what he said.
Mr. Stuart Bell: I associate myself with the remarks of both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and congratulate Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on her work and on her report. She spent five months in my constituency of Cleveland and thereabouts, and a further five months preparing her report. We all welcome its recommendations, and the unanimity of the House indicates that Lord Justice Butler-Sloss has an opportunity, linked with last year's child care law reform White Paper, to mould our child care legislation into the next century.
I welcome the Minister's remarks and his expression of deep regret on behalf of the Government to those innocent Cleveland families who, through no fault of their own,
1066
were caught up in a horrible vortex, which swept them all down and almost destroyed their lives. For months those families have said, "No one has listened and no one has said sorry." Today, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, with the Prime Minister in attendance, have indicated that the House associates itself with the agony and plight of those families and expresses to them its deep regret.
My final statement to the House is that all the people of Cleveland wish to put this sad tale behind them. The steady, effective and thorough action to which the Minister referred will, I hope, be welcomed by the agencies concerned, so that we may all learn the lessons of Cleveland and learn to live with the future.
Mr. Newton: I welcome very much the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the welcome that he expressed both for my comments today and for the action that we have put in hand. In return, perhaps I may say that the hon. Gentleman has earned the respect, and will receive the thanks, of those of his constituents who feel that they suffered so much injustice.
Mr. Richard Holt: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend and associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Those of us in Cleveland who have lived through the situation there for the past year know how much sorrow it has brought. We are grateful to the Government for their statement today. We also ought to place on record our thanks to the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette reporter who first brought this issue to light, and to acknowledge that the press has played a powerful and meaningful part in the whole saga.
We now look forward to the implementation of the Government's proposals. However, over the years we have seen the publication of the Jasmine Beckford and other reports, all of which caught the emotion of the day, but then died away. Now that Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report has been published, and once the Government's legislation has been enacted, my right hon. Friend ought seriously to consider some form of continuous monitoring at a Butler-Sloss level so that never again will we find ourselves in the situation that Cleveland has over the past year.
Mr. Newton: I associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about the responsible way in which certain newspapers and other sections of the media helped to expose the injustice, and I thank my hon. Friend for the responsible approach that he has adopted throughout in seeking to resolve the problem.
I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel that the results of the Jasmine Beckford and Tyra Henry cases have been in any way ignored. On the contrary, they have helped to shape and inform the actions and proposals that I put before the House today and the guidance that we have issued, and in other ways.
As to future inquiries, I am not sure that I would wish to ask Lord Justice Butler-Sloss to sit in permanent session, and I am not certain that she would wish to do so. We have included in the guidance issued today arrangements relating to proper inquiry procedures within and among the agencies concerned in the first instance. I am considering what further guidance we can issue about independent and external inquiries where those are needed.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I should like to be associated with the congratulations to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. I say to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that today's approach can do nothing but good for those of us who face a similar problem in Leeds. One police station in my area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has received reports of 400 children, involving 150 alleged abuses. The stories are horrific, and we are only glad that we have not hit the headlines as Cleveland has. All the authorities there, led by the social services department—a much maligned department in other parts of the country—have done extremely well, and the balanced approach shown there ought to be taken into account in other parts of the country.
Let us consider the legislation that the Government will require, and the White Paper, which is a year old. In my time in the House I have known both sides to get together to get constitutional legislation through quickly. There is an urgent need for this legislation, and I hope that something can be done through the normal channels. Occasionally, a Special Standing Committee has also been set up to look at special issues such as these circulars because knowledge is spread throughout the House on the problems that arise. Could that also be considered?
My last point concerns both my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central and myself. I find it difficult to advise parents who come to see me, because I am not trained to help. It is my job to stand up for the parents and write to people, but parents need much better advice. Many are terrified. They are frightened of authority. Perhaps some voluntary organisations could be funded to help and we could guide parents to them. It is very sad for us that when people leave our advice surgeries we wonder, "Have I said or done the right thing on this traumatic occasion?".
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. He will know that a study of events in Leeds is being undertaken locally at the appropriate level. I have asked to see a copy of the report and will consider whether there is anything that I can do to assist.
The right hon. Gentleman's offer about the way in which the legislation might be dealt with will have been heard by those with responsibilities for the management of the business of the House, and I note it in the spirit in which it was offered.
I agree that advice to parents is important. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, among the training initiatives that we have already set in hand—quite apart from what I have announced this afternoon—one is with a voluntary organisation called the Family Rights Group, which I think will be familiar to a number of hon. Members. We are helping the group to prepare a guide to child protection procedures. It is now at draft stage, and we hope that it will be possible to press ahead with it. We are anxious to help responsible voluntary organisations, among others, to help parents with problems of this kind.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the NSPCC welcomes the report, in that it shows, alas, that the extent of child abuse is considerable and that it affects children of all ages? Is he also aware that the society will warmly welcome the emphasis that the
1068
report places on the recognition of the needs and views of the children themselves—those who are most affected? Does he accept that, while the society will support the provision of enhanced services in child care and will be pleased to play its part, it is essential that adequate resources are made available for such services?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's reference to the provision of guidelines for the various professional services to be issued on a national basis. Does he agree that the fact that those guidelines have been issued—coupled with what is said in the report—emphasises the need for a national child abuse register and the desirability of co-ordinating child care services on a national as well as a local basis?
Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work with the NSPCC and, indeed, to the work of the NSPCC in this respect, which is reflected in the fact that we have used its expertise and experience in trying to build up such a register. I also welcome what he said about the NSPCC's response to some of what I have said this afternoon. We in our turn will try to respond by ensuring that we continue to use the invaluable experience and work of the NSPCC in every possible way.
Mr. Frank Cook: I record my sincere gratitude to the Minister for the great courtesy that he displayed to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and me when we visited him to make representations on behalf of our hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) and ourselves. I thank him for his prompt response to our request for the establishment of an inquiry of this kind. That response was so comprehensive, and was executed so capably, sensitively and responsibly by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss that we all commend her and her team.
I remind the Minister of the point that I made when we saw him. No matter what we do about these issues in Cleveland, we are lifting only one veil from the stages of childhood. These practices are being established in society and are lasting into further stages of life. What legislation will the Minister introduce to deal with the Grieveson brothers? They are three adult males, all articulate and intelligent, all willing to submit to cross-examination, who discovered in adulthood that in childhood they had been systematically buggered by their father, or so they allege. The social services, the police, the medical profession and the churches, and everyone else in Cleveland, know of the allegations, but there is no mechanism to deal with that sort of case.
Richard Johnson of Incest Crisis Line tells of cases such as that of the 58-year-old woman who is visited three times a week by her 82-year-old father. That may be funny in music hall, but it is not funny in real life.
These things are important—the recommendations are crucial and we welcome them wholeheartedly—but we must go further. We cannot stop here. I ask the Minister to give us the assurance that the House needs and to heed the pleas of the others out there in society who are waiting for some sort of lifeline.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for the way in which he sought to help at the outset, when the inquiry was being set up, and for what he said today.
I cannot respond in the same way to the second part of what he said, for reasons that I hope will seem reasonable. He appeared to be alleging possible offences that might be

1069
going on now, in which case there are proper ways of investigating them. He also seemed to be alleging offences that have come to light only after an enormous lapse of time. Such cases would have to be subject to proper standards of proof, which would be difficult to achieve after such a long time. I am more than happy to look further into what he said in the latter part of his remarks, but I cannot go further than that this afternoon.
Mr. Michael Fallon: I thank my right hon. Friend for the prompt and sensible way in which he has dealt with the entire affair. He has been a model Minister in that respect.
Although my right hon. Friend has praised the majority of social workers and announced further improvements in training, and so on, would he be prepared to reflect further on the way in which social work is organised and the apparent absence of accountability and performance criteria?
Mr. Newton: Yes, I would. One of the problems that we have considered is that there is relatively little authoritatively blessed guidance for social workers of the sort that we are preparing in this area. I said that it was being tested at the moment. In that context, I shall consider the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I begin my associating myself with hon. Members who have thanked Lord Justice Butler-Sloss for the fair-minded and humanitarian way in which she has dealt with the problem. The conclusion that she reached is important, given what some of the media have said:
"In Cleveland an honest attempt was made to address these problems by the agencies."
It is important to put that on record.
I associate myself with the Minister's comment that there is no single, simple answer to the problem. It follows from that that there is no case for making scapegoats of individuals or groups of individuals in response to the problem.
The Minister's concluding comment was that we must work so that this will never happen again, but the nature of the problem is such that, whatever we do about inter-agency co-operation and case conferences, mistakes will be made. Parents will be hurt again and children will again be left with abusers. Unless we face the fact that we shall make errors, however hard we try to change things, we shall find ourselves in difficulty in the future.
Finally, will the Minister think about the implications for families of what he said today? In today's Britain families feel lonely and are suffering alone. Will the Minister consider the impact of this problem on other legislation, and think particularly about unfreezing child benefit, which relates mums directly to their children?
Mr. Newton: Of course I shall think about the impact on families. One of the reasons why I made some of my remarks, to which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) kindly referred, was to assure some of the parents who are involved that we are aware of what they have suffered and want to acknowledge that firmly on the record.
I acknowledge that this is not an area in which it is possible to guarantee that every decision and action will be 100 per cent. right. I hope the hon. Lady will acknowledge
1070
in turn that mistakes on the scale that the report shows happened in Cleveland, without being properly tackled by management for too long a period, should not, and must not, be allowed to happen again.
Mr. Tim Devlin: I thank the learned judge on behalf of my constituents who were bound up in this problem. If the result of the inquiry is that doctors are criticised for poor record keeping, and social services are criticised for weak management and for not following agreed procedures, could not the crisis happen again? I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on the commitment to bring in a Bill, and I say, on behalf of my constituents, that we regard it as high time the Government introduced legislation going beyond the White Paper, giving parents effective rights over their children, and social workers a range of alternatives to breaking up families, thus reversing the current unpleasant situation in which an over-zealous local authority that suspends disbelief finds it easier in law to take away a man's children than to freeze his bank account.
Mr. Newton: If errors of the kind that occurred in Cleveland, some of which my hon. Friend referred to, were not corrected, there would be a risk of comparable events elsewhere, although it would also depend on particular combinations of personalities coming together—one of the factors in this case. It was precisely to make sure that that does not happen, and that we do everything reasonably possible in that direction, that I made my announcement and issued the guidelines today.
As for my hon. Friend's proposals about legislation, if he studies the proposals in the White Paper together with my remarks today about further strengthening, for example, appeal rights in cases in which the parents have not been involved when an emergency protection order is granted, and the emphasis throughout the White Paper on reasonable rights of access, he will find that they go a long way towards achieving what he wants.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I ask the Minister to accept our appreciation of the empathy that he has shown and of the report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. Will he assure me that the guidelines will go to doctors in Northern Ireland, too? There does not seem to be a Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland on the Government Front Bench. One should bear in mind that only two weeks ago a young girl was brutally murdered in Rathcoole by an uncle.
Does the Minister accept that about three years ago the Northern Ireland Assembly recommended family courts, yet we are still being told that we must wait to see what happens in Great Britain?
Mr. Newton: I understand that the guidelines for doctors on the diagnosis of child sexual abuse, for example, would not, on the basis of what I have said today, go to doctors in Northern Ireland. I undertake to look immediately into doing that.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: This is a distinguished parliamentary occasion. The whole House, in complete harmony, has been discussing child protection in a civilised way. Of course the mistakes of Cleveland should not have happened, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will do all in his power to minimise the chances of their happening again.

1071
Over the years, the Prime Minister has made quite an input. The Criminal Justice Bill, which had its Third Reading last week, includes provisions to listen more to children. Corroboration rules are being relaxed so that children can he heard in the same way as adults, and video links are proposed so that they do not have to face the accused in courtrooms. We need to consider family courts so that parents can be represented. We need to consider changes in child care and services law, and these things will be done.
This is a big occasion for Parliament and I am grateful to everyone concerned, not least Lord Justice Butler-Sloss for her marvellous report, whose lessons I hope we will learn. I am grateful for having seen the day when the whole House has considered child protection, together and in harmony.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in view of his interest in these matters over a long period. Perhaps I might join with him in acknowledging the close interest that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has consistently taken in these matters, and not least in this case.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I am sure that all of us recognise that, at the heart of the matter, lies the fact that the majority of those children in Cleveland were abused and that——
Mr. Holt: They were not.
Ms. Armstrong: I am interpreting what I understand from the report.
Our main concern must be to ensure that fewer and fewer children are abused and that we are able to deal with the situation. I used to be a social worker, and I know what it means to make a place of safety order. Everyone concerned is making a judgment. It is our responsibility, and that of the Government, to ensure that in making those judgments the people concerned have the best possible back-up and support. That includes the best possible training, and I urge the Minister to think again about initial training, not just about in-service training. That is important, but unless the bedrock, the basic initial training, is of the right calibre, the social workers going into that work, and, indeed, the public, will not have the confidence that they will be able to perform and make those judgments in the way that, tragically, they frequently have to do.
Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure on what the hon. Lady based the first part of her remarks. The short version of the report states:
"We understand that out of the 121 children,"—
diagnosed by Dr. Higgs and Dr. Wyatt——
"98 are now at home."
Some of those children remain wards of court. It is simply not possible to make absolutely clear-cut judgments, but, just as I am not seeking to do, I hope that the hon. Lady will not make judgments as clear-cut as the one that she implied in her remarks.
In general—my statement sought to reflect this—I accept our responsibility to ensure that social workers have proper support. If I differ from the hon. Lady on the issue of training, it is because I think that there are better ways of spending additional sums of money on social work than on the specific proposals put forward by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
1072
The lack of practice placements is a weakness and we wish to put more resources into that and to improve basic training in other ways. To say that we were not prepared to accept the specific CCETSW proposals for three-year training is not the same as saying that we are not interested in improving it.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, as other hon. Members have done, on responding so swiftly to what seems to be a new and growing problem, but I remind him that there is nothing new about the need for child protection. Over the past two decades there have been more than 30 inquiries into cases of children who have lost their lives, ironically, in situations where the authorities acted too slowly, rather than being over-zealous, as in this case.
The lessons to be learnt are always the same better co-ordination, better training, particularly in child care law, and greater co-operation with the different professions. It is welcome that my right hon. Friend is moving forward on all those fronts, but does he agree that the child must always come first? When he comes to the proposals for legislation, will he consider the specific requirement that there should be a medical examination order, which would not give the authority the power to remove the child at that stage, but would simply ensure that the child was seen?
Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's well-known, long-standing and extremely well-informed interest in these matters and express my gratitude for what she has said. When she has had an opportunity to study what is admittedly a voluminous report, she will find that Lord Justice Butler-Sloss has made some comments on her proposal and that it does not find favour with her in exactly that form. Nevertheless, I will, of course, consider whether there is some way of combining what we have in mind with the useful thought reflected in my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the entirety of both the Minister's welcome and the House's welcome for the report, and particularly for the tone and substance of the Government's excellent response to it. I also wish to echo the plea for legislation at the earliest opportunity and, in that context, I stress to the Minister the broad cross-party support for the family court set-up. I hope that, given the Lord Chancellor's Scottish legal background, he will be able to exert the appropriate influence with the Government.
Finally, will the Minister say what implications, if any, today's statement and subsequent legislation will have within the Scottish legislative context?
Mr. Newton: Once again I am grateful for, in this case, the extension of all-party unanimity on this subject and for the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The legal position in Scotland is of course different from that in England and Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently issued guidance for authorities there on the handling of child abuse cases and is considering whether the report calls for any further action in Scotland.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to add my praise to my constituent, Mrs.

1073
Butler-Sloss, for having given up a year of her private life and career to preparing her report, which is so excellent because of its comprehension and balance?
Obviously, any parents who have a court or safety order served on them are greatly concerned when they believe that it is unjustified. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's statement that that can be challenged in a court within 72 hours is of great importance and I am sure will be welcomed by all hon. Members. How quickly can my right hon. Friend bring that about? Does it really need legislation? Is it not possible for the practice to be introduced and accepted by magistrates before we have to go through the whole procedure of passing legislation through the House?
Mr. Newton: The nature of the present legislation, including the fact that it is currently place of safety orders that run for 28 days, rather than the emergency protection orders that we have in mind, which would normally run for a maximum of eight days, is such that it would require legislation to do what my hon. Friend has asked. Clearly, we hope that, among other things, the practice of local authorities and others concerned with place of safety orders under the legislation will be affected in the interim period by the report's recommendations and the experiences of Cleveland.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Minister accept that the strength of the report is that it tries to strike a balance between the rights of parents and of children, but does he recognise that, in striking that balance, a child has an inalienable right not to be sexually abused and that our concern should always be in that primary direction?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is crucial to maintain the high morale of the staff dealing with these extremely difficult issues? Does he also accept from those who have been working in the field, and who have told me, that the constant hysterical, malevolent and often ill-founded reporting by certain newspapers undermines staff morale and makes it much more difficult for them to deal with these difficult issues?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in Leeds there is the sort of co-ordination between the police, the health authorities and social services that is recommended in the Cleveland report? Does he also accept that there is widespread support from the public for the work of the paediatricians Dr. Hobbs and Dr. Wynne? They have my support and they have made a tremendous contribution in bringing the important question of child sex abuse to the public's attention.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that it would be right for me to add anything to what I said earlier about Leeds to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), but I recognise the force of what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to morale and the media, I hope that those to whom what he has said applies will study carefully the words of the report about the role of the media in some respects. We all agree about the inalienable right of the child not to be abused, but against that children have an inalienable right not to be snatched from their parents without proper evidence and due process. We are simply revealing the difficulty of the balance that has to be struck.
Several Hon. Members rose ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of this statement to the House, but, today we have two important Supply debates for the minority parties. I shall allow questions to go on for a further 10 minutes, and I hope that most hon. Members will be called. However, I ask them not to repeat questions that have already been answered.
Dr. Michael Clark: Both my children were born in Cleveland and I know how I would have felt if, 25 years go, they had been removed from us. Is it right that children should, so suddenly and so completely, be taken from their parents? Will there be any measures in the steps that my right hon. Friend has announced today to ensure that children are not taken away without co-ordinated deliberation by a variety of interested parties? Bearing in mind that many of the children were not abused, and that the parents were therefore innocent, is it not appropriate that there should be some form of speedy appeal whereby parents can apply to have their children back? Will he take steps in that direction?
Finally, will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that Doctors Higgs and Wyatt are never again allowed to have independent responsibility and authority so that this cannot happen again?
Mr. Newton: The first two points are interrelated. Our proposals for an emergency protection order are designed at one and the same time to make it considerably less likely that children can suddenly be taken away from their parents without proper cause, in the way that my hon. Friend implied, and that where that happens—it will sometimes be necessary in a genuine emergency and the need is to confine it to that—parents will have early rights of appeal. I referred to the 72-hour point earlier.
I should not want to go beyond what I said in my statement about the doctors and others. I am not the employer of the doctors—the Northern regional health authority is—and in certain circumstance they would have the right of appeal to my right hon. Friend on any decisions that the health authority might take. In those circumstances, my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be right for me to comment.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am somewhat lonely today, as I find the Minister's statement complacent and disappointing. Perhaps the reason for that is that I spent 20 years in social work at local authority level before I came to the House. It surprises me that the Minister has failed to recognise why social services departments have been pushed on to the defensive on this issue. The difficulties that they face because of increased demands are the direct result of Government policy, while at the same time resources, through the rate support grant, have been slashed.
I am surprised that the focus of the statement was on the management of the cases. The right hon. Gentleman did not give his views on the causes of sexual abuse—sexual roles, sexual attitudes in society, the treatment of women and girls and the role of men. Those are the issues about which we should be talking. It surprises me, although perhaps it says something about the Government's priorities, that parliamentary time was found to legislate for all-day drinking and for the import of South African coal, but not for the urgently needed reform of child care law.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman studies the report he will find that I have not emphasised a number of the points that he has raised because it is clear that in Cleveland the principal problem was one not of resources but of management and the way in which cases were handled. The crisis caused some pressure on resources, but that is not the same as saying that a lack of resources created the crisis.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Speaking as the chairman of the parliamentary panel for health and social services, I can say how much social workers will welcome the support that my right hon. Friend has given them and his recognition that a great deal of the work that they do is very good, particularly given the enormous dilemma that they face of the need to be partly an authority figure and partly a friend. It is manifest that thousands of young people are entering adult life with no model for, or understanding of, how to be parents. Will my right hon. Friend consult Ministers in the Department of Education and Science to find ways in which we can break that vicious circle by preparing people to be parents?
Mr. Newton: The latter issue is one to which Ministers collectively have been giving some consideration, and it is a subject that is likely to be further discussed in a group chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. I acknowledge its importance. We have also sought to finance, with the National Children's Bureau, some important and useful projects in this sector.
As to social workers and their morale, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in his role as chairman of the panel. I hope that what I have said this afternoon will go some way to redress the disappointment that I know some social workers felt over my statement on social work training a few weeks ago. I hope that what I have in mind for the way forward is now clearer.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Where it is considered necessary to remove children from their home to assess whether physical or sexual abuse has taken place, would it not be better to provide facilities so that mothers can accompany their children into temporary care while they are being assessed? This would avoid the trauma of suddenly removing children from their families. Would it not be better for treatment to be given to whole families, to overcome difficulties that can be better tackled within the family, rather than removing the child permanently from its natural parents?
Mr. Newton: Essentially the answer to those questions is yes, but with the obvious proviso that it entails a judgment about what is the right way to deal with the matter in each and every case.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As one who worked in the education service for many years and has experience of facing the dilemma of dealing with such accusations and getting the right balance, I congratulate my right hon. Friend. His statement has got it right. In view of the accusations that were made in Cleveland last year, could not proper monitoring be carried out to ensure that we notice these blips in the graph and take action straight away, because something is going on? Secondly, can we ensure that an independent second medical opinion is available to parents and that they have some help in makeing appeals if they are not able to make them themselves?
Mr. Newton: Monitoring of the kind that my hon. Friend suggests should be part and parcel of the day-to-day work of any properly run social services department, and if that is not taking place I am sure that it will be instituted as a result of the experience in Cleveland. As to second opinions, my hon. Friend will know of the arrangements made in the specific circumstances of Cleveland. I do not know whether they would be right in all cases, but I note his suggestion.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of the Nationalist parties, I associate myself with the welcome that has been given to this report and to the Government's response, but I wish to make a point about funding.
Is the additional money for 1988–89 new money rather than recycled money that is being taken from other social care sectors that are also under severe pressures? Will that funding continue beyond 1989, because we want, not a piecemeal approach, but continual funding to ensure that our services can respond to needs in society? The Minister said that there is to be legislation, but does not legislation impose pressure on those who work within agencies, and does this not re-emphasise the need to review the training policies that the Government are looking at?
Mr. Newton: With some hesitation, I think that the answer to the last question is yes. The answer to the second question is also yes. It is intended that this should be a continuing programme, although, with our concern to improve social work training generally, I would not propose no further change in the programme as a whole over a long period.
I should make it clear that the money that I have announced is related to 1989–90, not to the current year. At the moment we do not have the legal power to make a specific grant in this sector. That is why the grants have been included in the Health and Medicines Bill, which is in the other place. It is our intention that this should bring about an increase in social work training, although clearly the form of the grant that I have announced means that the judgment that the hon. Lady wishes to make will have to await the Government's announcement of the rate support grant at a later stage.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the heart of the Cleveland problem is the breaking up of innocent families without any obvious means of recourse? Will he assure the House that families in other parts of the country with similar complaints will not have to wait for his new legislation, but will be able to achieve speedy redress or review of their cases if they feel that they face the same problems as the innocent parents in Cleveland?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to bring about legal changes that would change the law without an Act of Parliament. I can say, or repeat—I think that I said it earlier—that I hope very much that authorities throughout the country will learn the lessons that are set out in the Cleveland report about the way in which they should handle these matters and deal with the rights of parents.
Mr. Frank Doran: Those of us who have experience of another legal system feel strongly that what happened in Cleveland could have happened in Scotland, mainly because of the existence of the children's hearing system and the independence of the report of the children's panel. Before the Minister commits himself to

1077
legislation along the lines that are set out in the White Paper, will he examine again the Scottish system and consider its virtues in the light of the Butler-Sloss report?
Mr. Newton: When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to examine this thick report he will find that the judge has discussed those matters to some extent. The Office of Child Protection, on which my noble and learned Friend is to issue a consultation paper, has some strands in it that are relevant to the thought that the hon. Gentleman has put forward.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all those who wished to ask a question.
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the proper time.

Linda O'Callaghan
4.31 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the plight of Linda O'Callaghan under the new social security regulations."
First, I wish to emphasise that I lay no blame with the officials of the Department of Health and Social Security in Swansea. They want desperately to do all that they can to help Linda.
Secondly, while this is a specific case—I am glad that the Secretary of State for Social Services is present—I believe that it will become the first of many similar tragic cases if it is not acted upon.
The matter is specific because it involves 17-year-old Linda O'Callaghan. She had her 17th birthday within the past few days. Both her parents were tragically and recently murdered. She has a brother who has been charged and is awaiting trial.
In the eyes of that young woman, only the family home remains of her family life. The city council has agreed that Linda can keep the family home, despite her youth. However, because it has been deemed to be a penalty under the new social security regulations to be 16 years of age, or under 17 years of age, she may not be able to keep the home. Had the tragedy occurred before April. Linda would have received £30·40 in benefit. Under the new regulations, she will receive £11 less as a 16 to 17-year-old. She will receive £19·40, and, in addition to financing her food, clothing, heat and light, she will have to pay part of her rates and water rates. The officials cannot help because compassion has been legislated out of the social security system by the Government.
This is a special tragic case, but it is important generally because any youngster in the 16 to 17-year-old group who is orphaned could find himself or herself in the same predicament. All parents should realise that the tragedy of a car accident or a fatal illness involving them could lead to their youngsters finding themselves in this dreadful situation.
Linda realised that little could be done to help in her case, but she wanted the matter raised in the hope that even this compassionless Government will respond to public opinion.
The matter is urgent because a tragic young girl is trying to cope with an emotional trauma that would knock sideways most mature adults. She is trying to cope with it in the penury that has been imposed deliberately by the Government. She needs urgent action to save her home.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the plight of Linda O'Callaghan under the new social security regulations."
I have listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised meets the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Child Abuse (Cleveland)
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you will understand when I say that it is with deep regret and full appreciation of the difficult nature of your position that I raise this point of order.
I informed you in advance, Mr. Speaker, that I was probably the only Member who had worked with Mr. Michael Bishop, the director of social services at Cleveland. Much has been made this afternoon about management. No one has had the same opportunity as I, having been the assistant director of social services with Mr. Bishop, to comment on the management at Cleveland and on his experience, qualifications and extremely caring attitude towards children. I think that it would have been appropriate for someone to speak for and defend a director who has been badly abused by the press and commented on in the most destructive way by some hon. Members. Mr. Bishop and other directors should be allowed now freely to get on with their job. Fewer comments should be made in the press—comments made by the press and by hon. Members—on what is a delicate situation. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for having to raise these matters on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he raised his point of order. Perhaps I should have included him among the hon. Members whom I called to put questions to the Minister for Health. There is a difficult balance to achieve. I do my best to include hon. Members who have Opposition Front-Bench responsibilities among those I call to ask questions following the making of a statement.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is, I believe, also an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson. We cannot continue now with the questions on the statement.
Mrs. Wise rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to raise a point of order on a different matter?
Mrs. Wise: I am not an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, Mr. Speaker. I wish to pursue the matter that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), but I shall do so from an entirely different viewpoint. I did not seek to catch your eye during the questioning of the Minister for Health.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady rose during that questioning.
Mrs. Wise: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not.
Mr. Speaker: Then what is the point of order for me?
Mrs. Wise: I am raising a point of order that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I am rising on behalf of all those who were not seeking to catch your eye, but who wanted certain issues pursued because of the thought that we have all had to give to the important matters that were raised by
1080
the statement. I rise now not because I had a personal wish to be called, but because I wanted to hear the Minister's response to the question that my hon. Friend intended to ask. The House did not have the opportunity to hear that, and I urge you——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must all have consideration for one another in this place. I have stated already that this is a Supply Day for the minority parties. Whenever hon. Members are unable to be included in Question Time, or in questions following statements and debates, I receive letters from them saying how bitterly disappointed they are. If I were to allow questions on statements to continue until everyone who wished to ask a question had been called, I would then receive legitimate complaints from those cut out of the subsequent debate. That would be extremely unfair.

Greenham Common (Strip Searches)
4.37 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House what I consider to be a serious breach of ministerial and parliamentary conduct. On 24 May 1984 I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
"for what purposes the Ministry of Defence police are carrying out strip searches at Greenham common; how many strip searches have taken place there; what was found; and if he will make a statement."
The answer was supplied by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who is now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. He stated:
"No such strip searches have been carried out at RAF Greenham common."—[Official Report, 24 May 1084; Vol. 60, c.552.]
I was prompted to ask the question by a constituent of mine who alleged that six months earlier she had been strip-searched at Greenham common. As I believed that the Minister's word was honourable, I told her that I could not pursue the matter in a parliamentary sense. Fortunately for her, she persevered. Yesterday, at Newbury county court, she was awarded £2,000-plus damages and about £6,000 costs at the expense of the Ministry of Defence because she had been strip-searched at Greenham common.
I believe that the Minister should account for his misleading answer from the Dispatch Box. He should apologise to me, and, more importantly, to my constituent, Stella Mann-Cairns, and all other women who have had to put up with this indignity. Although he has moved to another Department, he should assure the House that the Government no longer pursue that policy.
I have given notice of this matter to the Minister and to the Leader of the House, and I am surprised that neither of them is present. I hope that the Minister will apologise. If he does not, he should do the honourable thing and resign.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I am sure that it will have been listened to with care by those present on the Government Front Bench.

Taxi-cabs (Control of Smoking)
4.39 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the prohibition, by notice displayed alongside the meter, of smoking in taxi-cabs.
In January 1985, Richard Carless, a cabbie from Basildon, refused to take a pipe-smoking passenger at London airport. Richard Carless suffers from acute bronchitis. The passenger was quite happy to wait for another cab but the incident was seen by a traffic warden who called the police. The police prosecuted Mr. Carless, and he appeared at Uxbridge magistrates court in May 1985. The alleged offence was that he,
"being a taxi driver at an authorised standing or in portion thereof failed to be available and willing to be hired immediately contrary to Article 9(5) of the Heathrow Airport London byelaws 1983 and Section 9 of the Airport Authority Act of 1975."
He was fined £20, which he refused to pay, and he appealed against the conviction and sentence. He appeared at Southwark Crown court where the fine was increased and he was ordered to pay costs. He refused, and in July 1986 he went to prison for seven days. He appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, but the case was ruled inadmissible. It is ironic that the passenger who wanted to smoke his pipe in the taxi wanted to do so because he had been prohibited from doing so on the airline that brought him to Heathrow.
A cabbie has as high priority the comfort, safety and security of his passenger and all future passengers. Two thirds of the adult population of this country are non-smokers who, according to the Fourth Report of Her Majesty's Government's Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, have a 30 per cent. enhanced risk of contracting lung cancer due to the effects of passive smoking. That means that it is 50 times more dangerous than exposure to asbestos in buildings. The same passive smoking unquestionably exacerbates existing health complaints, such as coronary artery disease, asthma, tuberculosis, emphysema and bronchitis, adding greatly to the consequential demands on Health Service resources and finance.
In the light of such scientific comment, the public should be able to protect their health from the increased risk of passive smoking. The cabbie has a personal right to working conditions that are free from this risk. By designating the cab as a non-smoking zone the cabbie can offer two thirds of the adult population carriage in a relatively smoke-free atmosphere. By declaring such a designation by a sign displayed openly alongside the meter, prospective passengers would be able to choose whether to enter the cab and, if boarding the vehicle, whether they would have to refrain from smoking during the journey. Such freedom of choice would bring taxicabs in line with other forms of public transport in providing an atmosphere untouched by tobacco fumes and much freer from the risk of passive smoking.
The proposals are supported by Radio Taxicabs (London) Ltd. and the publishers of the Cab Driver, who say:
"Like many of the laws appertaining to the cab trade, which were formulated as long ago as 1832 and which are still very much extant, they seem to consider the importance of the vehicle and the passenger in detriment to the health and well-being of the driver. Altering, adapting or even bringing
1082
in new laws, like yours, that would go some way in making the professional taxi driver's job much less stressful, are not just logical but crucial. Not only are taxi drivers subject to the continuous inhalation of toxic vehicle fumes, to be bombarded too with tobacco smoke, and without the legal redress with which to ask the passengers to refrain from smoking, is an imposition which should be removed as quickly as possible."
The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association Ltd. Supports the Bill, saying:
"Whilst not wishing to dictate to those caught up in drug-like habits of smoking, it seems reasonable to me that likewise the non-smoker should have the right, where practicable, to work in an area free from the killer nicotine."
It goes on to say:
"I pray that your fellow Parliamentarians, whatever their relationship may be with their connections outside the House, will see this Bill as one of national importance and do not oppose it for narrow motives."
The cabbie section of the Transport and General Workers Union said:
"we are 100 per cent. behind you in your endeavours to obtain for cab drivers the right to designate their own working conditions."
The British Medical Association goes further. It says:
"The BMA would like to offer its support for the principles of the Bill.
The BMA has long been aware of the potential health risks involved in passive smoking. We believe that the publication of the Frogatt Report leaves the Government no choice but to take realistic action and that means legislation which will protect the health of the non-smoker, allowing people to breathe clean air at work and in public places.
The Government must acknowledge, in the face of the evidence of its own scientific committee, the undisputed fact that passive smoking is harmful. Talks with the tobacco industry are beside the point and if consultation is needed, it should be with organisations like ours … which can discuss the health aspects of this report and how the report's recommendations can be introduced.
No smoking is the norm and non-smokers should be protected at their place of work and in public places. Protection should be made for people who need to smoke while the majority who are non-smokers should be free to breathe air unpolluted by the toxins in tobacco smoke."
This is not a non-smoking measure, any more than it is a pro-smoking measure. All I am suggesting is that cab drivers should be allowed to designate their vehicles as smoking or non-smoking vehicles and that that designation should be displayed alongside the meter. If a smoker comes to a cab designated as a non-smoking vehicle he will know that for the duration of the journey he must refrain from smoking and put his pipe in his pocket. If a non-smoker finds a cab designated as a smoking vehicle offering itself for hire, he will realise that he will have to undertake the journey in the atmosphere of a stale ashtray. The choice is there for fare and driver. There is no compulsion on anybody. In that spirit, I hope that the Bill will be supported.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Cook, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Roger Sims, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Keith Mans.

TAXI-CABS (CONTROL OF SMOKING)
Mr. Frank Cook accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the prohibition, by notice displayed alongside the meter, of smoking in taxi-cabs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 190.]
Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Scotland (Political Situation)
  Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are about to begin a debate in Opposition time on the political situation in Scotland. I wonder whether you have noticed that only 12 of 60 Opposition Members representing Scottish seats are present.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That has nothing to do with the Chair. It is a waste of time on this Opposition day.
  Before we proceed, I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.48 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
  That this House, aware of the rejection by the Scottish nation of the policies of the Conservative Party at the General Election of 1987 and the further decline of the Conservatives into third place behind both the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party at this year's district poll, believes that the Government has no mandate to continue to impose its alien values and divisive programme upon an unwilling population; notes the Government's refusal to allow the Scottish people to determine their own constitutional future by the holding of a referendum or the establishment of a constitutional convention; further notes the developments in the European Community towards a single market; and considers that it is in the overwhelming interests of the people of Scotland to seek full independent status within the European Community, rather than accepting continued colonial status within the United Kingdom.
  In the motion we have attempted to reflect what we feel is the dynamism of the political situation in Scotland. Those of us involved in politics do not believe that the political dimensions close at the end of one general election and do not reopen until there is another general election. Political life is not static. The political tides ebb and flow. There are changes in opinion and differing attitudes that occur in the electorate between elections. If we did not believe that those changes occurred, we might well argue that there was no need to hold elections. Because we believe in those changes, we hold elections to gauge the political opinion of our electorate. Between elections we have a responsibility to take account of the change of opinion in the intervening years.
  Our motion clearly reminds the House of the voting pattern in Scotland in June 1987. The Government amendment tries to deny that the last election in Scotland showed a demand for constitutional change. That seems to be a habit of the Government, who, it is worth noting, have managed to muster for this debate only 50 per cent. of Scottish Conservative Members. The Government always deny that there is a demand for constitutional change in Scotland, and their amendment clearly ignores the fact that in June last year 76 per cent. of the Scottish people voted for parties that are clearly committed to the idea of constitutional change within the United Kingdom. Sixty-two Members of this House are from parties that demand such constitutional change.
  1084
  In their amendment, the Government speak about their mandate. It will come as no surprise to the Secretary of State for Scotland to hear that we feel we have the intellectual right to challenge the issue of the mandate because as nationalists we clearly stand for an independent nation state of Scotland. What does the Secretary of State see as a mandate? Surely a moral as well as a political issue underpins a mandate. Do 10 hon. Members out of 72 constitute a mandate for the imposition of Government policies? Surely the Secretary of State recognises the fragility of the position in which his party finds itself. He must be worried about so few people in Scotland supporting his party and his policies. Our motion clearly says that the lack of a moral as well as a political mandate gives Scotland colonial status. That means that the Government are governing a country without popular support.
  If we look at what the Government have done with t he mandate that they claim, we see increasingly an acceleration of policies that were rejected at the last election. We think, for example, of the school boards legislation. In all the consultation processes that took place, there was a clear majority against the Government's legislation, but it was forced through the House by hon. Members who do not represent the Scottish people. We think also of competitive tendering. Our health boards and unions have worked closely together over the years to provide a service, and have now had imposed upon them policies that they wish to reject.
  The Government cannot even muster enough troops to set up a Select Committee in Scotland to monitor what the Scottish Office is doing in the name of the Government It is surely a condemnation of the Government's lack of mandate that they have not been able to establish such a Committee to enable us to scrutinise the work of our Ministers in the way that every other Government Department is scrutinised.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does my hon. Friend recall that, following the referendum in 1979, people who were opposed to the setting up of a Scottish assembly said that a Scottish Select Committee down here would do the work that such an assembly would have done? Does she agree that that argument is now patently without foundation, and does it now show how impossible it is for Scotland to get proper government from Westminster?
  Mrs. Ewing: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for that clear and precise intervention. Many of us do not think that a Scottish Select Committee is an alternative to an assembly. As long as the Government claim a mandate on a minority of the Scottish vote, it is their responsibility to ensure that Scottish Office legislation is monitored as effectively as possible. That does not happen. We have seen a lack of will by the Government to try to establish such a Committee.
  It is not surprising that support for the Government in Scotland has remained virtually static since the general election. The opinion polls show very little movement. There has been no sudden swing by the Scottish people towards the Conservative party, even though the chief executive of that party, one of the many ex-Members of this House, keeps telling us that we need more Thatcherism.
  More Thatcherism is showing that there is no rising support in Scotland for the Conservatives. It is the Scottish

  1085
  National party that has increased its share of the vote. The opinion polls show that our support has risen from 14 per cent. at the last general election to 23 per cent. Some Conservative Members smile at that, but I suspect that they would smile more if there had been a swing of nine percentage points to their party.
  The people of Scotland are seeing a crystallisation of the options that are open to them. They see that it is either more of the same or an independent Scotland. That is an honest option, and the people of Scotland are facing up to it. That is reflected in an opinion poll conducted by MORI and published in The Scotsman on 13 April. It showed that 35 per cent. of people wanted a completely independent Scotland, 42 per cent. wanted an elected Scottish assembly within the United Kingdom and 20 per cent. wanted the present system to continue. That recognition of reality is evident in Scotland, and there is growing support for the concept of independence. Not all the votes are yet coming directly to the SNP, but there is the potential in Scotland for the recognition that the SNP can deliver a Scottish Government to our nation.
  I should now like to deal with the need for a constitutional convention or a referendum in Scotland on constitutional change. These ideas are not propounded only by the Scottish National party or by other Opposition Members. That was shown by the support earlier this year for my ten-minute Bill on a referendum in Scotland. These ideas have a broad consensus of support throughout Scotland. The campaign for a Scottish assembly covers a large variety of organisations that wish Scotland to have the opportunity to discuss the future of Scotland within Scotland—a debate among ourselves about the opportunities that are open to us.
  The Government are running scared; that is shown by their amendment, which rejects the idea of a Scottish constitutional convention and a referendum. If they are as confident as they claim in their amendment and about their support for the Act of Union, why are they so afraid to put it to the constitutional test in Scotland? Why not allow the people of Scotland to cast their vote, especially as we have argued that a referendum or a Scottish constitutional convention would operate in an advisory capacity and that we would work together to try to find the best resolution? At the end of the day I am sure that the Government would accept that. Why are the Government afraid to put the issue to the test? It is not just a question of the ostriches in the Conservative party in Scotland burying their heads in the sand. They seem to be prepared to tie their necks before they can even find the sand.
  Brian Meek, a respected member of the Conservative party in Scotland, spoke about the rather desperate situation in which Scottish Conservatives now find themselves. He said that they seem to accept Thatcherism and that there was no questioning, no fight and no will power. He said that if the Prime Minister asked Scottish Conservative Members to jump into the Clyde the only question that they would ask would be whether they should take their trousers off first.
  I turn now to Scotland's future, which the SNP sees as independence within Europe. We see that as much more challenging.
  Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Lady talks about an independent Scotland within Europe.
  1086
  I would have voted for her motion if that phrase had not been contained in it. How could an independent Scotland gain freedom and support from Brussels and Strasbourg if it cannot get it from London? Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the golden triangle stretches from the south of England into northern France, Germany and Belgium? No matter what happens, as long as the European Community is run on present rules, Scotland would always be on the periphery. Surely an independent Socialist Scotland would follow the policies of the independent countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland and not the Conservative policies which, unfortunately, have been carried out by both Conservative and Labour parties.
  Mrs. Ewing: I am interested to hear the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) give yet another reason for not supporting the Scottish National party in the Lobby. He comes up with a different argument each time. If he listens carefully to my argument about independence within Europe, he will see why we are taking a clear stance. I realise that that is an aspect of our motion at which the Social and Liberal Democrats and the Labour party may balk. However, I ask them to consider carefully why we argue for it.
  The Labour party's proposal is for a devolved assembly with restricted powers. With the advent of the common internal market in 1992, what opportunity would a Scottish assembly have to argue the case for Scottish industry within the European Community, as the representative of a country in its own right? We should still be hanging on to the coat tails of Britain, British Ministers, the Foreign Office and all those who are sent to represent us at the moment. We would not have the right of access with a devolved assembly, but we would if we were independent.
  Our future is in the international community, not as part of the sterile backwater of the British system. I want Scotland to play her part in the international community and to face the challenges. A devolved assembly would not ensure representation at the Council of Ministers, where vital policy matters such as marginal hill farming, fishing and steel are discussed, but an independent Scotland would have that representation.
  Taxation is vital as we look forward to 1992 and beyond. How would a Scottish assembly break the stranglehold of the Treasury if the Treasury still controlled block grant? How would a Scottish assembly break the stranglehold of the Ministry of Defence with its massive expenditure programme and ensure that defence procurement contracts came to Scotland and were allocated fairly? An assembly would not give us such representation in Europe, but Scottish independence would. We need full independence if we want to be at the top table in international affairs. It is not good enough to complain that the Scottish voice is not heard and then lack the courage to look to the only method of making it heard. Only independence can make it heard.
  Scotland could become a country where ideas and skills are readily available, and it could offer opportunities to the rest of the world. Thinking of Scotland as an independent nation within Europe brings a challenge and an excitement which would not exist in further decades of sterile political debate in this Chamber. The majority of Scottish Members want constitutional change, but they are denied it by the

  1087
  very processes of this place. Let us have the courage to look forward to challenge and excitement rather than sticking with the boring status quo.
  Increasingly, decisions that affect our people are taken not here, but in Brussels and Strasbourg. The future of Scotland lies in bypassing London and going direct to Europe. In many ways, the House has become a clearing system for legislation passed elsewhere. We must be there at the top table. We do not want to spend our time rehashing arguments about legislation that has already been passed elsewhere. We want to he where the decisions are taken. We could have a place in the Council of Ministers—at the top table—and increased representation in the European Parliament.
  Our motion challenges hon. Members to think of the responsibilities of being a Scot in modern society. It challenges them to think of themselves as internationalists and not merely as British. It challenges them to accept that with that responsibility will come self-respect and dignity. It is far too easy to blame, as many do, all that is wrong on the English or on London or on somebody else. Let us have the dignity and self-respect of being able to say that if mistakes are made, it is the Scots themselves who make them. Scotland must be an independent nation to attain the responsibility and self-respect that every other nation takes for granted. Why should we be different? I trust that those who see themselves as Scots, with responsibility and self-respect, will join us in the Lobby tonight.
  5.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and add instead thereof,
  'recognises the benefits to Scotland of being a free partner in the United Kingdom and the contribution which the Scottish people continue to make in many fields to the life of the United Kingdom; notes that the Government has a clear mandate to govern following a General Election fought on a United Kingdom basis, and that in the 1987 General Election more than four people out of five in Scotland voted for parties which support the Union; notes that in that election the Scottish National Party was the least popular party in Scotland and received the least support from the Scottish electorate; believes that Scotland can best meet the challenge of the single European Community market as part of the United Kingdom; acknowledges that many decisions affecting Scotland are already taken in Scotland by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office; considers as absurd references to Scotland's alleged colonial status; rejects completely calls for a constitutional referendum and independence; and reaffirms its support for the Act of Union.'.
  I begin by complimenting the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on the style of her speech. My hon. Friends and I find her style and approach considerably preferable to that of the infant Robespierre, her hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who takes a different approach to the conventions of the House and who consequently fails to impress.
  While I admire the hon. Lady's style, I hope that she will forgive me for saying that I suspect that many of us found the content of her speech sadly lacking. This is the first time that we have had a debate initiated by the Scottish National party. Apart from a few ritual rhetorical comments about the alleged desirability of breaking up the United Kingdom, there was little in the hon. Lady's speech to which one could draw specific attention. It is significant that neither the motion nor the hon. Lady's speech made
  1088
  any reference to the Scottish economy. I feel sure that until recently the hon. Lady would not have been responsible for such an omission.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall certainly give way to the infant Robespierre.
  Mr. Salmond: if the Secretary of State cares to contain himself, the infant Robespierre will have a few things to say about the Scottish economy at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that, such is the excellent state of the Scottish economy, it is sufficient for it to be referred to in the wind-up, and to have no mention either in the motion or in the main speech on behalf of the SNP. No doubt it is indicative of the rapidly falling unemployment, excellent economic growth and other economic improvements that we are enjoying in Scotland that in its single speech of this Session the SNP felt if unnecessary to make a single reference, complimentary or otherwise, to the economic issues facing Scotland.
  There were two themes in the speech of the hon. Member for Moray. One was independence and the other was the mandate.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most rapid growth in our economy at present is in rent arrears, as a result of the housing benefit changes?
  Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not. There will be other opportunities, particularly in the housing debate, for the hon. Gentleman to deal with rent matters if he wishes to do so.
  The hon. Member for Moray suggested that Scotland should seek independent status, but she forgot to mention that the SNP put that issue before the electorate at the last general election. The House will happily remind her that at the last general election the SNP was clearly shown once again to be the least popular party in Scotland. It received fewer votes than any other major political party, and had the fewest Members of Parliament elected. The SNP's election manifesto carried the slogan "Play the Scottish Card", and on page 2 there is a photograph of Gordon Wilson, its chairman, wearing a badge which says "Play the Scottish Card". Clearly he did play it. It turned out to be a joker, and he lost his seat. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues are concerned to speak for Scotland, she should bear that factor in mind.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I said that we were talking about the dynamism of the political situation in Scotland. If we want to concentrate on the last general election, we should remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of his loss of 10 colleagues. More importantly, will he pay attention to the results of the district elections—the most recent trial of opinion in Scotland—at which his party declined even further and the Scottish National party showed a 10 per cent. increase in votes?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has to live with the fact that, even if opinion polls suggest that her party may have made some progress during the past few months, that is only progress from fourth to third place. If that is of great comfort to her, she is easily satisfied.

  1089
  Independence has been rejected consistently by well over 80 per cent. of the Scottish electorate at virtually every general election in the past 10 years, and the hon. Lady failed to give her reasons for believing it would be of benefit. She concentrated on Scotland having a place at the top table, but if she ever has the opportunity to attend any meetings of the Council of Ministers she will discover that the countries that determine the direction of the European Community are inevitably France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy. It is very rare—if ever—that the Republic of Ireland, Greece or Luxembourg has a decisive role to play in any of the major issues that affect the Community.
  The hon. Lady constantly refers to the benefits that independence might bring to Scotland. I am always puzzled that she and her colleagues never refer to that part of the United Kingdom that opted for independence some 60 years ago. The Republic of Ireland today has unemployment running at 19 per cent., which is substantially greater than is found in any part of the United Kingdom, and it has a gross domestic product of only two thirds of that which Scotland enjoys. The suggestion that somehow independence will be the cure-all for economic or other problems finds little support in the experience of southern Ireland, which opted for independence, which is what the hon. Lady would recommend for Scotland.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that not all the money in China, wealth creation or the lack of it would induce the people of southern Ireland to give up their independence. Nothing would induce them to do that.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is right. What led to independence for southern Ireland was a deep sense of national oppression, which had existed for several centuries. Nobody in Scotland seriously suggests that that is a basis for independence or a break-up of the United Kingdom. The argument constantly used by the SNP refers to economic issues and implies that Scotland suffers somehow as a result of being part of the United Kingdom. If economic considerations are thought to be the relevant ones which justify breaking up the Union, which is the finest example of European integration during the past 250 years, we are entitled to draw attention to that part of the United Kingdom that opted for independence and does not enjoy the economic benefits which we are sometimes told flow from independence.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the former joint chairman of the Anglo-Irish Conference has the new task of preparing for the 500,000 southern Irish people who will enter the United Kingdom in the next decade?
  Mr. Rifkind: I accept that.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: It may have escaped the Secretary of State's attention that, yesterday, the Greek Foreign Minister made an important speech to the European Parliament, setting out the agenda for the Greek presidency during the next six months. Does he accept that smaller member states now play an equal role in the creation of the European Community?
  Mr. Rifkind: I invite the hon. Gentleman to compare what the Greek Foreign Minister said yesterday with what the Greek delegation may have achieved in six months' time. Making speeches is remarkably easy, but results can be achieved only if the three or four larger members of the Community are prepared to endorse the proposals.
  The motion raises the question of mandate. During the past few months the SNP has berated my party, the Labour party and others in Scotland, because it claims that only those who have a mandate from the Scottish people are entitled to put forward certain policies, to implement them and to argue certain cases.
  That is an interesting proposition, and the hon. Member for Moray argued that it must be justified on legal and moral grounds. We can use her own criteria and ask her and her colleagues to review the claim about a need for a mandate, bearing in mind the policy which the SNP has advocated during the past few months. That party now advocates that the people of Scotland should break the law on the community charge and, by pursuing a policy of non-payment, frustrate an Act of Parliament. I think that the hon. Lady will agree that, whatever one thinks of that policy, that is a fundamental change in the SNP's stance. Hers is the first party in Scotland openly and without reservation to call on people to break the law. Several members of the SNP have said that they will break the law.
  We are entitled to ask what mandate the SNP has for such a proposition. I have had the benefit of looking through the election addresses of the three SNP Members.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I have a copy of the hon. Lady's address. I have gone through it in detail, and nowhere can I find any suggestion that, if elected, she would call upon the people of Scotland to break the law.
  I have here also the election addresses of the hon. Members for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Banff and Buchan. In neither is there the slightest suggestion that, if elected, they would encourage non-compliance with an Act of Parliament and illegal behaviour by themselves or their colleagues.
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she will tell me that her election address was not an accurate reflection of her views.
  Mrs. Ewing: The Scottish National party is not instructing anyone not to pay the poll tax. It is asking the people of their own free choice to consider that option. That is a moral stance for them to take. I believe that individuals have every right to question laws when they are bad, as this undoubtedly is.
  The election was fought when there was a hope that the poll tax would not be implemented. In the past year, the Government have refused to listen to the coherent arguments against the community charge, presented not just by the SNP or other opposition parties, but by a wide range of opinion in Scotland. I remind him again of the votes cast in the district elections for the Scottish National party.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady cannot escape her responsibilities in that way. She knows that, by the last general election, the proposals for the community charge had become an Act of Parliament. She knows that in her

  1091
  party's manifesto there was a suggestion that, if elected, the SNP would repeal the legislation. There was not the slightest suggestion in its members' election addresses that they would wish to encourage, as they are doing now, the breaking of the law and non-compliance with an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. Salmond: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in historical perspective—that is really all that is left for the Conservative party in Scotland. It cannot have escaped his notice that, in the district elections. far more votes were cast for non-payment—our platform—than for payment of the poll tax, which was the Conservative party's platform.
  Mr. Rifkind: We are talking about the basis on which the hon. Gentleman was elected. The hon. Gentleman invited the people of Banff and Buchan to vote for him. He has gone on regularly, and with boring monotony, about the need for a mandate to put forward certain policies. Not only is there no reference to breaking the law in the SNP's manifesto, but there is a most interesting proposal in the section on law enforcement and reform.
  The House will enjoy hearing what the policy of the Scottish National party was when it was put to the electorate. In its section on law enforcement and reform, the SNP stated:
  "The population"—
  presumably the Scottish population—
  "will be encouraged to cooperate in upholding the Law."
  [Laughter.] Yes, it is an interesting statement of policy. The mandate on which those hon. Members were elected was one of encouraging
  "the population … to cooperate in upholding the Law."
  However, once those hon. Members are elected, we find that they do not encourage the population to co-operate in upholding the law; they go out of their way to encourage the population to break the law. That the hon. Member for Moray can say, "We are not instructing them to do so," is self-evident. The hon. Lady does not have any power to instruct the population. There is a fundamental conflict between what was said in the manifesto and the policy that those hon. Members are putting forward.
  This is not a trivial matter. The fact that a political party. which is seeking power and the endorsement of the electorate, adopts a policy of illegality for the first time in contemporary Scottish politics is an important watershed. I advise the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that in adopting that policy they are putting an albatross around their necks and that of their party as a whole. I know perfectly well that the hon. Members for Angus, East and for Moray do not really believe in that policy of illegality. I know perfectly well that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has forced them to support a policy which they personally repudiate. They must realise that their party is now indelibly tarred with that brush.
  That policy of illegality has been adopted by those other than SNP Members of the House. The rector of Edinburgh university, Miss Muriel Gray, a prominent Scottish nationalist, recently made some worrying remarks in an interview reported in an Edinburgh monthly magazine entitled Cut when she stated:
  "If I could advise the Scottish people to do anything, I'd advise them to get down to the plant where the newspaper The Sun is printed and firebomb it. Seriously, if I had to have any terrorism in this country, I would aim it at Murdoch. I'd like
  1092
  to see journalistic terrorism where they'd just keep setting fire to his newspaper printing plants, all over the country, all the time."
  I notice that the Scottish National party has not shown any desire to repudiate that remark or to dissociate itself from what has been said on its behalf by a prominent supporter.
  I advise the hon. Member for Moray, and especially her hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East, that if they now say that they wish to support a policy of breaking the law or of non-compliance with it, such being the "unacceptability" of the community charge, all hon. Members wait with interest to hear why the one district council which is controlled by the SNP is not implementing nationalist policies. We know that the people of Scotland as a whole are being encouraged not to comply in any way with that Act of Parliament, yet we were informed on 22 January that on 21 January,
  "Angus District Council, at a specially convened emergency meeting last night, agreed to act as a collecting agent of the poll tax for Tayside Regional Council."
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: It was an emergency meeting, and I should like to make it quite clear that a gun was held to the head of Angus district council by Tayside regional council—[Interruption.] Would the Secretary of State for Scotland wish to have as a result the complete sacking of the housing staff of Angus district council? The SNP council in Angus creates employment and jobs—it does not destroy them. It was the withdrawal of support and the threats from Tayside regional council, which rushed to implement that tax, that posed the problem. I notice that the Secretary of State is quite happy to have a policy of sacking housing staff and increasing rents in Angus and in the other districts which would have been in a similar situation.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has given an awful reply. He has a legal obligation to pay the community charge, but he says that he will break that legal obligation and the law, such is his distaste for that Act. He knows that Angus district council has no legal obligation to co-operate in implementing the community charge. It could easily decline to do so, without breaching the law, yet the hon. Gentleman seeks to justify breaking the law.
  Mr. Welsh: To have done so would have led to the sacking of almost every member of the housing staff and a massive increase in rents. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's policy, I must advise him that I disagree with him. Conservatives have always said that they keep rents down and encourage employment. When people vote nationalist in Angus, which they do, they get the rewards of doing so. They do not get the reward of unemployment which they would if they voted Conservative. That is a strange turnaround for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Rifkind: The fact still remains that the one council controlled by the SNP is to comply with an Act of Parliament although all its councillors belong to a party which is encouraging the Scottish public as a whole to break the law and defy the Act. If that is not an example of extreme hypocrisy, it is difficult to see what is.
  Mr. John McAllion: Before the Secretary of State leaves his point about Tayside regional council and Angus district council, I should explain that Tayside regional council, as is the wont of every regional council in Scotland, pays a certain sum of money to the

  1093
  district councils which collect rates for it. If Angus district council chose not to collect the rates or the poll tax for next year, it would not be paid by Tayside regional council because it would not have done that job. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) may refer to that as blackmail, but it is not blackmail. It is simply that the district council is not being paid for a job which it refuses to do. I think that that is a reasonable position.
  Mr. Rifkind: I rarely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that he exposes yet again the absurdity, inconsistency and hypocrisy of the SNP position, of which the hon. Member for Angus, East has been unable to explain even one tiny whit.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, may I draw his attention to the fact that the Scottish National party provost of Perth and Kinross district council said after the election that he would advise people in Perth and Kinross to obey the law and ignore the advice of his own party?
  Mr. Rifkind: I believe that the SNP provost of Perth and Kinross district council has gone on record as saying that he believes that all Acts of Parliament should be obeyed and that those who encourage breaches of the law should be ashamed of themselves. In that respect, his comments are entirely to be supported.
  I noted that, some weeks ago, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was quoted as comparing the Scottish National party with the so-called National Rainbow Coalition in the United States, which is led by Senator Jesse Jackson. The hon. Gentleman is reported as saying that
  "the links between the SNP and Mr. Jackson's National Rainbow Coalition showed they had a great deal in common."
  I can entirely understand the comparison that the hon. Gentleman wants to make. The Scottish National party is a party with a coat of many colours. It seeks to——
  Mr. Salmond: I shall be interested to know why the Secretary of State finds the National Rainbow Coalition so amusing. It represents a substantial section of public opinion in the United States, with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Government always claim a special relationship.
  Mr. Rifkind: I understand that it has lost the battle for the Democratic nomination, but that is another matter on which the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect. There is an obvious comparison because, as many of us have had cause to comment over the years, the SNP is a party which, apart from its desire for separatism and the break up of the United Kingdom, does have a coat of many colours. It uses a moderate voice in rural areas, anti-Socialist policies in areas where it believes that that would be popular, and a radical Left-wing Socialist policy elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman expresses puzzlement and points to himself, but since he has been allowed to return to the fold of the SNP he has been less noticeable for his propositions of Socialist policy than he was some years ago. Perhaps that has something to do with representing Banff and Buchan.
  Mr. Salmond: This will be my last intervention. I started the debate as Robespierre and end by being a moderate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to decide in what role he wishes to place me.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has not changed in the slightest. He remains someone who wishes to put forward extremist policies and to adapt the SNP's extremist position as a party of illegality, which seeks to advance its cause by advocating ignoring or breaking Acts of Parliament——
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: Except in Banff and Buchan.
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes, perhaps except in Banff and Buchan. That is an important qualification that one should always make.
  In conclusion, hon. Members representing the Scottish National party had an opportunity today to put forward a consistent and well thought-out alternative strategy on either economic or social issues. Instead, we have had simply a ritual incantation of a nationalist policy which was rejected by 86 per cent. of the electorate at the last general election and which is almost certain to be rejected by a comparable proportion at the next.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I rise with a certain reluctance to involve myself in the wrangle between two of the minority parties in Scotland which, between them, represent less than 20 per cent. of the available seats in Scotland. All that we have heard so far from both sides have been fairly cheap attacks on each other. No one has had a go at the Labour party, and perhaps we should be grateful for that. It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State to attack the SNP for failing to deal with the Government's policies in Scotland and the Scottish economy and then to indulge in cheap attacks—some of them personal—on the SNP. Apart from a brief reference at the beginning of his speech, he failed to mention anything that the Government have done in Scotland, or rather have not done.
  When the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) supported devolution I had a certain respect for him—[Interruption.] Perhaps reluctant respect. Since becoming Secretary of State, the way in which he has spoken and used his office in Scotland for cheap political purposes has made himself and his office the subjects of considerable contempt. It is fairly obvious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to cover up matters and to mislead the House, either directly or through other Departments, about what happens. He wants to mention the economy, so I shall mention what the Labour party and even some Conservative Members consider to be of most importance to the Scottish economy—the Ravenscraig——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. If I heard the hon. Member correctly, I think he said that the Secretary of State was misleading the House. If so, I ask the hon. Member to find another form of words and withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Maxton: I withdraw the remark and I shall allow the House to draw its conclusions from my comments as to what the Secretary of State has done.
  Mr. Buchan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maxton: I should like to be brief, so I apologise to my hon. Friend for not giving way.
  Ravenscraig is considered to be a vital part of the Scottish economy. The Secretary of State for Scotland, his Minister of State, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his junior Ministers have said repeatedly that there is a seven-year guarantee for Ravenscraig within the Scottish economy. In an interview on BBC radio at lunchtime today Sir Robert Scholey, chairman of the British Steel Corporation, said that he had informed the Secretary of State for Scotland, before the Government announced their plans for privatisation, that a privatised British Steel Company would probably—not possibly—close the Ravenscraig strip mill in 1989, just one year from now. I hope that the Minister of State will take the opportunity to tell the House whether that is true. It is no use the Secretary of State boasting about the Government's achievements in the Scottish economy—we dispute that—and at the same time essentially colluding in the closure of the strip mill at Ravenscraig, which would end steel production at Ravenscraig four or five years thereafter.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and the SNP on at least giving the House the opportunity to debate this matter. I congratulate the hon. Lady also on attacking the Government. It is rather unusual these days for the SNP to do that, and I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will show the same self-discipline, as he spends all his time attacking the majority party in Scotland—the Labour party. It is to the hon. Gentleman's long-term political benefit to ensure the continuation of a Conservative Government, in the hope that at some time the SNP will thereby gain votes. The hon. Gentleman does not give a damn about what happens to the people of Scotland because of the Government's policies, provided SNP votes increase.
  We do not intend to support the motion. The Labour party is not in favour of an independent Scotland. We did not stand for election on that proposal, and it is not in any Labour party manifesto, so we cannot vote for any motion that puts it forward. Equally, it is not the policy of the people of Scotland, who clearly rejected the only party that put up independence as an option at the general election.
  Whatever happens in district elections and opinion polls, it is the general election that counts. At the last general election, 14 per cent. of the Scottish people voted for the SNP and returned only three Members of Parliament. That was a massive rejection of the idea of independence for Scotland. Even the modest increases by the SNP in the district elections—the largest part of which was due to the modest number of candidates put up and had little to do with an increase in the number of votes—and in recent opinion polls give the SNP no right to say that the people of Scotland want independence.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maxton: I want to be brief and the hon. Gentleman has intervened four times. The Secretary of State threw out his line four times and every time the hon. Gentleman caught the hook with alacrity. I shall not throw out lines to him. I am not trying to hook him, although it would be remarkably easy to do so.
  1096
  The Scottish people voted overwhelmingly at the last general election for a devolved Scottish assembly within the framework of the United Kingdom. The largest number of votes went to the Labour party. The Scottish people also voted for the alliance and, I accept, for the SNP. Seventy-five per cent. of the people of Scotland voted for a devolved assembly in Scotland. They say that there is separate Scottish legislation and a separate Scottish administration within the United Kingdom, but that it lacks the democratic structure that should go with it.
  It is all right for the Secretary of State to say that there is no desire in Scotland for independence, but equally there is no desire there for this Government. The people of Scotland have said repeatedly that if there is to be the continuation of a separate Scottish entity within the United Kingdom, the Government of the day—whatever their colour—should recognise morally, if not constitutionally, the democratic care for ensuring that the Scottish people have a right to say how their education, housing and transport systems, which are administered and legislated for separately, should operate.
  At the last general election the people of Scotland rejected both the SNP's futile, narrow nationalism and the Tory party's arrogant centralism. They voted for a devolved assembly. The Labour party understands the frustration and anger of many Scottish people at the Government's treatment of them. Most Scots despise the get-rich-quick, greedy society of the Government. They reject the poll tax and the income tax cuts, which are designed to give to the rich and take from the poor. They object to their Health Service repeatedly being cut so that increasing pressure is put on people to seek private medicine and thus line the pockets of Tory party supporters. They object to their public housing being returned to grasping private landlords in order to increase profits. They object to the cynicism of a Government who starve public services of essential funds and then denounce those services because they can no longer provide the help to public that they once did, so that they can hand over the provision of those services to private companies, which are interested only in maximising their profits.
  We understand and agree with the Scottish people when they reject Tory greed and self interest, but we know that the only way to get rid of this despicable Government is to defeat them at a general election within the United Kingdom. The Labour party will do that at the next general election.—[Laughter.] I thought that that might raise a cheap laugh. Only one party in the United Kingdom and Scotland is capable of doing that—the Labour party. A Labour Government will give the Scottish people what they want, which is the right to control their own affairs through a Scottish assembly within the United Kingdom. I urge my hon. Friends to vote neither for the motion nor against it, because one would be a vote for national independence, and the other would be a vote in support of the Government.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) regretted that so far in the debate there had been not much comment on the Labour party's position. Perhaps I can repair that by making one or two positive and helpful comments for the benefit of Opposition Members.

  1097
  It is not true that Opposition Members always say silly things about Scotland. One recalls in particular the splendid speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at Perth, where he not only failed to praise Scottish Labour Members for their great victory, but, absolutely sensibly, in a 50-minute speech, said nothing about devolution. That showed a real appreciation of its importance to the people of Scotland. Subsequently, when asked why he had omitted any such reference, he said to an interviewer;
  "Well I did not talk about weather conditions in the Himalayas either".
  The hon. Member for Cathcart is a Front-Bench spokesman for a fairly disparate band of 50 Labour Members of Parliament.
  Mr. McAllion: Desperate Dan.
  Mr. Stewart: They are probably fairly desperate as well. I thought that the hon. Member for Cathcart sounded remarkably confident, given that the front page headline of today's edition of the Glasgow Herald states:
  "Labour slump now 11 points."
  It was remarkably good timing for the Scottish National party to choose this debate on a day when there is a clear swing to the Conservatives in the opinion polls. In the past year there have been a number of tendencies in the Scottish Labour party.
  Mr. Maxton: Conservative Members always claim that the only poll that matters is the one on polling day. The opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald today shows the Labour party 2 per cent. down on the general election and the Conservative party 1 per cent. up. I assume that the hon. Gentleman considers that to be a remarkable turn around.
  Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one cannot read too much into any one opinion poll. I never suggested otherwise.
  Opposition Members have divided into a number of tendencies during the past year. Initially there was what might be described as the headbanger tendency, led by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). He is not here today, and in the light of recent events he is rather a moderate exponent of headbangerism among Opposition Members. He has become an elder statesman headbanger.
  The other tendency is what might be described as yuppie Socialism. The chief yuppie in Scotland, Bearsden's answer to Dagenham, who, unfortunately, is not present on the Opposition Front Bench, is unquestionably the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). I pay tribute to him. Where do we read his thoughts about the Scottish economy and the Scottish political scene? We do not find them in the Morning Star, nor in the Labour Weekly, but in that splendid newspaper the Sunday Post, a well-known non-union newspaper. I hope that his initiative in writing for the Sunday Post will be followed by other Opposition Members.
  There are some signs of common sense on some Scottish issues. The paper on the Health Service by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, which is in the press today, rightly points out the importance of giving patients the chance to choose their own doctor, surgeon and hospital and to choose between area health boards. It
  1098
  is a pity that, having described an internal market in the National Health Service, he went on to say that the Labour party was not in favour of it.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart, who on this occasion is speaking from the Front Bench, has had a rather difficult time recently within his own party. Perhaps he will reassure me that that is not the case, but, following his article in the Glasgow Herald entitled,
  "Non-payment campaign a dangerous diversion",
  he was assailed by all fronts of the Labour movement. A leading assault on him came from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) who, if she manages to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will continue her attack on the position taken by her Front Bench, as no doubt will many activists in the Labour movement.
  I understand that 7,000 of them will be attending a conference because they believe that the Labour party's fragmented battle against the poll tax will fail. According to today's press, they will be addressed by another leading Member of the Scottish parliamentary Labour group. The Labour party is fundamentally divided on its tactics in Scotland.
  In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) concentrated on constitutional change. I shall make two points about that. First, it is important to remember that each of the Opposition parties wants something different. They are not in any sense united in their proposals. There is a theoretical argument for independence, and I believe that independence would be a lesser evil than devolution, if that were the unfortunate choice, as devolution would lead to continuing chaos. There is a theoretical Right-wing argument in favour of independence, in that it would lead to the defeat of Socialism on both sides of the border. Without the Scottish Labour Members, Labour would be finished for ever in England and Wales, and north of the border, after 1992, and independent Scotland could not pursue Socialist policies. If it tried, people and companies would vote with their feet and move to Tory England. I hasten to add that I do not accept that argument, because I believe that independence would lead to considerable chaos, considerable economic problems and, fundamentally, a loss of influence, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State pointed out.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the Scottish Select Committee, and the record must be corrected. The Government have not failed to set up a Select Committee. That is not the Government's responsibility. The Leader of the House wished to set up a Scottish Select Committee but Back Benchers do not want to serve on a Scottish Select Committee and cannot be forced to do so.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was right in what he said about breaking the law, which action is advocated by the Scottish National party. Its election manifesto contained no suggestion that law breaking should be encouraged. The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 was already on the statute book. Furthermore, the Scottish National party forecast that the Conservatives would win the general election. The campaign against the community charge is failing, as the regional registration figures amply demonstrate. I believe that most of the people of Scotland will obey the law, will want to obey the law and will not be seduced from that path by the wholly spurious arguments of Opposition Members.

  1099
  The economy is fundamental to the wellbeing of the Scottish people. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State rightly pointed out that all the forecasts are favourable. Unemployment is still too high, but it is steadily coming down. Opposition Members cannot deny that fact. Manufacturing productivity in Scotland has been rising since 1979 at the rate of 5·6 per cent. per annum. It is higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it is higher than in seven other OECD countries. That is a sound foundation for the future, as is the fact that the number of self-employed has been rising consistently and that 15,000 new companies have been registered since 1979. My right hon. and learned Friend's policies are fundamentally sound. We must continue to pursue them in the interests of the Scottish people, who will benefit from them. The Scottish people will not be seduced by the Opposition parties' spurious campaigns.
  5.51 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the opportunity once again to draw the attention of the House to the democratic rights of the Scottish people. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on her speech and on the sincerity of her purpose. Today we are debating the political situation in Scotland. Despite what the Secretary of State said, I want to concentrate on the political rather than the economic situation.
  I have to admit, albeit reluctantly, that there is a certain constitutional legitimacy in having a Secretary of State, backed up by three or four Ministers, charged with running the Scottish Office in Edinburgh, but it is a poor substitute for a Parliament of our own, particularly when the five Ministers oppose their own people and, in order to hold on to their own ministerial posts, rely on support from south of the border—from another country.
  The Secretary of State has made a series of speeches in Scotland in which he has tried to spread the gospel of Thatcherism. I am told, because I hardly know him, that he is a nice man and that he is intelligent. I am sure that he is, but that is puzzling when one looks at what he has said.
  The United Kingdom requires constitutional reform to meet the needs and aspirations of all its people. A federal United Kingdom has been the policy of my party for many years. The Secretary of State acknowledges the arguments in its favour but says that it is not on, as there is no demand for it, particularly in England. But has he ever asked the people of England? He has never asked them. I believe that the ordinary Englishman would not deny the right of Scotland to look after its own affairs. England would lose nothing. I believe that it would gain a great deal. I am certain that this House would gain a great deal if it had more time to deal with its own affairs. That would be possible if we were able to do our own thing in Scotland rather than in this place. If the Government want to keep the United Kingdom together, federalism is the only option. It is a better form of government and it is practised by sensible countries.
  I do not intend to argue the need for single-tier local authorities and proportional representation. That has been well rehearsed time and again. I do not want the Minister who is to reply to the debate to say anything about the imposition of another tier of government. That is not a necessary prerequisite.
  1100
  The Secretary of State contends that unilateral devolution is impossible. That is rubbish. A precedent has already been set in Northern Ireland. He says that there is no evidence of a desire for home rule in Scotland. That myth has already been punctured. The evidence is there, from the referendum of 1979 to the most obvious evidence of all—the lonely 10 from Scotland who sit on the Government Benches.
  The greatest canard of all is that a Scottish Parliament would mean higher taxes and that all the businesses would flee the country. I ask the Secretary of State: where is the evidence? Is he telling us that businesses run from state to state in all the federal countries of the world if taxes are raised or lowered? Such a contention presupposes, first, that the Tories would never expect to form a Government in Scotland and their fear that the Labour party would. Surely that is defeatism.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about companies, but the biggest threat facing Scottish companies is the Government's failure to tell Scottish businesses exactly what is happening about the uniform business rate and to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mrs. Michie: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the Government's failure to tell Scottish businesses what is happening about the uniform business rate.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State contends that the members of a Scottish Parliament would not be elected by a fair system. If the Government were sensible, they would set up a Scottish Parliament, but I do not believe for a minute that they would introduce proportional representation. That would prevent domination by a minority party. As the Secretary of State is so fond of telling us, all the parties in Scotland are minority parties.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The Labour party is not a minority party.
  Mrs. Michie: The Labour party is a minority party, because it gained only 42 per cent. of the votes cast at the last general election. The majority of the people of Scotland voted for other parties, not for the Labour party.
  I do not want to be completely unfair to the Government. It would be foolish to deny the worth of reforms such as ballots before industrial action. People should be allowed to buy their own houses and business and industry should be run successfully and competitively. But that should have been done long ago. Successive Tory and Labour Governments have kept Scotland and its people shackled for so long that they have prevented Scotland, as a nation, from releasing the initiative and enterprise that we see in Scots the world over. The sad thing is that in the past our people have left our shores, and they continue to do so, for jobs in London and in other parts of the world. One of the reasons why they do that is that in Scotland they are not allowed to express themselves in a nation that they can recognise as their own.
  The Government imagine that they are passing power to the people by allowing them to buy their own houses or to sit on school boards, but they are at the same time taking more and more power to the centre. Scots are allowed to take a little individual responsibility but not political responsibility in shaping the destiny of their country. They are allowed to take the small decisions but

  1101
  not the big ones. I find that patronising and arrogant. I must tell the House that without our own Parliament we shall disappear as a nation.
  When a small country lives alongside a large and domineering one, there are risks and it is always difficult for it to survive. Without a forum and a focal point giving leadership, the battle to preserve our culture, identity, values and way of life will become well nigh impossible. It so happens that England is the domineering country in this case. It could easily have been Canada, France or Germany. I stress that I do not object to England or to the English. Many of the most ardent proponents of devolution are English people who have settled in Scotland. My argument is with the House, which, over the years, has consistently denied Scotland her political birthright.
  I would feel a great deal more confident if I heard Scottish Ministers defending their country at the Dispatch Box, particularly during Scottish Question Time, when they face questions put by hon. Members representing English constituencies. Scottish Ministers always sound apologetic. The only exception is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who at least stated during Scottish Question Time the other day that Caledonian MacBrayne provided a lifeline to the highlands and islands and that the Government are prepared to defend it. I should like to see Scottish Ministers being much tougher and harder in defence of their own country.
  My party has no hang-ups about reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament elected to the House of Commons, provided that we have our own Parliament in Scotland. Nor would I contend that, having such a Parliament, everything in the garden will be rosy. That would be foolish in the extreme. However, we would not have introduced, for example, an unfair and regressive poll tax that is contrary to our sense of democracy and fairness. We would not have witnessed the staggering daily reports of attacks being made on our ancient and proud universities. Nor would we be contemplating the English idea of allowing schools to opt out of the education system. Instead of taking power away from local government, we would increase and give it back. We would extend it to community council level. We would also have more control over the activities of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Crown Estate Commissioners. There is a long list of what we ought to be doing in Scotland but which we are unable to achieve in this House.
  Given a Scottish Parliament, many more Scots—in particular, women—would be able to participate in governing their own country instead of having to travel 500 miles to work in another country every week. Of course, we were all elected to attend a United Kingdom Parliament, but every Scot on this side of the House came to London with a view to removing some of the power of the United Kingdom Parliament and returning it to our own country. The only way in which that can be achieved legitimately and legally is through this House. That is why we came here.
  Meanwhile, the Government deny us a Select Committee for Scotland. They bunch Scottish Estimates days into a couple of weeks. We sit on a Scottish Grand
  1102
  Committee in Edinburgh discussing education, but we are not allowed to pass our own laws. We must come to this place to do that, and that is humiliating.
  Although concentrating mainly on the political aspects, I wish to say a few words also about economic matters. It is the Government's belief that if they get the economy right and if everybody has money in their pockets, we will all be happy in Scotland. The Government believe that money is all that matters, but we care about other values.
  I must tell the SNP that my party will not be supporting this motion because it does not wholly reflect what the Scots want. However, I warn the Government again, and I do so with good will and sincerity towards Scottish Ministers, that by their persistent refusal to listen, it is they and not the SNP who will bring about the break-up of the United Kingdom. One needs to know one's history to understand what is likely to happen in the future.
  I conclude by quoting Professor Gordon Donaldson, Her Majesty's historiographer in Scotland, introducing the Scottish Sunday Mail's "Story of Scotland":
  "I don't know whether any of you have ever stood, as I have so often done, on the bridge of a ship leaving Aberdeen Harbour.
  If so, you may have wondered why the skipper keeps looking back over the stern.
  He does this because the channel is marked by two white beacons among the buildings of the town and, in order to keep in the channel, he must have those two beacons lined up.
  It is by looking BACK that he can be sure of his way FORWARD.
  I wonder if this is the case for knowing history. Do we need to look back sometimes to make sure we are on the right course ahead?
  Can we know where we are heading for without knowing where we have come from?
  I remember once hearing a man say: 'I'm not interested in the past, I'm only interested in the future.'
  I have often thought that a peculiarly silly remark.
  The man who made it is now a member of Parliament.
  The truth is that the past has shaped the present and the past and the present will shape the future."
  I believe that our Parliament will he restored sooner rather than later and that, in the end, it is the Scots' inalienable right to have it and to make a kirk or a mill of it.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the Scottish political situation. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said in her concluding remarks that one must look at history to understand and possibly to plan for the future. To judge from recent events in her merged party conglomerate, I should have thought that there was a lesson in her remarks for herself and her party.
  Recent events have shown very clearly that if the SLD party is coming forward with a proposal, as the hon. Lady seems to be saying, which it thinks that it can deliver, for some form of federal structure within the United Kingdom, it must first win the hearts and minds of eight out of 10 people and have its representatives elected to this Chamber in order to achieve its aims. Eight out of 10 people who live in the United Kingdom live in England, and until those people are persuaded there is no likelihood of such a measure getting through the House. That must be taken on board by the hon. Lady and all who propose theoretical programmes for constitutional change.
  It is easy enough to go to a few people in any part of the country and present a package that those few will accept,

  1103
  but such a package—whatever it contains—will be for only a few people. That applies to all the various devolution packages that are on offer. We are talking about making proposals to one out of 10 of the United Kingdom population and the representatives in this place, but those proposals must make sense to the eight out of 10 before they can get through the House.
  The hon. Lady expressed an interest in the recent history of difficulties in getting motions and legislation on devolution through the House. That clearly shows that, regardless of the political persuasions of hon. Members representing English seats in this and previous Parliaments, the important thing is to win the hearts and minds of eight out of 10 representatives. Until that is done, such proposals will remain theoretical.
  It is important for any hon. Member speaking from these Benches to recognise that the Conservative party did badly in Scotland in the 1987 election. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise. We must ask ourselves why, when what we are doing south of the border is accepted by so many people there—those whom I would describe as the hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of England—we find it so difficult to obtain the same support in Scotland.
  Part of the answer must lie in the way in which we have put our message over, or rather failed to do so. There is no doubt that we have failed, and again it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. But that does not mean that the message is wrong, or that the policies are wrong. It means that Scottish Conservatives have not done their job as fully or as effectively as they could have or should have. I accept, as I must, my share of that criticism.
  Mr. Maxton: I am only sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who after all led the party in the years up to and into that general election, is not present to hear such a vicious attack on his appalling leadership.
  Mr. Walker: I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that my comments are not made frivolously. I happen to be a Unionist. I make no apology for that, and I will stand aside for no one in my support for this unitary Parliament. That is much more important than my personal feelings or those of any of my colleagues. What is at stake is the Union, and the Union is not something on which we should take a frivolous or light-hearted view. It has taken a long time to create this United Kingdom, and to produce a parliamentary democracy that functions and is the envy of almost every other country in the world. We ought not to take lightly the success that has been achieved.
  If we have run into failures, which we have, we must look closely at them and see what we should be doing better. I do not say that we should be doing things differently, but we should be doing them better. I could give a number of examples, but because of the limited time available, and because Opposition Members wish to speak, I shall not go into too much detail. Let me simply try to put some specifics on the record.
  We need to look at developments since 1979 on the Scottish political scene. The Conservative party must recognise that our decisions in the House, for instance on Ulster, will have an impact on Scotland. Anyone who disagrees with that is not living in the real world. That is what I mean by the Union and a unitary Parliament.
  Mr. William McKelvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his analysis. I am
  1104
  sure that he does not mean simply that the Conservative party is failing to get its message across in Scotland and that that is why it does so badly there and Labour does so well. If that is the case, conversely, the Labour party in Scotland can claim that it is not getting its message across in England because it is so successful in Scotland. If we reverse the position, we will win the next election, even if our position in Scotland diminishes somewhat.
  Mr. Walker: On any mathematical analysis, if a party is getting its message through to one tenth of the population extremely well and doing very badly with eight tenths, something is not quite right about its message. What I am saying is that our message is getting through to eight tenths. What is wrong with getting through to one tenth?
  We are the Government, and we must therefore be accountable and acceptable. We must recognise that the decisions that we make will be seen as such by the people of Scotland. But modern government is very complex, and much of what goes on is carried out by quasi-governmental bodies an arm's length away. Those bodies often disburse vast sums of taxpayers' money, while the Government determine the amount that they are to disburse and the policies on which they operate.
  The Scottish Development Agency, the Scottish tourist board and the Highlands and Islands Development. Board disburse vast sums from the public purse, but if we wander around Scotland and chat to the individuals who have been in receipt of those sums, we find that the majority believe that the money is coming from those benevolent bodies and not from the Government. We are not getting the credit for what we are doing. Similarly, the health boards are non-elected, anonymous bodies, and generally speaking the public have no idea who they are, yet the Government carry the responsibility for their activities. Scotland has other quangos that operate on a United Kingdom basis, making decisions in Scotland about various important aspects of Scottish life.
  The hon. Lady touched on the subject of the universities, and on that issue I agree with her. I have always been a strong supporter of a United Kingdom arrangement for our universities. Recent events—by which I mean events that have taken place in the past year, and in particular in the last few months—have caused me to review my position. I am extremely worried about some of the decisions that have been made, and may be made in future, by the University Grants Committee.
  In particular, I see no sense in a decision which I am told is likely to be made tomorrow affecting the dental hospital in Dundee. On any objective criterion, it cannot be said that that is in accordance with Government policy. I defend the Government's policy of asking for the best possible value for money—we should get what we pay for—and I believe that the policies that we have introduced to achieve that have been largely successful, but I cannot, and will not, support a decision that cannot be defended on that criterion. According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, which produced an impartial objective report, Dundee dental hospital is top of the league for value for money, so it should be the last place to be considered for closure.
  I agree that there is a Scottish dimension. We Scots are proud of our history and culture and of what has happened in our universities and education establishments. We have every reason to be. We have led the world

  1105
  in many things and we want to retain that—and our Scottishness. To do that, we must have bodies that are understanding of and sympathetic to what we are trying to achieve.
  I have examined this matter with some care and I believe that if the University Grants Committee decides tomorrow that the Dundee hospital should close—because the Government have said that they want fewer dentists to be trained—and if the committee cannot justify closure on objective criteria of value for money, it is time we wound up this quango. It is of no use to us in Scotland. In 1979 I never believed that I would say things like that, but experience has taught me that there is a lack of sensitivity and understanding of what is required.
  I do not know what deals have been made, or which university or school is being protected, but I know that if part of the whole is left out of a review, the review is not complete. I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe is right, and this matter is vital. This is probably the most important speech that I have made since my speech on Guinness. I was unhappy about the Guinness affair, and I am equally unhappy about what is happening on this matter. I leave it to hon. Members to judge whether Scotland's best interests are being served by the way in which these matters are being conducted.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Harry Ewing: The logic of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about Dundee dental hospital leads him down the road that the Labour party has taken in respect of devolution. The University Grants Committee and the universities in Scotland are under the control of the Department of Education and Science, not the Scottish Office. If the hon. Gentleman did not understand that before, perhaps he does now.
  This morning in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser, under a banner headline two inches high, there appeared a story given to the paper by the hon. Member for Tayside, North, claiming that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), support the retention of Dundee dental hospital. Whether or not the UGC decides tomorrow that the hospital is to close, the Government will win. If the hospital closes, that will be the fault of the UGC; if it is retained, that will be to the credit of the Ministers. That was the import of the briefing that the hon. Gentleman gave the Dundee Courier and Advertiser—
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me, in that I have not read the article. What I gave the Dundee Courier and Advertiser was a verbatim report of what took place at a meeting that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I attended. We were advised by the people representing the UGC—the secretary and two others—that the Secretary of State for Scotland had had two meetings and that his advice was that the Dundee hospital should remain open. The hon. Member for Dundee, West can confirm this. He and I were horrified at what we discovered.
  Mr. Ewing: I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Tayside, North, but when Ministers commit themselves to the retention or closure of anything, I prefer to hear it from their mouths, not from a message boy. Whatever the UGC decides tomorrow, the Government will win. It would have been far better, if the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State were in favour of retaining the dental hospital at Dundee, that they should have told us.
  I see that the Under-Secretary of State is in his place; if he wants to confirm the words of the hon. Member for Tayside, North—that he is in favour of retaining Dundee dental hospital and has made that view clear to the University Grants Committee—I shall gladly give way to him. Is he prepared to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has just said? His silence is eloquent testimony to the value of the headline in today's Dundee Courier and Advertiser. We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Tayside, North for raising this matter. I suspect that he was scarping around for something to end his speech with and used an example that will be unfortunate for the Minister.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North also said that the Tories' problem in Scotland is that they are not getting their message across. I have news for him: the problem is not that they are not getting it across—they are getting it across only too well, and the people of Scotland understand it fully. That is why the Tories lost 11 seats at the last general election and were returned with only 10.
  I enjoyed the speech made by the Secretary of State today—it was good knockabout slapstick stuff—but it lacked serious content and did not recognise the problem in Scotland. On both occasions since the 1987 election when I have heard him speak on the political problems of Scotland the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done himself less than justice. He should study rather more seriously the tensions that are developing there.
  The Secretary of State said that unemployment was falling: of course it is. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, unemployment stood at 133,000; now it is more than 300,000. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) conceded that that was too high. To listen to the Secretary of State, one would think there was no problem, but there is, and the people of Scotland recognise that it has been caused by an unwanted Government forcing unwanted policies on an unwilling population. The people of Scotland do not identify with the policies imposed on them.
  To be generous to Scottish Office Ministers, I must say that there have been times when they have wanted to act differently. They did not want to intervene in the school closures issue in Strathclyde. They did not want to go along with some of the social security provisions. But the leaks of the letters between No. 10 and the Scottish Office showed conclusively that the Ministers were instructed by the Prime Minister's office—in the case of the Strathclyde school closures, encouraged by the hon. Member for Stirling—to change their policies.
  Let us not think for a moment that the people of Scotland did not notice this. They noticed that the Scottish Office Ministers wanted to do one thing but the Prime Minister told them that it was not on. They had to do something completely different to bring themselves into line with the rest of England and Wales—Northern Ireland must be excluded.

  1107
  If the problem continues in this way, the role of the Scottish Office, far from being strengthened, will be diminished, and many of the powers that it enjoys and which have been devolved to it down the years will be sucked in by central Government Departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and all the other mammoth Departments that make up the Whitehall complex.
  That is the road down which we are travelling. That is the road down which the people of Scotland understand we are travelling better than we do here. That is why there are so many tensions in the Scottish political scene. It is a matter of judgment for each Member of Parliament whether he or she wants to respond to the tensions in the Scottish political scene or whether he or she wants to do what the Secretary of State and his colleagues do and turn their back on those tensions, ignore them and hope that they will go away.
  I have bad news for the Conservative party. Those tensions will not go away. I have bad news for other hon. Members who would like to see them go away too. If politicians do not lead those tensions in the proper direction, other people will step in from other areas to lead those tensions in a bad direction. That will not be the fault of the people. That will be our fault. It will be our responsibility if something goes wrong in Scotland. It is almost as if a democracy has to stand still.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North claims that he is a Unionist, and I respect that claim. That does not mean to say that the constitutional make-up of the Union has to be constant. It can be changed, and that is what Labour Members are saying should happen. It should be changed and there should be devolution. I do not go down the separatist road. It is a credible position for the SNP, but SNP Members have no right to table a motion and then criticise those hon. Members who do not support them on issues in which they do not believe. We shall not stand on our heads merely to satisfy three hon. Members who came here on very small majorities and are likely to be out at the next election. They are not representative of Scottish opinion. We are, and we had better respond before the people of Scotland take the lead and are led down the wrong path. The matter is in our hands, and I beg the House to act.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Secretary of State, in responding to the motion, completely failed to answer the positive points raised by the motion and by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). If his was the case for the Union then it is most certainly a lost cause.
  The SNP motion puts forward a positive and dynamic role for Scotland, both within the nation and as part of a wider world. That contrasts with the nation's present stagnant and subordinate role within a London-dominated political system. That contrasts with the SNP's positive view of Scotland and its future. The Government amendment simply sums up the Government's arrogant misguided attitude towards Scotland. The Government amendment is simply misinformed, misstated and inaccurate. It states, for example:
  "in the 1987 General Election more than four people out of five in Scotland voted for parties which support the Union."
  1108
  They want us to act upon that assumption, but they also neglect to say that 76 per cent. of Scots voted for a return of governmental decision-making powers to Scotland. The Government will not act on that assumption, but they cannot have it both ways.
  The Scottish Grand Committee is no substitute for proper legislative machinery for Scotland. The Committee has no powers. It rarely votes, and, even then, it votes only on technical motions. It can never be in any way a substitute for a real Parliament for Scotland, but that is all that the present Government are prepared to offer the people of Scotland. The Government amendment states that the SNP was, in their view,
  "the least popular party in Scotland and received the least support from the electorate".
  That is not true, although no doubt the Green party, for one, wishes it were.
  However, things have moved on. Since then, the local government elections have confirmed the growing pattern in Scotland of the rejection of the Conservatives and the arrival of the SNP as the main challenger in Scottish politics. In the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Conservatives cannot even get a seconder when it comes to regional matters with regard to proposing members for top regional posts. They can barely do so when it comes to similar matters with regard to the districts. The SNP is now the second largest party in COSLA.
  When the Scottish people vote for independence, it will happen because, unlike the Unionist parties, Scotland has a political party that owes allegiance only to Scotland and will deliver the goods whenever it is given the mandate. The Government claim that Scotland can best meet the challenge of the single European Community as part of the United Kingdom. They should tell that to Scotland's decimated fishing industry and to its agriculture, both of which were once told by the Conservatives that they had nothing to fear from entry into the Common Market. They now know the truth, when Scotland's vital fishing, agriculture and oil interests have been used as bargaining counters to suit the superior British interests within the EEC. Scotland, with direct EEC participation and representation, would ensure that that ceased to happen in the future. That would be a far better system of representation and would meet the needs of the Scottish people far better than the present situation.
  The Government again reject a constitutional referendum because they are clearly unwilling to face the people. Ultimately, only Scotland will decide its own future. We will not be given independence. No country is ever "given" independence. Scotland will take independence as and when the Scottish people so decide. It will be done through the ballot box, unlike the sad situation in many other strife-torn parts of the world. The Scottish solution rests with the ballot box and the SNP has, throughout its history, firmly and correctly rejected violence as a suitable way of ever delivering independence for Scotland. We have correctly said that it is up to the Scottish people, and to them alone, to decide their own future through the ballot box and in their own good time.
  In the amendment, the Government reaffirm their belief in the Act of Union, yet they reject or neglect that Act whenever it suits them. Part of the deal written into the Union was that there would be uniform taxation throughout the country. The Government's main flag-carrier, the poll tax, breaks that principle and,

  1109
  according to Professor McCormick, it breaches one of the major items within the treaty of Union. It is the old story— the Government accept the treaty when it suits them and reject it when it does not.
  The Government have no Scottish mandate for many of their major items—school boards, their attack on local government and so on. Indeed, there is outright and obvious Scottish opposition to those measures. We are seeing the English mandate applied to Scotland, irrespective of the wishes of the Scottish people. That is at the heart of the Union because, ultimately, in the House, England will rule and England will decide. It would not matter if there were unanimity throughout the Scottish people and among our representatives, because, ultimately, England will decide. That is the price of the Union, and it is a price that anyone loyal to Scotland simply will not pay.
  Why should Scotland remain subsumed within England and within the new European Common Market? Why should Scotland not be directly represented in Europe, rather than subsumed within the broader English interests, any more than Denmark, which has the same population as Scotland, or Luxembourg, which is tiny in comparison with our country? To assume that we can see Europe only through English eyes or that Scotland can act in Europe only while subsumed within England shows extreme arrogance and is a poor deal for Scotland. Why should we expect the majority English interests to get a better deal for Scotland in the EEC than direct representation from Scotland of our views? It is an absurd proposition which no Dane, Greek, Irishman, Spaniard or Luxembourger would accept for one minute, yet Scots are expected to accept such a deal as a permanent arrangement.
  The Government object in their amendment to the description of colonial status when it is applied to Scotland, but how else can one describe the present Scottish situation? Scottish legislation is simply being tagged on to English Bills. Major Scottish amendments are shoved in on Report without proper discussion. When Scottish universities, including the Dundee dental hospital, were discussed as part of a general English Bill, Scottish Members with university interests were queuing up to have two minutes to discuss those matters that are vital to Scotland.
  Again, the only major Department of State that does not have a parliamentary Select Committee is the Scottish Office. That is lack of control, through this Parliament, of those who control Scotland. All this goes on while the Scottish assembly building lies empty in Edinburgh.
  We are asking only for basic democracy. Of the three arms of government, Scotland already has its own executive and its own judiciary. All that we are asking for is the third arm of government—a Scottish legislature, democratically elected and able to control and influence the fabric of our society, our economy and our life and to get Scotland on the move. Montesquieu rightly pointed out that the three arms of government spell the difference between despotism and a democratic system. We are asking for the fundamental right that every other democratic country takes for granted.
  Edinburgh is a city with two parliamentary buildings and no Parliament. It is a city waiting for the return of parliamentary powers. Scotland is a nation awaiting the
  1110
  rebirth of its identity in Europe and in the wider world. It is to this that the SNP motion addresses itself. It is a pity that the House will not do the same.
  6.40 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I believe that, as a nation, Scotland has a right to self-determination, but that does not mean that I am about to apply for an SNP card. Correctly, the Labour party believes that Scotland has determined that its wants it own devolved assembly. It has shown that in its votes at the general elections and in opinion polls again and again. Clearly, the Scottish nation has spoken and wants what the Labour party in Scotland and the United Kingdom has been saying it wants.
  The Scottish people do not want he status quo. That is why the Government's amendment begs the question: why is it that the Tory party does not want a constitutional referendum? Could it be because it is afraid of the answer? Suppose the referendum reaffirmed what the Labour party says—that the majority of Scottish people want devolution and their own assembly. Would the Government accept that result and implement it? I do not believe that they would, because they do not recognise Scotland as a "free partner" in the United Kingdom, as they claim in the amendment.
  A "free partner" would have the right to decide whether to continue the partnership or to withdraw, or, as we would suggest, offer a change in the terms of the partnership. The Government are refusing to allow the people of Scotland to have a choice, and we are convinced that if the people of Scotland had a free say they would vote for Labour party policy. Labour recognises Scotland as a nation and as a "free partner" in the United Kingdom. For that reason we offered that policy at the general election, and for that reason, we shall continue to offer that policy. There is no doubt about this policy, from which we have not deviated one iota.
  I have recently returned from a short visit to Nicaragua, a small country of only 3 million people with a young parliamentary democracy that has been in existence for only a tiny speck of time when compared to the long existence of this noble House. That young Parliament of a small nation has already accepted that two areas of its country, because of different culture, history, language and development, deserve devolution. The National Assembly has already passed the law to bring in devolution so that the areas can have their own economic development, education system and so on. Will this ancient and honourable Parliament take the opportunity to learn from that small nation something about democracy in action?
  6.44 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the Dundee dental hospital. There is no case for its closure. If the University Grants Committee makes that recommendation tomorrow, it will be a disgrace. I hope that every Scottish Member of Parliament will object to such a decision. In particular, I hope that the Ministers in the Scottish Office will lead a campaign against any such decision. As the recommendation of the working party that was set up by the UGC had to have been influenced by Scottish Office instruction, that working party could not take into consideration the position of the Dundee

  1111
  dental hospital but looked only at Edinburgh and Glasgow dental hospitals. That had to prejudice the working party's recommendations. It is up to the Scottish Office to stand up for Dundee dental hospital, as there is no case for closure, and to say that it will not accept the recommendations of the UGC working party.
  In the Dundee dental hospital case, we see a classic example of the Scottish interest being squeezed between a United Kingdom Department that treats Scotland like another region of a unitary country and a Tory-dominated Scottish Office that will not stand up for the national rights of Scotland within the United Kingdom. It is time that Ministers in the Scottish Office began to argue the Scottish case rather than meekly accepting what is handed down to them from the Cabinet or the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  We can legitimately argue about the merits or demerits of the no-mandate case within the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom, but no hon. Member can quarrel with the fact that Scotland has overwhelmingly rejected the Government's approach, which is generally termed Thatcherism. Scotland did not reject Thatcherism only in the 1987 general election. It did so in both the 1983 and 1979 general elections. Ever since Thatcherism came into being as a political creed, it has regularly been rejected, with an ever-increasing majority, by the people of Scotland. That has happened in every general election since 1979, and there is no case for the Scottish Office, or any other Tories, trying to impose on the people of Scotland the policies that constitute the Thatcher consensus.
  Conservative Members would do well to reflect that, since the war, the Conservative party has been the only political party in Scotland to win an absolute majority of Scottish votes in the general election. It did that a generation ago in the 1955 general election. It should learn from its decline, which leaves it, 30 years on, with only an embarrassed rump of Scottish Members of Parliament and the lowest share of the vote in any general election since the war. The Tories must ask themselves why that is, and they must realise that if they continue down the road that they have been pursuing since 1955 the only end will be the break-up of the United Kingdom. That will be their fault, and their fault alone.
  At the next general election, in 1991, the Scottish people will have to vote for the party that can deliver them from the yoke of Thatcherism. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said that, if the Scots want independence, they will vote for it. However, the SNP must make clear what they mean by Scotland voting for independence. A leaflet from the SNP has come through my door since the last general election. It says that 37 SNP Members of Parliament equals independence. That is nonsense. The Labour party has 50 Members of Parliament but only 43 per cent. of the vote in Scotland. Even if the SNP were to get into the Labour party's position, the majority of Scots would still be voting against independence, and for the continued link with the United Kingdom. The Government would ignore the fact that 50 SNP Members had been elected to Parliament and would go on as they are now, saying that there is no mandate for independence. A mandate for independence must be based on more than half the votes that are registered in Scotland at a general election, and the SNP could not achieve that.
  I was staggered to learn that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has referred to the SNP as the
  1112
  equivalent of the Rainbow Coalition in the United States. I come from Dundee and I know about the SNP members on Tayside regional council. Only a few months ago, a prominent member of the SNP group on the council caused a sensation locally by referring, during a debate on the multicultural education policy of Tayside regional council, to the danger of Scotland being swamped by ethnic minorities. He used the very remark which the Prime Minister used disgracefully some years ago, a remark that will not be welcomed by any rainbow coalition on either side of the Atlantic. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will denounce members of his party who use that sort of language in arguing against a proper multicultural approach to education in areas such as Tayside.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The debate has been notable for a number of factors. Probably the most notable is that virtually all hon. Members who have contributed to it, with a few honourable exceptions, have failed to address the perspective which was set out in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and in the motion—the exciting new perspective of an independent Scotland playing a full role within the European Economic Community.
  It seems that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not graduated beyond university debating tactics. There was nothing in his speech that told us where he thinks Scotland is going. There are few enough opportunities in this place to debate the future of our nation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in a disgraceful speech, failed to take advantage of the opportunity that was presented to him. His speech contained no analysis of his own position in favouring the Union. It was purely a debating speech, worthy, perhaps, of a university debating chamber. It was not worthy of a Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I shall analyse the positions of the three other parties in Scotland apart from my own. It is interesting that there is no Labour party amendment on the Order Paper. In a way, that is appropriate. The problem that the Labour party faces is that devolution, as proposed by the party which won the last general election in Scotland, is no longer on the political agenda. That is because it will not be conceded. It is not available and it will not be delivered. It is not on offer.
  The Scottish National party supported the devolution Bill that Labour Members introduced last year on the ground that even half a slice of bread was better than no loaf. The reality, however, is that the Government will not concede devolution. With the Labour party 10 or 12 points adrift in the United Kingdom opinion polls a year after the general election—at the same stage after the 1983 election the Labour party was either level or ahead in the MORI polls—there is no realistic prospect in the foreseeable future of a Labour Government being able to implement Labour party policy, even if we accept as genuine the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to the policy of devolution.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I accept that the reality is that the Government will not concede devolution. That is accepted also by the Labour party. The reality also is that the Government will not concede independence. That is the problem in Scotland. The people of Scotland are reacting to an obstinate Government who ignore every plea that is

  1113
  made by every political party. Every branch of society in Scotland is being ignored. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman concentrating on the fact that the Government are ignoring one political party. Everyone in Scotland is being ignored. That is causing the problem.
  Mr. Salmond: I want to deal directly with that question later in my speech.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and his right hon. and hon. Friends should listen carefully to the convoluted explanations of the Secretary of State when he is asked why he changed his position on devolution. I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer an explanation on several occasions in the past year. It seems that he changed his position because he thought 10 years ago that the Union was under threat. He was prepared to concede devolution only if there was a substantial vote in Scotland for independence. That is a lesson that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East should learn from the Scottish political scene.
  As I have said, it is significant that the Labour Opposition have not placed an amendment on the Order Paper. I believe that they have chosen not to do so because devolution is no longer on the political agenda in Scotland. During the count in the 1983 general election, I remember the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) roaring like a lion, declaring what he would do with this Parliament after that election to ensure that an assembly was delivered. Since then, the hon. Gentleman has been as quiet as a mouse on the issue. During this period he has graduated towards a Front-Bench job. I can understand hon. Members being bought and sold for English gold, but to be bought and sold for the prospect of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmanship at this moment places a low price on the hon. Gentleman's abilities.
  I was struck by a quote in The Scotsman of 16 January from the hon. Member for Cathcart. He was explaining then—as he has since in the Glasgow Herald—why the Labour party could not countenance a campaign of non-payment in opposition to the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
  "At the end of the day, it would be a campaign about the right to govern Scotland, aimed at ending Conservative English rule in Scotland. That is the nationalist case which the Labour Party does not accept."
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. It has taken him five years to understand the full implications of the mandate argument. Unfortunately, after five years he has come to exactly the wrong conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman graduates to a further elevation in the Whips Office, he will find a new generation of younger Labour Members willing to take his place. They will not challenge the "right" of the Government to run Scotland either. That is the position generally of the Labour party. I say to Labour Members that if they continue to accept the "right" of the Government to run Scotland on English votes, they will relegate themselves to the fringes. In the end, they will find that they are spectators of Scottish politics. The argument will crystallise between those who are prepared to accept that the Government have a right to pursue their policies on the back of the English majority and those who are prepared to reject that so-called mandate.
  As far as I can understand the position of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, as expounded by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), it seems that
  1114
  it is sympathetic to the SNP analysis. It is clear from the SLD's amendment that it accepts our analysis. The only difference is that it proposes another solution.
  The case for federalism is in the same difficulty as that for devolution—it will not be delivered in the immediate future. The hon. Lady should consider the relative merits of federalism compared with independence within the European Community. The Liberal party—now the SLD—has had a variety of views on a variety of issues. One consistent theme, however, has been a belief in the European dimension. It is strange that the quarrel that the SLD has with the motion is on the need, as the SNP sees it, for an independent status within the wider community. The federalism which the SLD proposes would automatically deny Scotland access to representations at the top table of the Community. That is a strange position for a party which has long espoused the European ideal.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute should remember that we have supported motions and amendments, tabled by her party, that have set out its solution for Scotland. That was because we believed they represented an improvement on the status quo. The SLD should give serious consideration to whether it prefers the SNP's solution to the Scottish question or the solution that is put forward by the Government.
  The Government's position was predictable. As I have said, the Secretary of State's speech did not make clear the position for the Union. I welcome the attacks that were made on the SNP by the Secretary of State. My colleagues said to me, "It is just like old times." When the SNP is under attack, that is a sure sign that it is rising and that the Government are frightened.
  An attack was made also on Muriel Gray, the rector of Edinburgh university. Muriel Gray is not a political activist. She is not involved in politics. I do not know whether she is a member of the SNP, but I hope that she is. She is not part of the political debate in Scotland. She is most certainly not here to answer the charges that the Secretary of State made against her earlier this evening. It is demeaning for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be so reduced that he is driven to level such charges against a lady who is not able to reply to them.
  Unlike the Secretary of State, I want to look at the amendment tabled by the Government.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman made an attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in a London hotel recently. Did he invite him to be present so that he could respond?
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but I lost his question in the general hubbub from his hon. Friends.
  As I was saying, I want to look at the content of the Government amendment. As I understand it, there are four principal arguments for opposing our motion set out in the Government's amendment. The first is the substantial role which, according to the Government amendment, individual Scots have to play within the United Kingdom. When I saw the amendment, I thought that they were referring to the "sudeten Scots" on the Government Benches who come to disrupt Scottish Question Time at regular intervals. The argument misses the point entirely. We are not arguing whether individual Scots should play a role within English society, or French or German society, or vice versa, but whether Scotland, as

  1115
  a national entity, will have the chance to play a collective role not on the British stage but on the wider stage of the European Community.
  Secondly, the Government make the mandate argument most explicit—I refer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East. Basically, the Government say that as long as Scots vote for Unionist parties—the Labour party, the Democrats or the Conservative party—the votes are counted as being for the Union. The Secretary of State put it clearly in an interview in Radical Scotland of December 1986. He said:
  "I think as long as the vast majority of Scots vote for unionist parties and by that I mean Conservatives, Labour, Liberal, or SDP, anything other than the Nationalists—and thereby express a clear political desire to remain a part of the United Kingdom—then the only mandate that matters is the UK mandate."
  That is a development of the Conservative party's position. In the 1979 referendum they wanted to count only non-voters on their side. Now the Conservative party's position is to count the votes for the other Unionist parties to recruit them in the Conservative party's supposed mandate in Scotland.
  The votes for the Labour party and the Democrats are being used, in terms of the Secretary of State's argument, as the justification for the Conservative party's position in Scotland. I do not know whether hon. Members who represent those parties are satisfied with that position, but I believe that the members of those parties in Scotland would be profoundly dissatisfied to know that their votes are being use as the justification for the Conservative party continuing to rule in Scotland on a minority vote.
  The third argument from the Government is that the Secretary of State makes decisions in Scotland and that many areas of Scottish life are under his direct determination. Anybody looking at the celebrated exchange of memos on the school boards legislation will be able to give the lie to how much power the Secretary of State currently has in Scotland. There is a vast difference between being Scotland's man in the Cabinet and the Cabinet's man in Scotland, which is the sorry position of the present incumbent. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister would like to tell us whether the decision on the future of the Ravenscraig steel plant is one of the "important" decisions that will be made by the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office. Sir Robert Scholey, introducing the British Steel Corporation's annual report today, said that it was "reviewing strip mill production," that there were
  "no more guarantees for Ravenscraig,
  and that "nothing is for ever."
  We want to know whether the future of the Ravenscraig complex will be decided in Scotland by the Secretary of State or by the BSC south of the border.
  The Government's fourth argument rejects our claim that Scotland is a colony and has colonial status. When a country is ruled by a Government that it does not elect, when that Government make a comprehensive attack on Scottish values and institutions, when that country is denied the right of self-determination through referendum or constitutional convention, and when that Government are engaged in the pillaging of Scottish assets—I am talking about £70,000 million of oil revenues since 1979—that looks to me like a colonial position.
  The Secretary of State was not always as averse to describing his position as that of a colonial governor. I shall quote from an article in Scottish Field of March 1986.
  1116
  Perhaps the Secretary of State drew courage from the fact that the readership of Scottish Field did not extend too far among the Scottish population. It quotes the Secretary of State as saying in respect of his position:
  "It is not at all a narrow field as some people might suggest. In fact, the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are not unlike those of a colonial governor."
  It seems that the Secretary of State and the Conservative party were not always so sure that the analogy between Scotland's position and that of a colony was so absurd.
  I want to reiterate some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray when she introduced the motion and to deal directly with the Scottish economy. If we listened to the Government, we would believe that the Scottish economy was a great success. That is a remarkable argument given that industrial production m Scotland is up only 7 per cent. since 1980—less than half the average increase throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. Unemployment in Scotland is the second highest in mainland Britain. The House of Commons research officers have released a paper showing that, of the 10 worst constituencies in Britain with the highest percentage of youth unemployment as a percentage of total unemployment, no fewer than seven are Scottish constituencies.
  The Government argue that the prosperity of the south-east of England will gradually spread throughout the rest of Britain—first, to the midlands, then to the north of England and then to Scotland—and that our salvation will come if we wait long enough. That argument is reminiscent of that used for Third-world countries. They were told that if they waited until the Western world was more prosperous, prosperity would eventually drip down to them. Just as it was fallacious in the Third-world context, so it is fallacious in the Scottish context. Far from prosperity spreading out from the south-east of England, inflationary pressures which have been generated in the south-east mean that economic measures will be taken to put the economy into restraint. Thus, we have had five increases in interest rates in the past five weeks. The reality is that economic restraint will be applied before the Scottish economy is even out of deep freeze.
  I want to look at Scotland's real choice—whether we want to play a bit part on the British stage or whether we want to find a new role for our nation within the European Community. I find the British state fundamentally unattractive. It is unattractive in the attitude displayed towards foreigners and unattractive in terms of the breakdown of social cohesion. It is a depressing vision for the Scottish people to have to continue to play a subsidiary role within a declining and out-of-date Britain. Steinbeck once wrote that Scotland was not a "lost cause" but a "cause unwon". The Scottish National party gives notice to the House of Commons that it intends to win that cause.
  7.9 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang)rose——
  Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, no Opposition Member representing Edinburgh, Scotland's capital, has been called. Is that not a disgrace? Is that not strange, particularly as some of us want to support the anti-poll tax movements that are developing in Scotland and that intend to fight the Tories?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Only the Minister sought to catch my eye, and I will call him.
  Mr. Lang: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would be happy to feel that his speech represented the Unionist parties from the Edinburgh constituencies. There have been few surprises in the debate and the speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) contained none. The debate has identified the alien values mentioned in the Scottish National party motion, because we support the rule of law. If the SNP believes that it is alien to the Scottish people to support the rule of law, no wonder it gained so little support in the last election.
  It was interesting to note how the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan distanced his party from the other Opposition parties because that suggests that perhaps the SNP is the party that espouses alien values. That is underlined by the fact that 86 per cent. of the Scottish people rejected separatism at the last election in favour of the Union. The greater curiosity in the debate is not the behaviour of the Scottish National party, which is always sadly predictable, but the behaviour of the Labour party. We have a nationalist motion, a Liberal amendment and a Government amendment, but no Labour amendment.
  What is even more curious is that, on this of all days, when a Glasgow Herald poll revealed the full extent of Labour's crumbling edifice and when the party has lost one fifth of its support in five months, the leader of the Scottish Labour Members, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), chose not to speak in the debate, and his party has chosen not to vote.
  Perhaps that comes as no surprise to us, because last November, in a debate on a motion by what was then the Liberal party but which is now travelling incognito, the Opposition leader in Scotland, the hon. Member for Garscadden, decided not to speak. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said at that time that the debate was rather like Hamlet without the gravedigger. I am not as learned as my right hon. and learned Friend but in my version of Gilbert and Sullivan the Duke of Plaza Toro led his regiment from behind because he found it less exciting. But at least he led his troops. In this debate, the Scottish Labour party has had no leadership at all. No wonder that two thirds of them have not bothered to turn up and are hopelessly divided on these issues.
  In its manifesto for the last election the SNP said:
  "Should the Conservatives win power again based on English votes, the SNP will cooperate with other parties to establish a Constitutional Convention as an immediate priority."
  We have seen the measure of that co-operation in the debate. There has been much high-principled concern for devolutionary matters, but when it comes down to the detail, the parties shelter behind different approaches and different nomenclature. The Labour party wants an assembly, the Liberals want a Parliament and the Nationalists want a convention. Labour will not have an assembly if it has proportional representation, the Liberals will not have one without PR and the SNP says that it will take anything as long as it gives it a chance to move on to separatism.
  What I discern in these postures is not high constitutional principle but low political calculation. Self-interest is the driving force behind the Opposition parties, and Scotland's true interests are secondary to that.
  1118
  I do not know whether self-interest drives the leader of the Labour party on this issue or whether he just does not know what his troops in Scotland are saying. At least on this issue he has been consistent, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, he is up in the clouds of the Himalayas. In 1978 he said that devolution
  "will smash beyond healing the unity of Britain."
  In 1985 he said it
  "will not provide a factory, a machine or jobs."
  As recently as last Thursday, he was quoted in the Western Daily Press and Times and Mirror as saying:
  "what was needed was government which was more accountable and efficient in serving people and communities.
  `But those needs would not be met if they divided the country, and produced institutions with grand titles that were all dressed up with nowhere to go'''.
  Nothing better summarises the present state of the Scottish Labour party, which does not seem to listen to its leader any more.
  To the vast majority of Scots, devolution is simply irrelevant. True devolution is the devolution of power that we have introduced. We have introduced the devolution that matters, because we have given power to the people through cuts in taxation, so that they may spend money as they think fit. We have done it through the sale of council houses, and that policy has enabled over 100,000 Scots to buy their own homes. Our privatisation programme has doubled the number of Scottish shareholders. We have given devolution by providing a stable economic base on which so many new companies have been able to start up. The economy is a sign of the devolution and the success that we have achieved.
  It is a great pity that Opposition parties cannot speak up for Scotland but feel obliged to knock it at every opportunity and send out the sort of message that we heard in Dundee when Ford pulled out. The success of the Scottish economy is irretrievably bound up with the success of the United Kingdom economy, and the success of the United Kindom economy has recently been reflected in Scotland.
  The report last week from the Fraser of Allander Institute said that the Scottish economy is now moving in line with that of the United Kingdom. Our economic success in Scotland is increasingly evident. The Scots are benefiting from the control of public spending and therefore from the control of inflation. They are benefiting from the reduction in taxation and are now sharing in the biggest fall in unemployment in recent times. All this has been achieved without the benefit of a Scottish assembly.
  Looking ahead, we can see the prospect of this continuing, and the forecast is that 64 per cent. of construction firms expect to expand in the next few months. The Fraser of Allander Institute report predicts growth of almost 3 per cent. per annum over the next five years and the creation of about 100,000 new jobs. Scotland is more prosperous than it has ever been. Personal disposable income is up by 16 per cent. in real terms over the 10 years to 1986. Scotland had the highest average earnings outside the south-east of England and all this has been achieved without the benefit of a Scottish assembly.
  Manufacturing output in Scotland is higher than ever, and over the last eight years Scotland's manufacturing productivity has come from the bottom to the top of the OECD league. We have seen our manufacturing

  1119
  productivity improve by more than that in America, Canada, France, Germany, the rest of the United Kingdom and Japan.
  Now that we are competitive again, our exports have done well. They are better than for the rest of the United Kingdom and more per head than in Japan. That success has not been achieved by accident but because we have stuck to the policies that were needed to create success. We have taken the difficult decisions about getting Scotland back on the rails. We have been tackling the problems at their roots instead of going for cheap, short-term cosmetic solutions.
  Scotland within the United Kingdom is now out in the world again and the world increasingly sees Scotland as a place in which to locate. We have put behind us the decline and despair of Socialist policies, and in the stable political framework of being part of the United Kingdom Scotland is seeing our policies bear fruit. Against that growth and success, how damaging and irrelevant is the posturing over devolution and separatism and the bickering over breaking the law on the funding of local government.
  Scotland is where the vast majority of people want her to be—strong, prosperous and secure, and playing her full part in the United Kingdom. I urge the House to keep it that way, to throw out this irrelevant and damaging motion and to support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 206.

  Division No. 399]

  [7.17 pm

  AYES

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kilfedder, James

  Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Dafydd Wigley

  Salmond, Alex

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amos, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Benyon, W.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Durant, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Favell, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Burns, Simon

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Burt, Alistair

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butcher, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Butler, Chris

  Forman, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

  1120

  Forth, Eric

  Mates, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  Mellor, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  French, Douglas

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Gill, Christopher

  Moate, Roger

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gregory, Conal

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Harris, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Raffan, Keith

  Hayward, Robert

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Heddle, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hill, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Stern, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Irvine, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Jack, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Janman, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Thorne, Neil

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Trippier, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Twinn. Dr Ian

  Knox, David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Lang, Ian

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Latham, Michael

  Walden, George

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Wallace, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Lord, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Watts, John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Wells, Bowen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Maclean, David

  Wilshire, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Mans, Keith

  Yeo, Tim

  Maples, John

  Marland, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marlow, Tony

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Question accordingly negatived,
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,

  1121
  That this House recognises the benefits to Scotland of being a free partner in the United Kingdom and the contribution which the Scottish people continue to make in many fields to the life of the United Kingdom; notes that the Government has a clear mandate to govern following a General Election fought on a United Kingdom basis, and that in the 1987 General Election more than four people out of five in Scotland voted for parties which support the Union; notes that in that election the Scottish National Party was the least popular party in Scotland and received the least support from the Scottish electorate; believes that Scotland can best meet the challenge of the single European Community market as part of the United Kingdom; acknowledges that many decisions affecting Scotland are already taken in Scotland by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office; considers as absurd references to Scotland's alleged colonial status; rejects completely calls for a constitutional referendum and independence; and reaffirms its support for the Act of Union.

  Pensioners (Government Policies)
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the increasing proportion of elderly people in society; views with great concern the failure of National Health Service funding to keep pace with the growing demand placed upon the Health Service by the elderly; believes that greater support and financial provision must be given to the field of community care; condemns the recent changes in Social Security regulations and in particular the cuts in the housing benefit budget which have caused hardship for many pensioners; recognises that the income of many pensioners is woefully inadequate; and calls upon the Government substantially to increase the real level of old age pensions.
  One of the most profound demographic changes in Britain is the increasing number of elderly people, which number will continue to accelerate. There are now 3·7 million people over the age of 75 and by the year 2006 that will have increased to 4·1 million. By 1996, roughly 15·5 per cent. of the entire population will be over the age of 65. That presents a major demographic change which will have implications across society, not least for the welfare state, and especially for health and social services, social security and the caring services generally.
  It is worth noting, not least in the context of the review of the Health Service, of changes in the system of social security and of developments in social policies generally, that the straightforward reality is that such a vast increase in our elderly population is due largely to the success of the welfare state. Improved health services, education services, housing, environmental and working conditions are a cause for celebration in any country, especially when moving towards the latter stages of the 20th century. They are a tribute to the achievement of generations since the industrial revolution.
  The political and public policy problems that are generated by an increasing proportion of people in the non-working phase of their lives, who are not producing revenue but are more likely—and quite rightly—to be consuming it, are a fundamental product of the success of the nation in improving conditions. I hope that the review of the Health Service and the changes in social security will be viewed in the longer term. It should be remembered—this is one of our fundamental differences with the present thinking and policies of the Government—that the welfare state provision that has led to greater longevity for so many people has made it a victim of its own success.
  That is one of the fundamental philosophical differences that have emerged between the Government and the various Opposition parties during the past eight years, and the motion draws attention to that fact. If my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will say more about that.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Debate on the nature, extent and form of Health Service provision is attracting far greater political attention, and that is a tribute to his work as Chairman of the Social Services Select Committee, the reports of which have recently informed debate on the subject.
  The changes in the Health Service are beginning to be discussed more openly by Ministers, not least by the Secretary of State in recent interviews. The Government are concerned about increasing choice. We do not differ

  1123
  from them on philosophical grounds, but choice is too often seen from the consumer' point of view. I do not want to dwell on that in view of yesterday's debate on this subject; but none of us wants the credit card type of health care that is to be found in North America, particularly in the United States, where there is enhanced consumer sense.
  The figures are well known. The demand made by the elderly is high, especially in personal social services, compared with that of people of working age and the young. The elderly should not pay the penalty for any changes along consumerist lines which the Government may be contemplating. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance about that.
  I wish to concentrate on social security and the housing benefit changes. I welcome the fact that the Government have recently made concessions, but for many thousands of pensioners a total of £540 million has been taken from the housing benefit budget by the recent social security changes. That is a harsh price. In addition, everybody is now expected to make a minimum contribution of 20 per cent. to the rates no matter how low his or her income may be. In theory, people who receive income support have an extra £1·30 a week in benefit to cover that charge, but in practice 20 per cent. of the rates bill will often work out at considerably more than that. Here in Westminster, for example, 20 per cent. of the average rates bill works out at £3·12 a week, which is considerably more than the amount built into income support.
  Many claimants on incomes just above the minimum level—perhaps occupational pensioners or people of pensionable age still in part-time employment—will lose benefit by the introduction of a higher taper for withdrawing help. Housing benefit is now being taken away at a rate of 65p in the pound for every £1 above the income support level, which means that benefit is withdrawn on the basis of net earnings. Therefore, people with low-paid jobs who have benefited from tax cuts will find that they lose most of what they gained in tax cuts through the reduction of housing benefit.
  I am sure that the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have come across many such cases in their constituency surgeries. The figures are small in terms of the hundreds of millions of pounds involved in the Budget, but the result is great hardship and heart-rending for many pensioners who already live at the breadline. I welcome the fact that the Government raised the capital cut-off for housng benefit to £8,000. That was a small step in the right direction. My party takes the view that no cut-off point should have been introduced in the first place. I do not want to be unduly churlish about the changes that the Secretary of State has announced, but they were announced in haste and largely in response to Conservative Back-Bench pressure. I do not want to belittle the Opposition's contribution, but Conservative Back Benchers recognised that the people who were being hit were likely to be their voters. The change was made because of that rather than because of the merit of the case. That was their motivation, not the merits of the case. The Government are fond of preaching about morality, but there is a curious contradiction between what we hear said from the Dispatch Box and in other places and what influences the troops behind the Prime Minister.
  Prior to last month there was no capital limit for claiming housing benefit. Instead, notional interest on any savings was taken into account. That was a much fairer
  1124
  system, as it meant that help was phased out more gradually. In other words, the severe loss at the point of that change was considerably cushioned or diluted, especially when compared with what happens now.
  We have argued previously, and do so again tonight, that the cuts in housing benefit were wrong in principle and that the Government should now consider restoring them and act to do so. We should like the rate of the withdrawal taper to be reduced, as we believe that the system is particularly hard on low-income families and those with small pensions. We should also like consideration to be given to the abolition of the capital limit and the reinstatement of the system of notional interest. We should like a system which is generally more flexible and responsive to individual needs, instead of a system which forces people into crude and often arbitrary categories, regardless of their particular circumstances.
  We should like a system which lives up to the fundamental, fairer and simpler reform of the social security system which the previous Secretary of State for Social Services hailed when he introduced the comprehensive review—and the public hearings which followed—and its implementation in legislation prior to the last general election. The Government's track record on housing benefit in particular, and social security provision in general, makes them extremely culpable.
  Finally, I should like to refer briefly to the moves towards care in the community, which has commanded the support of successive Governments and of all parties. Elderly people face hardship because all too often the social services, local authorities, various other authorities and, for that matter, the voluntary sector do not receive the support from the Government, such as the rate support grant, that they require if they are to meet the demands of the central policy that is not just being encouraged but is being demanded by the Government.
  Let us take as an example public sector housing. It has been estimated that to put right the backlog of repairs for such housing would cost about £10 billion across the nation. Elderly people suffer because poor housing affects their health. When broken down on a regional basis. that figure is well beyond anything that could be met from the budgets of even the truest blue, most loyal, Conservative local authority. It can be neither contemplated nor met at local authority level. It is the Government, centrally controlling the purse strings, who are causing so many of the difficulties.
  Roughly 95 per cent. of the elderly live in their own homes. Therefore, an effective network of community services is essential. The Griffiths report recently emphasised the need for more money and support for community care; for example, for respite care. However, successive Select Committee reports, and other reports, have shown that the Government have not given as adequately or as generously as they should if they are to make that welcome policy become a reality.
  I come now to a feature of community care which we have long advocated—improving support for the carers through the introduction of a carers' charter. We have still not seen adequate movement on that by the Government, despite encouraging signs from the previous Secretary of State prior to the last general election.
  Taken in totality, those and the many other points that will doubtless arise during the debate point to a Government who are not meeting their obligation to distribute the tax revenues of the realm in a way that is

  1125
  appropriate to the priorities of most people, one of which would be provision for the elderly. The Prime Minister has frequently been quoted as saying that she considers that there is no such thing as society. I hope that that is an example of her being economic with the truth.
  Surely, if one truth holds, especially for this subject, it is that in an interdependent, interrelated society such as we have in Britain at the moment a Government can best be summed up by looking at what they offer to those at the two ends of the age spectrum. They should offer a sense of idealism and opportunity for their young, and a sense of comfort and security for their old. In this country those things are available to many, but they are not available to a sufficient number. In many parts of the country substantial sections of the population, especially the elderly, do not enjoy comfort and security. The Government should at least try to create the conditions for those needs to be met. I hope that tonight's debate will be a reminder to the Government that more needs to be done in that policy area. I commend our motion to the House.
  7.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government on the success of its policies for pensioners, in particular the control of inflation and the stimulation of the economy, which together have dramatically improved pensioners' total incomes; commends the Government for the increased resources now available to the National Health Service; concurs in the Government's determination to ensure that the considerable resources committed to community care are put to the best possible use; and endorses the recent reforms of social security, not least because they increase the choice of future pension provision.".
  I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) for the opportunity to have this debate on the position of the elderly in our society. I agree with much of what he said. I agree that the working population of our nation has important responsibilities towards those who are retired, not least because when they were the working population those who are now retired made their contributions to pay for the people who were then elderly. However, more than that, we have a responsibility to the elderly because they are the generation who fought and suffered in the wars of this century and who lost a great deal in the inflation of the 1970s.
  The debate is a good opportunity to reflect on the needs and worries of the elderly who face poor health, failing capacities, loneliness, cold and inflation. I believe that for many—not for all, but for many—the worst of those problems has been inflation. I say that because inflation dealt them a double blow: an almost lethal financial blow, with repercussions on their health and ability to face the other problems of old age; and deprived them also of their independence, pride and self-esteem.
  I begin unashamedly, broadening the context of the debate, by declaring that there was no stronger duty upon the Government than to control inflation and no greater benefit has come to the elderly than the gain that they have received from our success in controlling inflation.
  Under the previous Labour Government, we all know that inflation reached 27 per cent. However, to understand
  1126
  that, let me illustrate what that would mean today. If inflation over 12 months ran at that level, the basic single pension, worth £41·15, would be reduced by £8·75 over that 12-month period and the couple's pension, worth £65·90, would be reduced by £14 in just 12 months.
  The effect on any occupational pension that a pensioner might have would be just as devastating. Most damaging of all would be the effect on savings. In fact, during the period of both the Labour and Lib-Lab Governments, the value of pensioners' nest eggs in building societies fell by a third, and their income from savings fell by 16 per cent. in real terms.
  Today the position is very different. The House is well aware of our pledge to maintain the value of the retirement pension in real terms and of our success in honouring that pledge. However, the retirement pension is only one element in the income of most pensioners and, because of that, the average living standards of pensioners have risen rapidly as inflation has come under control.
  Mr. Kennedy: As the Minister wants to broaden the context of the debate, I hope that, when considering the value of the retirement pension and the figures that he has quoted, he will not forget the decision of the Conservative Government in the early days after 1979 to break the earnings link. Can he give the House the equivalent figures for what the pension would be worth now?
  Mr. Portillo: For the hon. Gentleman's sake, I am sorry to say that I intend to address that issue later in my speech. I am not sure that he will enjoy it quite as much as he thinks.
  In 1985, 70 per cent. of pensioners had incomes from savings compared with 60 per cent. in 1979. Not only do more people now have income from savings, but this income in real terms has increased by about half. Over half of all pensioners, including 70 per cent. of recently retired couples, have income from occupational pensions. Only four out of 10 of all pensioners had such income in 1979. Not only do most pensioners have occupational pensions, but the real value of their average income from such pensions has increased by more than 7 per cent. a year from 1979 to 1985. As a result of those factors, average pensioner living standards rose by 18 per cent. between 1979 and 1985—a faster rate than for the population as a whole and for the working population. By 1985, the average pensioner couple had a gross income of about seven tenths of the wage of the average male manual worker. We have every expectation that the growth trend in living standards will continue strongly as more people retire with second pensions.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose——
  Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask "What about the rest?", which is what he has asked before, I shall come to that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on a different point?
  Mr. Portillo: I give way.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am following the Minister's argument carefully. He may be interested to know that I strongly support the move in the direction of occupational pensions, which, by the end of the century, will provide for the vast majority of people who have retired and enable

  1127
  them to sustain their living conditions. The problem is that, between now and then, people on supplementary pensions will suffer grinding poverty. It is no good the Minister talking about averages; he must address that problem as well. I agree that occupational pensions and state earnings-related pensions will iron out the difference in the long term, but we are worried about the short term.
  Mr. Portillo: I cannot make my entire speech in four minutes, especially if I keep giving way. I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The motion calls for an increase in the real value of pensions. I understand that desire, but it misses the point, just as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye did when he intervened. In the past, when an attempt was made to raise the pension in line with earnings or prices, the result was not a rapid increase in pensioners' living standards. The increase was minimal—3 per cent. over the period 1974 to 1979—as thousands who had fended for themselves were brought down by inflation into reliance on state benefits. As usual, the real problem is more complicated than the hon. Gentleman or Britain's middle party is prepared to acknowledge.
  I should like to say something about how we compare with the rest of Europe. In the past, simplistic comparisons between pensions in the United Kingdom and pensions in, say, Germany have been made most notably in press advertisements issued by the Labour party's Euro MPs. The difficulties of comparison are obvious. Here we have a basic pension, but no one is expected to live off that alone. A couple with nothing else would receive income support and housing benefit, lifting their weekly benefit from the state far above the pension of £65·90 to over £90 a week in an average case, to which could be added free prescriptions and dental treatment, social service support, concessionary fares, and so on.
  In Germany, there is no basic pension—only earnings-related pensions—and no comparable system of housing benefit. Germany, therefore, has both richer pensioners, who were chosen for the Labour party's press campaign, and poorer pensioners, whom it ignored. It is ironic that, by implication, the Labour party embraces a system that involves greater inequality than ours, based on what people earn rather than what they need. This may be another appeal by the Labour party for the yuppie vote.
  There is only one basis of comparison that the European Statistical Bureau is prepared to endorse—the proportion of GDP spent on the elderly. On that basis, Britain at 9·6 per cent. is third, just behind Denmark and France. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has not risen because, I suspect, she is embarrassed by the Labour Euro MPs' campaign. The hon. Lady would, of course, appreciate the difficulties of comparison.
  I want to turn to poorer pensioners because I recognise that there are people without savings, occupational pensions or SERPS. Even among that group there are observable improvements in living standards, and I ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to recognise that fact. The luxuries of a few years ago—such as televisions, telephones and washing machines—have reached many of the very poorest. They have enjoyed increases in income. Between 1981 and 1985, the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent. of the population increased by more than 8 per cent. compared with 6·4 per cent. for the population as a whole. In the same period, the
  1128
  number of pensioners in that group—the bottom 10 per cent.—fell from 18 to 8 per cent. The proportion of pensioners requiring income support is falling.
  The new income support system recognises the extra needs of the elderly. Income support for a single pensioner covers the value of his or her supplementary benefit scale rate, the standard heating addition, average water charges and 20 per cent. of average rates. A pensioner couple automatically receive £16·25 a week more than an unemployed couple who are under 60 and £18·60 a week more if they are disabled or over 80. The same rates form the basis of the more generous housing benefit provision for the elderly than for those under 60.
  I know that the greatest concern to hon. Members—it was an important part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye—arising from the social security reforms has been housing benefit. I remind the hon. Gentleman that those on income support continue to receive 100 per cent. help with their rents and get the maximum help—80 per cent.—with rates. Their income support contains £1·30 for the average of 20 per cent. of rates. Therefore, the starting point for the calculation of housing benefit also contains that £1·30. The new housing benefit system gives more help to many of those who have to pay high rents and far greater protection against future rises in rent and rates for all housing benefit recipients.
  It was our aim to reduce the numbers on housing benefit because, with one household in three receiving it, it had been an extraordinarily distended benefit. But even today about 6 million people receive housing benefit. The savings made by the taxpayer on housing benefit, quoted by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, are outweighed by the compensation for 20 per cent. of rates added to income support, by the extra money devoted to family credit and by transitional protection. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to refer to the 20 per cent. as an addition to the reductions in housing benefit. He did not refer to the fact that the reductions in housing benefit accounted for by the 20 per cent. of rates is then recognised in the income support rates.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was too kind to the Government. Although he mentioned the £1·30 that the Government claim to have added to the rates of income support to compensate for what they say is the average amount of rates, he omitted to mention the £150 million that the Government clawed back from those basic rates before they added the £1·30. The real value is not £1·30 but 80p for a couple. The Government saved £150 million by that sleight of hand.
  Mr. Portillo: I do not recognise the hon. Lady's figures. I was taking issue with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye about the fact that he made it sound as though £540 million had been removed from housing benefit without compensation and, in addition, 20 per cent. had been demanded of people in their rates. The record will bear me out, if the hon. Gentleman checks it.
  Because those on income support receive maximum housing benefit, on the whole, the concern about large losses has centred on people whose income puts them some way above income support levels. It is worth stressing that, however large those losses have been for some, they still have incomes after meeting their housing costs which are

  1129
  higher than if they were on income support. The new housing benefit system guarantees that that will be so for everyone paying rent and rates.
  We recognise that a drop in income is hard for the elderly to adjust to, and we have responded to the difficulties that have been brought to our attention. The transitional payments unit at Glasgow is up and running and the first payments have already been made. The elderly, along with the disabled, families with children and widow's pensioners, can apply for compensation for reductions in their housing benefits above £2·50 a week. Arrears will be met back to the start of the new scheme in April and payments will continue for as long as necessary. Payments will, of course, be disregarded in working out normal benefit entitlement. We have taken steps to publicise the scheme and will take further steps. I am glad to announce that later this month we will run a further national advertising campaign.
  The best advice to those who think that they might be entitled is that they should apply. The form—RR4—is straightforward and available from post offices, local authorities, advice centres and, of course, DHSS offices. In addition, I know that a number of local authorities will be trawling their housing benefit records to trace those likely to qualify.
  Pensions and other cash benefits do not tell the whole story. We are concerned not just with the income of elderly people but with their quality of life. For many, that means staying at home with their friends and relatives for as long as they can. Expenditure on NHS services and personal social services mainly used by elderly people increased in real terms between 1978 and 1986 by 22 per cent. and 15 per cent., respectively. The elderly have gained significantly from the major advances in surgery. For example, between 1979 and 1985, the number of joint operations increased by 14,000 and the number of eye lens operations—mostly for cataracts—by 19,000.
  Within the social security budget, there is a wide range of benefits which support elderly disabled people in their homes. Attendance allowance is paid to more than 400,000 people over pension age, some two thirds of all those who receive it—and it is an important element in helping with the financial burden faced by elderly, severely disabled people when living in their own homes.
  We have long recognised the financial sacrifice that many carers make, and invalid care allowance is paid to almost 100,000 carers to help mantain their income. None the less, I certainly recognise that many carers give up years of their lives to care for parents, wives, husbands, sons or daughters, whether they receive benefits from the state or not. Those carers probably make as big a contribution as social services or social security, and we should never forget them.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What is the position of a man who retires under the age of 60 with a bad heart, who is not eligible for constant attendance allowance, whose wife is advised to give up her job to look after him and who, because he does not receive constant attendance allowance, cannot get a carer's allowance? What will happen to such people?
  Mr. Portillo: I am wary about answering detailed cases, but in general, if that person were receiving invalidity
  1130
  benefit, he could receive an addition to his invalidity benefit in respect of his dependent wife. That would help to maintain their income.
  In all the talk of the decline of the family, we should recognise that the family remains the most important source of support to the elderly, and we could never hope, and should never aim, to displace it—nor, indeed, the voluntary sector which supports the elderly and the carers.
  Although we want as many elderly people as possible to live at home—and 95 per cent. of them do—we recognise that for some elderly people it is not possible or desirable. The House will be well aware of the very large contribution being made from supplementary benefit to support people who go into residential care or nursing homes. The figure has increased from £10 million in 1979 to £670 million in 1987. The number of people helped in that way has risen from 12,000 to 170,000.
  That raises a serious point. If we spend too much on people in homes, we may be putting community support at risk and people may have to enter homes because domiciliary support is not available. At present, we are considering a number of reports, particularly Sir Roy Griffiths' report. We shall study them carefully, as they merit, and bring forward proposals in due course.
  A point which underlies today's debate—it was certainly highlighted by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye—is the rapid rise in the numbers of elderly people. During the next century there will be one and half times as many pensioners as today, and broadly the same working population. Whatever levels of benefit are paid to the elderly in the next century, it must be sensible to encourage those of working age today to provide for their retirement, particularly at a time when participation in work by men and women is so high, when real wages are rising and unemployment is falling.
  The thrust of our pensions reforms has been to broaden choice in pensions, to heighten awareness of the need to provide for the future and to increase the numbers covered by occupational pension schemes. There is increasingly little reason why retirement and poverty should be in any way connected. Our reforms will continue to break that connection, but without the risk of impoverishing the working population of the future and without choking off economic growth.
  Our policies address every aspect of the pensioner's needs. Economic growth is essential if we are to support an increasing number of pensioners. That people should provide for the future alongside the state schemes is necessary, if high living standards are to be maintained into retirement. inflation must be controlled if that individual provision is to hold its value in the years when it is drawn upon.
  By pursuing those policies, there will be scope for families, on the one hand, and for the NHS, local authorities, social security and voluntary bodies, on the other, to provide support to the elderly: to enable them to remain in their homes while they can, and to take up residential places if they cannot.
  Today's motion—which, obviously, I oppose—is in many ways sadly misguided, but it does have one merit to which I pay tribute. It recognises that the needs of the elderly are complex and are about much more than just the level of pensions. The Government have addressed every aspect of the question, and most importantly the need for economic growth which is the key to everything else. That is why I commend our amendment to the House.
  8.4 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I listened with considerable interest to the Minister's observations, which echoed in their complacency the wording of the Government amendment. Perhaps at this point we should commemorate the fact that this week we are celebrating not only the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service, but the 40th anniversary of the establishment of national insurance benefits, of which the most well known and the most taken for granted is a reasonable income in retirement, a pension which should allow our fellow citizens to enjoy dignity and independence in their declining years.
  Perhaps the most vital lesson that the Government should have taught us—although, sadly, some of us seem to be slow learners—is that nothing can be taken for granted. In recent years sneaking worries have become apparent, even on the Conservative Benches, that the Government were being so unwise as to undermine, and even threatening to demolish, the National Health Service.
  With the exception of a few more expert or vigilant souls, the realisation has not yet become widespread that, at the same time as weakening the service to the sick, the Government are cutting back on the rest of the welfare state and are undermining that other post-war consensus. Pensioners who lived through at least one and in some cases two major wars have earned the right, not just to the lip-service of respect, but to financial support from us in their retirement, in the same way as they offered financial support to us in our childhood. What a tragic, wicked irony it is that those whose sacrifices helped to justify the establishment of the welfare state should be at the sharp end when, after 40 years, a Conservative Government start to demolish the welfare state, whose existence so many of them have silently resented for 40 years.
  Ministers and Tory Back Benchers speak of rising numbers of elderly people as if they are nothing but a problem. As the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, they do not celebrate the success of better health care, housing and diet in an extended life span, let alone make available public funds even to maintain, let alone improve, the benefits for which so many have sacrificed so much.
  I noted the Minister's observations about the level of spending on community care. I remind him again, as Opposition Members have reminded him so often, that most of the contributions to the Budget for which the Government like to claim credit in these debates is from Labour councils which the Government rate-capped and about whose expenditure on social services the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Prime Minister and Conservative Members complain.
  The Government complain—as the Minister almost strayed into doing today—about there being more pensioners, as if it were news, as if the pensioners had been beamed down from Mars, and as if they had no right still to be around. They call them a burden on the working population—to use the Prime Minister's words. Surely it must have been clear, at the latest since 1928, roughly how many pensioners there would be this year. Those to whom apparently it comes as a surprise are guilty of culpable ignorance on a grand scale. But the Government are guilty of something worse than ignorance. They are guilty of deliberately rejecting that consensus about our duty to our elderly citizens.
  1132
  The effect of the changes that the Government have made in pensions—to which the Minister referred hardly at all—is to reduce the provision made for pensions to well below the level provided today. I find it particularly disgraceful that at the same time as the Government are ensuring lower provisions for pensioners they are doing everything they can, for short-term political gain, to increase expectations.
  In the comparative secrecy of Standing or Select Committee, or in this debate in the Chamber—in a speech that I suspect the Minister will not circulate to the pensioner organisations in his constituency—Ministers may talk about the need to reduce pension expectations, but the propaganda machine is working in entirely the opposite direction. The Government are deliberately encouraging the young in particular into the new, so-called personal pension schemes. In the process they are also encouraging disparaging comparisons with the state scheme. I imagine that hardly any of those who are attracted by this propaganda will realise until, unfortunately, too near their own retirement that the comparison is with a state scheme that has been halved in value by the Government and that, even if their investments are successful, and even if they never have a sustained period of unemployment or sickness, the pension that even the better off can expect to receive will be worth less than the basic state pension of today.
  Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Lady denigrates the Government's efforts to encourage people to provide for their old age. Does she not agree that the vast majority of people take both pleasure and pride in providing for their old age?
  Mrs. Beckett: Either the hon. Gentleman has not been listening, or he has not understood a word of what I am saying. I do not denigrate the idea of people providing for their old age. I hope that many people will be able to earn enough, despite the Government's encouragement of a low-wage economy, to do precisely that. The last Labour Government did far more than this Government have done to encourage the growth of occupational pension schemes. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has clearly not looked at the record, if she thinks that that is amusing.
  The last Labour Government put enormous effort, as the occupational pensions industry will tell her, into encouraging the growth of good occupational pension schemes, for the benefits of which the Government attempt to claim credit. I do not disparage provision for one's old age, but I condemn the deliberate reduction of pension provision. That is precisely what the Government are doing. If the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) thinks that they are not, I recommend to him the technical annex to the 1985 White Paper. The Government are reducing pension provision, while at the same time talking up pension expectations. That is what is so dangerous and damaging, and that is what the Opposition condemn.
  The Government have savaged the state pension scheme and the standards that have to be met by occupational pension schemes because they say that the cost of the scheme, unamended, was miscalculated, that it was spiralling out of control and that it could not be afforded. That is just not true. The cost of the state earnings-related pension scheme was not significantly different in 1985, when this Government tried to abolish it,

  1133
  from the cost that was anticipated in 1975 when the scheme was introduced by the Labour Government, with the consent of the then Conservative Opposition. That is not just our judgment. It is the considered and publicly expressed view of the Government Actuary, who said, in words simple enough for even Conservative Members to understand, that it was the "political will" to meet the cost that had changed, not the cost itself.
  Even if it had been true that in 1985 the Government found pensioners of whose existence we were all ignorant in 1975, with financial consequences then unforeseen, the cuts in pension provision that this Government had already made would have more than taken care of the problem. The Government claimed in 1985 to be worried about the level of the national insurance contribution that would be needed to meet the full cost of the state earnings-related pensions scheme, although they ignored again the Government Actuary's figures—not ours—which showed a decline in the overall ratio of those dependent on the working population for support because of the effect of a declining birth rate. However, the break in the link between earnings and the basic state pension had already wiped out the extra cost by the time the Government made these proposals in 1985.
  The state earnings-related pension scheme—untouched and unmodified by the 1986 Act—would have done no more than make up for the dramatically declining value of the basic pension, leaving the pensioners of tomorrow at least no worse off, though no better off, than today's pensioners. But that was too much, too generous and too costly for this Government. In their determination to cut the cost of provision for retirement, in their dogmatic zeal to make a rotten buy—the Fowler plan for penury in retirement—look like a good buy, they halved the value of SERPS as well. They have deliberately legislated to reduce the standard of living of tomorrow's pensioners below that of today's pensioners, by whatever means their pension is provided.
  The Government, who justified the case for this change by saying that it would mean raising too much money through national insurance contributions, are in this year alone raising, through those contributions—which hit the lowest paid the worst—£2,000 million more than they need for the national insurance benefits now in payment. They are making a profit of a cool £2,000 million this year at the expense either of the pensioner or of the national insurance contributor, depending on how one chooses to look at it. But no matter how one looks at it, it cannot be squared with the Government's concern for the national insurance contributor, as expressed in 1985.
  Nor should we look too narrowly just at pensioners' incomes. The Government have taken to boasting—the Under-Secretary of State did it again today—that, thanks to the improvement in occupational pensions—fostered by previous Governments of all colours, even previous Conservative Governments, who were more sensible than this one, because of the post-war consensus of which I spoke but which the Government are so spectacularly breaking—the average standard of living for pensioners has risen sharply in recent years.
  Mr. Favell: Does the hon. Lady accept the Government's figures that, without change, the cost of the
  1134
  SERPS scheme would rise from £200 million a year now to £23,000 million a year by 2033? How would that be paid for?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman's last figure.
  Mr. Favell: It was £23,000 million a year.
  Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I heard it, but I am not entirely sure that I accept it. I cannot recall from memory whether it is correct. However, again I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening to me.
  There has been no change in the cost of SERPS, to which the Conservative party agreed in 1975 when in opposition and then in 1985 when in government. There was no argument then about the fact that there would be a peak in the year that the hon. Gentleman quoted and that at that stage the level of national insurance contributions would need to be raised. However, we are talking about a period of 50 years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts—perhaps it is not mentioned in the brief with which he has been supplied—that by 1985 that cost was well out of the window. The Government had more than saved on the damage that they had done to the basic pension, whatever might have been expected in the increased cost of SERPS.
  That is the point that I am making to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, little though they like it. Whether or not they recognise it, their Government smashed the standard of living that could have been enjoyed from the basic pension, and now they have done the same thing with SERPS. The inevitable result, according to the Government's own figures, set out with admirable clarity in the technical annex to the 1985 White Paper, is that in future the total pension will be less than the basic state pension today. That is what the Government have legislated for, and that is what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have voted for. I am not surprised that they do not like it. They will like it even less as time goes on, but it is the pensioners who will like it least of all.
  The Government boast of the improvement in the average standard of living of pensioners, but it is the Government who have done so much to claw back the benefit of those improvements. The Government penalise those with occupational pensions of over £35 a week—a figure that has remained unchanged for years. That penalty does not apply to pensioners whose extra money comes from investment. It applies only to those for whom it comes from their work. In nine years the Government have increased the basic pension by only 5 per cent. in real terms, compared with 20 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government in half the time. At the same time, they have doubled VAT, put special taxes on gas and electricity and scrapped the concessionary scheme for standing charges for fuel that the Labour Government introduced.
  Mr. David Martin: Is the hon. Lady able to explain why the electorate, so badly treated, returned a Conservative Government in 1983 and then in 1987 with such massive majorities? Why did the hon. Lady's party lose so resoundingly in 1979 if the Labour Government were treating so many pensioners so well?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may have heard me comment earlier that some people appear not to have

  1135
  learnt the lesson that is taught by the figures. The Government won a victory, but does that make any difference to the figures that I have given? Does it mean that the Government are providing more money than I have identified? Does it mean that they are not basically cutting the cost of pensions and of SERPS? No; it means that they got away with it. It means also—and I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman thinks he will serve in the House—that some future Government, of whatever party, will live bitterly to rue the day that his Government took the action that they did. Comments of the kind that he has made will be utterly irrelevant then, as they are fairly irrelevant now.
  This is the Government who—as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye commented—have cut £650 million from rent and rate rebates. Most of that has been at the expense of those having only small war or occupational pensions, about which the Under-Secretary of State has been boasting. This is the Government who offered nothing to the oldest and poorest pensioners, who—as was said by the hon. Member for Stockport-never had the opportunity to provide for their retirement because they never enjoyed a decent wage during all the years of their working lives.
  Pensioners have been given no advice except, to be fair, that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who said that they should mortgage their homes, or give up holidays that they cannot anyway afford, to pay for operations that the Government will not fund because they choose instead to give the money to the wealthiest in the land. This is the Government who offer no extra help, no matter what the need, to the pensioner couple who have saved just about enough to pay for their funerals. This is the Government who have reintroduced into a system founded on hard won rights the need to beg for charity.
  The Under-Secretary of State and his hon. Friends have been, and are, very complacent about the Government's record on pensions. To some of them I do the justice—although they may not care for it—of assuming that they are unaware of the consequences and implications of the Government decisions for which they voted. To them I say bluntly that the Government are betraying this country. They should he ashamed that those who have earned so much now receive so little. Unless the policies which the Government have been pursuing are reversed, in 30 or 40 years' time hon. Members, in whatever part of the House they may sit, will be as astonished as they will be aghast at the legacy of poverty and neglect that the present Government bequeathed to them.
  We for our part remain convinced that it is the duty, as much as it should be the pride, of the family of the nation to care for its elderly members. It is a duty that we shall not shirk.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I represent a constituency that has one of the highest proportions of pensioners in its population. When I was elected to the House nearly 11 years ago, one of the major issues then was the disastrous effect that the policies of the last Labour Government were having on pensioners, with the erosion of their savings by inflation, of their investment income by taxation, and of their dividends by control. At that time, Labour was being sustained in office by the party responsible for the motion we are debating this evening.
  1136
  Today it is a different story, but as memories fade, pensioners should be frequently reminded of what they and their predecessors went through 10 to 15 years ago. Compared with their predecessor, this Government have a first-class record in responding to pensioners' demands and needs. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to some of those responses this afternoon. The conquest of double-figure inflation, which was the pensioners' worst enemy, has to be our major achievement, with an average of 5 per cent. inflation compared with 15 per cent. under the last Labour Government. There is also the continuing fulfilment of the Prime Minister's pledge that the Government will never allow the value of state pensions to fall behind the cost of living. There was also our response to pensioners' complaints, which brought forward the annual increase from November to April.
  The Government's responses also included an entitlement by law to the annual Christmas bonus, which Labour abolished for two years because its economy could not afford it. The abolition of the grossly unfair domestic rating system, for which elderly owner-occupiers have been crying out for decades, is now in sight. As was mentioned in debate yesterday, pensioners in particular have also benefited from the real increase in resources to the National Health Service since 1979. That has brought a 20 per cent. increase in hospital nurses caring for geriatric patients, a 34 per cent. increase in consultant geriatricians, and an increase in the number of hip replacement operations front 28,000 a year in 1978 to 40,000 today.
  Those are all achievements that cannot be ignored arid for which the Government deserve full credit. However, I accept that none of that suggests that we should not be doing more for pensioners, because there is more to be done. Inflation is still far too high at 4 to 5 per cent. That represents a halving of the value of savings during the average period of retirement, and that is higher than the figure other countries have been achieving for several years. I hope that the Government will redouble their efforts to achieve their target of zero inflation.
  Although the majority of pensioners have a second income and are doing well by it, 15 per cent. still rely entirely on the state retirement pension. Many of them have been unable to afford to invest in a second pension, with war service and the post-war years denying them the opportunities which exist today. The time has come for those pensioners to enjoy a better share in the economic success achieved under our Government, and I want all future annual increases in the basic state pension to be at least 1 per cent. higher than inflation.
  The Government continue to provide extra help to the over-80s—with, for example, the extra allowance in last year's Budget and a higher premium of income support—but I ask them now to replace the historic 25p increase, which has to be an insult, with a better deal for those reaching the age of 80.
  Another anachronism is the earnings rule, which the Government pledged to abolish in each of the last three elections. Maintaining a rewarding occupation is one of the best incentives to a healthy old age. To remove all remaining restrictions will cost about £85 million, and l hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do so in his next Budget.
  Thanks to the prosperity generated by the Government's policies, in which the majority of pensioners have shared, income is no longer the problem that it was.

  1137
  Today, many old people are more in fear of bad health, of loneliness, and of the immobility that often results from having no family, friends or neighbours who really care—bearing in mind that 30 per cent. of all pensioners live alone and that 80 per cent. of them are women. I should like the Government to present a package of policies complementing their pension strategy and offering new incentives and encouragement to provide for health and housing needs in old age. For example, I hope that the Treasury will, as part of my right hon. Friend's NHS review, concede tax relief to pensioners wishing to take out private health insurance.
  I hope that we have not heard the last of attempts to help the elderly to retain their financial independence by realising the asset value of their homes, as was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), with his scheme for this year's Finance Bill, giving tax relief on home annuity loans, which the Government have declined to accept. I hope also that further thought will be given to schemes bringing the private provision of sheltered accommodation for the elderly with supporting health services—such as that pioneered by McCarthy and Stone in my own constituency—within the means of all who have the asset of a home to realise.
  Finally, I make a plea on behalf of those pensioners whose investments in Barlow Clowes are now so obviously at risk. They have been asked to register their interests with the liquidators and to report to FIM BRA where financial intermediaries have been involved. Many elderly people will be confused by all that. Will my hon. Friend ensure that special advice and assistance will be made available, perhaps at post offices, to those elderly people who need it in respect of Barlow Clowes?
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): As we have heard already tonight, the problems faced by the elderly must be seen in the context of the tremendous growth in the proportion of elderly people in society. An OECD study referred to in today's Financial Times notes that the percentage of the population aged 65 and over in the United Kingdom will increase substantially from just over 15 per cent. in 1985 to 28·7 per cent. in 2050. Alongside that figure is the realisation that health spending on the over-65s is more than four times as high per capita as spending on the under-65s. For the over-75s, the proportion rises to almost six times. Figures published by the Welsh Office suggest that there will be an increase of 50,000 in people aged over 75 in the next 20 years, and that in the United Kingdom generally there will be over 1 million more pensioners by 2025 and a substantial increase in the number of those over 75 and over 85.
  The Government recognised that their stated policy of caring for old people in their own homes and within their local communities had not been working, so they asked Sir Roy Griffiths to prepare a report. It is clear that we now need a fresh look at community care in the light of the increase in the elderly population that we face in the next three decades.
  The Public Accounts Committee report published on 25 April this year shows that between 1980 and 1985 the number of elderly people accommodated in private and
  1138
  voluntary homes increased by over 100 per cent., and that the level of supplementary benefit used to finance that accommodation rose from £18 million to an estimated £459 million in 1986. Clearly, substantial additional resources have been targeted to that sector. But the same report also pointed out that up to 23 per cent. of claimants entering residential homes could have stayed in their own homes for longer periods had appropriate community support services been made available. In my view, resources have been targeted in the wrong direction.
  The PAC report said that since 1974 the Department of Health and Social Security had, under statute, required the NHS and local authorities to co-operate in planning and operating complementary health care services. The report also noted, however, that progress on producing jointly planned strategies had been slow and was hindered by differences in planning time scales, in accountability and management structure and, in some areas, in geographical boundaries between health and local authorities. The lack of joint planning is one of the reasons why care in the community remains a dream rather than a reality, and the Government must address the issue now.
  In 1976, the Department introduced joint finance arrangements under which area and district health authorities made annual grants to local authorities and voluntary bodies for approved community-based schemes. Grants are for set periods, and are subject to tapering in the final years. As the House knows, there has been a growing reluctance on the part of local authorities to take up that initiative, as they are ultimately responsible for continued funding and set the charge against other priorities that they may have for spending within their own budgets.
  The National Audit Office report, published in October last year, also referred to the difficulties encountered in joint planning and collaboration between authorities and various agencies. The report pointed out that supplementry benefit is paid to claimants in residential care without any assessment of the need for that care. It referred to pilot studies commissioned by the Department, disclosing that in about 93 per cent. of cases examined the claimants were found to be in need of care. If, however, the appropriate accommodation and intensive support services had been available in the community, that figure would have been substantially reduced.
  In my view, there should be a shift away from care in residential homes towards more support for community-based services. The National Audit Office report that some elderly people currently in residential care could continue to live in their own homes for longer periods if such support were available. This highlights the importance of providing such reports where necessary, and points to the need for further research on whether some forms of assessment should be undertaken to ensure value for money for both the resident—who should obtain the most appropriate form of care—and, of course, the taxpayer.
  Now we come to the Griffiths report, which the Government are so reluctant to debate here. That report on community care, entitled "Agenda for Action", addressed itself to the problems encountered with joint planning and collaboration between the various agencies, and recommended that the main responsibility for community care of the old and other priority groups should be concentrated in the hands of local authorities. The services—including residential care, day centres, hostels, home helps and meals on wheels—are now run

  1139
  variously by the NHS, health authorities, the private sector and local authority social services departments. Under the Griffiths proposals, local authorities would handle the amount currently spent through social security on places in private and voluntary residential care homes.
  Sir Roy Griffiths spent a year investigating the way in which the switch from long-stay hospitals to care in the community is operating. We all have experiences of the problems that that creates for the elderly. I am sure that every hon. Member will have experienced the nightmare of being telephoned by families at the weekend, or perhaps late at night, saying that the hospital insists that an old person leaves and goes either home or to a residential home immediately. Such families are put into a tremendous quandary. They are faced with old people being asked to leave hospital because they no longer need the acute medical attention that they have been receiving. They may have had a period of recuperation, but the families are then faced with a problem because the support for community care is not there.
  The conclusions of Sir Roy Griffiths match those already outlined in the reports by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee: that a clear responsibility must be given to one body or authority for monitoring and developing care in the community, because joint planning has failed. I fear—as, I am sure, do many other hon. Members—that, owing to the Government's pathological antipathy towards local authorities, the Griffiths recommendations will not be acted on, and we shall face the massive population explosion among the elderly without a coherent strategy.
  Let me again draw to the House's attention the decision by the DHSS and the Welsh Office to withdraw funding from the research team for the care of the elderly, based at the University of Wales college of medicine in Cardiff, from January next year. It seems to me the height of folly to withdraw funding from a department that is looking at a number of the problems that we have been addressing tonight, and has gained expertise not only in monitoring specific schemes but in piloting new ideas.
  Poverty levels among pensioners in Wales are on the increase. Eighteen per cent. of pensioner households in Wales were wholly dependent on benefits in 1987. Now 20 per cent. are. Coupled with the cuts in housing benefit for pensioners with modest savings, Government policies have hit pensioners especially hard in recent years. I urge the Government to set pensions at a level that will ensure that pensioners can live with the dignity and the measure of independence to which they are entitled.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) spoke with great conviction and sincerity, and I pay tribute to what he said. Few of us would not share many of the sentiments that he expressed about the importance of community care, which is an accepted trend in modern attitudes towards supporting the elderly. To some extent, local health authorities are already putting his views into practice. Of course there are financial constraints on them and thus on the pace at which change can take place, but the hon. Gentleman did the House and his constituents a service in reminding us of the importance of this subject.
  I thought the hon. Gentleman's speech was in stark contrast to those of some Opposition Members this
  1140
  evening. For example, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) indulged in a bit of political hyperbole, not to say downright cheek. Anyone would think that she had not been a Labour Member between 1974 and 1979 and that she dissociated herself entirely from a Government who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) reminded us, was responsible for inflation at 27 per cent. and a standard rate of income tax of 35 per cent. Let us not forget that that Government took away the pensioners' Christmas bonus for two years, or that they increased the retirement pension by 0·6 per cent. a year during those five years, compared with the real increase every year under this Government of 2·7 per cent—a total increase of more than 18 per cent. in real terms.
  The hon. Lady was a member of the party and Government that presided over a time of economic disaster at the end of which we were led to the International Monetary Fund with our begging bowl. It was a time when the lot of the poor and the elderly was meagre. Not a pensioner in the country would swap the financial support they receive from the Government today for that which they received in 1979. They are all better off——
  Mr. Tom Clarke: A number of my constituents worked in the oil industry and are now pensioners. What benefit have they gained from oil revenues under this Government?
  Mr. Nelson: If it is not self-evident to the hon. Gentleman that the country's economy and standards of social support and of living after tax have improved immeasurably, nothing that I say would be likely to persuade him. The comparison that I made was fair.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is highly respected on both sides of the House and I pay tribute to what he said. His speech was delivered in measured tones and I, like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, believe that there is a good deal in his party's motion. However, he has not been in government, and his party always indulges in generous promises at other people's expense. As it is never likely to be in government, it can afford to be more generous about not having a capital limit for entitlement to housing benefit.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister said that the Government had adjusted their view on this important matter in response to representations. The extraordinary thing is that, when the Goverment do something that is apparently wrong or unpopular, and there is an outcry, they are called intransigent if they do nothing about it. But if, in response to parliamentary and public pressure, they recognise that changes need to be made, they are accused of only looking after their own for narrow political purposes. Of course we are looking after the wider public interest and seeking to be re-elected—that is wholly proper and honourable. No doubt we should not be re-elected if we did not deliver. So far the record shows that the electorate and pensioners are at least reasonably happy with the record of the Government, to which I pay tribute tonight.
  On top of the genuine increase in the state retirement pension and the reduction in inflation, there has been a significant increase in real-terms expenditure on the Health Service. About £9·2 billion per annum has been allocated within Health Service expenditure to elderly people. Their interests have by no means been forgotten. Infrastructural

  1141
  social support has been offered them, as well as direct financial payments; the Government have an exemplary record on that.
  Nevertheless, I believe there is a consensus in the House—based on visits to our constituents and talking to those of them who are elderly—that many pensioners still find it difficult to make ends meet. I represent a constituency with nearly double the national average number of pensioners, including a growing proportion who are very elderly. It is not only a matter of money, but of life becoming much more complicated. People do not always understand their rights, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is to undertake a publicity campaign to emphasise what can be achieved if people apply to the DHSS.
  More elderly people live longer now, and more of them live alone, so the costs of accommodation cannot be shared as they were in the past. Capital costs for those who live in properties that they own—the costs of repair and renewal—are significant deductions from their savings. I know many elderly people who do not qualify for financial support and are frightened about how they will pay for major items of expenditure that come along—£500 here, £700 there. Those sums represent a major proportion of their accumulated savings. We must recognise that, as I think the Government are trying to do in building up personal provision for the future. But many people face a short-term problem because they have seen the real value of their accumulated earnings and savings eroded in recent years.
  Not unnaturally, many of our constituents look at their net position. They are not like Ministers, who espouse the virtues of an improvement in a particular policy for which they are responsible. Our constituents count up the net result of rent increases for their council houses, changes in housing benefit and milk bills. They work out exactly whether they are better or worse off. If they are worse off, they are worried about how they will cover the costs. So, although we have an exemplary record of maintaining and improving standards of living for the elderly, and at least of meeting our manifesto commitments, we have a particular obligation to improve the lot of the elderly in a way that helps the least well-off and maintains the relativity of the system, so that those who have provided for themselves see the benefits of so doing during their lifetimes and are not penalised to the extent that others who have not done so are underwritten by income support and other means of social security assistance.
  I suggest two themes or policies that draw on some of tonight's comments. The first concerns targeting financial assistance for the elderly. In their social security review and legislation, the Government have acted rightly and of necessity. The main reason for what they have done was the need to target assistance from limited financial resources on those whose need was greatest. That was wholly defensible and a proper responsibility of Government. Now, having done that, with all its attendant difficulties, my hon. Friend the Minister should seek opportunities to build up the level of support for pensioners more generally. He should not in future try to pre-empt any additional resources that he can argue out of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for the least well-off.
  That is a controversial view, and others are entitled to take a different view. Some of my elderly constituents are
  1142
  just above the line of entitlement to all sorts of support, are badly off and finding it tough to make ends meet. We have done what we can for those on the lowest means. At least the real value of that support will be maintained, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East suggested, there is a substantial case to be made for improving the level of the state retirement pension ahead of the level of inflation.
  Many of my constituents do not receive income support, housing benefit, lower-cost, local authority-provided sheltered accommodation, a free television licence or help with their fuel or with the cost of furniture removal, yet they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered well off. In fact, many of them are significantly worse off than those who receive and are entitled to this panoply of support. Those people come to me and say, as they do to other hon. Members, "What is the purpose of providing for myself during my working life? Where is the equity and fairness in helping those who are less well off and have made less provision for themselves so that they are better off than I am? What prospect is there for an improvement in my standard of living?" I tell them that their best prospect lies in steady improvement of the state retirement pension, at least to the level of inflation, and perhaps over and above that. If we can expand the economy, as has happened in recent years, there should be every reason to expect real increases in the state retirement pension.
  I am drawing on part of the content of the SLD party motion and on part of the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South, who pressed my hon. Friend the Minister not to forget the case for improvement in the statutory retirement pension. He will have our full support in arguing the case with Treasury Ministers. The time to do that is not a year before an election. There should be a steady improvement year on year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East suggested.
  That in itself is not enough. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East was unsuccessful in his attempt to bring about a change in the tax law for elderly home-owners to release some of their capital, I believe that we should begin to consider the problems that we have built up over a generation of tax relief in tying up people's capital in non-income producing assets. Many people in my constituency, which has relatively high property capital values, are sitting on properties worth very significant sums of money, but are living in genteel poverty and sometimes finding it difficult to afford to put on the electric heater during the winter. There is a paradox between the capital values of people's accommodation and the Government's unwillingness or inability to change the tax laws to release some of that capital to support those people during their retirement.
  I should like to see quite a different scheme. I should like to see a new form of variable tax relief over and above the personal allowances built into our tax regime. People should, at different stages in their life, be able to adjust to different expenditure necessities. For example, when people are young and get married, they probably need the maximum tax relief for a mortgage. The current value of that relief is probably about £800 a year. That is the value of basic rate of tax on the average level of building society interest on a mortgage of £30,000. That £800 could and should be used during people's lifetimes for other forms of designated expenditure.

  1143
  That would not be an additional personal allowance that would allow them to spend the money more generally and perhaps draw in imports and fuel inflation, but a special allowance to spend on designated areas of need and responsibility. I would include among those both private education and private health provision, although those are contentious issues, but they should include, in addition, provision which the elderly can make themselves. For example, if an elderly person has paid off his or her mortgage, he or she is not able to take out a new mortgage on that property and obtain tax relief on the interest paid. Why not? They should be able to do so as pensioners. However, as I understand it, they are able to borrow money secured against the property, purchase an annuity with that money and obtain tax relief on that loan.
  That smacks of the "nanny" state which says, "We'll give you tax relief, but only if you give the money back to an institution to manage for you". We should give it to the people and let them decide what is in their own best interests. A more moveable tax allowance that people can use at various times of their life with the ability to release the capital built up in their homes for designated expenditure, which would be of perceived value to them, would be a more flexible and desirable system. It would allow any combination of that expenditure within the allowance.
  I hope that in the fundamental review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is undertaking he will be open-minded to some more imaginative schemes, such as the one I have proposed, as there is a long-term problem to be addressed and redressed. Just as we have made a good start and have a record of which we can be proud, so we should not lose sight of the need to tackle the problems of the future. The best way to do so is to have a further improvement in the real value of the state retirement pension during the remainder of the Government's period of office and to change the reliefs and allowances so that we can release the capital that elderly people have accumulated and help them to help themselves, as they all desire.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: The recent housing benefit cuts are among the worst examples of the thoughtless, uncaring attitude that we have come to expect of the Government. The Government say that they want people to be independent, but, at the same time, they penalise the most fiercely independent section of our society—our senior citizens.
  Those are men and women whose lives have been governed by hard work, thrift, duty and independence—in fact, by all the values that the Government claim to extol. They are also men and women who have worked and fought for a fairer society in which being old or poor, or both, was neither a shame nor a crime, yet all the Government can offer them is a kick in the teeth, telling them that they are of no account in the twilight years of their lives. We all know that those people could never begin to compete in the get-rich-quick jungle of man-mind-thyself Thatcherism. Even worse, the cuts have put fear and terror into the hearts and minds of senior citizens because they remind them of the depression years and of that most dreaded by-product of Victorian values, the workhouse.
  1144
  I have already written to the Prime Minister outlining the hardships that the cuts are creating for senior citizens in my constituency. All that she could offer them was the hope of transitional payments—in other words, a postponement of their agony. When I raised the matter of benefit cuts, she misled the House with her answer, showing that she is either unaware or simply does not care about the cruel effects that her Government's policies are having on the lives of ordinary people. Every week in my surgery, I witness these cruel effects on many senior citizens, who, through no fault of their own, have few or no savings and are worried and frightened because they do not know how to make ends meet.
  I can give some examples of this from my constituency. I recall an elderly man from the Carnwadric area whose rent and rates bill has risen by a third, an elderly lady in the Craigbank area who now has to pay an extra £30 a month, an elderly couple in the Arden area who face a 50 per cent. increase and an old lady in north Pollok who must now pay a third of her total income in rent and rates. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg. That such men and women are reduced to pleading for mercy in the twilight years of their lives is a crime against humanity.
  The effects of the housing benefit cuts on the lives of the elderly make a mockery of the freedom from want for which the Labour party fought so valiantly—a battle that it won—after the war. Instead, this policy marks a return to the darkest days in the nation's history, when the old and the poor were tossed aside, to be treated as less than human. It is a tragedy that these uncaring days have returned. I beg the House to reverse this vicious policy, so that dignity and self-respect can be restored to our senior citizens in the closing chapters of their lives.
  9 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: In their recent treatment of pensioners, the Government are most to be congratulated on their targeting. We have tried to help those who are most in need, and to a large extent we have succeeded. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), whom I am delighted to see has returned to the Chamber after a lengthy absence—at least she.is here, unlike most Labour Back Benchers—said that we withdrew millions of pounds in benefit in our recent changes to social security and housing benefit. She omitted to say that the main losers of such benefit were asset-owning pensioners or pensioners with savings as substantial as £8,000 in the bank.
  It is crucial, when we talk about old-age pensioners, that we should be aware that we are talking not about a homogeneous economic group but about a group of people among whom there are wide divisions of income, comfort and provision, as there are in the rest of the population. Over 85 per cent. of our old-age pensioners enjoy some form of second income.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Enjoy?
  Miss Widdecombe: I imagine that one does enjoy a second income. Even when we say that, we have to distinguish between the nature and extent of the second income—[Interruption.] I am told that I have something in common with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Perhaps if he had been present throughout the debate, as I have been, he would have heard this point answered before.

  1145
  Those pensioners who enjoy a second income also fall into various categories. There are those who may have substantial occupational pensions, there are those who will have the state earnings-related pension scheme addition and there are those who will have only a few pounds in interest from savings. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in his plea for some attention to be given to those pensioners who are just above the line below which they might have received various supports and benefits that we have so rightly targeted on the most needy and poor. In any system of benefits there will be some sort of trap so that people who are just above the line below which they are entitled to support are not as well off as people below the line who receive support and whose incomes are considerably enhanced. In our future targeting, we should pay particular attention to those people.
  Mrs. Beckett: I think that this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Lady address the House. I feel sure, therefore, that it is uncharacteristic that she did little less than justice to my observations. I drew attention to the fact that there are those among pensioners who are losing out, some who have some assets. The flavour of the hon. Lady's observations is that many of those pensioners have substantial assets, but most of those who lost out from the Government's recent housing benefit cuts have small occupational pensions or war pensions, for example. It is not those with substantial assets who are losing out especially. I think that I am correct in saying that only 100,000 benefited from the change in the capital allowance while 7 million lost out. That implies that the vast bulk of the 7 million were at the bottom end of the scale, not at the top.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady does less than justice to the analysis that she has made. She makes the rather sweeping statement that most of those who have lost out are in the narrow trap that I have been talking about, where there is real need, but I think that the hon. Lady and I would be able to find some common ground. The thrust of our targeting was to ensure that those with a property in which neither they nor a dependent relative live, or with, in my view, substantial savings in the bank, to the tune of £8,000, lost the most significantly.
  We have targeted, I think admirably, on the care of the elderly in the National Health Service. We have 22 per cent. more nurses engaged in geriatric care now than there were in 1979. There are 34 per cent. more consultant geriatricians now than there were in 1979. This is an area in which we could concentrate specific targeting. The number of home helps has been increased by about 20 per cent., while day-care places have increased by about 25 per cent. As various sedentary Opposition Members have suggested during the debate, there are far more old-age pensioners now. It is right, therefore, that we target NHS care on the elderly.
  We must continue our policy of targeting NHS care and social services care on old-age pensioners who are still able to live at home, given the right levels of support. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the
  1146
  significant successes that have been achieved in targeting care, especially care in the community, which has often been deeply misrepresented.
  I hope that Opposition Members will not continue to talk in blanket terms about substantial increases in the old-age pension and in benefits for the elderly, such as the abolition of standing charges on fuel.
  Mr. Skinner: Why not?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am coming to that. I hope also that they will not talk generally about the abolition of the television licence fee. Old-age pensioners do not form a homogeneous income group. Not all of them need to be exempt from standing charges on fuel and the television licence fee, for example. These are benefits, if these charges are abolished, that will have to be paid for by others who are earning substantially less than the income of many old-age pensioners. There is an argument for targeting and for supporting what the Government have so far done in their targeting.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I would have been delighted to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene had he been present throughout the debate. I might then have thought that he had a contribution to make that would be relevant.
  I support what the Government are doing. I hope that we shall hear more from them about specific targeting. I believe that it is what old-age pensioners want. My pensioner constituents always ask, "Why not concentrate on those of us who do not have an income over and above the state pension?" That is the road along which we are proceeding and the road along which I hope we shall continue. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to address himself, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and I have urged, to those who are just above the line, as it were.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry:.The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) amazed one or two of us in many ways, particularly when she said that she had something in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The mind boggles at that and my hon. Friend has a lot of explaining to do when the debate is over.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) is leaving the Chamber—[Interruption.] I see that he has returned with his usual athleticism. His speech, fascinating as it was, revealed the different worlds in which we live and the north-south divide. He talked about an extra £450 and £500 that many of his constituents have to find on occasion. Many of the pensioners in my constituency worry about whether they can have margarine or butter. The hon. Gentleman is living in a different world. He said that there are few senior citizens who would prefer to live under a Labour Government than a Conservative one. He is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I invite him to come to my constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde in Tameside so that he can see for himself the difference between the constituency that he represents and those represented by Opposition Members.
  We receive long-winded letters from the Minister. As my hon. Friends know, I am a charitable guy. I know that he is a young Minister, but I had hoped that somebody was

  1147
  twisting his arm and that he did not believe what he was writing. However, when we see him at the Dispatch Box, it is clear that he believes every word and any sympathy that I ever had for him drains away.
  I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate, because it gives us the opportunity to speak up for a section of our constituents who are grossly disadvantaged by the Government's so-called reform of the social security system. I do not often get an opportunity to give my examples at Prime Minister's Question Time, so I shall take this chance to place on record some specific examples from my constituency.
  When the Government introduced the new social security system they said that their objective was to "target resources" on those in "greatest need." Their aim is a bit out, since they are miles from the target. I have six surgeries every month, as do many other hon. Members, and if those who come to my surgery are not those at whom the Government wish to target the resources, there is something drastically wrong with our society. We know that there is no justice in our society under this Government.
  I agree that some pensioners have been misguided up to now, because they have supported the Government. If a Labour Government had been elected in June last year, a single pensioner would by now have received an extra £275, and a pensioner couple would have received an extra £440. Even in Chichester—I see that the hon. Member for Chichester has again left the Chamber—the pensioners would have done much better.
  It is so odd that the generation which fought so hard in the second world war and helped to found the Health Service—we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service—is being treated with such contempt by the Government. Our pensioners deserve a much better deal. They need to be treated with honour and respect things that the Government know nothing about.
  Each week I and other hon. Members receive hundreds of letters—certainly tens of letters—from pensioners who are in a desperate plight. Some plead for financial help. I know that many hon. Members think that the question of the television licence is peripheral to the debate—although the hon. Member for Chichester did raise the subject—but to many of our pensioners a television is a lifeline. My old mum, who will be 95 next Thursday, relies greatly on her television set. She told me the other day that she wanted the set taken away because the Prime Minister appears on it rather too much for her liking.
  I had a letter from a 76-year-old gentleman who lives in Dukinfield in my constituency. He was worried about his television licence. I know that the Prime Minister is greatly interested in television and in satellite techniques and new stations.
  Mr. Skinner: The Prime Minister is bound to be interested in television and in all these satellite channels. She has 13 television sets in 10 Downing street and does not have to buy a licence for any of them. She gets free heat, free lighting and does not pay rates or rent on 10 Downing street or on Chequers. Our 9·5 million pensioners should receive the same treatment. Then there are all the people with ministerial cars stuck outside to carry them from one panelled room to the next.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman should address the House.
  Mr. Skinner: I am addressing another pensioner.
  Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was looking at me during his intervention. I hope he does not think that I am a pensioner. In his characteristic style, my hon. Friend has spelt it out far better than I could.
  The Prime Minister is engaged in a great deal of activity on the television satellite front. Why can she not give our pensioners free television licences? My 76-year-old constituent was told by Tameside council, quite rightly at that time, that as he was linked to a mobile warden scheme he could get a concessionary television licence. Now the Government have changed the rules. The hon. Member for Maidstone said that she hoped that certain things would not happen, but things are getting worse because people who had concessions will no longer get them.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Pendry: No, I shall not give way, because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The hon. Lady knows that what I say is true and that people no longer qualify.
  Another clawback from these people is to be deprecated. The 76-year-old gentleman whom I mentioned lives in an old-age pensioner's flat. In my area of Tameside the demand for social services grows each year, but the financial constraints upon the council are more severe. I can tell the House that 4,930 people in my borough are aged 75 or over and that 40 per cent. of them live alone. Of the 85-year-olds, 20 per cent. are bedfast, 20 per cent. are mentally confused and 50 per cent. are unable to bathe themselves. The Government's respeonse is increasingly to shunt people over to carers in my area.
  Every step that penalises pensioners, such as cuts in housing benefit, makes more emotional and physical demands on the 11 per cent. of adults in Tameside whom the local authority has identified as carers. Many of those 18,000 carers end up in part-time employment, with low pay and few prospects. It is a vicious circle and tire Government should address themselves to the problem.
  The cases that my pensioner constituents have been bringing to me since the benefit changes are heartbreaking. There is a single woman of 69 who has been retired for 12 years because of polio arthritis. She lives on her own in a one-bedroom flat. In 1987 she received £57·96 a week and had to pay £12·95 a week in rent. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear this. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) does not live a million miles from me and must have constituents with similar problems. I am trying to get through to Treasury Ministers to bring to their attention the problems affecting the people whom we represent. After that woman had paid her rent she was left with £45·01 to live on. Now her pension has been increased by £1·49 a week, but she has to pay £17 in rent and is more than £2 a week worse off. Last week she told me that a mistake had been made and that she would now be £5·61 a week worse off.
  The attack upon pensioners is nothing short of barbaric. In the 1980s it is a disgrace that their living standards should be worsened. Thankfully, the pensioners are fighting back. In my constituency the Thameside Pensioners Action Committee, along with many hundreds

  1149
  of thousands of other pensioners, will be going to various conventions, including the national pensioners' convention, which will be held soon in Manchester. They will be fighting for a better deal.
  The Government must not be complacent. We accept that they won the election, but they will not be returned again unless they adopt a more concerned approach to pensioners. I hope that, as a result of this debate and debates in other arenas, pensioners will begin to realise that the Government do not really care for them, their future or their living standards, and that they will increasingly turn to the Labour party, so that the smugness will go out of Tory Members at the next election.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: I was glad to hear the Minister emphasise the duty of those in work to care for those unable to care for themselves, not only through their taxes by supporting the Government in their attack on inflation—that sure enemy of pensioners' savings. He also emphasised the need for people to give time—that valuable commodity—to help the elderly combat their worst enemy, loneliness.
  I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and other Opposition Members imply that anyone who retires is more interested in dependency than independence. The Labour party often gives the impression that when somebody reaches retirement his or her useful life comes to an end. Many hon. Members, and the Prime Minister herself, are entitled to a retirement pension. Many leaders of pensionable age, not only in political circles but in industry and trade unions, continue to work.
  The vast majority of pensioners continue to lead full and useful lives. It is pure nonsense to suggest that life begins at 40 and ends at 60 or 65. Many people over that age continue to work full time and those who do not give valuable service elsewhere. They serve in the voluntary sector; many voluntary bodies would collapse were it not for those of pensionable age who work hard for their fellow citizens, many of whom are older than themselves. Many pensioners give time to their families and friends and give the benefit of their wisdom to local authorities and other public bodies.
  Of course, as they get older, many pensioners become frail and dependent. Society must ensure that they do not want for care, but we should never refer to older people en masse as a problem. They are not. For that reason, I am extremely cautious about the possible implementation of the recommendations of the Griffiths report on community care, to which several Opposition Members referred.
  I find it an unedifying prospect that local authority social workers should set up systems to identify and assess people who may need care and support and then, as the report suggests—taking account of the views and wishes of the person to be cared for—informal carers would decide what packages of care, whether provided directly or indirectly, would best suit their needs. I do not suggest that social workers are not well-meaning, but I can think of nothing more certain to accelerate old age than to smother an elderly person with care, to make him dependent and destroy his self-esteem.
  1150
  An aunt of mine died recently at the age of 93. She was known to us as Auntie Connie, as she was to everyone, certainly for the last 20 years of her life. She had a very difficult life. She worked hard to provide for herself and when she retired, having bought her own home, she took enormous pleasure in looking after herself. She was entitled only to a basic pension, but, having saved, she did not need any other help. She was proud of that. There are millions like her.
  When looking after the house became too much for her—and she decided when the time came: no one else did—she made the decision to go into sheltered accommodation. She was fortunate enough to be able to go into an Anchor housing association sheltered home. She lived there for 15 years, for the last six or seven of which she was totally blind. She considered that she lived a self-sufficient, decent life. She had a bedsit, with a small kitchen, WC and bathroom. There was a warden on call, who was sensible enough to allow those living in that accommodation to help each other. They organised functions, trips out, bingo and lectures and looked after each other, and, in particular, the younger ones looked after the more elderly. I understand from a recent Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report that the rent for a single pensioner living in housing association accommodation of that kind—it is a new unit—is between £40 and £50 a week.
  I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here. I urge him to consider whether it is better to put increased resources into sheltered accommodation than into elderly people's homes. Like many hon. Members, I have visited such homes and I think that they destroy people's independence and finally lead them to become old before their time. At the age of 92, my aunt went into a residential nursing home. Everyone there was kind and everything was done for her, but within three months, having lost her independence, she decided to die—and that is what she did.
  When we speak of the needs of the elderly, it is my firm belief that, first and foremost, we should do them the courtesy of allowing them to lead useful lives, with the absolute minimum of interference, care packages or needs reviews—call it what you like. Only when that elderly person or his or her family, friends, neighbours, family doctor or community nurse decides—and only then—should the state or local authority step in, and it should be done readily, quickly and unobtrusively.
  That has been the main thrust of the Government's policies. Some 95 per cent. of people aged over 65 live in their own homes. A flexible range of services for those in genuine need is being developed. The number of district nurses has risen by one fifth since 1979, and the number of elderly people treated has risen by 28 per cent. The financial position of pensioners has improved. Under this Government, pensioners' incomes have increased more than twice as fast as those of the rest of the population and four times as fast as they did under Labour. Now, 85 per cent. of pensioners have second incomes apart from their basic pension, 70 per cent. have savings and 50 per cent. now receive an occupational pension.
  In terms of provision for the elderly, Britain is the third highest in the EEC, and I am glad that there are new incentives to come. I believe that under this Government—certainly with the new NHS review and their thrust to help personal and occupational pensions—the wherewithal for improving the independence of pensioners will be

  1151
  increased. Pensioners wish to have their independence, and it is only this Government who will give them the wherewithal to achieve it.
  9.29 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: I retired from teaching two years before I became a Member of the House. I had three small pensions besides my state pension, but nevertheless I found living on a pension a frightening experience. When something goes wrong with a piece of equipment, one's income bears no relation to the amount of money that one is charged for a repair. Now that the Government have so drastically reduced single payments to pensioners and other claimants who are on supplementary benefit, and offer loans that must be repaid out of their meagre income, any failure of equipment becomes a real disaster that frightens pensioners, because they have no way of coping with it.
  Perhaps because I have been a pensioner I get many invitations to talk to pensioner groups. I like to speak to pensioners in my constituency, which is in the borough of Tower Hamlets. They are mostly very poor and, although some have small pensions from their job, as has already been said, those pensioners are no better off than those who have not. They are people who have worked hard and long hours for little pay, and who have had no way of saving money. They lived through the depression and the blitz, and this country owes them a lot. Throughout their lives they have had to learn how to manage well on a small amount of money.
  If one goes to Tower Hamlets, one will discover that however good the women are at managing money—and the majority of pensioners are women—they hover outside the butchers' shops wondering if they can afford to buy anything except liver. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), would probably say that liver is good for pensioners, one gets fed up with eating liver. They wonder whether they can afford to buy a chop. It is shocking that women who have been proud housewives, and who have reared their families, now stand outside the shops dithering and wondering whether they can afford some meat. If one goes into many of their homes in winter, one finds that they are in the kitchen, with the door of the gas oven open, the oven alight and that they are sitting over it because that is the cheapest way of heating and that is the only room that they can afford to heat. That is the reality.
  Two Methodist ministers in the east end recently protested that the DHSS had told pensioners who applied for single payments to go to the churches. Pensioners have been going to the churches for money for food. One minister has been keeping plastic bags of food to give to them.Those ministers have now said, "We cannot do this any more. Our funds do not permit it. Please do not keep telling pensioners to come to us."
  The reality is that when pensioners go to doctors for treatment, hard-pressed doctors often say, "You have to expect some aches and pains at your age." I do not think that pensioners of any age should expect to be ill, without getting proper treatment in the same way as anyone else.
  Pensioners have asked me to say that they are well aware that during the past 10 years many items have been harmonised with those in other countries in the EEC. They want to know when pensions in this country will be
  1152
  harmonised. They say that pensions in Belgium are nearly double those in England. They would like some harmonisation to come their way.
  The pensioners say that the cuts in spending weigh heavily on them, and that the agencies that help them are losing their funds because local authorities have less money to give and are being shut down or cut to the bone. Furthermore, the poll tax will penalise the carers of elderly parents and relatives.
  Pensioners have also asked me to say that they would like the Government to do away with standing charges on utilities. That is a sore point with pensioners. They try to save money by switching off electric lights and cutting down on heating, but often the standing charges come to more than the rest of the bill. Standing charges take away a huge slice of their incomes. Pensioners feel that they should not have to pay these standing charges at all.
  Another issue that pensioners have raised with me many times is that they would like free television licences, because television is so important to them.
  Pensioners would like their pensions to be increased in line with incomes. That was something that they had before, but the Government have taken that away, and pensioners would like that provision restored.
  London pensioners fear that, following the abolition of the Greater London council, 1990 will see the end of their cherished free bus and Underground travel passes. Many pensioners say that the only thing that stops people becoming depressed on reaching the pensionable age of 60 or 65 is that they get their free bus pass. They believe that the free bus pass should be safeguarded and that that system should spread to the rest of the country. It gives pensioners the chance to travel and see their friends, and stops them from being tied to their homes. Dial-a-Ride, which pensioners would like guaranteed to continue, helps those who are not able-bodied to get out of the house and have a better quality of life.
  Pensioners live in fear of reaching the age when they can no longer take care of themselves. It is not just a made-up story that often pensioners who cannot walk to the toilet or get out of a chair on their own are dumped in an empty flat by hard-pressed hospital authorities which need their beds. Those pensioners are left to sink or swim and many die before their time. Many pensioners who still have their mental faculties end up in the geriatric wards of mental hospitals because there is no other place for them. We need better provision for people at home, and that cannot be done with rate capping and cuts in local authority spending. We need more homes for pensioners who cannot cope with living on their own.
  There should be more research into the degenerative illnesses of old age and dementia, and that requires much more money. Pensioners have asked me to say that they are sick and tired of increasingly being presented as a burden to the country. When they are presented as a burden, it invites violent attacks on them, degrades them, lowers their status and makes it seem as though they are useless. If pensioners are given enough money, correct: medical treatment and are properly looked after, they have a great deal to contribute, just as they have always done Pensioners want to be respected and valued.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: We have been talking about the difficulties of the old and the cold in our society. I welcome the fact that the debate was opened by one of the youngest Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—and is being closed by another of the youngest Members. Conservative Members often tell us that those earning cannot afford to support our elderly people as we should support them. Not all people in Britain take that view.
  Elderly people deserve independence and respect in society; not to be condemned to wait out the rest of their lives without friends, families or local communities around them. That is why the Social and Liberal Democrats believe that there should be a coherent approach to treatment of the elderly—adequate primary health care and support for the many carers who dedicate their lives, often voluntarily, to look after elderly relatives.
  During the general election I talked about making care in the community a reality. We are not prepared to see patients turned out of the old institutional hospitals without adequate facilities to care for them in the community. We want to support the carers and believe that the Government should and could have made giant strides towards doing that. They could and should have introduced a proper carer's benefit. They should give carers more opportunities to take a break from their responsibilities. We have heard the rhetoric of care in the community but had precious little of the reality.
  The Association of Carers tells us that over 40 per cent. of carers whose elderly dependants had severe memory impairment had not had a week's holiday in five years and only 10 per cent. had ever received respite care. We need to start from the individual and to ensure that, regardless of where he or she lives, an individual has access as of right to care appropriate and adequate to his or her needs, just as Age Concern tells us. That in turn means proper assessment procedures, a definition of minimum standards to which an individual is entitled, the development of the concept of advocacy for those people and the mechanism of independent inspection made a reality. In Cornwall, all too frequently that does not happen.
  Underpinning everything, there must be proper resources, yet what do we get from the Government? We get the poll tax for a start. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke about abolishing the rates. In itself, that would be an advantage, but by replacing them with the poll tax, which will place appalling increased financial pressure on households which include dependent elderly relatives, the Government are ignoring the reality facing many people. If a married couple have an elderly parent living with them, all three will be liable to the charge. The Department of the Environment has produced figures showing that more than 80 per cent. of households will be worse off under the community charge.
  The House of Lords has forced the Government into accepting an amendment, but there is no sign that the Government will allow it to remain in the Bill.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What the hon. Gentleman is saying about elderly persons living in a household is totally misleading. He should know that an elderly person living with another will not be assessed for the community service charge on the income of the head of
  1154
  the household. Elderly people will be assessed on their own incomes, and if they are entitled to pay the lowest possible rate of 20 per cent. that will be allowed for in their pension, so the elderly person will not be adversely affected.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady would do better to show her support for elderly people by voting for the amendment when the Bill comes back from the Lords.
  We do not have to wait for the poll tax, nor do we have to wait for the one announcement that the Minister made tonight about the concessions that the Government are giving to pensioners on housing benefit and social security. What they mean by concessions is that they are bringing in advertising executives to tell us how wonderful the Government have been for giving back a small proportion of what they have already taken away. We do not have to wait for that. The difficulty for those on the low-level basic state pension and the continued presence of large numbers of elderly people suffering great hardship in the very lowest income groups is evidence enough. We have heard some apparently convincing arguments and statistics from the Government. I wonder why statisticians rather than politicians are not at the bottom of public opinion popularity polls. It seems that they connive together.
  Constituents across the country are not convinced. In my constituency there are large numbers of elderly people, many of them in considerable hardship. Every day I receive letters from pensioners saying that they can no longer cope and that they are frightened by the changes that the Government have made.
  Miss Cocks, who has paid her stamp since she was 16, wrote:
  "I am writing this to you and will you please read it out to the Tories … I will not be able to pay for any of these things"—
  that is, rent and rates—
  "on my pension unless I get help from Social Security and there are lots of others besides me."
  She wrote that letter as she saw that help disappearing.
  Mr. Long wrote:
  "Out of our miserable pension increase in April … we have to meet extra water rates, 10 per cent. extra television fees, dearer electricity charges".
  Mr. Porter wrote:
  "How Mrs. Thatcher thinks that a married couple can live these days on £65·47 per week when they pay rent, rates, water rates, electric—what has one got to live on?"
  One of the most heartrending letters I received recently was from Mr. Lamb, who was receiving severe disablement allowance and invalidity benefit. He wrote:
  "My wife and I are registered blind … I have a small Occupational Pension (non index linked) which precludes me from receiving any benefit. Because I worked for this for many years, I am now being penalised in that I am having to pay for prescriptions, dental care, new spectacles (which in my case are essential), fares to hospital and rates. It seems ludicrous".
  No wonder I am getting those letters. Just look at the figures for the recent housing benefit changes, not just for this year, but year by year as the Government, with stealth and guile, have been penalising the poor to fund tax cuts for the rich. In April 1983, 1,150,000 pensioners suffered losses and 120,000 lost all housing benefit. In November 1984, 1,200,000 pensioners lost further entitlement and another 213,000 lost all housing benefit. In November 1985, a further 1,470,000 pensioners lost benefit and an additional 270,000 pensioners lost all entitlement. In April

  1155
  1987, 2,600,000 pensioners lost some housing benefit entitlement and a further 60,000 pensioners lost all entitlement.
  The result is the gradual erosion of the independence of the elderly and of the meagre living standards that so many elderly people already had. It is no wonder, therefore, that many elderly people feel embittered by the bad hand that they have been dealt. As one wrote:
  "The whole country is in a bad state … the price is being paid by the old people. I worked for the County Council for 39 years, for many years money was taken from my pay packet and some added by the Council for retirement, and taxed, and now delivered to me every month and taxed again which is robbery."
  The Government believe that the best course of action is tax concessions for those who can afford private insurance. That is not necessarily bad. I welcome help being given to people to earn additional pensions, but it does nothing at all for those for whom such luxuries will never be seen.
  Again, the eloquence of my constituents spells out what the Minister did not like to say:
  "we were all born too soon … The next generation of pensioners will have a works pension scheme for them and they will need it, too! I have requested a surrender value on our death policies and that will be £1 per week towards our rent."
  That is what these people are having to go through. Letter after letter landing on my desk says the same. If they were honest, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would say that they receive the same kind of correspondence. They could not deny it. Comment after comment shows clearly that they know where the blame lies.
  In today's post I received this letter:
  "How can the Prime Minister say no poor pensioners are worse off under the new benefit rules?"
  Again:
  "I did not realise the situation myself until I received my rates demand, and I have the feeling that the whole benefits structure is deliberately confused, why there has not already been an outcry I cannot understand."
  Most telling of all, and we all receive this complaint in thousands of slightly different ways, with the use of different phrases, but they all say the same thing:
  "She is a terrible woman on us pensioners."
  That is why we have had this debate. That is why we campaigned for an increase in the basic state retirement pension and that is why we say that the bulk of the extra expenditure should be concentrated on helping the poorest pensioners.
  Conservative Members talk about the Christmas bonus, but £10 goes nowhere today. We should be talking about a Christmas bonus of double the weekly pension at the beginning of December. We should abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and telephones, all of which are vital for the elderly, instead of privatising those industries to give a little extra cash to those who already have a lot.
  It is a far cry tonight from the day, 80 years ago, when a Liberal Government introduced the pension that Lloyd George saw as a "great experiment." He said:
  "It is made in an old country for the first time. We put it forward as an incomplete one; we say it is a beginning and only a beginning, but a real beginning."
  I wonder what Lloyd George would say today about the gradual reductions in benefits and the degrading poverty of so many of our pensioners. Many pensioners
  1156
  saw the introduction of that pension. Many of them have told me that they owe a debt of gratitude to Lloyd George for what he did. It was his dream.
  "to make provision for undeserved poverty and destitution in all its branches",
  whereas the Government provide for undeserved financial gain from investment in state industries that they sell off.
  The Prime Minister tells us that there is no such thing as society. By contrast, Lloyd George summed it up like this:
  "These problems of the sick, of the infirm, of the men who cannot find means of earning a livelihood, though they seek it as if they were seeking for alms, who are out of work through no fault of their own, and who cannot even guess the reason why, are problems with which it is the business of the State to deal; they are problems which the State has neglected too long."
  The Government do not believe that. They do not believe that there is such a thing as society. The Government do not believe that they have an obligation to our old-age pensioners and to those who live in poverty, cold and squalor. We do. I commend the motion to the House.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has just referred to Lloyd George, I trust that he will not object if I go less far back in history and allow the occasional reference to the Lib-Lab pact to creep into my speech. There can certainly be no complaint that I am raking up the past unnecessarily.
  The subject of community care was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) referred to it extensively. I was pleased that my hon. Friend placed such emphasis on the importance of the voluntary sector and on the role that pensioners themselves can play, because many of them are still able-bodied and relatively young in that voluntary sector. He will recognise with me that state agencies cannot do everything for our elderly and that there will always be a need for comfort and company to be provided by friends, neighbours and family. I appreciate his remarks on that point.
  Both the hon. Members for Ynys Môn and for Truro seemed to find fault with the Government over a supposed lack of urgency in relation to community care. I am surprised at that suggestion, because the hon. Member for Ynys Môn himself referred to the variety of reports that have been produced on the subject. He clearly recognises that it is an enormously complex question. He believes that too much money is being spent through supplementary benefit, and now through income support, and that some people are inappropriately placed.
  In my opening remarks, I referred to some of the fears that we ourselves could have on those scores. However, I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Ynys Môn can believe that we are reluctant to address those issues, when we commissioned the Griffiths, Firth and Wagner reports. The hon. Member would be extremely surprised if we did not then give due consideration to the Griffiths report, which raised very complex issues, and I am certain that when we present our recommendation that will give the House an opportunity to consider how to debate them. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn should bear with us in that respect.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone ( Miss Widdecombe) expressed concern about the level of

  1157
  provision for people in the community. She made her point very well about National Health Service extra expenditure on the elderly. That increased by 22 per cent. between 1978 and 1986, and my hon. Friend will know that during the same period the elderly population increased by 5·9 per cent. Funding has not only kept pace with the growing number of elderly people, but has also led to real improvements in services for them.
  The number of elderly people treated by the community nursing service increased by one fifth between 1978 and 1986, and the number of home helps shows a similar improvement. The number of day hospital and day centre attendances has also increased, as have the number of meals on wheels provided.
  Turning from the subject of community care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) placed great emphasis on inflation, and he was right to do so. He also referred to the need for a larger gap at the point where pensioners reach the age of 80. His remarks concentrated on the 25p addition to the retirement pension, but I remind him that in the case of income support the gap at age 80 is £2·35. I shall certainly refer his suggestion concerning the provision of advice and assistance about Barlow Clowes to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Although I was delighted with my hon. Friend's emphasis on inflation, I was disappointed with the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who—I apologise for boring her—has heard through all our debates the explanation of how important is the amount of money that pensioners have to live on and what happens to their living standards. Yet, after all this time, the hon. Lady resolutely sticks to discussing the way in which the retirement pension increased under the Labour Government, albeit at a time when inflation was roaring away and therefore the net result was a minimal increase in the living standards of the elderly, which is of course what really matters to them.
  Mrs. Beckett: The Minister makes this point over and over again. He is right: he does bore me, because it is an extremely boring point. How on earth he can try to convey to the House that a 5 per cent. real-terms improvement in basic pensions is somehow on a par with the 20 per cent. improvement under a Labour Government I am at a loss to understand.
  It is a very simple point. Pensioners were four times better off under the Labour Government than they have been under the present Government.
  Mr. Portillo: Now I understand. The hon. Lady obviously fails to see the complete illogicality of what she has said. Because pensioners do not live only on retirement pensions paid by the state but on other things as well—because they have savings—what she says does not follow. Their living standards result from a combination of savings, occupational pensions and state retirement pensions, and not from one element in isolation. That is why the hon. Lady is misguided in what she says, and it is possibly why the Government of which she was a member were misguided in what they did.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) referred to the housing benefit capital limit, and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr.
  1158
  Kennedy) seemed to imply in his opening remarks that the capital limit was the only concession that the Government had made on 27 April. That is absolutely untrue. We recognised a series of vulnerable groups who needed help, and we provided it. Although the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) churlishly believes that we should not now advertise that help, we strongly intend to advertise its availability.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, however, put his finger on a dilemma. If we provide a safety net so that people will receive support whether or not they have been provident and whether or not they have had the opportunity to save, to some extent we will discourage thrift: we cannot escape that. We do not discourage thrift by having a capital limit, but it is discouraged from the moment that a safety net is provided. No hon. Member, however, would say that that safety net should be swept away. We are therefore left with difficult decisions about the point at which we should apply a cut-off on both income and capital, because all those benefits should be related to both.
  Having said that, however, let me say how interesting I found my hon. Friend's suggestions about a tax allowance, which I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friends at the Treasury.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie)—whom I do not see in the Chamber—gave four examples, all involving people whose incomes were well above the income support level and would still be above that level after payment of rent and rates. They all seemed to be people who should apply for transitional protection and I suspect that the same applies to the case raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
  In my opening remarks I mentioned the obligation that the working population has towards the retired. It is a substantial obligation, and it carries a substantial price. The elderly account for more than half our social security budget—for about £24 billion. They also account for over two fifths of health care spending—over £9 billion—and consume about half of personal social services spending—about £1·5 billion. I mention that not because the working population should begrudge the money, but because they should be aware of it.
  First, I think that it represents a fair discharge of that part of the obligation that should be discharged through state agencies. Secondly, anyone working today must be concerned at the way that the numbers will grow by the time we reach retirement. That dictates that we should ourselves make provision where we can, alongside state provision. Thirdly, it emphasises that the well-being of the elderly is critically tied up with economic success.
  During the election campaign, the alliance promised pensioners more money. The Labour party saw that bid, and raised it. Yet neither party can be said to have done well out of its grandiose promises. I do not know whether either of the two parties has contemplated why. The reason is that pensioners are not stupid. By definition, they are people of experience. They know when they are being conned. They know that the rate of pensions relies upon continuing economic growth, and they remember inflation, and the Lib-Lab pact, and Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, Mrs. Williams.
  I end with a friendly word of advice to both the SLD and the Labour parties. They will never get elected by underestimating the intelligence of the British pensioner.
  I commend the amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 171.

  Division No. 400]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashton, Joe

  Livsey, Richard

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Beckett, Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Boyes, Roland

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Martlew, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Maxton, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cartwright, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Cohen, Harry

  Patchett, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pendry, Tom

  Dewar, Donald

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Don

  Prescott, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Salmond, Alex

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Short, Clare

  Eadie, Alexander

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Flynn, Paul

  Stott, Roger

  Galbraith, Sam

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Vaz, Keith

  Haynes, Frank

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Home Robertson, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Howells, Geraint

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

  Kennedy, Charles

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Allason, Rupert

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Amos, Alan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Durant, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Evennett, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fallon, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Favell, Tony

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Franks, Cecil

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Gale, Roger

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gardiner, George

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Butcher, John

  Gow, Ian

  Butler, Chris

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chope, Christopher

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Churchill, Mr

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  1160

  Hayward, Robert

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Neubert, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Ryder, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kilfedder, James

  Stern, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thlield)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Knapman, Roger

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Knox, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lang, Ian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Latham, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Thome, Neil

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Trippier, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Marland, Paul

  Watts, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Wheeler, John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wilshire, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mellor, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 54.

  Division No. 401]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amess, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amos, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butcher, John

  Ashby, David

  Butler, Chris

  Atkinson, David

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Churchill, Mr

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Devlin, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Dover, Den

  1161

  Durant, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Evennett, David

  Mans, Keith

  Fallon, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Favell, Tony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Mellor, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Franks, Cecil

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  French, Douglas

  Moate, Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gardiner, George

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Moss, Malcolm

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Neubert, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Ryder, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Harris, David

  Stern, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hayward, Robert

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

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

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Irvine, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Jack, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Janman, Tim

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Jessel, Toby

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Thorne, Neil

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Kilfedder, James

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Waller, Gary

  Knapman, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Knowles, Michael

  Watts, John

  Knox, David

  Wheeler, John

  Lang, Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Wilshire, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Lilley, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Lord, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Galbraith, Sam

  Boateng, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Gordon, Mildred

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Geraint

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eadie, Alexander

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  1162

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carm'then)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr Jimmy Dunnachie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its policies for pensioners, in particular the control of inflation and the stimulation of the economy, which together have dramatically improved pensioners' total incomes; commends the Government for the increased resources now available to the National Health Service; concurs in the Government's determination to ensure that the considerable resources committed to community care are put to the best possible use; and endorses the recent reforms of social security, not least because they increase the choice of future pension provision.

  Pensioners (Government Policies)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Court of Session Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
    10.24 pm
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Parliamentary history has been made today and I thought that we ought to say a word about it to make sure that it is properly recorded.
    You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of record that for some time the alliance, as it used to be called, was allocated Supply days, because it was the largest minority party after the official Opposition. I noticed on today's Order Paper an interesting feature and perhaps you will confirm it. Because the parties that formed the alliance no longer exist and a new union has been formed, and as Supply days were allocated immediately after the general election in 1987 to the different parties behind me, the allocation of Supply days has had to go to another party. The interesting feature is that the leader of the Official Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), is now in charge of allocating Supply days to the Liberals and the Provos—the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Dr. Owen), who has left the Chamber. It will not go amiss on this auspicious occasion to say that in its desire for a merger the alliance has dealt itself a deadly blow and placed itself in the hands of the Ulster Unionists.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and if he wants confirmation of that he will find it in Standing Order No. 13(3) which says:
    "For the purposes of this order `the second largest opposition party' shall be that party, of those not represented in Her Majesty's Government, which has the second largest number of Members elected to the House as members of that party."
    As I say, the hon. Gentleman is correct.

  Court of Session Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill repeals or re-enacts the existing provisions in many statutes since before the Act of Union right back to 1594. It relates to the Court of Session and its procedures, which have been brought up to date. This is a consolidation Bill and is totally non-controversial. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills said that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Good order and good sense dictate that one should not detain the House unnecessarily on a measure of this nature at this time. However, it is proper to say, as the Minister has said, that many of the statutory provisions that are to be re-enacted date from before the Act of Union. As a consequence, it is perhaps unfortunate that the opportunity has not been taken to bring some of the provisions into line with modern practice in the Court of Session. I hope that the Government will soon take that opportunity. They have some encouragement from the remarks, widely reported today, of the president of the Law Society of Scotland who, in another guise, was formerly the senior partner of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and who has offered himself in Conservative colours at least once in a general election in Scotland.
  I hope that the Government will soon take the opportunity to give serious consideration to a proper review of the procedures of the Court of Session. The Bill provides that, at the discretion of the Lord President, what is called an extra division may be formed for dealing with civil appeals. Many of us who have experience of practising in the Court of Session think that the opportunity should be taken to establish permanently an extra or third division in the Court of Session in order to deal more speedily and effectively with civil appeals.
  The Bill preserves the right to civil jury trial—a right that has existed in the law of Scotland since the early part of the 19th century. It is important to mention that because recently the Lord Advocate was reported as saying that the Government are considering the abolition of that right to civil jury trial. They are doing that on the view that the introduction of hearsay evidence—a matter that we discussed earlier this week—makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a jury to be properly directed about its duties in a civil trial. There is nothing new in that attitude. In the early 1970s when the law governing interest on damages was changed in Scotland the view was that civil jury trial would no longer be possible because of the difficulty of giving proper directions to juries. That view was proved to be wholly unfounded. In the case of Macdonald v. Glasgow Corporation, with which I have no doubt the Minister is intimately familiar, the first division of the Court of Session made it plain that civil jury trials could exist side by side with the changes in the legislation governing interest on damages.
  1164
  I am happy to note that civil jury trial is preserved. because in many cases civil jury trial is the most appropriate means of determining the issues at stake. That applies particularly to road traffic accidents and to cases in which there are clear and unequivocal conflicts of fact which a jury is especially well suited to resolve.
  I am glad to note that the provisions are to be re-enacted, but I give notice to the Government that if proposals are finally made to remove civil jury trial as part of the procedures of the law of Scotland, there may well be strenuous opposition, not only from the Opposition parties but from that well-known guardian of Scottish legal tradition, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) who, unfortunately, is riot present this evening. No doubt he is recovering from his recent illness. We are grateful for that and wish him the speediest possible recovery.
  As the Minister said, the Bill is not controversial. However, some of the measures that it re-enacts appear to be the subject of Government review. If that review results in an attempt to remove some of the provisions, the Government may find themselves in rather more controversy than they have bargained for.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: First, I assure the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that the present president of the Law Society of Scotland is still my senior legal partner. These days it may be an academic or theoretical connection; none the less, it is legally valid.
  I do not propose to spend long on the Bill, which is very much a consolidation measure; in any event, I recognise that I am circumscribed in that respect. I shall certainly not be tempted into an argument about whether we need a third division in the Court of Session. That sounds rather threatening. I welcome the Bill and the fact that 20 19th-century Acts have been raided and the various provisions regulating the Court of Session have been put in easily accessible form. That will certainly help practitioners.
  The Law Society was good enough to supply me with a number of comments on the Bill. In the interests of speed and fairness, I shall not refer to some of those comments, because they deal with law reform points rather than matters of consolidation. No doubt the Law Society will be taking them up with the powers that be with a view to getting changes made and improvements such as those referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East introduced. It would be interesting, for example, to have a debate about the maximum number of judges. Even more optimistically, it was suggested that we might consider universal rights of audience in the Court of Session. That would certainly provoke a lengthy debate with the two members of the Bar who are assembled here.
  Clause 6 deals with the allocation of business by Act of Sederunt. Clause 6(i) gives a number of classifications of the causes brought into the court. It refers to
  "an Ordinary Roll … an Admiralty and Commercial Roll and … a Consistorial Roll"
  and a number of other matters. I have never practised in the Court of Session, but I am told that there is an optional procedure roll which is not mentioned in the Bill. Presumably, it can still be covered by Act of Sederunt, or perhaps it is seen as some sort of subsection to one of the main rolls to which I have referred. Perhaps the Minister

  1165
  could say whether it has had any statutory life in another Act and been dropped, or whether it has never had that kind of statutory form and authority. It is a minor point, but perhaps he could refer to it.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to the argument, which is receiving some publicity because of the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill, about the future of jury trials, but that is an argument for another occasion. I know that, by and large, members of the Bar and solicitors who practise in the Court of Session feel strongly that civil jury trials should survive. I do not complain about that, although the case is weakened by the fact that the number of jury trials has declined dramatically. At one time, they were reasonably frequent and there were more than 100 per session. I am told that we are now down to five or six, which suggests that, however important they may be, they are almost falling into desuetude.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many cases are settled before they come to proof or trial, and the mere fact that a case has been allocated for disposal by way of a jury trial frequently persuades the parties to effect a settlement, which in turn saves court time?
  Mr. Dewar: I am aware of that, and it is a fair point. The threat of a jury trial perhaps concentrates the mind wonderfully on settlement. That is sadly true of all litigation in the Court of Session, where the costs are now formidable, and I am not sure that we should accept that with much pleasure.
  I was interested to note that the senior solicitors who were quoted in the public prints this morning in defence of jury trials very honestly made it clear that their devotion to them is largely because they see them as a way in which to maximise damage awards. I have some sympathy with that, as someone who, with limited experience, has been interested in representing the pursuer.
  The Bill will be useful because it will make the chasing of the facts easier. Like most consolidation measures, it will do a useful job, and we should all welcome that. If it
  1166
  starts one or two hares running and reminds us about some of the changes and modernisation that are still required in Court of Session practice, but cannot be properly encompassed in a consolidation Bill, it will have done a second service, by persuading us to look for further reforms.
  10.37 am
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the first question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is that the matter is covered by Act of Sederunt under powers in clause 5. My understanding is that the courts are enabled to regulate their own procedures.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden and to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) for raising those points and the points made by the Law Society, which will be carefully considered. They seem to be matters for the Lord Advocate, but not in the context of the Bill, which merely restates the existing law, making provision to remove laws which are anachronistic or obsolete.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden knows that there are now very few civil jury trials, but I understand that it is the Lord Advocate's intention to consult, and I am sure that he will contact both hon. Gentlemen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter.
  The Bill is necessary because it repeals an Act of 1594, which debars a judge
  "from sitting in any cause where one of the parties is his father, brother or son or father-in-law, brother-in-law or son-in-law".
  The only problem is that the Act dealt only with a case where the related party was a male—not, for example, where one of the parties was the judge's sister. In these days of,equality of the sexes, I am sure that the House will generally welcome a measure that brings the law up to date.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Firefighters
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  10.39 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The subject of this debate arises because of the changes in the social security legislation, which came into force in April this year and take the earnings of retained firefighters into consideration when assessing benefit entitlement.
  In correspondence, the Minister, whom I thank for being here—I realise that he has had a busy day—offered as the main reason the fact that not taking such earnings into account would be a disincentive for unemployed retained firefighters to seek work. With due respect, I suggest that that ignores the fact that in areas such as mine we have the dual problem of a comparatively large number of retained firefighters in a rural area and still a large number of unemployed people.
  I accept that unemployment is changing, but it is difficult in our area to calculate what those changes are, because all my constituency is covered by travel-to-work areas. Moreover, the Government have made several changes to the way in which unemployment figures are calculated. Recent studies by Durham university show that the total number of jobs available has not increased during the past few years. We are losing some and gaining others. There is therefore still a large problem with unemployment.
  Firefighters join the service not to avoid work but to offer themselves for a highly dangerous and important public service. Constituents who have come to see me have looked for work. Some were previously in work but have been made redundant. They have offered themselves for firefighting when they are needed, but if work were available, they would take it. Paid work, however, is still a precious commodity in our area.
  Local residents are outraged that the Government seem to have such scant regard for the service of these men. Commitment to public service is an important issue today, and I believe that the Government are beginning to put out the message that they do not value it. That would be very unfortunate. I do not believe that that is the view of the Minister or of the Government, and I am offering the Minister an opportunity to demonstrate that there is a commitment to public service.
  I am not sure that the Minister needs reminding that a previous Secretary of State wrote in 1982:
  "I am happy to confirm that work as a part-time fireman does not affect entitlement to unemployment benefit. Similarly, any payment from employment as a part-time fireman in a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Act is disregarded in the assessment for supplementary benefit entitlement."
  I believe that that commitment is not written on tablets of stone for ever more, but it was recognised that this is a public service which ought to be recognised and that those involved should not be penalised by having their benefit affected.
  Retained firefighters who are unemployed are on call 24 hours a day, and they are meant to be on call every day of the year. That in itself is an amazing act of public service. They are prepared to be tied to a narrow locality to be available in case of a fire.
  I understand that to date there has been only one resignation in Durham county. I congratulate the firemen
  1168
  on that, because it demonstrates their commitment to service. In Durham much of the population is now located in somewhat scattered villages. Therefore, the importance of the local fire station and the local fire service cannot be overestimated. As I have said, retained firefighters are expected to respond on a 24-hour basis and within four minutes of a fire call so the location of the stations is crucial.
  In Durham, there are about 170 retained firemen, of whom 20 per cent. are unemployed. The distribution of those firefighters is not necessarily even. Some stations are affected more than others. Of the two stations affected in my constituency, one, in Langley Park, has five retained firefighters who are unemployed and the other, in Crook, has four retained firefighters who are unemployed. Those men represent over 50 per cent. of the force in those stations. I hope that the Minister can understand the concern in those communities about the potential effect of the changes in the legislation.
  As I have said, those firefighters have remained loyal to date, but they are looking to the Government for concessions. There are rumours—I emphasise that they are only rumours—that the Government are to re-examine things after six months. Some of those men are waiting for that.
  There is also the hope that the Government will be prepared to redesignate the retainer fee as bounty. I understand that bounty payments have been allowed for other public services—for example, for the Territorial Army—and I understand that some sort of concession has also been made to lifeboatmen. If that is so—as I have said, I do not have written evidence of it, although I have been told about it—I hope that the Government can reconsider the designation in respect of firefighters.
  One member of the service in Durham was recently paid his retainer fee and hoped that the Department of Health and Social Security would treat it as bounty. I understand that bounty is excluded under the legislation. However, the local office decided that it was not bounty and therefore that man's benefit has been affected for the next 26 weeks. He feels that throughout that period he will be working for nothing. It is also clear that different DHSS offices are interpreting the rules differently. I hope that the Minister can clear up some of the uncertainties and anxieties prompted by the rumours and different stories.
  However, the main concern is the potential effect on recruitment. The fire service has made particular efforts and has produced leaflets to try to recruit more people and to retain more firemen. It is clear that the shortage is partly due to local authorities and local fire authorities not being able to afford to employ the number of full-time firemen which I confess I wish that they were employing, because that would be the answer to the problem. However, in Durham a large percentage of our firefighters are in the retained sector. It is important that we can continue to recruit. I understand that nationally the recruitment is normally from one large establishment. In a rural area, there are not the large workplaces that would enable that more fruitful recruitment to take place.
  I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to think again. I hope that he will recognise the worth of the service that these people give to their local communities, the esteem in which those local communities hold them and the particular problems in rural areas, which still have high unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer tonight, we shall look for an answer in the future. I hope

  1169
  that the Minister can clear up the uncertainties and ensure that unemployed people feel that there is a role for them in public service and ensure, by changing the regulations, that the commitment involved is fully recognised by the Government.
  10.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I very much appreciate the opening generous remarks by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). I congratulate her on obtaining this debate and on speaking so lucidly about the problems that she sees from her constituency experience. The Government share her high regard for the work carried out by the fire service as a whole. It is a matter of record that its firefighters have repeatedly performed heroically in the face of danger and at great personal risk to themselves, for the benefit and safety of others. I have the utmost regard for them and their work.
  The hon. Lady referred specifically to the position of the retained firefighters under the new income support scheme. Of course, officers should apply the new rules consistently and, if the hon. Lady has any examples of where that is not occurring, I shall be pleased to look into the matter for her.
  Retained firefighters are part-time firemen who voluntarily carry out their duties, often in addition to their normal full-time jobs. There are about 14,500, and only a small proportion are thought to be unemployed. We do not have any national figures, but if Durham is an indication the numbers of unemployed is likely to be under 12 per cent., and a considerably lower number may receive income support. I take the hon. Lady's point that in particular fire stations the proportion may be higher.
  The Government have always recognised the valuable role that retained firefighters have in our society and we continue to reflect that in the new income support scheme. Because they are special, we are now helping them in five distinct ways—help which, apart from transitional protection, is not generally available to other claimants.
  First, we are giving them the higher £15 a week disregard on their earnings instead of the standard £5 a week available to most other claimants. The £15 concession is normally available only to the more vulnerable groups—lone parents, people entitled to the disability premium and couples under 60 receiving benefit for two years or more. Retained firefighters, including fit single people, will get the £15 disregard automatically without having to satisfy any of those conditions.
  Secondly, we are treating the long-service bounty paid to retained firefighters as capital, not as income. Other people who receive a bounty from their employers will normally have it counted as though it were earnings. In the year it is received the long-service bounty is worth between £10 and £18 a week for basic grade firefighters, depending on the length of service, and even higher amounts are paid to higher ranks. In practice, that means that for some retained firefighters up to £33 a week can be received in certain years without affecting their level of income support. I think the hon. Lady will agree that that is a
  1170
  significant concession in an income-related scheme, where many claimants are unable to work and therefore do not have the benefit of any earnings disregard.
  Thirdly, those retained firefighters who were receiving supplementary benefit, but whose income support is less because their earnings are above £15 a week, will have their previous benefit protected at the point of change to income support by transitional additions. That ensures that existing recipients will not lose benefit because of the new rules.
  Fourthly, we ignore the whole of their part-time earnings for unemployment benefit purposes. That has not changed. Since unemployment benefit is usually payable for the first year of unemployment and a person can requalify if he works 16 hours or more for just 13 weeks, this is a very generous concession for unemployed retained firefighters. Furthermore, because unemployment benefit is often paid at a higher rate than income support, many part-time firemen, if they find suitable employment before their unemployment benefit has been exhausted, will be completely unaffected by the new income support rules.
  Fifthly, their employment as retained firefighters is not normally considered to affect their availability for other work. As the hon. Lady will know, the condition that unemployed people should be available for suitable work is a prerequisite for their receiving unemployment benefit and income support. This is yet another demonstration of the Government's willingness to help retained firefighters.
  These in summary are the five ways in which we provide special help: we are disregarding the first £15 of their earnings in income support; we are treating their long-service bounty payments as capital; we are providing transitional protection to ensure that those on benefit under the old rules do not lose out; we are fully disregarding their earnings for unemployment benefit purposes; and we are ignoring their hours of work when deciding whether they satisfy the availability conditions for receiving benefit.
  The hon. Lady is concerned about why we have moved from a total disregard of firefighters' earnings applying to supplementary benefit. The total disregard was first introduced in 1968. It does not go back further than that. At that time firefighters' earnings were not high enough to affect the amount of the benefit that they were receiving, but their earnings have increased considerably since then. For example, on current rates of pay, a firefighter on the lowest rate who attends a drill night and is required for turnout once a week would receive earnings of just under £30. The information we have available is that retained firefighters earn around £43 a week on average. Clearly, some will earn more than that figure and perhaps well in excess of their income support entitlement.
  Let me give the House an example. Let us consider a single person earning £43 a week, with an income support entitlement of £33·40. By disregarding all his earnings he would be 125 per cent. better off than his unemployed counterpart. I do not believe that that can be right. It would be irresponsible of us, in a scheme that is supported wholly out of public funds, to give an open-ended disregard of earnings, regardless of how much those earnings might be. If we had done that, we would have been criticised.
  We must also consider the other consequences if, as the hon. Lady has suggested, we were to disregard all the earnings of retained firefighters. There is evidence to suggest that the complete disregard that existed under the

  1171
  old scheme was acting as a disincentive for some full-time firemen to remain in their jobs because they were better off on benefits and earnings as retained firefighters. Furthermore, there was a definite risk of creating a disincentive for people seeking full-time work, particularly in areas where the proportion of low-paid jobs is higher than average. It must be remembered that income support is payable to unemployed people on the condition that they are available for, and willing to accept, full-time work.
  Nor do I think that we can afford to ignore the effects that a complete disregard under income support might have on full-time firemen with low earnings who claim the other income-related benefits, namely, family credit and housing benefit. Under family credit there are no disregards on earnings, while in housing benefit the first £5, or £10 if one of a couple, of any full-time earnings are ignored. Those rules would clearly favour the retained firefighter and serve to narrow, or even remove, the financial differentials between part-time and full-time firemen. Such a move would also be counter-productive to the Government's policy of encouraging people to be self-reliant.
  Like the hon. Lady, I should be very concerned if the income support regulations had an adverse effect on the retention and recruitment of firefighters. That is why we are liaising with the Home Office, which is monitoring the effect of the change in the treatment of earnings, the results of which are likely to be known at the end of the year. I suspect that that is why the six-month proposal has come into play. The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales is fully aware of these monitoring arrangements.
  1172
  Finally, the hon. Lady may be interested to learn about the latest position relating to personnel in Durham. She is right to say that there is a retained establishment of 270, of whom 32 are otherwise employed. She is also right to say that one man has resigned, giving the new rules as the reason, but I understand that he has since applied to be reinstated.
  We have had responses from other local authorities. I am pleased to say that no difficulties have been reported from Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Clwyd, Buckinghamshire, Dyfed, 'West Glamorgan, Gwent, Gwynedd, Hereford and Worcestershire, Powys, Shropshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Wiltshire and Leicestershire, but for the sake of completeness I ought to mention that three local authorities have expressed various degrees of concern about the problem.
  In conclusion, I assure the hon. Lady that the decision to discontinue the total disregard was not taken lightly—but we believe that it was justified—that we are monitoring the position and that, so far, we are unaware of widespread adverse effects on the retention and recruitment of retained firefighters.
  I have pleasure in saying again that there can be no doubt of the value that we place upon the services of retained firefighters. That is why, for those who are unemployed, we have made the special provisions that I set out in my reply. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the chance to spell out those special conditions. I hope that she will ponder on what I have said to her, just as I shall ponder on what she has told the House this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Wormhoudt Massacre
  Wormhoudt Massacre
  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Officers (Service)
  Police Officers (Service)
  Motorways (Speeding)
  Motorways (Speeding)
  Magistrates' Clerks
  Magistrates' Clerks
  Vagrants
  Vagrants
  Category C Prisons
  Category C Prisons
  Prison Officers (Housing)
  Prison Officers (Housing)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  New Prisons
  New Prisons
  Under-age Drinking
  Under-age Drinking
  Citizenship Applications
  Citizenship Applications
  Glasgow Passport Office
  Glasgow Passport Office
  Drugs Cases (Metropolitan Police)
  Drugs Cases (Metropolitan Police)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Immigration Appeals System
  Immigration Appeals System
  SS Politician
  SS Politician
  Members (Writs)
  Members (Writs)
WALES
  Valleys Initiative (Schools)
  Valleys Initiative (Schools)
  Firegreen Ltd.
  Firegreen Ltd.
TRANSPORT
  Royal Flights
  Royal Flights
  Random Breath Testing
  Random Breath Testing
  Accidents and Casualties
  Accidents and Casualties
  Drink-driving
  Drink-driving
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Sonic Booms
  Sonic Booms
  Airports Policy
  Airports Policy
  A27
  A27
  Railway Stations
  Railway Stations
  Lorry Quotas
  Lorry Quotas
ENVIRONMENT
  County Hall, London
  County Hall, London
  Waste Imports
  Waste Imports
  Community Projects (Hackney)
  Community Projects (Hackney)
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Old Perry Bridge, Birmingham
  Old Perry Bridge, Birmingham
ENERGY
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
EMPLOYMENT
  Pentachlorophenol
  Pentachlorophenol
  Earnings Statistics
  Earnings Statistics
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Electronics Industry
  Electronics Industry
  Internal Market Council
  Internal Market Council
  Director General of Fair Trading (Report)
  Director General of Fair Trading (Report)
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Elstree Film Studios
  Elstree Film Studios
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Chile
  Chile
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Sharpeville Six
  Sharpeville Six
  Mr. Shaher Sa'ed
  Mr. Shaher Sa'ed
  Central America
  Central America
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Congo
  Congo
  United Nations
  United Nations
  South Georgia (Fishing)
  South Georgia (Fishing)
  Israel
  Israel
  Nelson Mandela Concert, Wembley
  Nelson Mandela Concert, Wembley
  European Community Foreign Ministers
  European Community Foreign Ministers
  European Parliament
  European Parliament
  South Korea
  South Korea
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  India
  India
  E1 Salvador
  E1 Salvador
  European Community (Foreign Policy)
  European Community (Foreign Policy)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Entry Visas (Iranian Citizens)
  Entry Visas (Iranian Citizens)
  British Visitors Abroad (Conduct)
  British Visitors Abroad (Conduct)
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Australia
  Australia
  Spain
  Spain
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  East-West Relations
  East-West Relations
  Philippines
  Philippines
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Refugees (Hong Kong)
  Refugees (Hong Kong)
  Czechoslovakia
  Czechoslovakia
  Cameroon
  Cameroon
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  European Council, Hanover
  European Council, Hanover
  Toronto Summit
  Toronto Summit
  Côte d'Ivoire
  Côte d'Ivoire
  Haiti
  Haiti
  Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
  Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
  Egypt (British Assets)
  Egypt (British Assets)
  Mr. Brian Butcher
  Mr. Brian Butcher
  Majorca (Arrested Britons)
  Majorca (Arrested Britons)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Domestic Waste
  Domestic Waste
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  School Milk (Subsidies)
  School Milk (Subsidies)
  Vegetable Gene Bank
  Vegetable Gene Bank
  Trees (Storm Damage)
  Trees (Storm Damage)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Diet Costs
  Diet Costs
  Hospital Building Schemes
  Hospital Building Schemes
  Departmental Office (St. Helens)
  Departmental Office (St. Helens)
  Seasonal Unemployment Payments
  Seasonal Unemployment Payments
  Benefit Protection
  Benefit Protection
  Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  National Health Service Staff(Compensation)
  National Health Service Staff(Compensation)
  NHS Services
  NHS Services
  Widows
  Widows
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Maintenance Proceedings
  Maintenance Proceedings
  Property Sales
  Property Sales
  Benefit (Disqualification)
  Benefit (Disqualification)
  Teaching Hospitals
  Teaching Hospitals
  Rates Arrears
  Rates Arrears
SCOTLAND
  Health Boards (Tenders)
  Health Boards (Tenders)
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Fire Risks
  Fire Risks
  Allergies
  Allergies
  Health Care International
  Health Care International
DEFENCE
  United States Military Facilities
  United States Military Facilities
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Eppynt Range Extension
  Eppynt Range Extension
  RAF Greenham Common
  RAF Greenham Common
  Royal Navy (Radar)
  Royal Navy (Radar)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  Stalker-Sampson Report
  Stalker-Sampson Report

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an invitation to formally open the new Crown court in Swansea on Friday, 8th July. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for that day.

Channel Tunnel: Customs Clearance
2.36 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle Viscount De L'Isle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a decision has been reached to arrange on-train clearance only for passengers travelling from the Continent beyond London for immigration and Customs services, and whether it is still their intention to erect an airport-style clearance building at Waterloo for similar purposes for passengers travelling to London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government's view remains that the most convenient and practicable option for Waterloo trains is a quick and effective airport-type Customs and immigration control at the station.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, does it signify that up-to-date Customs clearance for passengers to London on the fast rail link will not be in place by the time that link comes into service? If so, are we to expect the institution of an archaic post-journey system at the London terminal, a system which has long since been superseded on Continental cross-border trains?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the plans are that there should be airport-style controls at Waterloo station similar to those in operation at airports and seaports at the present time. We do not accept that these controls will cause significant delay because the time taken to get through Customs and immigration is normally minimal.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, what is to happen on the French side between the coast and Paris? Will there be on-train clearance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously, I cannot speak for the French Government. But if the trains are to be non-stop from Waterloo through to Paris, then they will have to arrange something at the Paris end.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that a combination of timeconsuming procedures and inappropriate formalities on the one hand and inadequate, slow-moving rail facilities on the other would be a singularly poor contribution on the part of this country to a very important project? Does my noble friend further agree that there is a great burden of responsibility upon the Government to see that this does not happen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the situation. At present we are awaiting a report from British Rail on the capacity constraints between London and the Tunnel. We expect the report to be published very shortly. That will clarify the situation as to whether there is a need for a new high-speed link. I cannot anticipate the conclusions of that report at the moment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe the House will recall that we debated this matter very fully during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Bill. I believed that the Government were coming round to the on-train clearance system. We know that there is a problem between British Rail, the Department of Transport and the Treasury. Can the Minister say whether this problem is any closer to resolution? We know that for very many years now the French and the Continentals have been operating a system with the minimum of carriage space. However, I understand that if there is on-train clearance the Treasury requires one-and-a-half carriages which seems to be quite excessive. Can the Minister tell us anything about the negotiations with the Treasury as regards this matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, talks between British Rail and the Treasury—not forgetting immigration and its controls—are still continuing with regard to the provision of on-train controls for services going beyond London to the North. I know that was a subject that greatly concerned your Lordships when the Bill was passing through this House. At that time the Government agreed to facilitate on-train controls for those trains.
As regards the number of carriages for these facilities which the noble Lord mentioned ߞnamely, one-and-a-half per train—it is far too early to say what the realistic requirement is likely to be. This matter is being discussed by British Rail and the authorities at the moment. I would be surprised if the figure needed to be anything like the one mentioned.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the planned speed of the train to the Channel Tunnel in France is 125 miles per hour but that in this country it will work out at 53 miles per hour? This seems an enormous disparity even before one adds the delays caused by immigration and Customs controls at the end of the journey. As there is an immense investment in hardware both by ourselves and the French, is it not worthwhile spending a little more time, energy and money on making sure that the immigration and Customs controls, which will exist on trains going around

247
London and travelling south and west and to the north of England are extended once that principle has been proved so that they may be operated on the Channel to Waterloo line as well as on the round services?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is really a matter of convenience to people. I do not accept that any significant delays will be caused. Delays at airports are generally caused by people waiting for their baggage. Once they have it they normally pass through immigration and Customs extremely quickly unless there are suspicious circumstances. Of course we still need controls, and we shall continue to need them, to deal with drugs and terrorism and so on.The alternative of on-train controls for the Waterloo services would require travelling Customs and immigration officers; it would be quite an expensive use of manpower. Furthermore, it would mean that people were approached in the middle of their lunch, for instance, when they might prefer to have these matters dealt with on reaching Waterloo. There is an argument for Waterloo.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the cost of setting up airport-type facilities at Waterloo far exceeds the cost of having people working on the trains? Is he further aware that I tried to move amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill for on-train Customs and immigration facilities from Waterloo as well as the rest of the country? I am delighted to find so many noble Lords now coming round to support that view.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the cost of the Customs hall at Waterloo will be between £4 million and £5 million. That is a one-off cost for building it, whereas keeping Customs and immigration officials on the trains is an ongoing cost.Furthermore, even if there were on-train controls there would still need to be facilities for the Customs and immigration services at the terminal at Waterloo, so they would not all be new costs.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may just follow up that point.How many Customs and immigration officials can be employed and for how long for £4 million or £5 million?At the time the Bill was going through the House the cost was expected to be £8 million.How many people can be employed and for how long for that cost?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot honestly give an answer to that question.Quite a number of trains will be operating on the line at the same time.I do not know what the figure will be, but each train will have to have its own number of people.It is not possible for me to give an answer to the noble Lord's question.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, are the Government truly committed to the internal market in 1992?If so, why will there need to be any Customs officials?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are fully committed to reducing the barriers to trade within
248
the EC so far as possible by 1992; but as I said earlier we will still need controls against drugs, terrorism and so on.That is well understood and I hope accepted by noble Lords.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great deal of money has been raised for this project on the basis of promises about times and speeds which cannot possibly be carried out without a great deal of expenditure of public money? Would it not have been rather better to have studied all these facts before the money was raised and the promises given?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that all the facts were studied carefully before the money was raised.Indeed, I do not think the money would have been raised unless the investors knew what they were letting themselves in for.

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer: Quincentenary
2.45 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to make representations to the British Railways Board to mark the quincentenary of the birth of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in 1489 by naming a locomotive in his honour.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have no such plans.These are matters for the judgment of the British Railways Board.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer.Does he think it would be of benefit to the British Railways Board in these ecumenical times to commemorate a man who might be regarded as the founding father of worship in our mother tongue and the moving spirit of a book quoted as much as the Authorised Version.bearing particularly in mind that a locomotive has already been named after John Wesley?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct.A locomotive has already been named after John Wesley; and indeed one has been named after Charles Wesley.We understand that representations have been made to the British Railways Board to commemorate Archbishop Thomas Cranmer on a name plate.The board, which has a long waiting list, has decided that the case does not readily meet its criteria.
Lord Parry: My Lords, may I therefore put in a request on behalf of John the Baptist?
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, one cannot say what Archbishop Cranmer would think of having a locomotive named after him.However, with all due respect to the right reverend Prelate, it might be much more interesting today if we could know the views of the Archbishop on the ordination of women as priests.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think we are going off the track into a siding.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, before we run into the buffers, will the Minister welcome the assurance given in another place about the proposal to hold a major exhibition to commemorate the quincentenary of Thomas Cranmer'? That exhibition will be held in the Great Hall of Lambeth Palace in September of next year and will be preceded by two public lectures to be given by Dr.Peter Brooks of Robinson College Cambridge.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am perfectly certain that the whole House is delighted to hear that.

General Teaching Council: Proposal
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will establish a general teaching council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government have consistently made it clear that they are prepared to consider the case for a general teaching council in England and Wales but only on the basis of a specific proposal likely to command widespread support and serve the interests of relevant parties; that is, parents, pupils and employers as well as teachers.No such specific proposal has been received.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I give a cautious welcome to that Answer.Does the Minister agree that a general teaching council would raise and maintain standards in the teaching profession, just as the General Medical Council and the Bar Council do in their professions?Does she not further agree that the two prerequisites of a successful general teaching council would be, first, that it should be a completely independent body; and secondly, that it must consist entirely of representatives of the teaching profession?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as a solicitor and therefore a member of the Law Society, I recognise the value of this type of organisation.I recognise that teachers perform an important job.I am happy to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to teachers.We are convinced that the vast majority of teachers do an important job in a dedicated manner, sometimes in difficult circumstances.I should particularly like to pay tribute to the way in which they have coped with the introduction of the GCSE and to say that by introducing the national curriculum we hope we are providing them with another exciting challenge to their professional commitment.I recognise that teachers would find a useful role on a general teaching council and would use it as a vehicle.But, as I said in my original response, we believe that it must also serve the interests of the wider community.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the proposal for a general teaching council was urged in 1973 upon Sir Keith Joseph, the then
250
Secretary of State, by a group of educationists all of whom were members of my noble friend's party with quite precise ideas as to how such a council might be constituted?When the Bill is through, if the Minister were to go back through the archives of the department she would not be able to say that no precise proposals were on the table.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand it successive governments have received various proposals.The last formal proposal was contained in A Teaching Council for England and Wales, a report from the Weaver working party which was published in 1970.Unfortunately, as the proposal did not receive backing from all teaching unions, the government of the day took no further action.As regards any subsequent proposals which have been made, I understand that there has still not been wholehearted commitment from all the unions or all the parties concerned.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is vital to restore the morale of the teaching profession at a time of great educational change and that a general teaching council might be a most constructive move in that direction?Would it not bring teachers collectively together to participate in the implementation of the new legislation?Can the noble Baroness also say why the Government are insisting that pupils should be involved in such a general teaching council—I think I heard her correctly—when the Government have resisted the participation of pupils even at sixth-form level in governing bodies?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall answer the last point first. I must emphasise that what I said is that we should like to ensure that it would serve the interests of the relevant parties. It is in that context that pupils will figure. As I have said, the Government will consider any specific proposals that are put forward. I do not believe that it would be helpful for the Government to be seen to be imposing a general teaching council. If it is to be successful, it must have the widespread support of the professionals and of the other parties concerned. I understand that not even the Opposition education spokesman in another place, who recently announced this idea as new party policy, wanted such a body to be imposed by statute.
Lord Peston: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for what I take to be a sympathetic answer, would the Government, if one of the great foundations were to finance a pilot study into a general teaching council, give a fair wind to such a study or, at least, support it without necessarily imposing it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Government would be quite happy to give a fair wind to that, as indeed they did in the case of the Weaver working party which was in fact set up by government. It is true to say that a general teaching council could be set up in any event. But, obviously, it would he useful to have government recognition and support for such a project.
Lord Parry: My Lords, would not a splendid initiative be for the Government to invite the teacher unions to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the concept anew in view of the history of the matter and also of the fact that most teachers—whatever the institute in which they were trained—are conscious that their basic training is insufficient for the demands of the present day? They have been trying by way of in-service education and postgraduate courses through the Open University to improve their lot as teachers so as to be able to cope.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are certain individuals in the country who are most keen on promoting this idea: one is Professor Ross of Lancaster University who is in touch with the department. The department is being kept fully informed of developments on that front. Certainly the various initiatives that the department is taking in relation to both initial training and in-service training are, I believe, evidence of the value which the department places on this matter and the importance which it must bear for the future of the teaching profession.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if a teaching council was set up, can my noble friend say whether it would cover physical education and sporting activities? If pupils were taught to play cricket rather more efficiently in future in the schools, we might then not have to eat humble pie.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can see absolutely no reason why not.
Lord Annan: My Lords, if a teaching council were to be set up, could it perhaps address itself to the problem of how to teach mathematics from the ages of 16 to 18 to those who have no mathematical talent? It is most important that this should be done if we are to address ourselves to the problems which Continental countries have resolved.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel sure that the Government will bear that in mind when considering any possible specific proposal which may emerge.

The Sharpeville Six
2.55 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to save the Sharpeville Six from execution.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have joined in appeals for clemency by foreign ministers of the Twelve on 14th June, by the Security Council on 17th June, and by heads of government at the Toronto Economic Summit on 20th June and at the European Council on 28th June.Recently we have again raised the issue directly with the South African Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord what action the Government are taking in the matter. Is the Minister not aware that there have been appeals, representations and diplomatic approaches for many years now and the only result has been increased oppression and brutality by the South African state? Is it the case that at the EC summit in Hanover, which took place a week ago, it was only the British foreign minister who stood out against the desire of the rest of the Twelve to warn the South African Government that if the Sharpeville Six were executed they could expect an increase in economic sanctions against that country and, possibly, also diplomatic sanctions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, no: that is not the case. It is not true that the United Kingdom is isolated among the Twelve on the possible response if the six were executed. Our partners in the Twelve are not united on how to respond to what I have to stress to the noble Lord is at present a hypothetical question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that supplementaries such as those posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, are not very helpful in this context?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly true, as my noble friend suggests, that the legal process as regards the Sharpeville Six is not yet exhausted.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we fully support the representations made by Her Majesty's Government, in concert with others, from the summits which the Minister has described and also the unilateral representations. Can he say whether there has been any response from the South African Government to those representations? Can he also say a little more about the unilateral action taken by Her Majesty's Government?
Secondly, in view of the petition, or appeal, which is now being made to the chief justice of South Africa against the execution of the Sharpeville Six, can he say what further action Her Majesty's Government will take if the appeal should fail? Would the Prime Minister, who is reputed to have some influence in Pretoria, herself make representations—if necessary, by telephone—to Mr. Botha?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that the stay of execution is in force until 19th July.I understand that defence lawyers lodged a petition on 4th July—to which the noble Lord referred—asking the South African acting chief justice to grant leave to appeal for a retrial. Should the petition be unsuccessful, defence lawyers can then address a fresh appeal to President Botha asking for clemency. Our understanding is that the stay of execution would he extended while the President considered the appeal.
As regards any response to the representations which we have made, those representations have been noted, as the noble Lord will have imagined, by those concerned. Our ambassador raised the issue of the Sharpeville Six bilaterally with the director general of

253
the South African Department of Foreign Affairs on 22nd June and the director general of the South African Department of Justice on 28th June. We have drawn recent statements to the attention of the South African ambassador here.
As regards the future, as I have said, it is hypothetical. However, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 30th June that if the result is that the Sharpeville Six are condemned to death, we shall repeat our call for clemency.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, have the Government considered asking the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Hume and the Chief Rabbi whether they have thought to make joint representations to the South African authorities about the six?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I feel quite certain that the universal concern which is felt about the Sharpeville Six will have been well noted by the most reverend Primate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about the representations that are being made. However, I have to repeat that representations have been made to the South African Government for years.The only consequence has been that they have been ignored and that the oppression has increased.
Is it not the case that in the United States one of the main presidential candidates has described the South African Government as "racist"and the other main candidate has described it as "terrorist"? Both of those terms will imply further measures if either of these gentlemen is elected. Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to remain as the only known friend of the South African apartheid regime when the United States, the EC and the Commonwealth are all pressing for more action and in some cases taking more action—action not words?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what the noble Lord fully fails to take account of is the fact that punitive sanctions already imposed have failed to speed up reform. They have reduced external influence and to some extent they have strengthened the right wing. I should have thought that we ought to try to strive to work for peaceful change through dialogue and negotiations, contact, pressure, advocacy, persuasion, dialogue and aid. That is the kind of action that will achieve what the noble Lord wants to see.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Cleveland Child Abuse Report.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m.for approximately one hour and that during
254
that adjournment the Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) (No.2) Order 1988 and the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 will be taken.

Harwich Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Environment and Safety Information Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

British Steel Bill
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Vesting of property etc.of British Steel Corporation in a successor company]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert —
("( ) The successor company shall not dispose of any property or plant whether by sale or long lease in Scotland without giving the Secretary of State for Scotland opportunity to comment.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. Perhaps 1 may first recall the amendment which I moved at the Committee stage. In that debate I asked that any sale of anything by the British Steel Corporation out of Scotland should first be referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland for his approval. During the debate various noble Lords suggested that I had gone too far in asking for such a commitment. On the other hand, many of your Lordships recognised that there was a very grave problem here for Scotland because, after all, steel is a basic industry and is fundamental to its wellbeing.
Noble Lords further accepted that profit should not be the sole criterion in a case such as that. Your Lordships will recall that, despite our efforts to find common ground, we went to a Division. The Division was close but we lost. It therefore occurred to me that we ought to try to find something which was not quite so restrictive. That is what this amendment does. It asks that there should be no disposition of plant, machinery or property in Scotland without discussion with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I and the other noble Lords who have subscribed to this amendment feel that this is something which it is proper to ask. While it does not give the Government any power of veto over the sale, it gives them a chance to make comments, in a manner that does not in any way upset the private activities of the British Steel Corporation. It does not take away from the corporation's powers but it ensures that it will talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland before it acts.
There is a further point that I want to develop and I think it is of almost equal importance. Noble Lords

255
may recall that in the previous debate it was mentioned that the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the very day when we were having our debate on the amendment, had sent me a letter. I had not received it by the time the debate took place. I do not wish to go into that happening at the moment. I wish to quote from the letter because it is public knowledge; it was placed—and I fully agree now that this should have been done— in the Library.
In that letter, dated 20th June, the Secretary of State said to me:
"the Corporation"—
that is, the British Steel Corporation—
"has also indicated that, even if it should wish at some stage, because of market conditions, to close its steel making facilities at Ravenscraig, it would consider, on a commercial basis, any wholly private sector offer for those facilities as an alternative to closure".
That is of tremendous importance. If it could in some way be substantiated—that is the wrong word—or inserted, for example, in the prospectus, I for one should feel very much happier about how things stand. That would dispel my great fears—which I know are shared by many of your Lordships—that otherwise something like what happened in the case of the British Sugar Corporation and the closure of Cupar might take place. Noble Lords will recall that the British Sugar Corporation closed Cupar and blocked the possibility of the Scottish farmer ever growing sugar beet again. That was to the advantage of the British farmer, but it really was not good enough. The profit motive was the only factor involved and we had no chance to arrange for a sale elsewhere.
The point made in the letter is a very valuable one. I very much hope that something of its essence can be incorporated in the prospectus. People may say that the British Steel Corporation, after all, has already made all these statements. They may wonder why we are asking for anything else. But, clearly, the answer is very simple.Whatever statements the corporation may have made, and whatever its real intentions at present may be, it cannot bind its successor. But if something is put in a prospectus, the situation is different.
I move the amendment standing in my name and those of the other noble Lords whose names are down to it on the Marshalled List. But at the same time I ask the Government whether they will incorporate the sentence which I quoted from the letter of the Secretary of State of 20th June in any prospectus for the new corporation. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I do not intend to repeat the positive arguments for the amendment which he outlined in Committee, and which he has deployed today in support of a rather different amendment. However, I think it aims to achieve much the same result.
The only points I wish to make are that I very much agree with the noble Earl as regards the letter of the Secretary of State, which I think is of great importance. But the noble Earl rightly points out that whatever the Secretary of State may write in a letter it is not the same as having it written into a Bill or
256
Act. Therefore, to my mind, although the letter of the Secretary of State is welcome, it does not remove the necessity for the amendment.
I point out to noble Lords that the amendment is exceptionally mild. It does not threaten the Government or the British Steel Corporation in any way. It merely states that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be given an "opportunity to comment". That cannot be said to be a wrecking amendment, or even a revolutionary amendment. But I think that it is a reasonable suggestion as regards a matter that, were it to happen, would be of vital importance to Scotland.
I shall try to answer the main objection which, as I understood it, was made to the rather more drastic proposal of the noble Earl in Committee; namely, that if any such provision as this was written into the Bill, it would deter people who may be inclined to put in an offer for the British Steel Corporation when it is privatised. I do not think that that argument can be sustained. In several Bills concerned with privatisation there have been provisions for a "golden share." That clearly gives the Government power to intervene, if necessary, in the national interest. That has not prevented privatisation going forward. It has not deterred people who thought they could make a profit from coming forward and making a bid.
Further, I understand that several countries have provisions by which the assets of their companies cannot be disposed of simply at the whim of a foreign take-over. I think that at this moment there is a prospect of a Finnish company coming to the Stock Exchange and making an issue in this country in which, either through its articles of association or through Finnish law, it is laid down that 50 million shares will be held in Finland. I understand that no one feels that that is a complete bar to a successful issue in this country. There are other companies which, either through their articles of association or through the law of their domicile, have restrictions of some kind.
Finally, I point out that should there be any question of the sale or long lease of property or plant in Scotland, it is almost bound to involve the Government. At this very moment the Government—although no doubt they hope to keep out of the matter—are in fact becoming involved in the controversy between British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Therefore they would be bound to become involved in such an issue. It seems to me much better that notice should be given so that the whole matter is not left to the last moment, so that it can be properly discussed and various alternatives suggested, or, if it becomes necessary to close down a plant with subsequent absolute loss of employment in a certain area, steps can be taken to lessen the blow.
I finish by pointing out that this does not prevent either the steel company from ceasing to manufacture or ultimately from disposing of its property. The amendment by itself only states that before that happens the Secretary of State for Scotland shall be given an "opportunity to comment". Surely, that is reasonable.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I read the amendment on the Marshalled List with some interest. My immediate reaction on reading it was to ask myself whether it in any way was comparable with what took place with regard to the closing of the British Sugar Corporation factory at Cupar. I was immensely interested to discover that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was so far obviously on the same wavelength on this subject as myself.
I was a Minister at the sponsoring department of the British Sugar Corporation in those days—the Ministry of Agriculture. I remember the chairman of the British Sugar Corporation, Sir Gerald Thorley, saying that he wished to close down, for economic reasons, the sugar factory at Cupar in Fife. As the noble Earl has said, it thereby became no longer possible for farmers in Scotland to grow sugar beet.
In passing, I should say that I think that one would find hardly a farmer within the orbit of that sugar factory at Cupar who would not say what a blessing it was that it was closed. The farmers would also say that it has enabled them to grow far more profitable crops than uneconomical sugar beet, such as vegetables for human consumption. But that is by the way.
But if anyone imagined that the intended closure of the sugar beet factory at Cupar would go unnoticed by the Scottish Office, he can quickly disabuse himself. The red telephones started ringing at frequent intervals and the Scottish Office was understandably extremely concerned about the matter. That is why, although I totally accept the description of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, of the amendment—that it is extremely moderate—I say to him with the greatest respect that it is unnecessarily moderate. I cannot conceive with the little experience that I have had, and which I have described to your Lordships, that such an amendment is necessary at all.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not have the recollection or the detailed knowledge of farming of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, to enable me to talk about the sugar factory at Cupar. But I know of a more recent closure of a factory where the Government had invested a vast amount of money and where the Secretary of State was suddenly taken by surprise at the decision to close it. That was the Caterpillar company where, much to the annoyance of the Secretary of State, a closure decision was implemented. Perhaps it is that kind of situation that we wish to prevent happening in this case.
Certainly the British Steel Corporation has received a certain amount of public money in the past and there is a need to take the social consequences into account, as the Secretary of State tried to do in the case of the Caterpillar company. However, he could do nothing to prevent that closure as he had not been informed of it before the decision was taken. I support the amendment.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I spoke at Committee stage on this matter and I shall not repeat my comments. However, there are several points which are worth making on the new amendment. I agree
258
that it is very moderate—so moderate as to be almost unnecessary. It is practically inconceivable to me that such a major change could take place in Scottish industry without the Secretary of State for Scotland either being aware of or being forced to comment—most probably over and over again—on the matter.
I shall not repeat previous arguments which have been put forward about the problems of the sale of British Steel with its ankles shackled and so on. That does not arise with this amendment. However, I wish to raise two points. First, when the noble Earl, Lord Perth, introduced the amendment he commented on the fact that the Secretary of State would have to have the opportunity to make remarks about the sale of property, plant or machinery. That seems to me to be an extensive range of affairs for a Secretary of State to comment on. Apparently even bits of machinery could not be sold without the Secretary of State becoming involved in some way. I am also unsure about what the term "long lease" means in the amendment. That is an arguable proposition.
I accept that those are relatively minor technical points dealing with the wording of the amendment. I do not wish to debate the question of what they mean. However, I wish to pick up a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, when he referred to previous privatisations and the so-called golden share. To me that seems to be a different kettle of fish to what has been proposed in previous amendments or in some respects what is proposed in this amendment. The fact that there are major or large shareholders is a different matter from that of attempting to tie into an Act of Parliament specific prohibitions on a company. It is for those reasons that I have made my comments today.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It would mean that the authority which we wish the Secretary of State for Scotland to have would be mentioned on the face of the Bill. If that were not the case, the company might by subjected to the kind of takeovers which go on all the time these days, which I find difficult to follow and often disagreeable. The amendment simply states that the Secretary of State shall have the final word in such matters. The amendment should be supported wholeheartedly.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the question of the golden share has been introduced in our debate. It would give veto powers to the Government as holders of the share. That is not implied in the amendment which is now before us. The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should be made aware of any drastic or fundamental changes in the private company and given the opportunity to comment on them. Members of your Lordships' House may feel that he will have the opportunity to comment in any case. If that is so, why should not we write it into the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has described instances where decisions affecting the Scottish economy were made in Detroit or elsewhere and in which the Secretary of State for Scotland had a substantial financial interest but was not invited to comment. A case in point is that of the Caterpillar factory.

259
Overshadowing our discussion on the amendment is the Ravenscraig question and the future of the Scottish steel industry. Perhaps I may say to the Government that Ravenscraig has attained a symbolic importance in Scotland. It represents one of the monuments of Scottish industry. The fact that the fate of that important and basic industry could be decided without comment from the Secretary of State for Scotland is unacceptable in Scotland. In the last few years the Government have attempted to better their miserable electoral performance in Scotland. Rejecting this amendment will do nothing to help that cause.
It was said earlier in your Lordships' House that if the provision was written into the Bill, and subsequently into the prospectus which will be isssued to attract investment to the privatised company, it will inhibit private investment in the industry. However, in the privatisations of both British Telecom and British Gas it was stated in the prospectuses that if there was a change of government, the Labour Party was committed to the rcnationalisation of the industry. That is a fairly drastic comment to make in a prospectus for an industry which is about to be privatised. It is much more drastic than the moderate amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which simply says that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be invited to comment on any fundamental change in the Scottish ecomomy which involves the steel industry. I therefore suggest that the amendment would do no harm and, if I may help the Government in this matter, there might be a great advantage to them in terms of their political fortunes in Scotland in accepting the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.I suggest that, whatever the failings of the Conservative Party in Scotland, it does not need guidance from his party as to how to put things right.I was particularly interested in the point he made about previous nationalisations.He may well be right.However, he is vastly experienced in the world of finance.Over the years I have no doubt that he has given valuable advice to many companies.Wearing that other hat, I wonder what his advice to a company that was interested in purchasing British Steel would be in terms of having to contend with the stipulation which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, seeks to include in the legislation.I venture to suggest that he would tell his client to go very cannily and he would be right to do so.
The main point at issue is the principle of privatisation.Those who have spoken against the amendment are opposed to that principle, whether it be the privatisation of steel or of any other industry.The noble Earl, Lord Perth, who in Scottish terms is a bonnie fighter, was bound to return at Report stage with an amendment slightly diluted from that which he had proposed at the Committee stage.I suggest that the arguments which he puts forward are very similar to those which he put forward earlier when his amendment was worded rather more strongly.
260
We should pay great attention to the excellent contribution made by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, who has a wealth of experience in the farming industry. He highlighted just how ridiculous it would be to make any comparison between what the noble Earl, Lord Perth.seeks to do now and the question of farmers growing sugar-beet in Scotland.I thought that that point was made most effectively.
For my part I see no point in accepting the amendment. It will unquestionably weaken the legislation.It will prejudice the ultimate success of the company. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I rise to support my noble kinsman and clan chief the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It seems to me that it would be a very small concession from Her Majesty's Government for the Secretary of State to be allowed to comment on any future sale of property or other assets by British Steel. This is a free country and we are all entitled to free speech. Surely the Secretary of State for Scotland should also be entitled to free speech.
I believe that this is not a wrecking amendment, but indeed a very helpful one. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see it in that light.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland requires any prompting from this House or by the Bill to take the opportunity to comment on any question of the closure of Ravenscraig or the sale of any piece of machinery owned by British Steel in Scotland. It is rather strange that many noble Lords have spoken this afternoon in a rather negative and frightened way about the future. I am not sure whether or not it is appropriate to mention that British Steel has announced its profits today. It has doubled its profits and is now the most profitable steel industry in Europe. It seems to me that we should be talking positively about the contribution of we Scots to the manufacture of steel in Europe and in the world.
The amendment would write into the Bill that our Secretary of State alone—not any other Secretary of State; not the Secretary of State for Wales, for Trade and Industry or for Employment—should be allowed to comment.He may say that he does not want something to be so. But that is all that he would be able to do— to comment. It seems to me a somewhat trivial amendment; but it was moved, I know, with no trivial purpose at all. Nor was the previous amendment moved with any trivial purpose. The intention is to speak up for Scotland in your Lordships' House and in the country. I wish to be second to none in fulfilling that aim. However, I do not want to act in a negative way. We should all be proud of what the steel industry has achieved today and want to see Scotland playing its major part in the future.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, this is an immensely crucial point in the history of Scotland. It was about 120 years ago that steel became the central feature of the industrial development which has taken place.

261
Now that local supplies have disappeared raw materials will come from abroad. That is a very big change, the extent of which I do not think can readily be foreseen.
Perhaps I may remind the House that there was a time when Coatbridge was the vulcan of Great Britain. It was an extremely unpleasant experience; the sun was never seen at all. Equally, nearly half the boats in the world were built on the Clyde. That was an immensely formidable element in the country.
Why is that important? The first reason is that changes of ownership cannot take place secretly without anyone knowing. I do not know whether it is an absurd story, but certainly it was gossip when I was at the United Nations. It was said that the site and the building of the United Nations was all settled in a night club in Philadelphia. That kind of thing can happen. There is nothing in company law to stop it if that is what is wanted. What we are saying is that it must be known.
Why is it important that it should be known? Perhaps I may put it in this language. There are two approaches to industry in Scotland. One is the pure economic approach: success at any price. The other is the recognition that all industry has a social basis and that if it does not have a social basis it will not succeed economically. That is a distinction which divides the country and has done so for many years. I think both are wrong. No industry can succeed purely on economic grounds or purely on social grounds. There should be a combination of the two. That is what we have tried to achieve in the country in a great variety of ways. It is of the utmost importance.
That, as I understand, is the motive of my noble friend Lord Perth in putting forward this amendment. He is saying that anything which fundamentally affects steel is of immense social importance to the country. That is the implication of the amendment. It does not matter how it works; that is what it means. It is a warning that the social implications of any change in the steel industry will be of great moment to the whole country.
That is why I think that it is worthwhile to make a comparison with the golden share. It is perhaps a rather distant comparison but it has the same implications. The disposal of property is something that cannot be allowed to slip past without the officer in charge, the Secretary of State, recognising all its implications for employment and labour. One may say that he will know about it. I have given one example to show that he might not know; it might be sprung on him. The amendment represents a small step. I believe that it is worth the Government's while to recognise that it is one which should not be overlooked.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment and to comment briefly on some of what has been said by its opponents. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, referred to the profits announced by British Steel today of some £400 million. Although a substantial part of that follows government example in the disposal of profitable assets it remains a very substantial increase in the normal profits of the enterprise.
262
The noble Baroness went on to say that Scotland would wish to play a part in the continuing prosperity of the steel industry. It has been made abundantly clear that the interest of those of us who support the amendment is in the future of Ravenscraig. If Ravenscraig is disposed of, Scotland will have no opportunity to play any part in the steel industry, because the last of it will have gone. It may be that at the end of the day that will happen. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, it ought not to happen secretly.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, has rather changed his statements on this matter. On the last occasion he argued against the previous amendment because of the possibility that the next Labour Government would have Mr.Benn as its Prime Minister. That possibility did not seem to raise many hackles on either side of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in a thundering speech against the amendment, said that if the previous amendment of the noble Earl had been carried one could not give away British Steel to private interests. That would seem to indicate that in his view the part that Ravenscraig is playing and would play in the enterprise was such a major part that its possible retention would kill the chance of privatisation. I think that the results indicated today of a profit of £400 million would certainly make that extremely unlikely.
I served for a spell of some seven years as a Minister in the Scottish Office. The then Secretary of State, the late Lord Ross of Marnock, gave me a very free hand in deciding what I should do with amendments because I had very little Back Bench support in this House and almost had to attempt to achieve some kind of Scottish coalition to get legislation through the House. One thing I never accepted was to put forward the argument which so frequently appeared in the brief prepared by the civil servants: "This amendment should be resisted because it is unnecessary. The Secretary of State would do this in any event". I used to argue that if the Secretary of State was willing to do it or would do it that was the best possible reason for accepting the amendment.
In those days amendments along these lines came from this side of the House, which was occupied by the people who at the present time sit on that other side of the House. I hope therefore that if the Minister is not to accept this amendment, he will find a better reason than to say that it is unnecessary because the Secretary of State would do it in any case.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in the short time that we have been debating this amendment perhaps more Scots have been brought into the discussion than have spoken in any other debate that I have known in this House. As has been said by a number of speakers, the reason is that in Scotland this is an emotive subject. There is much reason for it to be so. The industrial revolution in Scotland was built largely on steel. That steel should be seen as important is extremely pertinent to the psyche of Scotland. While we do not believe that therefore we should have steel for ever, there is a feeling of betrayal when such an important industry

263
is suddenly whipped away without any thought or representations being heard from the body of people who are in charge of the political machinery in Scotland.
It is interesting that, as I reckon it, 12 people from Scotland, including myself, have already spoken on this Bill, and one noble Lord from Wales has also contributed to the discussion. The proportions are something like eight to four. Almost as many people spoke in favour of this amendment as the Government have Members from Scotland in the other House.
This is an extremely modest amendment but that does not mean that it is not important to Scotland. None of us doubts that the Secretary of State will know what is happening; it is unlikely that such an organisation would suddenly close down without his knowledge, although my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna raised the question of Caterpillar. More than one government were rather let down by what happened at Linwood. The various groups who came into Linwood did not co-operate as well perhaps as they should have done, even in terms of giving information to the Government. Singer in Clydebank came as a fairly sudden surprise. After having been in Scotland from, I think, 1890, the company suddenly decided to pull out. The decision that it would no longer stay in Scotland was made in somewhere like Milwaukee.
There is a feeling that the fate of many important industries is decided without any reference to the social background and the circumstances in which they were built. I believe that it was the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who said that economic and social forces must go together and that the one is dependent upon the other. To run something purely on a profit-and-loss account basis for any length of time with a sustained effort can lead to great difficulties. It is quite true that some of the most successful companies in Britain over the past 100 years have been those that paid particular attention to the community in which they operated and to the welfare and betterment of their employees. With the more enlightened companies perhaps that era is returning.
It has been repeatedly said that this is not anything like as draconian an amendment as the one moved earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which was only lost by 11 votes. I think that it was suggested during the debate that the amendment gives the Secretary of State the right to interfere even if small pieces of machinery were to be sold. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, made quite clear in his earlier speech that he was speaking about fairly large sums of at least £100, 000. We are all intelligent people; we do not expect the Secretary of State to be bothered with the sale of the occasional winch or narrow-gauge locomotive. We are talking about fairly big money and fairly big decisions. They are decisions in which the Secretary of State should he involved because they will affect the fabric of the country.
If, after having discussed the matter, the Secretary of State feels that there is nothing that he can do—which may very well be the case, because if a decision has been firmly made he may not be able to
264
advance any arguments to persuade the people who are running the operation in a purely commercial way to act otherwise—nevertheless some time will have been gained.Surely the Secretary of State will always be able to influence matters—for instance, the run-down towards closure—so that some amelioration can take place or use his offices to find other outlets for the work.
What has come through the whole of this debate—and I am sure that noble Lords from parts of the country other than Scotland must be aware of it—is that a great deal of heat has been generated on this subject in Scotland. That is for very important, historic and indeed punishing reasons. I have a great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who comes from the north, but I only wish that he had as much feeling for the lowlands of Scotland as the lowlanders have for the highlands of Scotland, because this is an emotional subject. That is why we should feel a great deal better, as I am sure would the people of Scotland, if this mild but rather important amendment were included on the face of the Bill. I certainly give all my support to the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, before turning to the subject of this debate, I should like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for making public reference during the Committee stage debate to the Secretary of State's letter to him on this matter before he had received it. I shall not go into the reasons, but I can assure him that this will not be a precedent either for my department or for the Government. I apologise to him unreservedly.
Much concern has been expressed during this debate about the future of the corporation's Scottish facilities after privatisation. I understand that Ravenscraig and the other associated Scottish steel plants hold an important place in Scotland, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael has said. The corporation, which is a responsible employer, recognises the place which Ravenscraig holds in the community. The corporation has also placed clearly on the record the important place which Ravenscraig holds in its business. The chairman of the corporation issued a major statement on 3rd December last year in respect of British Steel's five integrated plants. Noble Lords will be familiar with its content but I shall repeat it because it is an important statement and this is an important debate.The chairman said that:
"subject to market conditions, the corporation expected that there will continue to be a commercial requirement for steelmaking and continuous casting at the corporation's 5 integrated plants for at least the next 7 years".
Such a statement would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. The corporation's present confidence is the product of a sustained effort by its management and workforce to turn the business into a viable, competitive enterprise. The results of that effort are apparent in the corporation's latest annual results that have been announced this morning. The corporation has made a net profit of £410 million in its last financial year. Its turnover has risen to more than £4 billion.

265
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, when he talks about miserable performances that he might like to have a look at the miserable performance of a loss of £117 million in 1976–77, a loss of £513 million in 1977–78 and a loss of £357 million in 1978–79.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I can recall no reference to "miserable performances" in anything that I said. Perhaps I may just say to him, while he is committing the corporation to seven years of Ravenscraig, that that commitment does not necessarily fall on the new company which is being formed.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the British Steel Corporation and its chairman issued a statement on 3rd December as I have stated. I believe that the British Steel Corporation chairman and his board are people of honour and of their word. I accept of course what the noble Lord said about miserable performances. He was talking about the political miserable performances of some political parties in Scotland. I am referring to the result of the Conservative Government's efforts to turn the British Steel Corporation round into a profitable company which these results truly demonstrate. I warmly congratulate the corporation's management and workforce on that excellent achievement.
Ravenscraig has played a full part in those results. It has made a full contribution to the corporation's success. I find it curious that against that background—strong profits, healthy demand and assurances about the future from the corporation—noble Lords should choose to cast doubts on the future of Ravenscraig.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, does that mean that the Government and the British Steel Corporation are withdrawing their threat that the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig is guaranteed only until next year?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked a question about the hot strip mill at the Committee stage. I repeat the assurance that the British Steel Corporation gave: namely, that until next year, 1989, there will be a continuance of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig. The noble Lord knows that as well as I do.
I have to say that highlighting Ravenscraig in this way does it a positive disservice. It implies that the plant is unable to stand on it own feet; that it needs special treatment. That approach would be a great mistake. If there had been special treatment for privileged parts of the corporation during the last few years, it would never have emerged from the perilous situation it was in at the start of this decade. The only criterion that an industrial business can have for the continued operation of a plant is that that plant remains competitive and makes a positive contribution to the organisation as a whole. That has been the position of Ravenscraig during the past financial year and the corporation expects, subject to market conditions, that that will remain the position
266
for at least seven years from December 1987. I do not think we can ask for more than that.
This amendment has been presented to the House as a moderate proposal which asks very little of the Government. At first sight it may seem innocuous enough. But when I listened to the arguments put forward in its support it became clear to me that the real aim of those who support the amendment is to provide some form of special protection for Ravenscraig by imposing a measure of political involvement in its future.
The aim of privatisation is to return British Steel to the private sector where it should operate on the same terms as other private companies. If another private sector company wished to dispose of property in Scotland it would not have to refer its plans to the Secretary of State for Scotland for comment before going ahead. Why should British Steel be subject to different treatment? There are many other firms with an important presence in Scotland. We do not accept that singling out Ravenscraig in this manner is conducive either to the future of Ravenscraig or to the Scottish economy as a whole. Furthermore, it is no use pretending that by restricting the Secretary of State's power of intervention to one of comment only, the amendment does not impose much of a restriction on the freedom of action of the successor company. In practice, it would be taking the issue out of the commercial domain and into the political one. British Steel has suffered too much from that approach since nationalisation in 1967.
What I find particularly disappointing is the belief, which clearly underpins this amendment, that it is within the power of governments to reverse unfavourable economic tends simply by telling companies what to do. The Government do not wish to act as the corporation's alternative management: far from it. The consequences of that approach would be calamitous. It is for the company to formulate and carry through plans according to the commercial situation in which it operates. At present the corporation judges that there is a continuing commercial requirement for steelmaking at all its five integrated sites. That is a commercial judgment and it is a much better indication of the future for Ravenscraig than it has been possible to make before.
British Steel has gone even further than that in an effort to reassure those who are concerned about Ravenscraig. As my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told your Lordships on 3rd December, the corporation has also indicated that even if it should wish at some stage because of market conditions to close its steelmaking facilities at Ravenscraig it would consider, on a commercial basis, any wholly private sector offer for those facilities as an alternative to closure.
I do fully understand the noble Earl's concern to safeguard the Scottish interest. The Scottish economy has faced major restructuring over the past decade and I recognise that this has in some respects necessarily been a very painful process. But Scotland is now increasingly sharing in the national prosperity brought about by this Government's economic policies. Today's results prove that. British Steel is playing its part, as today's excellent results amply

267
demonstrate. A short time ago British Steel was a massive drain on the nation's resources, as I have indicated. Now it is a symbol of national regeneration. I believe that for the Government to attempt to influence the corporation's activities in Scotland would be wrong. I understand why some noble Lords wish to do so, but I believe that to be a misplaced concern. The future of Ravenscraig is now much brighter as part of a competitive, enterprising organisation than it was a while ago as part of a loss-making industry. I am confident that British Steel will do well in the private sector and that Ravenscraig has a key part to play in this. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has made his point with great conviction, but I hope that he will understand that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government. Therefore I must ask the House to reject it.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question before the noble Lord resumes his seat. I popped up quickly so that I could ask my question while he was still on his feet. I did not want to interrupt him while he was making his statement because he had already been subjected to two interventions. However, twice during his remarks he emphasised the fact that the British Steel Corporation a year ago said that Ravenscraig would continue for seven years. Assuming—as I believe I am right in assuming—that the Government intend to privatise some time before that six years has elapsed, what effect would the remaining period mentioned in the British Steel Corporation's statement have on the successor company?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as I understand it, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, with leave of the House, is asking what guarantees there are that the privatised company will fulfil the obligations which are implicit in the statement of 3rd December 1987— not a year ago. When the prospectus for the new privatised company is produced—and this is on record—the statement which was made on 3rd December will be reflected in the prospectus.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, for his apology about what happened last time. I had had it already in writing from him and the Leader of the House had also written. I did not want to go any further except for one matter and that has now been met. I was most anxious that it should not be a precedent for the future. The Government have given that undertaking and so on that basis let us forget it and let me say "thank you".
I first wish to thank all those who have supported my amendment. I could not have done half as well myself or thought up so many excellent arguments as they have produced. It would be invidious to say which of the many points made was the most forceful; they all were.
I must comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, said, which was that farmers are so glad that they no longer have to grow sugar beet. That is not my experience and I must declare an interest for I
268
used to grow sugar beet and many round me were of the same opinion. I do not know whether the noble Lord ever goes to Cupar these days but it is a sad sight. There is that great factory lying idle. To the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I would say that I am not against privatisation. I do not think he has any right to say that many of the other speakers are of that opinion.
I should like to suggest what might be a possible way of obtaining what we ask for in the amendment and perhaps even more. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, drew attention to the various statements and safeguards that have been made by the British Steel Corporation over the last several months and years. He referred in particular to the statement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 3rd December. It is a vital statement about the British Steel Corporation being ready to consider offers in the event of its having to close. I agree with many noble Lords that we should not he too pessimistic. Never mind, one must think of good times as well as bad.
What I have mind is this. Is it possible for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with all his skills of advocacy, to talk with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation and find a form of words which will give effect in the prospectus to all the recent reassurances? That would include the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland must know what is happening? If that can be done, as was hinted by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes; if it can be made clear that there will be no closure; if all the other good statements made by the British Steel Corporation can be included in the prospectus in an appropriate form of words, perhaps we shall obtain what we want.
If the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is able to help me in that respect I believe that we should consider whether that half a loaf, three-quarters of a loaf or perhaps a whole loaf may mean that we need not press for a Division.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I can assure the House that the terms of the corporation's 3rd December statement with regard to its integrated plants will be reflected in the prospectus which will be issued at the time of privatisation. The undertaking given by the corporation to consider on a commercial basis any wholly private-sector offer for steel-making facilities at Ravenscraig as an alternative to closure is clearly on the record.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked whether the Government will be ready to discuss with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation the inclusion of various parliamentary undertakings being in suitable terms incorporated in the prospectus. I can say that if the noble Earl is prepared to withdraw his amendment I shall be happy to give that undertaking to him on behalf of the Government.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is it in order for me to ask the Minister a question?
Noble Lords:Yes
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as someone ignorant of the law I should like to ask the Minister whether he can assure the House that a requirement in a prospectus is binding in law on those who accept the prospectus and bid for the company.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I need to take advice on that matter because there is a question as regards what is included in the prospectus. However, at this stage I am saying that the Government will discuss the issue of the various undertakings being incorporated in the prospectus in suitable terms. It is an offer to discuss, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, wishes. I have given that undertaking.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to remind the Minister that, irrespective of how binding an undertaking may be, one can look hack to what Guinness undertook to do of its own volition and how speedily it abandoned that thereafter.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has said, goes a long way. The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is one of law. I am quite clear that if one has an undertaking in the prospectus one will follow it through. I believe that we should be well advised to accept the offer of the Government, knowing the powerful advocacy of the Secretary of State and that he will act in the spirit of what we want and what appears here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Cleveland Inquiry
4.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health on the Cleveland Report. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the report by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on the findings of her inquiry into the handling of suspected child abuse cases in Cleveland in the early part of last year. Her report, and her own short version of it, are available in the Vote Office, as is a statement she is making in Middlesbrough this afternoon.
"Mr. Speaker, the whole House will be united in its condemnation of sexual or other abuse of children, and in its support for proper action to protect children from it. But it will be no less united in insisting that this must be achieved in a way which does not trample on the rights of parents and inflict unnecessary distress on the very children we wish to be helped.
270
"It is clear from the report that this balance was not achieved in Cleveland during the period in question, even though many children received the protection they needed. The House would wish me to express the deep regret of all of us to those who have suffered as a result. It is perhaps hard to imagine the shattering effect on those parents who were innocent and on the children.
"The report contains substantial criticism both of individuals, including the consultant paediatricians, Dr. Higgs and Dr. Wyatt, the police surgeon, Dr. Irvine, and the child abuse consultant, Mrs. Richardson, and of important aspects of the managerial response to the situation as it developed. It confirms that there was an overall failure to achieve essential communication and co-operation between police, health and social services.
"It is for the authorities involved in the first instance to address these criticisms and take the necessary action. The Government expect that action to be thorough, speedy and effective. The help of the Government's own medical advisers, of the Social Services Inspectorate and of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will, of course, be made available to assist those authorities.
"At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Government are taking immediate action to ensure that the more general lessons of the report are applied not only to prevent a recurrence of similar events but to improve the handling of child abuse throughout the country.
"First, as I have already said, the report confirms the fundamental importance of the professional people and agencies concerned with child abuse working closely together within agreed guidelines. It underlines the need for a balanced assessment of different strands of evidence, and for action to be judged in the light of all the circumstances of the family as a whole. It stresses the need to listen carefully to what the children have to say and to take it seriously. And it re-emphasises the need for parents to be kept informed, consulted, and given reasonable access to their children unless this would be against the best interests of the child itself.
"These lessons, including the report's recommendations for the creation of special assessment teams, are reflected in comprehensive guidance which is being issued today by my department and the Welsh Office. Guidance circulars are also being issued today to the police by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and to the education service by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Detailed professional guidance on social work practice is now being tested in the field and will be issued shortly.
"On the specific point of ensuring effective co-operation between different agencies, I am also publishing today a survey by the Social Services Inspectorate of current arrangements. I am glad to say that it shows a generally satisfactory picture. In the few cases where this cannot be said, we are

271
asking the inspectorate to monitor the position closely and see that it is improved.
"Secondly, the report indicates that medical examination is only one aspect of assessment, and in particular that the test of reflex anal dilatation should not on its own be taken as conclusive evidence of sexual abuse. That view is confirmed by the report of a sub-committee of my right honourable friend's Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which we asked to consider these matters in parallel with the inquiry. Its guidance for doctors on the diagnosis of child sexual abuse is being published today and sent to every practising doctor in the country.
"We are also publishing today and distributing to the nursing profession guidance for senior nurses on the management of child abuse work from my right honourable friend's Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee. Copies of all the reports and guidance to which I have referred have been placed in the Library.
"Thirdly, the report shows a clear need for better training for those who handle child abuse work. We have already included in the Health and Medicines Bill new powers to cover specific grants for social work training in this field. I can tell the House now that we intend to make available in 1989–90 a grant of 70 per cent. in support of expenditure of £10 million. We shall ensure that this major new programme means not merely more training but better training which takes account of all the lessons learnt from the report.
"Lastly I am glad to say that the report gives general support to the proposals for reforming the law contained in the Government's White Paper on the law on child care and family services published last year. The aim of the proposals is to make the law simpler and clearer and to strengthen the rights of parents and children. They include the replacement of place of safety orders by a new emergency protection order with stricter criteria and more limited duration. In addition, where an emergency protection order is obtained without the parents being involved, they will have a new opportunity to challenge the order after 72 hours.
"The Government are firmly committed to a Bill to implement the White Paper proposals, modified as may be agreed in the light of the report. The Bill will be brought before Parliament at the earliest practicable opportunity.
"What I have announced covers the great majority of the report's recommendations. Others are being examined urgently. In particular, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor intends to issue a consultation paper before the House rises on the report's suggestion for an Office of Child Protection, with powers which could include scrutiny of local authority applications in care proceedings and calling for additional investigation or reports.
"We are extremely grateful to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss for the thorough and comprehensive work she has done, and to her three assessors—Professor Hull, Mr. Chant and Mr.
272
Soper—who have supported her in her conclusions and recommendations.
"The issues with which they have had to deal are immensely complex, and the report reflects the inescapable fact that there is no single simple answer. In acknowledging that, it is right also to balance the picture which has emerged from Cleveland with recognition of how much valuable and successful work is done in this difficult field by doctors, nurses, social workers and police throughout the country. But the plain fact is that what happened in Cleveland should not have happened, and must not be allowed to happen again. The measures announced today are designed to see that it does not".
That concludes the Statement, my Lords.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place and for its very balanced tone. Perhaps I may also add my warm congratulations to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on her thorough, sensitive and painstaking report, which carries with it a deep understanding of the appalling damage which is now being done to young children and their families on a previously unrecognised scale.
As a result of this report, we can all face more realistically the appalling challenge to society of child sexual abuse. It took many years and many notable cases from Marie Colwell and Kimberley Carlile before even the professionals, the doctors, nurses, social workers and police, came to accept the level of physical abuse, neglect and emotional stress on a wide scale in modern society. Experts who had become accustomed to seeing physical signs of beating found it difficult to accept sexual abuse where there was no clear physical evidence. It is no surprise that at the heart of this report is the problem of effective diagnosis by doctors and other professionals.
Therefore, I welcome the Minister's announcement about the new guidance note to doctors and no less the guidance note to nurses and midwives. The revised version of the multidisciplinary approach to child sex abuse is also warmly welcomed.
Cleveland has taught us all the degree of pain which is involved in sexual abuse for the child at the time, sometimes over a period of years, and of course in years to come: and, indeed, also for the innocent parents. The events have thrown up the question of which is more damaging: to take a suspected child sex abuse victim from his or her family and then find that there is no abuse but the family is torn apart, or, on the other hand, to leave a suspected victim at home with the family, limiting the possibility that the child will reveal what has happened, and then to find later that further abuse has occurred which could cause permanent damage to the child.
Some judgments will inevitably prove wrong. No one can be sure of what will happen. What is essential—and seems now to be happening in Cleveland—is that the professionals, including the police, should and will co-operate together. That is

273
something which clearly did not happen in the Cleveland situation and is a lesson which the report wisely points out.
There is clearly broad agreement with the conclusion in the report that the most important of all those involved is the child itself, for whom communication is most difficult and who too often is not believed when a statement is made. As in previous inquiries, crucial to the tragedy is a breakdown in communication between those involved. Clearly that has happened in Cleveland.
I should like to put a number of questions to the Minister on his Statement. First, is it not essential that a full study should be set up by the Government, involving professionals and organisations such as the NSPCC, the Children's Society and Dr. Barnado's, to assess the size of the problem that society now faces and to analyse anything that can throw light on the reasons for this happening?
Secondly, in the light of the size and nature of the problem is the Minister satisfied with his right honourable friend's rejection of the case for a three-year training course for social workers proposed by CCETSW? Will he look again at the position? Is he really satisfied with the announcement made in the Statement that £7 million will be made available for training? I quote:
"a grant of 70 per cent. in support of expenditure of £10 million,"
will be made available in England for the purpose. Is that not a modest sum? Are we not entitled to expect a larger response in terms of training and is not the figure of £40 million, which is what was rejected by the CCETSW proposal, more reasonable in view of this problem? In his Statement—and perhaps he can clarify this—the Minister did not refer specifically to child abuse in this training grant. Is he satisfied about the provision for the training of doctors and nurses in this respect?
Thirdly, should there not also be an in-depth study of motivation of this form of sexual deviation? Is this something which is linked with the violence which has become a feature of contemporary society? Is it more likely to be found among those who were themselves abused in childhood? To what extent can any part of the blame be placed on social work being inadequately funded in the work of social service departments?
Finally, will the Minister further comment on the contents and timing of the child care legislation'? I welcome his Statement that it will soon be before the House, but when'? It is now 18 months since the Government published their White Paper. It could be argued that if the proposed legislation had been law the events in Cleveland might not have been so tragic. Will he confirm that the law will aim to put the interests of children first, try to keep families together wherever possible, give parents a right of appeal against care orders by local authorities and give more support to those staff working with suspected abuse cases? Can he confirm that this legislation will be presented in the next Session of Parliament? In any case is it not a good idea that we should have an early opportunity to debate this very important report?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches wish also to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement on this very important report. We should like to add our congratulations to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on the work that she has done, which I think will command great admiration everywhere for its skill and thoroughness in an extremely difficult situation. It must have been a very difficult job, both intellectually and emotionally, to tackle the inquiry and report. We should like to pay a tribute to her.
Following the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I should like to suggest that this is a matter which requires a debate later on in more considered time. A reply to a Statement is not the moment in which to produce all the ideas that we should like to put forward in this connection. I should like merely to raise a very small number of points which I hope can be developed more fully when we have had the opportunity to absorb the report and to think more about the implications.
Clearly, as the Statement says, there is a problem here with training. These are extremely difficult cases. I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, in asking the Government to look again at their rejection of the three-year training programme for social workers, or at least for social workers of the level who will be called upon to tackle these cases. Having myself seen the training of social workers, which was carried out extensively at the London School of Economics, I know how much has to go into the training of social workers for the skilled levels of the work. I think the Government are unwise to turn down the idea that there should be a third year. No doubt it may have to be of a rather different kind from the training that has been given in previous times. But the need for high levels of skill and knowledge in this field cannot be denied; and this report underlines it. There is far too great a tendency for people to continue to think, strange though it may seem, that social work is just a matter of common sense, good will and kindliness. It is no such thing. Anybody studying these cases must realise that, while common sense and kindliness are of great importance, a great deal more is required. The training needs to be of a high order.
I should like to suggest also that there should be training together in some of these areas for all of the professions concerned. Sending out circulars is fine, but it is no substitute for training. Quite clearly one of the problems arising from this report is that there is a lack of understanding, communication and collaborative thinking among the police, social workers and doctors. Surely the best way to do this is to organise some common training. The training of all those groups has grown up from different bases, with different assumptions of what their work is to be. The only way that one can overcome this is to try to organise training on a multi-professional basis so that they can begin to understand the problems which they have in common and those which are different. That will lead to much easier communication among the groups concerned.
With more hope than expectation perhaps I also urge that somehow or other the media should behave in a different way in reporting such cases. I know that it is in no way in the hands of the Minister to deal with

275
this. But the temptation for the media to make headlines out of cases of this kind must be very difficult to resist. However, it does the greatest possible damage. It makes it extremely difficult for social workers to do their job. They are the people who have to go into the houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said and we have also said in this House on other occasions. If they take action, they are wrong; if they do not take action, they are wrong. Either way one can make a highly coloured media story out of it. We implore the media to act responsibly in backing up the difficult job that the social workers have to do and not undermine their confidence in attempting to do it.
I gather that there is a suggestion that there should be established an Office for Child Protection. That might well be a very good step to take. At this stage I have no idea. If Lord Justice Butler-Sloss has made the suggestion, it probably is right, but only if the office is well staffed and has the resources to act quickly. I can imagine nothing worse than yet another level of bureaucracy which encourages buck passing and holds up decisions where delay may greatly increase the harm that is being done.
Finally, does this not point again to the need for speedy establishment of the family courts for which we have asked for so long?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their sympathetic and understanding reception of this report on such a serious matter. I note that they join me in expressing our thanks and admiration to Lord Justice Butler-Sloss and her assessors for the thorough and authoritative report that they have produced. I believe that it is incumbent upon us now to ensure that the lessons to be drawn from the mistakes made in Cleveland are applied urgently.
As the Statement made clear, the Government therefore responded immediately to the report by publishing today guidance on inter-agency co-operation in the handling of child abuse, by issuing authoritative guidance to doctors on diagnosis of child sexual abuse and by making available a new grant of 70 per cent. in support of £10 million of expenditure on training to deal with child abuse.
As the Statement made clear, in addition we intend to reform the law on child care and family services at the earliest practical opportunity. In answer to a point of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I regret that I cannot change those words. I am sure that the House will understand that I cannot anticipate what may be in the gracious Speech this year. All these factors show our determination to act quickly and decisively to ensure that what happened in Cleveland is not repeated.
In Cleveland—the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is quite right—there was appalling damage to children and their families in some cases, but not in all cases. There in lies a difficulty. So far as concerns future and indeed current law, I think the correct approach is to make sure that there is a right and proper balance
276
between the needs of children, the needs of families and—a factor which is sometimes forgotten—the needs of society at large. Although the noble Baroness is quite right, there is absolutely nothing that I can do to control the press—and I do not think the House would want me to even if I could—the media have a great responsibility in this area and neither they nor we should undermine the incredibly difficult role of social services personnel.
I was asked various direct questions to which I can respond. The first was from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on the data and analysis of cases of sexual abuse round the country. The noble Lord will know that until now such statistics have not been held centrally. However, my right honourable friend announced on 9th July that we would arrange with local authorities for the collection of national statistics on child abuse drawing on the special experience of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in maintaining child abuse registers in various parts of the country. We have sent questionnaires to all local authorities seeking the information and we expect the results to be finalised in the spring of next year. Based on experience with that survey, we intend to introduce an annual statistical return.
Training is obviously very much an issue. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned my right honourable friend's decision not to agree with CCETSW on three-year training. I would point out that once one has read the report in detail, as I perforce have done, one becomes aware that the training that is needed is not basic training but postgraduate training. So I suggest that whether the training is for two or three years is immaterial.
As to multi-disciplinary training, our guidance to authorities stresses the importance of inter-agency multi-disciplinary training for all those dealing with child abuse. We have under way already a number of central initiatives to promote multi-disciplinary training. The 70 per cent. support for the 10 million is a very significant additional sum for social services training which will be used specifically in the child care field.
I should like to add something about research. We have already identified this as a priority theme for research. My department expects to spend a total of £157,200 in 1988 on research into child abuse generally. Almost £90,500 will be spent on two projects concerned only with child sexual abuse; £ 16,000 on a project concerned with physical abuse, and £50,000 on three projects researching both types of abuse.
Not surprisingly, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord finally concentrated on the Bill to be produced at the first legislative opportunity. I would suggest very gently that there is an enormous amount of reading in the various papers to which I have referred. Perhaps, when those have been assimilated by noble Lords, that will be the time either to discuss a future Bill or, indeed, to arrange for a debate through the usual channels. I must confess that in my view the prognosis of such a matter before the State Opening of Parliament is extremely unlikely.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the words "failure to achieve essential communication and co-operation" are sickeningly familiar'? Some such words have occurred in every case that I am aware of since that of Maria Colwell right up to the case of the death by starvation of a child which was given publicity a few days ago. The communication is not simply between police, health and social services. There are other agencies—voluntary agencies, teachers and others—who have a locus in this, and such communication is exceedingly difficult to administer. I hope that my noble friend will pay close attention to the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on training, which he has just accepted, and that he will also hear in mind that where matters are as complicated as this it is perhaps advisable not only to train people jointly but also to make sure that one of the trained persons eventually acts as a clearing house for the information of the others. That may well not have been the intention of the setting up of an office of child protection, but it would perhaps put a focus on where matters could be dealt with by a person who viewed every case as urgent even if it did not immediately appear to be so.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend, but the initial responses of the Government to the report as regards training are to be found in the document Working Together, a Guide to Arrangements for Inter-ageney Co-operation for the Protection of Children from Abuse. That covers the statutory agencies. However, I very much take my noble friend's point that there is also a need, as in other personal and social services areas, to involve the various non-statutory organisations. In this case the NSPCC would be one such, but I hasten to say that it is by no means the only one.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, throughout the House there will be noble Lords who are concerned with various children's organisations. It is my privilege to be linked with the National Children's Home. I have not read the report but having listened to the Minister this afternoon I too should like to express deep gratitude to the learned judge and her colleagues. My heart goes out to the people of Cleveland who, I am sure, are no different from those in the rest of the country. They have been singularly unfortunate to have had a shadow cast over them which no other part of the United Kingdom would wish to have. I hope that after a reasonable period, when we have had a chance to consider the report in detail, we shall have an opportunity for debate in your Lordships' House.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to say that if family life is undermined the damage cannot be measured. This is a complicated issue on which there will be many points of view. It is one which cannot easily be resolved—not even by the learned judge. We can only hope to do our best. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in expressing the hope that the media will realise that the family unit is essential if we are to maintain our heritage in this land.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Viscount in everything that he has said. Of course the structure of the family is fundamental to society in this country, and the Government will do all in their power to keep it that way.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my colleague social workers throughout the country will welcome the outstanding report made by an outstanding judge. I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister cannot elaborate too much on the Bill which will have to be in the Queen's Speech; therefore, he is in some difficulty. But having read carefully the White Paper on which we hope the Bill will be based, I should like to say, first, that we welcome the whole question of consolidating the 17 Acts of Parliament relating to families and children which will make for clarity and consistency. We welcome the recommendations in the White Paper on the rights of parents which we hope will figure in the Bill. We would also welcome in the Bill the recommendations with regard to the welfare of children.
I should like to raise a point which my noble friend may be unable to answer. The White Paper recommends an emergency protection order, which is an order of' eight days, instead of the place of safety order. I hope that when the Bill is brought before your Lordships' House it will be realised that resources will be needed. Unless the Government are really going to be able to produce the resources to carry out the provisions of the Bill it is rather pointless to introduce it. The eight-day protection order will need more resources. Indeed in social services departments throughout the country resources are needed which are not there at the moment.
Secondly, I wonder whether I might mention to my noble friend the Minister the question of training. He has given outstanding help in the £10 million that will be allowed for the training of those working in child abuse cases. However, if one thinks about it, I wonder whether this is right and sufficient. To train as a doctor, one has a general training and one specialises afterwards. The doctor's training is five years with specialisms afterwards. To train as a nurse, one has a three-year training. To train as a health visitor, one has a further training after that. If one is a teacher, one trains for three years. If one is to specialise in anything, one has a further training after that.
Social workers throughout the years have had a two-year training only. That is to cover not only child care but five different spheres of work, work with the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, children, the homeless, the elderly and the handicapped. It simply cannot be done. One cannot train for child abuse only. One would not train a doctor to deal with eyes only if he had not had a general medical training. To be effective social workers must have a general training first on general principles and training on specialisms afterwards.
I therefore very much welcome the £10 million that will be given. However, all social workers will be visiting families and, if they have not had a good basic training and specialist training, they will not recognise the cases to refer to the special unit. I think that such cases must be recognised just as a general

279
practitioner must be able to recognise specialist problems from his general practice.
I hope that the Government will think again about the three-year training to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred. It is a serious problem. We are in great difficulties because social workers throughout the years have not been properly trained. To be properly trained they must be trained in the law. This was brought out in the case that Mr. Blom-Cooper investigated, that of Kimberley Carlile. In the days when I trained we had one lecture on law every week for two years. The social work courses up to date have had about three lectures in two years, and that is all. I think that the serious disadvantage of social workers in this respect is not recognised in the country.
For my colleagues, I have to say that they do a magnificent job of work. To keep the situation in perspective, considering the number of children in the country, the number reported to be abused is a small proportion. It is a significant and important proportion, but it is small. I pay tribute to the social workers for the work that they do.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I regret having to interrupt my noble friend. I know that this is a subject with which your Lordships are very concerned. We have now spent 30 minutes in discussion on the Statement. Under Standing Orders, discussion on Statements should not exceed 20 minutes. When my noble friend has finished, perhaps we may return to our other business.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have said all that I wish to say. I want to underline that I hope that the Government will understand the whole position with regard to training and not just with regard to training in one area.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is clear from the report that the problems in Cleveland were failures in practice. While I acknowledge some weaknesses in correct child care law, I do not believe that this was the cause of the Cleveland events. With the best will in the world, legislation cannot ensure good practice. However, the current legislation and the guidance published today provide a sound framework for good practice. When my noble friend studies the report, she will find that the learned judge makes reference to the limited knowledge of and access to the law. When the Bill comes forward, I understand my noble friend will look critically at the financial and introductory memorandum.
As to the training of social workers, my right honourable friend has stressed the need for a balanced programme of improvements in social work education and training for all personal social services staff. This includes those without basic training qualifications, those needing further post-qualifying studies, which I mentioned earlier, and those who need to bring their training up to date. The training support programme is a measure intended to contribute towards this balance.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as the Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough for 21 years, I know
280
from personal experience of the high standards of performance of the National Health Service and of the social services in Cleveland. I could cite many cases of commendation. The same is true of the police. If one bears in mind that over the last five years the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has drawn attention to the ever-increasing numbers of child abuse cases, the Government themselves surely cannot be free from criticism for failing to take action earlier.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that in the circumstances that is a particularly fair response. The moment that this catastrophic situation came to light my right honourable friend the Secretary of State decided to set up this inquiry. The moment that the report was received, we had arrangements made for it to be printed and presented to both Houses at the earliest possible opportunity. During this time the various publications to which I have referred were prepared, and are being issued today. On this occasion at least. I do not think that comment can be made upon the laxity of government effort.

British Steel Bill
4.47 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3. insert the following new clause:
("Articles of Association of British Steel plc.
. The Articles of Association of the successor company shall be as set out in Schedule (Articles of Association of British Steel plc) while the Company is wholly owned by the Crown. and thereafter until altered under the provision of section 9 of the Companies Act 1985").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 15.
Amendment No. 2 is to state after Clause 3 that the articles of association should be printed in the schedule. Amendment No. 8 concerns the articles made available by the Government and lodged in the Library of the House. Amendments Nos. 9 to 15 are amendments to the articles suggested by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Perhaps I may leave aside any question of commenting on his amendments to the articles until he has moved them.
In principle, the articles should be in the Bill. Without the articles of association Parliament does not know what it is doing. It is a criticism of the way that the Bill has been presented, I think, that it has been through both Houses and reached this stage before we have had a chance to see the articles of association proposed by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. no doubt recollects that he had a slightly uncomfortable time in the absence of the articles when we discussed the position in Committee. The Committee made it clear that it was essential for the articles to be made available.
In the discussion on Amendment No. 1, reference was made to promises and assurances being given in the prospectus. With such knowledge of the law as I have, I am of the view that whatever is put in a prospectus does not hind the purchasers of the shares. If one wishes a matter to have any binding force at all it has to be in the articles of association.

281
Therefore one hopes that the assurances given by the Government as regards Scotland and Ravenscraig will appear in the articles when they come forward. No doubt the Minister will give that assurance.
The fact that the articles should be in the Bill is obvious, because when they are just sitting in the Library of the House the Government can change them at any time before bringing the Bill into force. Therefore, we do not know in this House or in another place what it is that the Government are bringing into effect. I fully accept that in the matter of detail the Government may consider it necessary to amend the articles of association before they put the Bill into effect and create this company wholly owned by the Crown. If that is the position I would have no objection to the Government putting forward an amendment giving themselves power by order to make alterations to the articles of association provided that Parliament has a chance to discuss them. That would seem to be the way to deal with the matter.
I suggest that the articles should be part of the statute as long as the company is wholly owned by the Crown. Without that, we do not know on what basis the company is to be privatised. Amendment No. 2 allows the customary power to shareholders to amend the articles by special resolution. That is the reference to Section 9 of the Companies Act. In those circumstances and without boring your Lordships by reading through the short Amendment No. 8, I move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment. It will be more grateful to him that he has not sought to read out the whole of his amendment; otherwise we might have been here well into the early hours of tomorrow morning. I follow my noble friend in speaking to Amendment No. 2 and Amendments Nos. 8 to 15. These amendments and the amendments I have tabled to my noble friend's amendment, allow us for the first time to duscuss what I regard as being the guts of this Bill. As your Lordships may recall, at Second Reading I said that without the articles of association we could not engage in a proper discussion about what the successor company was meant to be doing.
I repeated that assertion when your Lordships were in Committee on this Bill and a number of noble Lords were kind enough to support that. I am grateful to noble Lords opposite because, as a result, last Friday, 1st July I received from the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, a copy of the draft articles which he, as my noble friend said, placed in the Library. I wholly support my noble friend's thesis as regards the main amendment he is moving, that unless the articles of association of the successor company are in the Bill itself, the Government can change their mind at any time between when the Bill is enacted and the time of vesting.
As we at present have it, Parliament has no right at all to comment upon any change of mind that the Government may have. Of course there is a let-out in my noble friend's Amendment No. 2 once the successor company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown. It is then quite proper that the shareholders of the company, as they then will be, should be able to pronounce upon any changes in those articles by the normal resolutions under the
282
Companies Act in the manner of shareholders in any public limited company. On the main amendment that my noble friend is moving, he has our wholehearted support.
Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 8 is a long schedule. In addition to what my noble friend said, I merely add that these are the draft articles produced by the Government. These are not articles drafted by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna, skilled as he is in drafting company articles. As I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, at early stages of the Bill they have been the subject of intense discussion between government lawyers and those of the British Steel Corporation.
In Amendment No. 8 your Lordships have before you today the product of the work of those legal experts. Clearly it will need to be cleaned up before the Bill is enacted. There is a device which lawyers frequently use and it is a perfectly sensible one; that is to have square brackets where the text is not yet finally certain. When the time comes, the square brackets have to be removed and a text, with certainty, has to be produced.
The amendments that I move to my noble friend's amendment are of a more serious nature. I wish to introduce to your Lordships some sub-groupings, because I am speaking to the whole range of amendments. My Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which your Lordships will find on the last page of this rather long Marshalled List, I shall speak to as one sub-grouping. My Amendments Nos. 11, 12, and 13 I shall speak to next. Amendment No. 14 I shall speak to after that and then to Amendment No. 15.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 seek to bring the articles of association of the successor company into line with what I understand to be the stated view of the Government. It was stated by Mr. Kenneth Clarke in a press release dated 17th May 1988 and, though the wording is not quite the same as the press release, it was confirmed in a Written Answer which he gave to a Member of another place. The press release states:
"The Government will hold the "Special Share" for five years from privatization".
I remind your Lordships that this is the first occasion upon which we have the real text of the special share provision. In his Written Answer to a Member of another place, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
"It is the Government's intention that these arrangements would last for live years from the date of privatization".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/88: cols. 383–4.]
Perhaps I may refer your Lordships to page 5(E) of the Marshalled List. I shall read out the text for your convenience:
"The Special Share may be redeemed at par at any time prior to 31st December, 1993 by agreement between the board and the Special Shareholder".
This seems to introduce a new concept which Mr. Kenneth Clarke failed to put before the public and before a Member of another place in his reply on 17th May. Either the Government will hold the special share for five years or they may well, with agreement between themselves and the board of directors of the successor company, have that share redeemed. Those two propositions are not consistent one with another.
Under the articles as we have them in my noble friend's amendment, the special share will allow the

283
Secretary of State—I do not mean the Secretary of State in person because I am sure he is an honourable man, but any other Secretary of State to go to the board of the company straight after vesting, and say, "Do we now agree that the golden special share will he redeemed?" If the board and the Secretary of State agree, under the provisions of the articles as we have them the golden share will be redeemed. As I understand it, that is not what Mr. Kenneth Clarke meant when he said:
"It is the Government's intention that these arrangements would last for live years from the date of privatisation".
So my first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, are designed purely to bring the articles of association that we have in front of us into line with what is the Government's stated intention. If the articles are wrong, and if it is not the Government's stated intention to hold this special share for five years, I think your Lordships would wish to know that from the noble Lord the Secretary of State today. If the stated intention is to hold the share for five years, I think your Lordships will agree that my amendments to the articles of association, Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, will be easily acceptable to the Secretary of State as they simply embody what the Government have apparently said.
To date I have simply concentrated on Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 which seek to bring the articles into line with what I believe the Government, if they are not seriously misleading us, have said. I move now to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13. It is an odd proposition that the date on which the special share is to be redeemed should be fixed in time. It is perfectly clear from the way things work that if the articles of association of the company say that on 31st December 1993 the special share will be redeemed, at that point, Article 46, to which I shall come in a moment, falls and at that point the company is available for acquisition by any third party without the protection of the special share and consequential Article 46. That I understand is the intention of the Government.
To put a firm date on this seems to be quite absurd. If there is a date of 31st December 1993 beyond which the ball game is open, any operator will try, prior to 31st December 1993, to accumulate 14.9 per cent. of the company and he will then be in a position to put the company in play as it is known in current jargon. He will have a large shareholding at that point, and when the special share is redeemed he can use that shareholdiong to bargain his way into a takeover. It is a common practice, alas, nowadays, and it would be wrong for your Lordships to ignore it.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 is not only to ensure that there is a definite five years during which the Government will hold the golden share, but also to ensure that thereafter the redemption of the golden share should be not on a definite date but by agreement between the board and the special shareholder. If the special shareholder and the board agree that an acquisition is desirable in certain interests—we do not know what they will be—the special share can be redeemed and consequential arrangements made.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide that, even after the special share is redeemed, Article 46, which
284
prevents any individual shareholder from getting more than 15 per cent. of the company, should continue to operate. I have not moved a consequential deletion of paragraph 46(S) on page 22 of the Marshalled List as I do not want to weary your Lordships with too many amendments. We propose that even though the golden share may be redeemed the company should still have the right to activate Article 46. Only if the shareholders decide through a special resolution, which is defined in Section 378 of the Companies Act, to delete Article 46—in other words, 75 per cent. of the shareholders decide that that is the right thing to do—can an acquisition take place.
We have had many debates in the House about the devices used by various companies—in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the United States and so on—to ensure that if an acquisition is to be made it is made in proper circumstances and with the proper approval of shareholders. I do not seek in the amendments to defy that. I simply say that if British Steel plc's successor company is to be taken over, it should be taken over with the consent of 75 per cent. of its shareholders. That is the thrust of Amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 15 is a simple one. It seeks to determine that it is the Secretary of State while he is the special shareholder who is reponsible for finding out all the information rather than the board of the company. If the Government are to hold a golden share in the company it is up to them to find out, on the advice of the board and using all the possibilities outlined in the article, who is doing what in terms of concert parties and so on. It should not be left to the board of the company while the Secretary of State is still the special shareholder. After he ceases to be the special shareholder, it will be for the board of the company to take on that responsibility. That is the object of Amendment No. 15.
I have taken this time because, as I said at the outset, this is the first opportunity we have had to debate the golden share, the consequences that flow from its redemption and the abolition of Article 46, which prevents a takeover by a company without the procedures that are triggered by the articles. I hope your Lordships will recognise that I have been moderate in what I have said. I have not tried to introduce new ideas about how the goldern share might operate. At such a late stage in the Bill it is not appropriate for the Opposition to bring forward ideas other than those which are consistent with what the Government are trying to say. I rest my case on Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which seek to bring the Government into line with what Mr. Kenneth Clarke said on 17th May. I ask the Secretary of State to accept Amendmnts Nos. 9 and 10 in order to avoid the possibility that the Government could been to be misleading Parliament.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am certain that what I am about to say will not in any way divert the attention of the Secretary of State from the admirable remarks of my noble friends Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Williams of Elvel. During the discussion on the previous amendment I spoke about the profits of the British Steel Corporation being in excess of £400

285
million. I added that a substantial part of those profits came from disposing of assets in the same way as the Government have been doing. The Secretary of State did not contradict me other than to shake his head.
The shake of his head caused me to look again at today's Evening Standard. I find that I was wrong. I was quoting not from the profit statement of British Steel but from that of British Rail. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to correct a misleading statement and hope that nothing else I said fell into that category.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raises some very important issues. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said that so long as the company remains in the ownership of the Government the articles—that is, the conditions under which the company should operate—should form part of the Bill. As he pointed out, there is a risk that if that is not so, then we could be passing a Bill which could become law, and the articles (which lay down the basis upon which the company should operate) could be altered at will. We are entitled to know precisely what the basis is upon which the company should operate so long as it is owned by the Crown. Therefore. I fully support the first contention.
I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about the special share. The position as regards the special share should be much clearer than it is. The fact that there is a special share, but that that special share could be done away with at will at any time seems to me to negate the whole principle. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his inimitable style, presented some most cogent arguments whereby we should be much clearer about the status and importance of the special share. It cannot be something which is introduced on the one hand and then is capable of being abrogated, at will, on the other hand, so that we would not know where we stand. Thus, on those two issues, I fully support the amendment which has been put forward.
5.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for introducing these amendments. However, I fear that I shall have cause to correct the noble Lord on just one point which I am sure he will regard as merely a point of detail. Careful perusal of Hansard shows that during the Committee stage on the Bill in your Lordships' House there were many who requested that the articles be produced. However, from the record, the amendment was put to the vote and subsequently lost. Nevertheless, I still felt that since there were one or two noble Lords who wished to see the articles that we should have an opportunity to examine them today.
I must start by pointing out that the articles which have been provided are in draft form and will of course he subject to change. They have been drawn up by the corporation and its legal advisers, in
286
consultation with my department. With the exception of Articles 5 and 46, which deal with the special share and the limit on shareholdings, the articles are intended to be similar to those of any other large private sector company. Further, I am given to understand that they reflect the best private sector practice of the day.
Articles 5 and 46 are intended to implement the arrangements announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place on 17th May, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred. Article 46 restricts individual shareholdings in the company to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the equity. That provision is protected by the special share in the company that will be held by the Government under the terms of Article 5. The drafting of these articles is based on the precedent of similar articles used in the case of other privatised companies such as the British Airports Authority.
Before turning to the detailed points made in this debate about the articles (and in particular about the terms of the special share), I should like to respond briefly to the amendment that has led to this debate. The amendment would have the articles of association set out in a schedule to the Bill until after privatisation has taken place. I have to say that that would be unacceptable to the Government. As I have said, the articles at this stage are only a draft. They have for example yet to be submitted to the Stock Exchange for approval prior to the admission of British Steel shares to the official list. It would be an unnecessarily time-consuming and cumbersome procedure if every amendment to the articles had to be cleared by Parliament in the run up to privatisation and could, at an extreme case, lead to privatisation itself being delayed. For the most part, the articles are uncontroversial, and largely a matter for British Steel—and, ultimately, its shareholders. So far as the articles dealing with the special share are concerned, to which I shall turn in a moment, our policy is very clearly on the record, and I believe is reflected in the current draft of the articles.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has tabled a number of amendments to the two draft articles that contain the provisions relating to the special share and the limitation on shareholdings. The amendments are largely concerned with the five year time limit placed on the two articles. They would result in the special share and the limitation of shareholdings continuing indefinitely, unless the board of the company consented to the special share being redeemed.
So in considering these amendments, I should like to start by reminding the House that these particular articles place certain rules on the operation of the company which do not in general apply to companies operating in the private sector. Such special rules may, on occasion, be justified, and have been applied, on a case-by-case basis, in a number of previous privatisations. But they should not be imposed lightly. The purpose of privatisation is to put the company on all fours with other private sector companies so far as possible. It would be quite wrong in principle for the Government to retain powers for

287
itself over privatised companies without very good reason, merely because there was the opportunity to impose such rules prior to privatisation.
As my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook explained during the debate on this issue in Committee, the Government consider that mergers and acquisitions can exert a beneficial effect, and are inevitable in a competitive economy. Unless the possibility of takeover existed, a company's management could become complacent and inefficient. We recognise that the transition of a nationalised industry to the private sector imposes heavy burdens on management in the early years. That is why we have put in place the time-limited anti-takeover provisions that are being debated today. We do not, however, consider that there is any reason to afford the company indefinite protection from takeover. We judge that five years is adequate. Beyond that time, it should be a matter for the shareholders of the company to judge the merits of any takeover proposal, bearing in mind the performance of the existing management.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The provision that the share may be redeemed early is subject, as the articles state, to the agreement of the Government and the board of the company. The Government's present intention is, as stated, that the special share will remain for five years from the date of privatisation. It is, however, desirable to retain a degree of flexibility in the matter. The board of the successor company may at some time consider it desirable before the end of the five-year period for the special share to be redeemed. For example, to take a fanciful—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, how does he square what he is saying now with the detailed press release, which says:
"The Government will hold the "Special Share" for five years from privatisation"?
Lord Young of Graffham: Very simply, my Lords. What we are saying is that the Government will hold the special share from privatisation. All we are doing is giving a certain amount of flexibility if the board deems it desirable to allow—if the noble Lord will permit me to finish the point—a shareholder to hold more than 15 per cent. of the shares. What we want it a flexible future wealth and not an inflexible future wealth. For example, it is quite possible—I presume—as the Government is the holder of the golden share to consent to any takeover within the five-year period; it is not an inviolate bar. That will allow the situation to take place at the request of the board. I believe that that is surely something which all Members of your Lordships' House would accept is a sensible and prudent arrangement in order to allow flexibility for the board of the newly-privatised company—should they so wish it—within the first five years.
As regards the other amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13, of course
288
the date of 31st December 1993 does give any predator the opportunity to build up a holding—should there be such a predator. But the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has little confidence in the management of the newly-privatised company always to assume that there are predators about. However, surely any predator can take the date of privatisation, add five to the number of the year, and work out when that five-year period will expire. It will make little difference if we set a certain date in the Bill or if we set five years as being five years from the date of privatisation, assuming of course that there is privatisation within a reasonable period after 1st December 1988.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise if I am contravening the rules of Report, but I hope that the noble Lord understands that this is the first time we have had a debate and if I resort slightly to Committee procedures I hope that he will forgive me. Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are designed to remove that five-year fixed date. It is five years definite and after that it is optional. There is no fixed date before which there could be a removal of the special share.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It removes my final doubt that Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 should be resisted. We have clearly given a five-year period for the board to mark the transition from the public sector to the private sector. After that, it is in the interests of the company and the shareholders to ensure that the possibility of take-over exists for fear, as I have already said, that any company's management in protected circumstances could be complacent or inefficient.
I fear that the noble Lord has related Amendment No. 15 to the wrong definition. He may have intended to relate it to the definition of "a relevant person" on the following page. That is properly a matter for the directors of the company who hold the share register; it is not an issue for the Government. I shall have a more detailed look at that point and write to the noble Lord. I will have a copy of the letter placed in the Library. If the noble Lord wishes to continue with that point and fails to agree with our version, I am sure that we can consider it again.
I hope that in the light of all my comments the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. If not, I fear that I shall have to ask the House to resist it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it may come as little surprise to your Lordships if I say that I found the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Williams to my Amendment No. 8 convincing and that I am minded to accept them.
It is also perhaps of little surprise that I find the Secretary of State's answers wholly unconvincing. I confess that I remain utterly astonished that Parliament agreed to discuss the Bill right through to this stage without seeing the articles of association. It is clear that Parliament was being asked to buy-in a pig in a poke, carefully wrapped up and tied in its sack, and that the Government were determined that we should not see what was happening.

289
Now that we have the articles of association, the Government resist the idea of putting them into the Bill so that they can alter them at will. I confess that I find it difficult to understand how, if the Government insist that they will hold a special share for five years, they take power in the articles of association to sell it within 12 hours of the company's formation, which is precisely what 5e of the articles of association does.
The Secretary of State made a valiant attempt to persuade the House that black was white and white was black, and failed utterly. In addition, from the discussion on a previous amendment, it seems that the articles are where the references to the assurances that the Government have given as to Scotland and the obligations to take account of the effect of the steel industry on the economy of Scotland should be place. They are not there. We have had assurances that they will be in the prospectus. I fail to see that the prospectus will bind the shareholders. Without going into Guinness or any of the other undertakings that may have been given, the only way to give effect to those assurances is to put them into the articles of association.
I repeat the submission I made to the House earlier: the articles should be part of the statute so long as the company is owned by the Crown. Nothing that we have heard in any way alters the position I attempted to put, and I press the amendment.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hatch of Lusby. L.

Amherst, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L

Barnett, L.

Hughes, L.

Bleasc. L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jacques, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jay, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jeger, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carter, L.

Kagan, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kennet, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge. L.

Listowel, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ezra, L.

McNair, L.

Falkender, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falkland, V,

Meston, L.

Gallachcr, L.

Molloy, L.

Galpern, L.

Morton of Shuna. L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller]

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Grimond, L.

Parry, L.

Hampton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Peston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead. L.

290

Ponsonby of Shulbrede. L.

Taylor of Gryfe., L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Raglan, L.

Underhill. L.

Rea, L.

Wallace of Coslany. L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton. L.

Rochester, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Sefton of Garston. L.

Whaddon. L.

Scrota, B.

White. B.

Shackleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd. L.

Willis, L.

Stedman, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham. E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon. L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Macleod of Borve. B.

Alport, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ampthill, L.

Mancroft, L.

Arran. E.

Margadale. L.

Astor. V.

Marley, L.

Auckland, L.

Marsh. L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Middleton, L.

Blatch, B.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Blyth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bolton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton. L.

Borthwick, L.

Moyne. L.

Brahazon of Tara. L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Newall, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Norfolk, D.

Caccia, L.

Norrie. L.

Caithness, E.

Orkney. E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Pennock. L.

Chelwood, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Colwyn, L.

Portland, D.

Cornwallis, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay. L.

Craigavon, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Cross, V.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Russell of Liverpool. L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saint Brides. L.

Derwent, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Slim, V.

Fencers, E.

Somers, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange. B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sudeley, L.

Havers, L.

Swansea, L.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton. E.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir. L.

Hunter of' Newington, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trafford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden. L.

Killearn, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Westbury, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Lawrence, L.

Yarborough, E.

Layton. L.

Young, B.

Long, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Luke, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
Clause 6 [Target investment limit,for Government shareholding]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this section, the provisions of section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 shall continue to apply.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 standing in my name. In discussion in Committee on Clause 6 we touched on the interaction between the Industrial Development Act 1982 and the Bill which is at present before your Lordships. As a result of that discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna confirming what he had said in Committee, that the operation of Clause 6 did not vitiate the operation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, which would continue to apply.
The noble Lord's letter raised one or two consequential questions and I have therefore tabled an amendment which I ask your Lordships to accept as being of a probing nature. Clause 6, in allowing the Secretary of State to set a target investment limit for the Government shareholding, becomes difficult to operate, as I argued in Committee, when and if British Steel plc, when privatised, wishes to turn to the Government for financial support and wishes that financial support to be given in the form of government subscription to new ordinary shares—in other words, subscription to equity rather than a straightforward loan. I understand from the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, that this would not be impeded by any measure which is in the present Bill and that, under the Industrial Development Act 1982, the Government would be able to subscribe to shares if the provisions of Sections 7 or 8 of that Act applied in the successor company.
The consequential questions which I have are these. The Industrial Development Act demands the agreement of the company in question. In other words, the Government cannot give financial assistance to a company in difficulties unless there is agreement between the Secretary of State and the company. Yet the Act refers to financial assistance in the form of guarantees by the Government of facilities provided by third parties to give finance, perhaps in the form of the purchase of new ordinary shares.
We therefore have the possibility that an institution—perhaps we should say a bank—might be invited by the company to take up shares, the bank being perfectly properly guaranteed by the Government under the Industrial Development Act. The company and the Government agree that that is the right way to do it. My question is, what then happens if the result is in breach of Article 46 of the Articles of Association which we have just been discussing and the bank ends up with more than 15 per cent. of the company?
A consequential question is, how does the company actually agree to this formula? The
292
Industrial Development Act simply says that there is agreement between the company and the Government. Does that mean that we have to have an ordinary resolution of shareholders? Does it mean that the board has to take powers from shareholders? Does it mean that we have to have some amendment to Article 46, which we know cannot be waived—it either has to be in place or not in place? What are the consequential problems which may arise if British Steel plc, as it will then be, gets into financial difficulties? All things are possible, we can never tell what will happen in this world, so let us suppose that the company gets into difficulties and asks the Government for support and decides that the way which I have just described is the way in which that support should be given. It seems to me that there is an area here which is somewhat less than clear. For that reason I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for constructing a rather hypothetical situation, if the noble Lord will allow that description. It provided for an outside body, a bank if you please, secured by a guarantee under the Industrial Development Act. As I understand it, the bank would acquire, directly or indirectly, a number of shares in a company. Then perhaps by virtue of exercising that guarantee it would actually attempt to take ownership of those shares. How would that affect the position, if the shares were more than 15 per cent. of the share capital?
The Government could give its consent as a special shareholder to a holding of more than 15 per cent. If the circumstances—hypothetical as they may be—were as the noble Lord describes, then presumably that guarantee under the Industrial Development Act would have been given with the consent of the Government. No doubt the Government would, in the fullness of time, give its consent to a shareholder for more than 15 per cent. in those circumstances. This is a hypothetical situation. The Government are free to use their powers under the Industrial Development Act 1982 to acquire the share capital, or part of the share capital, of the successor company with its consent. But the significant difference is that in that case it is with the consent of the board of the successor company.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord has just said that it is with the consent of the board of the successor company. That is the answer to one of my questions: it is not the consent of the company; it is the consent of the board. I hope that I did not misunderstand the noble Lord. The board, of course, is not the company.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I was describing two hypothetical situations which the noble Lord advanced. I repeat again that they are hypothetical. One was where an outside body, a bank, gave guarantees and as a result of exercising those guarantees it acquired more than 15 per cent. of the shares, or could acquire more than 15 per cent. of

293
the shares. The noble Lord asked me how they could be registered. The answer is that they can only be registered with the consent of the special shareholder.
The other situation occurs under the Industrial Development Act 1982 where the Government would be free to use their powers under that Act to acquire share capital of the successor company with its consent. That is normally taken to be the consent of the board, but it may well be the consent of the shareholders. The Government are not now in the process of renationalising the old privatised industries. I find those circumstances to be somewhat fanciful but, as the noble Lord said, they were hypothetical.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what I think is a partial explanation of my problem. I shall read what he has said, and I hope that he in turn will read what I have said. I hope that if the noble Lord has any comments he will kindly let me have them in writing.
I was not suggesting particularly that this Government, with the noble Lord as Secretary of State, would wish to renationalise British Steel unless if found itself in the same position as Rolls-Royce found itself under a previous Conservative Administration. In those circumstances the noble Lord might change his mind. I was simply trying to point up certain problems that arise when legislation is drafted and consequential problems arise as a result of other legislation which has already been passed.
I do not think that this is an easy problem in the way in which the noble Lord seems to think it is. I do not necessarily believe that although the situation is hypothetical at this stage it may not become actuality. As we know, the steel industry is a cyclical industry and will always remain so. But in the light of what the noble Lord has said—I shall want to read rather carefully what he has said in the Official Report—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Clause 7 [Financial structure of the successor company]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments that I have tabled to Clause 7 are, to a great extent, technical and of a probing nature. I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The question of the reserve which is being set up under the Bill has caused a certain amount of comment both in Committee in this Chamber and also in another place. It has been represented that this reserve is analogous to a share premium account. A number of Ministerial statements have been made to that effect.
The share premium account in a public company cannot take revaluation deficits. If property values fall or production lines or plant are written down due to obsolescence or loss of market or for whatever reason, under normal company rules the write-down
294
would be charged to revaluation reserve, if there is a temporary loss of value. However, if there is a permanent loss of value it would pass through the profit and loss account: The effect of it passing through the profit and loss account under the Companies Act is to reduce the company's ability to pay a dividend. It cannot pay a dividend until it has cleared up any deficit on its profit and loss account.
I should like the Secretary of State's comments on this. The effect of what the Government are trying to do, as I understand it, is to make sure that even if there is a revaluation of the assets of British Steel and that shows a substantial deficit, calculated we know not how, and that is charged against the reserve, the successor company to British Steel will start off in a dividend paying situation. That is my understanding of what this part of the Bill means. It seems to me rather odd that we should be allowing a revaluation—what amounts to a devaluation—of asset values, writing asset values right down, without that having any consequential effect on the profit and loss as would be the case in any normal public company. For that reason I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook explained in some detail in Committee why a statutory reserve was provided for under subsection (1) of Clause 7. It is required to ensure that the balance sheet of the successor company to BSC balances after the assets and liabilities of BSC have been vested into the new public plc. As the Bill makes clear, it will be equal to the difference between the amount of public dividend capital extinguished under subsection (3) of Clause 2, and the total nominal value of securities issued to the Government under Clause 3.
As your Lordships will be aware, a balance sheet has two sides—on the one hand are the total assets and on the other are the capital and reserves—and the two have to balance. The net assets of British Steel will be unchanged by vesting. All that will be different is the mix of capital and reserves on the other side of the balance sheet—the total of the capital and reserves will remain the same.
The creation of a reserve is inevitable if the balance sheet is to balance. That is because the nominal value of the securities issued to the Government will be less than that of the public dividend capital being extinguished. It is common practice for the sale price of shares to be set at a level significantly higher than their nominal value. For example, it would not be unusual for shares with a nominal value of 25 pence to be sold for £1, and so a company seeking to raise £1 million might issue shares with a total nominal value of only £250,000. In the case of British Steel we shall have to decide, nearer to the time of flotation, what value investors are likely to place on the business, and then how many shares of what nominal value to issue, bearing in mind the price at which we hope to sell them. It is those decisions that will determine the size of the statutory reserve.
The reserve is also necessary during the period in which British Steel remains wholly Government owned, again to ensure that the balance sheet balances. During that period British Steel is likely to

295
have only a fairly small amount of share capital until close to the date of privatisation, when further shares may be issued under the provisions of Clause 3 to make up the number that it is decided to sell to investors. Again the balance will be provided by the statutory reserve.
It has not yet been decided whether any revaluation will be undertaken. If it is, as the Government explained when this clause was debated in another place, it is not expected that there will be any material change in the basis on which British Steel's fixed assets are recorded. It is therefore unlikely that the revaluation would have any material effect on its total asset values.
Any revaluation will have to be conducted by professional valuers who will assess the value of all the company's fixed assets to conform with Section 275 of the Companies Act 1985, if it is to lead to an unrealised loss that can subsequently be written off against the statutory reserve. I can assure your Lordships' House that it is not the Government's intention to make large and unjustified write-offs under this provision, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may fear. Any reduction in asset value is likely to be relatively small and will be fully in accordance with normal accounting procedures. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord's mind is set at rest.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State, particularly for the last 90 seconds of his intervention. For the first few minutes, he simply repeated what the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said in Committee. If I may say so, I understood what was said at that time because I understand balance sheets and I understand that they must balance.
The point which I believe I succeeded in making to the Secretary of State is that under normal circumstances any revaluation of a nature described in the Bill, if it is a permanent loss in value will go through the profit and loss account and will diminish the ability of the company to pay dividends. It is not a question of a balance sheet; it is a question of where the profit and loss reserve will be. However, I hear what the noble Lord says. He has given us an assurance that revaluation, if that occurs, will not be consequential and will not have a material effect either on the reserve or, were it treated in a proper accounting manner as any plc would have to treat it, a consequential effect on the dividend paying capacity through the company's profit and loss. I shall read what the noble Lord said in the last 90 seconds of his intervention. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert ("or if the interests of creditors are thereby damaged.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State has the right to reduce the capital of the successor company by direction. I regard that
296
procedure as being parallel to a reduction of capital in a normal plc which is supervised by the courts. Under a reduction of capital which is supervised by the courts, there are measures which are taken to ensure that the creditors of the company are not damaged by the capital reconstruction. There is no such safeguard in the Bill as it is presently drafted. The Secretary of State can write down the capital without regard to the interests of the creditors. It is for that reason that I introduce the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 7, to which this amendment would apply, are concerned with the application of the statutory reserve, at the direction of the Government, for two specific purposes. Under paragraph (a) of the subsection, it may be applied in writing off unrealised losses of the company arising from a revaluation of fixed assets. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will be satisfied on that point. Under paragraph (b) of the subsection it may be applied as if it were profits available for distribution—in other words, it may be, to the extent directed, placed in a revenue reserve.
My noble friend Lord Beaverbrook explained at Committee stage why this provision is in the Bill. So far as the creation of a revenue reserve is concerned, British Steel is now a very profitable company and would have been able to credit its recent profits to a revenue reserve had it been able to carry out the capital reduction provided for under Clause 2 of this Bill at an earlier stage, as a private sector company certainly would have done. As my noble friend said, any revenue reserve authorised under this clause will do no more than reflect the profits the corporation has earned in recent years.
That will have no effect on the position of creditors. The creation of reserves does not affect the amount of the assets of the company. The revenue reserve is not a pool of cash and will not enable the successor company to pay dividends out of capital or borrowing. In any case, that would be illegal under the Companies Act 1985. British Steel will only be able to pay dividends out of cash arising from retained profits. It will be subject to the provisions of Part VIII of the Companies Act like all other Companies Act companies. The provision under subsection (3) of Clause 7 which the amendment relates to is not concerned with the reduction of capital, which comes under Clause 2(1).
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, may I have a clear assurance from the noble Lord that if the Secretary of State directs a reduction in capital, he will do so having regard to the interests of creditors at the time of the direction?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have no doubts at all about giving that undertaking.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is the assurance which I sought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("no part or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendment No. 7. I am perplexed by Clause 7(4). I understand that it continues the dividend theme. However, the statutory reserve will not, in the language of the dividend rules contained in the Companies Act 1985, be a reserve, the distribution of which is restricted by another Act or clause in the memorandum and articles. There are, for instance, property companies which frequently restrict the treatment of gains in property values by stating that such profits must be transferred to a capital reserve rather than being credited to a profit and loss account and thus made available for dividends.
The reference to the memorandum and articles in the Companies Act which is reflected in the Bill before us is presumably intended to clarify that it would not be possible for a successor company, on its own initiative and by amending its memorandum and articles, to release the statutory reserve for payment of dividend. I hope that my understanding is correct. While removing those restrictions, for reasons which I do not quite understand the clause reimposes another restriction by stating that, to the extent that it is not changed into distributable profit by a specific direction from the Secretary of State, it will be treated as an unrealised profit. I cannot understand why the Government have chosen that particular very convoluted formula to establish what seems to me to be a very simple principle which is enshrined in the Companies Act. I shall be most grateful for any help which the Secretary of State can give me on that matter. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall endeavour to give what help and comfort I can to the noble Lord. Subsection (4) of Clause 7 is a largely technical provision that follows the precedents of previous privatisation Acts. Its purpose is to define how that part of the statutory reserve which is not applied in the ways specified in subsection (2) of the clause is to be regarded for Companies Act purposes.
Section 264 of that Act, in subsection (3), sets out four categories of undistributable reserve—a share premium account; a capital redemption reserve; accumulated unrealised profits so far as they exceed unrealised losses; and any other reserve which a company is prohibited from distributing. Subsection (4) of the Bill specifies that the statutory reserve is, for the purposes of Section 264, to be treated as unrealised profits rather than simply as a reserve that the company is prohibited from distributing.
As I have said, that is in accordance with precedent, and is largely to provide a clear definition of the statutory reserve and the uses to which it can be put. Apart from my power to direct certain applications under subsection (2) that we have just discussed, the reserve is very similar to a share premium account, but offers the additional facility of being able to offset unrealised losses arising, for example, from revaluations.
The statutory reserve cannot, as the noble Lord's amendments suggest, be defined by relation to two
298
alternative Companies Act categories at once. But I can assure him that, except to the extent directed under subsection (2)(b) of this Bill, it will be an undistributable reserve falling into subsection (3)(c) of Section 264 of the Companies Act 1985. I hope that in the light of that very clear explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the explanation was extremely clear. It set out what I knew already. The only new element in what the noble Lord has said is that it has happened before and therefore it will happen again. I always take a slightly suspicious view of precedent when it comes to the drafting of new Bills on privatisation.
Before the noble Lord explained it, I understood what the clause said. I remain unconvinced that this is the right way to achieve the objective, and I think that the department ought to have another look at whether this is the right way. It makes all kinds of twists in what I regard as a relatively simple situation. There is no particular difference between me and the noble Lord on this particular issue. However, I have no doubt that he and his officials will read what I have said and I shall read what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 15 not moved.]

Housing (Scotland) Bill
6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Scottish Homes.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) assessing the extent of the need for, and promoting and developing the provision of, housing for community care throughout Scotland in conjunction with relevant bodies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to give Scottish Homes a specific strategic or national role in promoting and developing housing for community care projects.
At the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said:
"We are not arguing that Scottish Homes should not play a part in this. I am arguing on the point that was put to me: that it should play a central role". [Official Report, 25/4/88; col. 86.]
The amendment does not suggest that Scottish Homes should take the overall lead for community care development in Scotland. It recognises that housing is a basic resource necessary for community care. Health and social work services depend on housing as a basic and principal community resource. Scotland, frankly, has a very poor record on developing a co-ordinated and concerted approach to community care. The situation is considerably worse in Scotland than it is in England. The establishment of Scottish Homes gives us the opportunity, which I think we should take, to tackle a part of the problem.
It is extremely important that housing providers should become involved in any national initiatives. Health board and housing authority areas normally do not coincide with both board and individual long stay hospitals covering several district council areas geographically. The world is not a perfect place. It is therefore appropriate that Scottish Homes, which has responsibility throughout the whole of Scotland, should have the role of taking an overview to complement the work of local authorities and health boards merely in order to make them aware of what is required.
It may be that because there is not currently an active housing association in a particular area, local needs are not fully addressed. Local needs are met more in response to the level of activity of local housing associations and voluntary groups than on the basis of an objective overview of an area's housing needs. Such an overview would best be undertaken on an all-Scotland level. We believe that Scottish Homes is an ideal partner to assist the many other bodies involved in the network which is necessary for effective planning of community care.
The amendment is fully supported by a very large number of organisations in Scotland which are involved in community care. I shall not read out the names of all the organisations, but there are about 20 ranging from the Social Services Research Group, Age Concern Scotland, Dr. Barnado's Scotland, the Psychiatric Nurses' Association, Richmond Fellowship, etc.
We are not trying to place a particularly heavy load on Scottish Homes. We are saying merely that it is the body to undertake that role. One of the good things that could come out of the Bill when it becomes an Act would be if there were one body with responsibility for taking an overall view and directing the other bodies into the correct channels to avoid duplication of effort. Perhaps more energy could be put into some of the areas than at present if Scottish Homes took that overall view. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the amendment was debated in some detail during Committee consideration of the Bill. I am aware of the concern of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, and others, that the development of community care policies in Scotland should not be ignored by those bodies that are best able to promote those policies.
There is no danger of Scottish Homes ignoring community care. The issue raised by the amendment is whether Scottish Homes should be given a statutory role which would give it greater responsibility for community care than the health and social work authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, talked about a central role. I am afraid that the amendment could not do other than give Scottish Homes a central role. It would be the only agency with a statutory duty of that kind, which would inevitably push it into the lead.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government have every intention of pursuing wholeheartedly the
300
care in the community policy which has enabled many people to live within their families and their communities rather than be confined to long term residential establishments. But the factors of primary importance to this policy are the availability of carers in the community and of adequate care support services. In many cases those support services are of a specialist nature. It is therefore important that the policy is co-ordinated by those who are best able to judge and to provide for the needs of the people involved. The health boards and social work authorities have already a sophisticated and effective system of establishing their requirements, in co-ordination with other bodies as appropriate. It would be misguided to force change in that system by making the role of the health and social work authorities subordinate to that of Scottish Homes, as this amendment would undoubtedly do.
The establishment of Scottish Homes, as a single door through which housing inquiries can be made and housing advice given, will be a valuable contribution to this co-ordinated approach to care in the community. But we consider that it is important for the leading statutory responsibility to rest firmly and clearly with the health and social work authorities. It will not assist those who need better arrangements for care in the community to confuse the picture by giving the impression that a housing agency is better placed to bring about improved arrangements than the health and social work authorities.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be assured of the Government's intention that Scottish Homes will play its proper part in community care without the need for specific statutory references, and that he will therefore seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, if the amendment is withdrawn, will Scottish Homes provide an assessment of the extent of the need—in other words, say what is really needed? Will it give a picture in its annual report of what it considers should further be provided, whether for special care or for other purposes?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the remit of Scottish Homes is very wide. In this particular case we are talking about the problems relating to community care. As the successor to the Housing Corporation, Scottish Homes will have a part to play. Where the Government are at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in respect of this amendment is that we do not believe that Scottish Homes should have a central role.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, my point was simply whether Scottish Homes will make a report as to what is wanted. How many more houses are required, here, there and elsewhere is what people would like to know. Will something of that sort happen?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, we are in the process of setting up Scottish Homes. After the Bill becomes an Act,

301
and once it is in being, I am certain that the matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, alludes will be one of its priorities.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply and even more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for pointing out the approach that Scottish Homes could give. I think that it is not like any other body that has ever been established, which is something of which I am sure the Minister is proud. Scottish Homes has a special role, in that it will be the one body outside the local authorities which will know exactly what is happening in Scottish housing. I hope therefore that, when it is set up, it will take on that social responsibility that we spoke of in the debate on British Steel earlier today and that it may widen its sphere. I think that it will need to build up its reputation, which may prove very important to it.
I was also interested when the Minister spoke of the idea of having a single-door approach. I think it should be on the record that we hope that Scottish Homes will ultimately become a single-door approach. I know of social workers in Scotland who spend all day for several days on the telephone trying to obtain accommodation for individuals. It would be wonderful if, incidental to their major job, there was the way of simply approaching Scottish Homes.
I hope that between the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the Minister and myself we have been able to lay down some aims for Scottish Homes which it may find itself only too pleased, in the nature of its work and in order to improve its image, to implement or at least to investigate. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [General functions of Scottish Homes]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local authorities: general statutory duty) shall apply to Scottish Homes as it applies to a local authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 71 of the 1976 Race Relations Act places local authorities under a statutory obligation to carry out their duties with regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the terms of this section and consider that the new housing agency, Scottish Homes, should be subject to the same provisions. I commend this amendment to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for having tabled this amendment and for taking on the duties that are already on the shoulders of local authorities. Perhaps in Scotland we pretend that we have better community relations than in fact is the case. There are, however, great hopes in that direction. I myself had a constituency with a very mixed community
302
whose origins lay in all parts of the world and all parts of Scotland. I can assure the Minister that it is very important that in this respect we continue to do everything we can and do as much as possible by statute. Statutes make that much easier what is perhaps the most important function in this field—convincing people and educating their minds. I am very pleased that the Minister has seen fit to include this provision in the Bill.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, as we are discussing Clause 2, I notice that subsection (1) states that:
"Scottish Homes may do anything, whether in Scotland or elsewhere, which is calculated to facilitate or is incidental or conducive to the discharge of its general functions".
and at the end of the clause it is stated in subsection (10) that:
"The Secretary of' State may give Scottish Homes directions".
If it should prove desirable to do something along the lines which my noble friend Lord Carmichael sought to do in the previous amendment, on which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, intervened, and if it proved necessary to draw attention to community care, would it be possible for the Secretary of State to handle this matter under those two provisions of Clause 2?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we have spoken earlier this afternoon about the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene. In this case I am perfectly certain that, if he felt strongly that Scottish Homes was not carrying through one of the main objectives—for instance that community care was falling by the wayside and something of a policy nature had to be undertaken—the answer would undoubtedly be yes.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Regulation of housing associations in Scotland and transfer to Scottish Homes of certain property, rights, liabilities and obligations of Housing Corporation]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 27, after ("with") insert ("—
(a) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3 I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 4. These amendments have been tabled to correct an omission and are principally of a technical nature.
The Bill as it stands transfers to Scottish Homes all rights, liabilities and obligations relating to registered housing associations to which the Housing Corporation is entitled or subject, in cases where an association is based in Scotland.
However, the corporation also has certain obligations in relation to land held by unregistered housing associations and these obligations should

303
also be transferred to Scottish Homes in cases where the land is in Scotland. These amendments will have that effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5. line 28. after ("applies") I nsert (": and
(b) land in Scotland held by unregistered housing associations:).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 (Security of. tenure):
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 40, after first ("subsection") insert (", subsection (1) of section (Right of succession of spouse) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords in moving Amendment No. 5, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 20, the latter amendment having been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Morton of Shuna.
When we introduced this Bill we felt that succession rights, like other terms of a tenancy, should be left to be negotiated between the tenant and the landlord. We still hold that to be the right approach in general, and I am sure that many landlords letting on an assured tenancy will be ready to include such terms in their leases.
However, the Government have listened very carefully to the arguments of noble Lords, Members in another place, and other individuals and organisations, that the spouse of a tenant is in a particularly vulnerable position following the death of the tenant. That is why, as I announced during our debate in Committee, we are providing a statutory right of succession in those circumstances. The right is limited, and I should explain to your Lordships three important characteristics.
First, it will only apply when the spouse was occupying the house as his or her principal home immediately before the death of the tenant. Secondly, normally, of course, if someone inherits a tenancy the landlord will be entitled to invoke Ground 7 of Schedule 5 to gain possession of his house following the tenant's death. But when a spouse succeeds to the tenancy, either under this new provision, or by the will or intestacy of the tenant, Ground 7 will not be available for use.
Finally, the right of succession by the spouse will be limited to the spouse of the original tenant rather than the spouse of someone who had, himself or herself, succeeded to a tenancy. This limitation is necessary to ensure that the landlord does not find his property being passed on several times because surviving spouses re-marry.
The Government believe that this new provision for succession by spouses improves the Bill through recognising in a fair and reasonable way the rights of both landlords and tenants. The amendment in the names of the noble Lords opposite would extend succession to assured tenancies too far, and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that I
304
cannot support it. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Morton of Shuna, will feel able to withdraw it. That is for them to decide, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government's approach, in trying to reach a fair result, strikes the right balance. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we could not but be grateful to the Minister for at least extending the right of succession to the spouse, although it was an appalling omission from the Bill originally. The idea that the spouse is vulnerable is a matter of which we are all very much aware but I think that our Amendment No. 20 extends just a little further the statutory right of succession from an assured tenant to a member of the tenant's family who has been living with the tenant in cases in which there is no spouse who could succeed. The new clause is based largely on the existing legislation of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, which limits succession in the public sector including housing association tenancies.
I must emphasise that the effect of our amendment is to allow one succession and one only. We accept that there will still be difficult cases. We accept the Minister's point that succession could go on indefinitely if it were merely a question of the spouse remarrying. We are not suggesting that. We believe that would be wrong. However, in allowing that position, there might be one or two difficult cases. We are concerned with one succession only to an assured tenancy. Our amendment would allow the right of succession to the spouse in the first instance, but, if there is no spouse, to a member of the tenant's family who has lived with the tenant for a year preceding the tenant's death.
This amendment will not alter the principle of a single succession which has been accepted by the Government. But it will enable other close relatives of a tenant to benefit from the peace of mind which the Government—quite rightly, and I think very humanely—acknowledge as desirable at the time of a tenant's death.
It would be quite inappropriate to guarantee a statutory right of succession to spouses of tenants but not, for example, to brothers or sisters. We all know of families where unmarried brothers and sisters live together for many years. The Minister is suggesting—though I am sure his heart is not so hard—that, if one of them dies, the other be turned out into the snow. I hope that the Minister will be able to push what he has given us that little bit further. We are not saying that there should be another step in the tenancy. We are saying that, if the spouse dies, there should be a succession to the remaining spouse and that, if the close relative of the family is the successor, he or she should be given the tenancy and it should then stop. There is no attempt to try to move it on. It stops at that point, no matter what happens.
I hope that the Minister will take this issue on board. If he cannot do so now, pehaps he can consider it again. We have the privilege in this House that further consideration can be given at Third Reading.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend. There is a point that one has to consider. Very often a son or daughter will have been living at home. First the mother dies. Then the father dies. This person will have been caring for an elderly parent for a considerable number of years. He or she may have given up many opportunities of working and have become a full-time carer for his or her elderly parents. Does that mean that on the death of the last parent there will be no chance of succession for that person? He or she will have saved the local authority or hospital service, or whatever it may be, a great deal of money by caring voluntarily for parents in the proper way that we all like to think children do. We should like to understand that such people will have a succession to the tenancy after such service.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, is describing a scene which occurs quite often. However, as I understand the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, someone could move in a year before the tenant died and could inherit the lease. Was it for one year?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, only once would someone be able to move in, and that would be it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I understood that. It seems absolutely admirable and necessary that the spouse should be able to inherit. That is a different issue altogether. However, for somebody to be able to move in for one year and then to have the tenancy for the whole of his or her life—which could happen very often—frees the position too much and militates against what the Bill is trying to achieve. It is going too far. One has to draw the line somewhere.
From the point of view of a caring son or daughter who is living with the parents, he or she will know that that is the position. They will not be surprised by it. It will be quite plain that that is the position. In a more open market,which we hope we shall gradually develop, it may be possible to negotiate a new lease of the same house.
I believe that the line is drawn in the right place. I know that it has never been the view of the party of the noble Lord to see the position in that way, and it is a legitimate point of view. However, in the context of what this Bill is trying to achieve, for the spouse, but not the children to be able to inherit is the correct position. I hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I hope that the remarks of the noble Baroness will be read widely in Scotland. The number of children, especially women, who look after aged parents for years and who, under this Bill and the provision that the noble Baroness supports, would be thrown out—is tremendous. I hope that what the noble Baroness has said will receive wide publicity.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the second part of Amendment No. 20, which my noble friend has spoken to refers to,
306
"where the tenancy was held jointly by two or more individuals, a surviving tenant where the house was his only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death".
Obviously, if the joint tenants are husband and wife, on the death of one of the joint tenants, the spouse's right would cover that. But it is not uncommon for a house to have been occupied for many years by two spinster sisters. They are joint tenants. Do I understand that the effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, would mean that the second sister would not have the assured tenancy which she had enjoyed jointly with the sister during these preceding years?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I was greatly impressed by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, when she drew attention to the possibility of people moving in and then obtaining a tenancy. It seemed that she was right in suggesting that there was a problem there which somewhat weakens the amendment of my noble friend. However, his amendment refers to a member of the family moving in. It is not just anybody moving in. That puts a gloss on the matter which is totally different from what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was saying.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carmichael has the right position in essence. Whether he is right in detail on the point raised I am not sure. But it is certainly wrong that someone in the second generation beyond the spouse who has for a lengthy period regarded as his or her home a house held on a tenancy should be seriously deprived in this way. This is something which cannot merely he left to the bargaining of the market. I do not think that that is right. I believe that my noble friend's amendment ought to be accepted in general terms. If there are details in it which are not quite right they could be ironed out. As my noble friend said, there is Third Reading to come. At Third Reading a compromise situation could be arrived at which would give justice to this second generation without distorting entirely the principle of the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I merely wish to say that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said it all and did the right thing when he suggested that the onus of consideration of this situation of two sisters or a devoted daughter who may have been there for a long time should be thrown at a sympathetic Minister who is doing rather well in listening to the Opposition. I believe that is right and I am content to leave the matter to the Minister.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I confine my intervention to one remark. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, alleged that my noble friend Lord Carmichael, although his point of view was tenable, had drawn the line at the wrong point. The Government's position draws the line in the wrong place and is another example of the thrust of this Administration: their sheer lack of compassion and humanity is a diabolical disgrace to a civilised community. This is another example of it.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to reply to some of those remarks. I had thought that in Committee the importance had been recognized—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, recognized—of the amendments that were put forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will know, as regards rented accommodation one has to seek a balance. There is nothing to stop succession, as was referred to, such as two sisters or a brother or a sister living together, being written into a tenancy agreement. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk said at Committee stage, it is up to the Government to publicise the new rules on tenancy. That is indeed the Government's priority. There is nothing to stop a joint tenancy agreement being written—an agreement between the landlord and the tenant—which answers the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, about a joint tenancy agreement with another member of the family.
In answer to those various points, there is a remedy to the undoubted fear that some noble Lords opposite have that the ground is shifting too much. I must say that there is an answer to which we shall come later. The Government have accepted that a written lease is important and the terms of the written lease are most important. Indeed, that will answer the fears that have been expressed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in this debate.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, from our point of view it would be silly to vote down this amendment in case we were not able to win Amendment No. 20, which I feel sure the House will be sufficiently kindhearted enough to support. I propose that we accept this amendment with the opportunity of voting later on Amendment No. 20.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Fixing of terms of statutory assured tenancy]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 16, after ("below") insert ("in the prescribed form").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I also speak to Amendment No. 10 which is in similar terms.
Clauses 17, 24 and 31 all allow for applications to be made to the rent assessment committee. Clauses 17 and 24 apply to statutory assured tenants, and Clause 31 to short assured tenants. However, as currently drafted only Clause 31 specifies that applications to the committee should be in a form prescribed by regulations. In order to make it easier for tenants and landlords to know how to go about submitting an application, we believe that it would be helpful to set out in regulations the details required under Clauses 17 and 24 as well. I hope that your Lordships agree. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Notice of proceedings for possession]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("(7) A notice under this section shall cease to have effect 6 months after the date on or after which the proceedings for possession to which it relates could have been raised.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a relatively straightforward amendment designed to ensure that both tenant and landlord are clear that when a landlord gives notice that he intends to seek possession, he must then apply to the court under that notice within a reasonable period of time. When this issue was discussed in another place. my honourable friend, the Scottish Office Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment explained that, normally, the Government would expect notices of proceedings for possession to lapse in any case after a time, since the circumstances giving rise to them would have ceased to apply. However, on reflection we have concluded that it is better to provide in the Bill for a fixed time limit. This will ensure that landlords are not misled into thinking that a notice served some time before can be relied on to raise proceedings at a much later date; and it will also give tenants certainty at any given time about whether they may face proceedings.
We have set the limit at six months from the earliest date on which proceedings could be raised. This is the same as the limit applying to notices served on public sector tenants under Section 47 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Effectively it means a maximum lifespan for a notice of eight months, since a period of two months or two weeks, depending on the ground for possession specified in the notice, must elapse before proceedings can begin.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is true that a landlord could issue a series of notices, and so, as it were, keep a tenant under constant threat of proceedings. But, if a landlord is so minded, at least this amendment puts him to the trouble of issuing a notice every six months. It would not be possible simply to prohibit the issue of a new notice, because there are many circumstances in which issuing a new notice would be perfectly reasonable—for example, if the tenant falls again into rent arrears, or indeed in general where a ground for possession applies, ceases to apply, then comes to apply again.
I hope nevertheless that your Lordships will agree that this amendment does improve the tenant's position even slightly and therefore deserves support. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the difficulty has been pointed out by the Minister that the notice can be given by the landlord time and time again on whatever specious grounds he may put it. Therefore he can threaten the tenant all the way through by always having a notice available. There are landlords who are not quite as straightforward as I have no doubt the Minister would be if he were a landlord, but we have to deal with that situation. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look again at this to see whether he can tighten up the amendment so that the

309
landlord's right to serve a notice expires at six months on that ground and he has to start again on a new ground with a new notice. I believe that could be done by careful drafting and I hope that the Minister will consider that again.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can say that I am prepared to look at this. I understand exactly what the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna. is attempting to achieve. I shall certainly look at it in that way and if there is any way of tightening it up I shall certainly see whether we can oblige.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 (Extended discretion of court in possession claims):
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 14. line 3, leave Out ("rights of occupation under-) and insert ("occupancy rights under section I or 18 or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 9. During the Committee stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Selkirk, having in mind the ease of use and clarity of the Bill, tabled an amendment designed to make more specific the reference in Clause 20 to the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, by identifying the particular sections of the Act which confer occupancy rights.
I agreed at the time to give consideration to the matter and I have concluded that the Bill should be amended along the lines he suggested. Amendment No. 8 therefore introduces a reference to Sections I and 18 of the Act. They are the only two sections which need to be mentioned as they are the only two which confer occupancy rights. I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 replace the term "rights of occupation", which is an English term, with "occupancy rights" which is a Scottish term. I am sure that your Lordships will approve the step to protect the integrity of Scottish legislation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord because he has done a great deal for the Bill. This House has done far more for the Bill than the other place was able to do. For that reason, I believe that we should warmly thank the noble Lord for the attention that he has given to the remarks that we have made in this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("rights of occupation") and insert ("occupancy rights").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Increases of rent under assured tenancies]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 15, line 29, after ("committee") insert ("in the prescribed form).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 15. line 33. leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Where a notice is served under subsection (1) above but the rent under the tenancy has previously been increased (whether by agreement or by virtue of a notice under subsection (1) above or a determination under section 25 below) the new rent shall take effect not earlier than the first anniversary of the date on which that increase took effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to plug a loophole in Clause 24. As it currently stands, Clause 24(4) allows a landlord to serve a notice proposing an increased rent only once every 12 months. This was intended to ensure that rent increases under this procedure could be obtained only once a year.
On reflection, the Government have decided that it is more straightforward to make that intention explicit, instead of relying on a control over the issue of notices. That is what the amendment achieves, and I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 (Determination of rent hr rent assessment committee]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 16. line 19. at end insert—
("(3A) Where any rates in respect of the house concerned are borne by the landlord or a superior landlord, the rent assessment committee shall make their determination under this section as if the rates were not so borne.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 22. The Government are now working on the basis that Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Bill may come into force well before 1st April 1989, when domestic rates are to be abolished. From that date of the coming into force of Part II of the Bill the standard form of new letting for private sector rented housing will be the assured tenancy or short assured tenancy.
However, as currently drafted, there are no references in the Bill to rates. The possible earlier introduction of Part 11 means that some references to rates are necessary. They are important in relation to the provisions concerning the determination of rents by the rent assessment committees. Amendment No. 12, which introduces new subsection (3)(a), requires the rent assessment committee to make its determination of a market rent, exclusive of rates. That is in line with practice under the existing rents

311
legislation and ensures that a tenant will not find himself paying an element attributable to rates after domestic rates are abolished.
Amendment No. 15 ensures that during the period up till 1st April 1989, a tenant whose rent has been determined by a rent assessment committee may also he required by his landlord to pay the rates for the house. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 16, line 19, at end insert—
("(3B) in any case where—

(a) a rent assessment committee have before them at the same time the reference of a notice under section 17(2) above relating to a tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the section 17 reference") and the reference of a notice under section 24(1) above relating to the same tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the section 24 reference"); and

(b) the date specified in the notice under section 17(2) above is not later than the first day of the new period specified in the notice under section 24(1) above; and

(c) the committee propose to hear the two references together,
the committee shall make a determination in relation to the section 17 reference before making their determination in relation to the section 24 reference and, accordingly, in such a case the reference in subsection (1)(b) above to the terms of the tenancy to which the notice relates shall be construed as a reference to those terms as varied by virtue of the determination made in relation to the section 17 reference.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in most cases where a rent assessment committee is asked to make a determination of a market rent for an assured tenancy under Clause 25 it will be quite clear what tenancy terms should be taken into account under Clause 25 (1)(b). However, it is possible that at more or less the same time as a tenant is seeking a rent determination from the rent assessment committee either the tenant or the landlord may have referred proposed and disputed changes in tenancy terms to the rent assessment committee under Clause 17. Obviously it makes sense for the committee to hear the two references together.
In such cases, the committee should resolve the issue of what variation in tenancy terms is appropriate before considering the level of market rent to be determined. Therefore the amendment makes it clear that whatever notice is received first, the committee should first determine the terms of the tenancy and that the subsequent rent determination should take account of the revised terms. It is arguable that this could be left to common sense; but, on balance, we believe that it is better to have the position on the face of the Bill so those who are involved are clear from the outset. With that brief explanation I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 16, line 20, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 corrects an error of drafting. A reference under
312
Clause 25(4) should be a notice served under "Section 24(1)" and not "Section 24(2)". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 22, after ("committee") insert ("(together with. in a case where subsection (3A) above applies, the appropriate amount in respect of rates)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 16:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of premiums etc. on assured tenancies.
. Sections 82, 83 and 86 to 90 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (which make it an offence to require premiums and advance payment of rent in respect of protected tenancies and make related provision) shall apply in relation to assured tenancies as they apply in relation to protected tenancies (including protected tenancies which are regulated tenancies), but with the following modifications—

(a) section 83(5) shall not apply; and

(b) section 88(1) shall apply as if for the references to 12th August 1971 there were substituted references to the date of commencement of this section.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 16, is the new clause which I am proposing. It has a similar aim to that proposed in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. It is to continue the prohibition on charging premiums in connection with residential tenancies in Scotland which has effectively been in force since 1920.
During the Committee stage I was impressed with the obvious strength of feelings among your Lordships in respect of this issue. It is in response to that and to other representations that we have received from a wide range of opinion throughout Scotland that we are bringing forward the amendment. It applies the relevant provisions in Part VIII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to assured tenancies in addition to regulated tenancies. We believe that this is the right way to achieve our aim. Prohibition on premiums for regulated tenancies is well understood and so it seems sensible to us to continue the same arrangements for the new assured tenancies.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, appears to have the advantage of simplicity, but it would not fully achieve its purpose. Although it would make it unlawful to charge a premium, it does not define what is a premium nor does it prescribe any penalty for a landlord who charges a premium. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Government amendment, and that the noble Lord will be prepared not to pursue his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for producing what he says is a better amendment. I am sure that he is right. It is an

313
example of how he should always continue to improve our amendments. He has done extremely well and we are grateful for that.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to ask whether this is the final death of key money.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I recall that in Committee I moved an amendment similar to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. I should like to take the opportunity of echoing the sentiments of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in so far as the Minister has listened to the argument and made an appropriate amendment. I am sure that it will be welcomed by all the bodies in Scotland which made representations to me and to the Minister. I appreciate it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless was kind enough to write to me about the matter. I believe that it represents the interests of a number of other bodies. Although the amendment is somewhat different from that which it was backing —that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—I am sure that it will be most pleased to find that key money will be illegal.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
"Duty of landlord under assured tenancy to provide written tenancy document and weekly rent book.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the landlord under an assured tenancy (of whatever duration)—

(a) to draw up a document stating (whether expressly or by reference) the terms of the tenancy;

(b) to ensure that it is so drawn up and executed that it is probative or holograph of the parties; and

(c) to give a copy of it to the tenant.

(2) On summary application by a tenant under an assured tenancy, the sheriff shall by order—

(a) where it appears to him that the landlord has failed to draw up a document which fairly reflects the existing terms of the tenancy, draw up such a document or, as the case may he, adjust accordingly the terms of such document as there is; and

(b) in any case, declare that the document (as originally drawn up or, where he has drawn it up or adjusted it, as so drawn up or adjusted) fairly reflects the terms of the assured tenancy;

and, where the sheriff has made such a declaration in relation to a document which he has drawn up or adjusted, it shall be deemed to have been duly executed by the parties as so drawn up or adjusted.
(3) A tenant shall not be required to make payment in respect of anything done under subsection (1) above.
(4) Where, under an assured tenancy, rent is payable weekly, it shall he the duty of the landlord to provide a rent book.
(5) A rent book shall contain such notices which shall be in such form and shall relate to such matters as may be prescribed and otherwise shall comply with such requirements as may he prescribed.
(6) If, at any time, the landlord fails to comply with any requirement imposed by or under subsections (4) or (5) above he and any person who on his behalf demands or receives rent in respect of the tenancy shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a tine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(7) Where an offence under subsection (6) above committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate. is guilty of an offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of our deliberations I announced that we would bring forward an amendment on Report to ensure that tenants under assured tenancies are entitled to a written tenancy document setting out the conditions applying to the tenancy. This new clause fulfils that commitment and also provides that, if under an assured tenancy rent is payable weekly, then the landlord must provide the tenant with a rent book.
I am sure that this new clause will meet with your Lordships approval. In an ideal world there would, I suggest, be no need for legislation to make it a duty on a landlord to provide a written document. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said during the Committee stage, most responsible landlords would provide a written statement as a matter of course. However, as has been stressed by many organisations concerned with housing matters, and some noble Lords, not every private landlord is as responsible as he should be, and therefore the Government agree that there is a need to make it clear that a landlord has a duty to provide the tenant with a written statement of the terms of the tenancy which will he drawn up at no cost to the tenant. This provision will give private sector tenants a similar right to that of public sector tenants.
Although the right to a written statement of the terms of the tenancy— which will include rent —should provide adequate protection for tenants, the Government have also given further consideration to the question of rent books. Again, there has been a strong body of opinion that tenants should have the added protection of a rent book recording the amounts of rent they had paid. On reflection we have decided that there is a good case for giving the right to a rent book to the same group of tenants who are so entitled under the existing Rent Act; namely, those who pay weekly. Subsection (4) to (7) of the new clause provide that right.
I hope your Lordships will find this new clause acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I rise only to say that we are very grateful. It is an almost unique experience in this Government to find a Minister who is prepared to listen and then act on what he has listened to. It is a very encouraging habit.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna and I hope that it does not have the effect of making the Minister an endangered species.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, when one talks of a written lease, does that also include the legal terms of the lease; that is, the whole question of succession? Will that be included in the lease or will it be left out?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are talking about the actual written document between landlord and tenant. However, I feel I should explain the matter as I know of my noble friend's interest. We have not required the landlord to give the tenant a written lease but a document setting out the terms of the tenancy.
If we required a written lease to be provided for every assured tenancy, there would be a danger that an unscrupulous landlord—and unfortunately there are some—would deliberately fail to provide a written lease and, as a result, the tenancy would be void and the tenant would lose the protection, particularly the right to security of tenure, provided by the Bill. I believe the approach in the new clause avoids this potential difficulty. I hope that that explains to my noble friend why we are formulating the clause in the way in which we have. I feel that that is essential.
As to the wider question of succession, we shall be talking about that under Clause 43 and Schedule 6 and trying to write the relevant matters into the Bill in as plain English as we can. Subsequent to that, we hope to be able to provide guidance to people in a form which they can readily understand, and we shall widely publicise that.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising at this late stage in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised a point to which the Minister replied. My memory is that often conditions were written onto the rent hook, and that raises the question of whether there is a definition of a rent book. I have seen some fairly tatty rent books bought in a corner shop which gave no feeling of security to the tenant. Those circumstances could apply to the type of person about whom the noble Lord was talking and who it is important to catch. Perhaps some thought could be given to that matter.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I raise this matter because many tenants will not have read this statute and have no idea what is an assured tenancy. I believe that that should be communicated to them and the place in which to do that is either the rent book or some other document which is to be drawn up.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that the document will include the terms of the tenancy including any matter relating to succession, which I believe was the point he was making.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this amendment deals with the important question of tenants' rights. Your Lordships may recall that in Committee an amendment was moved in relation to the publicity and explanations which would be given to the public so that they may understand their rights under this Bill.
We did not table an amendment today but we emphasised that this is a complex Bill. It involves new relationships in this sphere and we in this House find it difficult to understand all its implications. We asked for assurances from Ministers that citizens' advice bureaux, which give a great deal of advice in this area, could be adequately staffed and financially supported so that tenants understand their rights under the Bill. At this stage I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the matter of tenants' rights will be communicated to the people in
316
Scotland who are affected by this legislation so that they understand it. I further hope that advice through the CABs and other channels will be discharged effectively.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, this is a very important point whether those concerned are citizens' advice bureaux, Scottish Homes or whatever. The Government are well aware that tenants' rights are a very important aspect and are not always understood. They are sometimes deliberately misunderstood and particularly by some landlords, as we have said, as to what the assured tenancies will be. I give the noble Lord my assurance that the Government are well aware of this matter and that it is necessary to explain, once the Bill has become an Act, what has happened so that everyone understands what are their rights.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 28. insert the following new clause:
("Right of succession of spouse.
.—(1) in any case where—

(a) the sole tenant under an assured tenancy dies; and

(b) immediately before the death the tenant's spouse was occupying the house as his or her only or principal home; and

(c) the tenant was not himself a successor as explained in subsection (2) or (3) below,

the tenant's spouse shall. as from the death and for so long as he or she retains possession of the house without being entitled to do so under a contractual tenancy, be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the house.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a tenant was a successor in relation to a tenancy—

(a) if the tenancy had become vested in him either by virtue of this section or under the will or intestacy of a previous tenant; or

(b) if he was a statutory assured tenant by virtue of section 3A of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984; or

(c) if at some time before the tenant's death the tenancy was a joint tenancy held by him and one or more other persons and, prior to his death, he had become the sole tenant by survivorship; or

(d) in the case of a tenancy hereinafter referred to as ("the new tenancy") which was granted to him (alone or jointly with others) if—

(i) at some time before the grant of the new tenancy he was, by virtue of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above, a successor to an earlier tenancy of the same or substantially the same house as is let under the new tenancy; and

(ii) at all times since he became such a successor he has been a tenant (alone or jointly with others) of the house which is let under the new tenancy or of a house which is substantially the same as that house.

(3) No order for possession under Ground 7 of Schedule 5 to this Act shall be made—

(a) in relation to a case to which this section relates by virtue of subsection (1) above; or

(b) where the tenant's spouse succeeds to the tenancy under the will or intestacy of the tenant.

(4) For the purposes of this section a person who was living with the tenant at the time of the tenant's death as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the tenant's spouse.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Passing al assured tenancy.
.—(1) On the death of a tenant under an assured tenancy, the tenancy shall pass by operation of law to a qualified person, unless—

(a) there is no qualified person, or the qualified person declines the tenancy under subsection (4); or

(b) the tenancy is terminated by operation of subsection (5).

(2) For the purposes of this section, a qualified person is—

(a) a person whose only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death was the house and who was at that time either—

(i) the tenant's spouse; or

(ii) living with the tenant as husband and wife; and

(b) where the tenancy was held jointly by two or more individuals, a surviving tenant where the house was his only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death;

(b) where there is no person falling within paragraph (a) or (b), a member of the tenant's family who has attained the age of 16 years where the house was his only or principal home throughout the period of 12 months immediately preceding the tenant's death.

(3) Where there is more than one qualified person, the benefit of the provisions of q subsection (1) or, as the case may be, of subsection (6) shall accrue—

(a) to such qualified person; or

(b) to such two or more qualified persons as joint tenants. as may be decided by agreement between all the qualified persons or failing agreement within 4 weeks of the death of the tenant, as the landlord shall decide.

(4) A qualified person who is entitled to the benefit of subsection (1) may decline the tenancy by giving the landlord notice in writing within 4 weeks of the tenant's deah, and—

(a) he shall vacate the house within 3 months thereafter;

(b) he shall be liable to pay rent which becomes due after the said death only in respect of any rental period (that is to say, a period in respect of which an instalment of rent falls to be paid) during any part of which he has occupied the house after the said death.

(5) An assured tenancy which has passed under subsection (I) to a qualified person shall not, on the death of a tenant (or one of the joint tenants) so pass on a second occasion, and accordingly the assured tenancy shall be terminated when such a death occurs; but the provisions of this subsection shall not operate so as to terminate the assured tenancy of any tenant under a joint tenancy where such a joint tenant continues to use the house as his only or principle home.
(6) Where an assured tenancy is terminated by operation of subsection (5) and there is a qualified person, he shall be entitled to continue as tenant for a period not exceeding 6 months on terms agreed between himself and the landlord.").
6.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Avebury, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blackstone, B.

Falkender, B.

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Blyth, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Fitt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Galpern, L.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grey, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Grimond, L.

318

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram. L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Parry, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Jay, L.

Robson of Kiddington. B.

Jeger, B.

Serota. B.

Jenkins of Hillhead. L.

Shackleton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham. L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Gryfe. L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Coslany. L.

Masham of Ilton. B.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon. L.

Morton of Shuna. L.

White. B.

Mulley, L.

Willis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Nicol, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lauderdale. E.

Ampthill, L.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Lindsay. E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds. L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara. L.

Mersey, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caccia, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Newall, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom. L.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Croy. L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cowley, E.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cross, V.

Redesdale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dilhorne, V.

Sanderson of Bowden. L.

Dundee, E.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sharpies, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Slim, V.

Elton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strange, B.

Fortescue, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goold, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinton, E.

Greenway, L.

Teviot, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir. L.

Hacking, L.

Torrington, V.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarnc, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that we have reached a suitable moment at which to break with a view to returning to the

319
business not before 8.5 p.m. If so, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) (No. 2) Order 1988
7.6 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 6 of the Antarctic Treaty Act of 1976. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and it received the approval of another place on 17th June.
Your Lordships will be aware of the many unique life forms existing in Antarctica, but less well understood is the fragile nature of the Antarctic environment. For this reason we attach importance to maintaining a proper balance between the interests of those scientists and tourists who work in and visit that beautiful continent while at the same time providing the maximum protection for the delicate eco-system.
The Antarctic Treaty Act 1967 is concerned with giving effect to measures agreed by the contracting parties to the Antarctic Treaty, measures which are designed to protect Antarctic flora and fauna from unnecessary human interference. These agreed measures have been amended so as to oblige participating governments to prohibit entry by their nationals without a permit into any designated specially protected area.
This amendment has been reflected by the amendment to Schedule 2 to the Act made by Article 2 of the Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) Order 1988, which came into force on 22nd April. The purpose of the order which is before us now is to give effect in our law to the prohibition required by this amendment. It specifies the necessary new offences under the Act and the maximum penalties that may be imposed in each case.
Article 3 of the draft order will make it an offence for a British national to enter into a specially protected area without a permit. Specially protected areas are those designated as such by orders in council under Section 7 of the Act. Seventeen such areas are at present so designated. Article 4 makes provision for the issue of permits authorising British nationals to enter specially protected areas and makes it an offence to fail to comply with the reporting requirement imposed by a permit or to make a false statement in a report in pursuance of such a requirement. Article 5 specifies a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction of an offence under Articles 3 or 4. Since 1961 the contracting parties to the Antarctic Treaty have collaborated closely to develop effective and adequate environmental safeguards for Antarctica. A responsible attitude towards the environment is one of the tenets which underpin the Antarctic Treaty
320
system and one which this order will reinforce. I commend it to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanatory introduction to the debate.
We welcome and support the order. While it is a very short order, it is also part of a structure of international laws and agreements that have profound implications for the world, and especially for this country and others who have subscribed to those laws. The implications are both scientific and political, and they are far-reaching. The Falklands conflict gave us a taste of some of the political aspects, and the debates among scientists and others about the stratospheric ozone layer and the ecosystem generally have taught us that it is essential for all countries to show a healthy respect for the Antarctic and not to exploit it for short-term material gain or territorial aggrandizement. I do not pretend to be an expert upon the subject, but I have read the treaty and looked at the relevant Acts. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who is an acknowledged expert, is present and proposes to speak in the debate.
The countries that subscribed to the Antarctic Treaty have worked closely together to develop proper safeguards for Antarctica. We passed the 1967 Act referred to by the Minister as part of this cooperative effort. We also followed the very important meeting that took place in Wellington, New Zealand, with great interest. The objective of that meeting is an Antarctic minerals regime, and differing views have been expressed about it. On the one hand Mr. Marshall, the New Zealand Foreign Minister, has said that the aim is not to open up the continent to mining but to fill a gap in the 1959 treaty, which declared Antarctica a demilitarised and non-nuclear zone but which did not prohibit prospecting and mining. On the other hand environmental groups are arguing that a convention would allow commercial exploitation of the Antarctic. They fear that oil, gas and minerals will be mined very soon. We know that Britain was represented at the conference in Wellington. I understand that our representatives made a valuable contribution to the debate. Perhaps the Minister can give us a synopsis of that view and tell us what procedures will follow agreement at Wellington. I assume that there will be legislation in every one of the 37 countries and the need for ratification of the convention.
These therefore, are early days, but we must be sure that we are on the right track. Our own record in the observation of international treaties is a good one, but there are countries that are not quite so fastidious. The fear of course is that a breach by one country could lead to a scramble.
The Economist of 28th May said that, while the present system has worked,
"it is showing signs of strain. The region's commercial potential is gradually becoming apparent and conflicts of interest are stirring. To prevent these shattering the treaty, its signatories are trying to devise means of sharing out Antarctica's spoils without awakening nationalistic claims".

321
Those are very disturbing words. I shall be glad to have the noble Lord's reaction to them.
The order is a step in the right direction, but it is modest and one wonders how it would stand against a powerful multinational combine—it would not worry about a fine of £400! I hope that I am being less pessimistic than realistic, and I think that thus far things have gone reasonably well, but the crucial moment will come in 1991 when the treaty comes to be reviewed.
A leading article in The Times on 6th June discussed the pros and cons of the position. It thinks that
"prospecting for oil and minerals will no doubt take place".
It goes on to say that the most important safeguard included in the convention is that of "good housekeeping". It also refers to the fear of the environmentalists that the world's "last great wilderness" will be polluted. The environmentalists want to see the whole continent preserved as a world park out of bounds to commercial activity. There are strong arguments for that. The leader's final words are worth quoting:
At present the Antarctic is virtually untouched by direct pollution. This makes it a unique laboratory for the study of the world's atmosphere. Such a laboratory may be crucially important for future generations of scientists. It is irreplaceable and must not be spoiled. To the extent that the new Antarctic mining convention commits a group of nations to making that less likely, it is a considerable achievement".
We can agree with those words, but also hope that the final sentence is not too optimistic.
I think that, in view of this country's close involvement we should in due course have a full debate on the Antarctic and all its problems. In the meantime, we support the order.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his short but well-informed introduction. I hope that he will give us some more information when he replies.
I support my noble friend, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I think that I should correct him on one point, which the Minister perhaps can confirm. The Antarctic Treaty is not up for renewal in 1991. As I understand it—and experts no doubt will be able to inform the noble Lord—it is open for members to ask for amendments or indeed even to ask to withdraw. However, if my recollection is correct, they cannot withdraw for two years. In any case, the treaty is virtually a perpetual treaty. if a number of countries sought to pull out, of course, that would have a serious effect on what is undoubtedly the most successful international territory treaty in my lifetime.The Antarctic Treaty is a great triumph. It is nearly 40 years, I think, since I wrote an article saying that the Antarctic ought to be internationalised and come under the UN—because we believed in the UN in those days—and that it would be a good practice for when man went into space.
The Antarctic Treaty—I shall not spend too long talking about it—has been very successful in many ways. This order and the accompanying order that does not require parliamentary sanction are a step in the right direction. I should like to ask the Minister some questions about this.
322
The areas marked for protection are very few—although I am not complaining—only 13 or maybe 17. I have not put them all on a map. The majority seem to be in the Antarctic peninsula area where the British, Argentine and Chilean claims are located. There are some over on the east—Ross Island and so on. There will of course be a need for many more.
I am not an Antarctic man—if anything, I am an Arctic man. I spent many months in the Arctic, which we must not forget is an area that also needs good conservation. I was lucky to go to the Antarctic. There are a number of areas of complete fascination like the dry valleys where there is no snow at all in the summer and little lakes that are frozen. One in particular, Lake Vanda, thaws for a while. It is very cold at the top, but that does not stop the British having a Lake Vanda swimming club, although the temperature at the bottom of the lake is something like 25 degrees centigrade for reasons that I have never quite discovered. I should have thought that practically the whole area ought to be marked a conservation area, if only because there is a little band of moss running below the glacier. Indeed, to put it delicately, one is unable to perform one's natural functions in the area for fear of pollution.
It is very interesting to note the importance which is attached by scientists to the preservation of this area in pristine beauty. It is already subject to some pollution, and I fear it may continue, regardless of what is done in the Antarctic unless the world is able to do more about it. I should be interested if the noble Lord could expand a little upon these special areas and whether there is a need for wider areas, larger than the present ones, which will be protected in one form of another. As I understand it, these areas may occur anywhere, including the Australian and New Zealand sections. British nationals will be forbidden to go into an area in any other territory, whether or not we have claimed it. I do not believe that we shall ever make good our claims. There is one area where there is no national claim at all. I have been unable to look at a map but some of the special zones are liable to occur there.
This is a measure both of the value of the Antarctic and of the quality of the work that the British have done out there. The work is something of which this country can be completely proud. We are grateful to the Government for the support they have given to British Antarctic Surveys. I am even prepared to give praise to the Prime Minister who has taken an interest in this area. British Antarctic Surveys are undoubtedly the most cost-effective of all the scientific bodies that operate there.
This treaty and its operation depend a great deal upon that work and also upon the Polar region section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I have spoken with some of the international scientists involved like Mr. Beeby and others who are full of praise for the work of people like John Heap, who is himself an Antarctic man, and others.This is a matter that I wish to put on the record because I believe it to be extremely valuable.
I am tempted to follow my noble friend in discussing the minerals regime. I am not sure that I shall be in order, but it is relevant. I believe the

323
minerals regime is a good one. I do not believe that it will be possible—this is my personal aim—for anyone effectively to carry out mineral exploration in the near future in the Antarctic. I agree with my friend Peter Scott. I should like 100 years at least of protection for the Antarctic. I should also like it to be a permanently protected area. The question is, what is the art of the possible in all this? I believe that the critics have been unfair to the provisions of the Antarctic treaty. It will be a great deal more discouraging for dangerous multinationals to go effectively into the Antarctic area.
What is important is that there should be continued scientific work, that it is properly controlled and does not pollute. Non-scientists are not alone in causing damage and pollution. Here again the standards of the British Antarctic Surveys are very important. I hope the noble Lord will comment on the Antarctic treaty. It is a subject that we ought to discuss at some stage. There is criticism that the advisory committee does not carry a total veto. Who would expect such a committee to do so? I hope that those who believe that it is important to conserve the Antarctic will support practical measures.
One of the troubles as regards the Law of the Sea Convention, which alas we still have not signed, is that the regime was an almost unworkable one. I did not mind it being unworkable. It is a great pity. There is more to be gained in the Antarctic area in the surrounding seas, and by wholehearted support of the Law of the Sea, than simply protection on land of the islands and the mainland. I believe this order to be important and useful. It is one that we shall wish to continue to monitor and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to provide a little more information. I envisage thousands, if not millions, of specially protected areas in the Antarctic unless we can establish a more firm and general agreement between the nations.
It is worth remembering that 60 to 70 per cent. of the consultative members comprise not just the Western countries, but the Soviet Union, Poland, China, India and the South American countries. Also a number of members are fully able to take part in and listen to the discussions upon the minerals regime though their signatures are not relevant. I strongly support this order and I congratulate those who are responsible for it.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this order with enthusiasm. We wish to echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that a great deal of praise must be directed at the Government for their enthusiasm in taking part in the international efforts to preserve this unique part of the world. In Antarctica some 10 per cent. of the earth's surface provides an extraordinary and unique environment, with the very special role that it plays in the ecology of the world. At first sight it appears to be somewhat restrictive. Any scrutiny will show that this is a very valuable order concerned with preserving the beauty and the flora and fauna of one of the few areas of the globe untouched by man.
324
I suppose that it will be viewed as a small measure; but nevertheless we consider it a very valuable one when added to some of the other protective measures passed over the years such as the agreed measures of 1964, with attempts to regulate the environmental nature of human activity in Antarctica. In addition there was the Convention for the Conservation of Antartic Marine Living Resources, with its concern for the eco-system as a whole.
We are particularly concerned with the protection of wildlife. The unique environment of Antarctica must be a priority. The order specifically refers to Section 7(a) of the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967, part of which is concerned with seals which are totally protected by the agreed measures. I need not stress that we are also concerned with other animals and wildlife, particularly birds such as the albatross, penguins, petrels, skuas and fulmas. We also welcome the recognition that this order gives to the specially protected areas where vehicles cannot be driven and where plants cannot be collected. We also welcome the fact that where entry is restricted, it is further enforced by this order. In this way insensitive human impact on the unique eco-system of Antarctica is to be limited.
Where areas are declared as specially protected, they should remain so and not be redesignated as less restricted sites of special scientific interest where human interests often clash with environmental ones. On these Benches we are much concerned, as your Lordships will know, with the ecology of the planet as a whole. We feel that we must go all out to protect the fragile environment. We are very heartened to see that in the press the attention of the public is being drawn more and more to the very fragile state of the environment of our planet.
Where rare plants and animals thrive, human activity must be looked at most carefully where it appears to be invasive and destructive, particularly to an area like Antarctica with the implications of interference on the biosphere of the earth as a whole. The depletion of the ozone layer over the Continent is now receiving much publicity. This is a further indication of the importance of Antarctica's preservation. So as a general principle, tourism, scientific research and mineral exploitation—in fact, all activity, including, as the order specifies, the movement of humans in Antarctica—must be carefully regulated.
There is certainly a case, as Greenpeace has suggested, for declaring the continent an Antarctic world park, with strict regulation, or for the development of an Antarctic conservation strategy, as recommended last May by the European Parliament's Committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection.
In conclusion, we feel that Antarctica cannot be viewed—and is not viewed, as people become better educated about this astonishing area covering some 13 ·5 million square kilometres—as a barren, cold, ice-covered area but as an area where wildlife, flora and fauna flourish. Its role in the regulation of heat exchange and the circulation of atmospheric and marine currents is absolutely vital. In this context its preservation is paramount. We welcome the order with enthusiasm.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken on the order, and for their encouraging welcome to it. Only a month or two ago I was in New Zealand where I was briefed for the first time on Antarctica. The place has not ceased to fascinate me ever since. There was enormous interest in the work of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and all that his father did there.
Perhaps I may deal first with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. The order before us is not directly concerned with the minerals convention which was taking place while I was in New Zealand. The order is concerned with the control of trespassers. Designated specially protected areas enjoy special protection in the minerals convention which is something rather different.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that future exploitation of Antarctic minerals is a pretty speculative matter. It will not be practicable in the foreseeable future. Views may differ but that is the general opinion among those who are involved in it. Negotiation of the minerals convention is driven by foresight and the need to put environmental and other controls in place before activity, whether economic or otherwise, takes place and before the technical feasibility is developed to take advantage of any resources there may be. The convention has removed the last serious risk of tension within the Antarctic treaty system. We would expect all parties to abide by international obligations, but until the convention comes into force there is a moratorium on any commercial minerals activity.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that legislation would be required in the United Kingdom and almost certainly in all other Antarctic treaty states. The convention is now being studied. If the Government decide on ratification, it is unlikely that the parliamentary process will begin before the spring of next year. This will provide an opportunity for debate. Although the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Cledwyn, have suggested an alternative time, I suspect that that may prove a good opportunity when it reaches us. Any debate will be a matter for the usual channels, but I certainly note the interest which the noble Lord expresses.
Although it is slightly wide of the topic, the minerals convention is a significant development. It adds to the protection of Antarctica and ensures that the peace of the past 30 years will continue. It reduces the likelihood of significant change to the Antarctic treaty after 1991.
There are 17 designated specially protected areas at present. Three of the previously designated areas have been redesignated as sites of special scientific interest and are no longer covered by the Act. I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, when he suggested that they were of a lower order. They are a particular category where scientific experiment rather than flora or fauna requires attention. It is not true to say that they form a lower order. It is just a different means for a different purpose.
326
Specially protected areas are generally adopted by the Antarctic treaty on advice of scientific experts of the International Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. No more are likely to be added at present. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has a list of them. They are set out in Annex B of the 1967 Act, as amended by a number of other orders. I do not think the noble Lord will wish me to give a full list because apart from anything else the list sets out a good many latitudes and longitudes which might be rather wearisome to read out.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the tribute that he paid to the British Antarctic Survey. I agree that it is a most worthwhile body. It does a great deal of work, and from what I have heard it is held in high regard internationally among others who carry out research in that part of the world. I am grateful too for his tribute to the polar region section within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was quite right when he spoke about the Act itself. It is based on nationality, not on territoriality. This therefore covers the unclaimed sector and elsewhere as regards British nationals. Parts of the dry valleys are designated SSSI. There are more than two dozen at present, which goes some way to showing that a good deal of the area is protected. The suggestion by the noble Viscount of a world park to some extent mirrored the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It is an interesting concept. There are those who feel that it is based more on emotion than on a rational scientific and political approach. There is some doubt that it would be clearly enough defined or even that it would be widely enough respected. There would be no bar to unilateral exploitation, as I understand it. Against this background, we and our treaty partners opted to develop an internationally-recognised and acceptable system of conservation measures which we believe will he the most practical and effective way of protecting Antarctica's environments and resources.
The noble Viscount also referred to the effect of tourism on the environment. Any individual scientist, tourist or explorer is free to visit Antarctica provided that his respective activities are consistent with the objectives of the Antarctic treaty. However, people are responsible for their own safety and protection and they are also responsible for the protection of the environment. A heavy burden lies upon them. The position is regularly discussed under Antarctic treaty auspices.
The treaty provides for review after June 1991 if requested by a consultative party. Review is not an automatic requirement, and we have no plans at present to seek one. The 14th consultative meeting of treaty parties took place in Rio de Janeiro last October. It was one of the regular biennial series of meetings to consider the Antarctic housekeeping affairs—for example, to monitor and regulate man's impact on the environment— and agreement was reached on key environmental impact assessment procedures.
What I have said broadly covers the main points which have been raised. I agree with all those who have spoken about the importance of this part of the

327
world. It is an area in which many of us take a keen interest because it has not been exploited in the way that so many other areas have. I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1988
7.41 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the assisted places scheme was established in 1981 for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. It provides their parents with assistance towards the fees of some of the best independent schools in the country. The assistance is on a sliding scale depending on parental income, and the amending regulations before your Lordships are mainly concerned with the annual revision of those scales.
In the past we have also taken this opportunity to make various small amendments for which experience of the scheme has suggested a need. This year such an amendment takes account of cases where court orders for payment of school fees are in force. I venture to suggest, however, that all of the amendments—which I shall describe in a moment—are relatively straightforward.
Regulation I is concerned with title and timing and will not require any detailed comment from me. Regulation 1(2) allows bursars to use the new parental income scales ahead of the start of term for determining a child's eligibility and assessing fee remission questions for existing assisted pupils.
Regulation 2 introduces a new condition of eligibility for the assisted places scheme. This is that a child, all of whose school fees are required to be paid under a court order, may not be selected for an assisted place. It also removes entitlement to remission of any part of school fees required to be paid under a court order. The latter provision will apply in the case of a child who is about to join the APS or is already the holder of an assisted place. Any portion of fees which is required to be paid under a court order will no longer attract fee remission.
Regulation 3 arises from the Finance Act 1987 and the Finance (No.2) Act 1987 and brings up to date the references to the relevant income tax legislation in Schedule I to the principal assisted places regulations. Deductions from total income in respect of increased personal reliefs for those aged 80 or over and contributions to personal pension schemes are not to be made in calculating relevant income for the purposes of assessing fee remission.
Draft Regulation 4 provides for the updating of the income scale used for assessing the amount of parents' contributions towards the fees. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £6,972 to £7,258.
The amendments I have just described are essentially necessary revisions for the continued smooth running of this successful scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation of the technical side of the amendments and the regulations. As he has himself taken the opportunity to say a few words about the assisted places scheme generally, I shall also take the opportunity to say a few—words although, they will be of a different kind—to remind the noble Lord that those of us on this side of the House do not approve of the scheme. We regard it as divisive and damaging to the maintained sector. Since we see no public good resulting from the scheme, we also regard it as a misuse of public money. We would certainly feel able to outline higher priorities for the use of such public money if it were available for education more generally. As I believe the noble Earl is well aware, we would ease out the scheme if we were in a position to do so.
Perhaps I may ask a question about the scheme to which I do not necessarily require an answer at the moment. I should like to know whether any study has been undertaken on the effects of the scheme, in particular whether there is any research that shows that it raises standards. I should also like the noble Earl to remind your Lordships what the current total cost of the scheme is and what the total number of pupils involved is; moreover, within that, what share of the total intake to the independent schools the assisted places scheme now comprises and what share of their total income public expenditure now comprises.
On the technicalities of the amending order, I entirely accept the noble Earl's remarks. However, there is one thing that intrigues me a little as regards Paragraph 4—which is the updating of, as it were, the nominal amounts of money—and in particular in relation to the figures for the level at which there is total remission of fees. If those figures are characteristic of all the updating then that seems to be an updating of just over 4 per cent. which is, if anything, slightly lower than the rate of inflation. In my view it is certainly lower than the rate of inflation which will pertain when the regulations come into force. I wonder whether it is the Government's view that this slightly less than inflation-proofing was intended.
I can do no better than conclude my remarks generally by quoting my noble friend Lady David, who to my great regret is not here at this moment, when she said that this is yet another example of the Government's practice of loading the dice against the maintained system, it is certainly a practice we do not approve of.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in thanking the noble Earl for explaining the scheme to us. On the assisted places scheme in general, I have very little disagreement with the noble Lord. When this order was thrust into my

329
hands not very long ago and I read it quickly, I was rather puzzled about the court orders. It may be obvious to everybody else, but I should like to know what kind of court orders they are, and in what circumstances they are made. Are they likely to be made in the matrimonial courts, or is it a matter of juvenile delinquency? I am still in doubt about that. But, apart from that, I have no doubt that the order makes sense.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not totally surprised that the reception from the Opposition Benches is not exactly exhilarating. But I just want to put once again the Government's point of view about the assisted places scheme and at the same time answer some of the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord McNair.
The assisted places scheme is now in its seventh successful year. I can assure noble Lords opposite that any doubts which they may have about it are not shared by the many parents whose children have benefited and will continue to benefit from it.
I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was asking whether we have any evidence about the success or popularity of such a scheme. I can inform him that a survey conducted in 1986 showed that 72 per cent. of the public approved of the APS. When broken down by voting intentions, support for the scheme was as follows: Conservative voters 86 per cent. SDP/Liberal voters 74 per cent., Labour voters 60 per cent., and 70 per cent. of trade unionists also expressed approval. The sample size was 1,907.
There are now more than 27,000 pupils in the assisted places scheme, of whom about three-quarters come from families with incomes under £11,500 per annum. The scale for determining the amount of fee remission is an intentionally demanding one. Only those families with incomes currently below £6,972 qualify for completely free places. Even so, in the current school year 37 per cent. of all assisted pupils are eligible for full remission of fees.
It is clear that the scheme is working to the advantage of those less well off families for whom it is intended. Furthermore, the scheme is not a means of supporting those families whose children would have entered the independent sector without the aid of an assisted place. Under the principal regulations, participating schools must ensure that at least 60 per cent. of all their assisted pupils attended state schools immediately before taking up their assisted place. In practice and with a few exceptions, that requirement has been easily met.
The assisted places scheme is plainly achieving its objective of opening up some of the best independent schools to children who almost certainly would not otherwise have been able to look to them as an option. That can only be to their and to the nation's advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the cost of an assisted pupil and of the scheme. The cost of the scheme in the current financial year is likely to be about £55 million. While not an insignificant sum, it should perhaps be noted that the Government's planned local authority spending on the secondary
330
sector in 1988–89, as announced in the public expenditure White Paper is over £5,000 million. The cost of the assisted places scheme is, in my view, more than justified by the significant increase in opportunities for able children from less well-off families which it has brought about.
The average cost of an assisted pupil in the current academic year is £1,952, made up of £1,867 on fees and £85 on incidental expenses (uniform and travel grants). In addition, the average parental contribution towards fees is £479.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked about the situation surrounding court orders. We think it important that taxpayers' money should not be used to discharge an obligation which already rests with one of the parents as the result of a court order. There may be cases where one parent cannot persuade the other to discharge his or her legal obligation to pay school fees; but if the scheme is allowed to act as a safety net in those circumstances, such default is only encouraged.
In the case of a stable family, the child depends upon the willingness of both parents to meet the cost if he is to enjoy the benefit of an assisted place. It is equally reasonable in the case of divorced parents to expect both to meet their basic obligations before the question of an assisted place or of fee remission can be considered. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.5 p.m.].

Housing (Scotland) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 29 [Short assured tenancies]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 17, line 45, after ("25") insert ("above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I doubt whether Amendment No. 21 needs much explanation. It simply ensures consistency of drafting in the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his suggestion, and commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Reference of rents under short assured tenancies to rent assessment committee]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 19, line 8, after ("(3)") insert ("(3A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Damages for unlawful eviction]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 23 to 25:
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("with intent") and insert ("knowingly or having reasonable cause to believe that the conduct is likely").
Page 20. line 16. after ("believe") insert ("(a)").
Page 20. line 20. at end insert—
(": or
(b) that, where the liability would otherwise arise by virtue only of the withdrawal or withholding of services. he had reasonable grounds for withdrawing or withholding the services in question.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government are unequivocally opposed to harassment and unlawful eviction of tenants by landlords. It is for that reason that the Bill strengthens the protection given to tenants against the minority of landlords who would wish to act outside the law.
An important right embodied in Clause 33 is the right of an occupier to claim damages from his former landlord equivalent to the gain the landlord has made as a result of evicting the occupier. Damages can be claimed if the tenant leaves his house as a result of action which could be regarded as harassment taken by, or on behalf of, the landlord. However, as currently drafted Clause 33 will require a tenant seeking damages on this ground to prove that the landlord's actions were taken with the intention of causing him to leave his home. That has been difficult to prove in similar cases under existing legislation and therefore Amendment No. 23 brings the provision into line with the form of words used elsewhere in Clauses 33 and 35, by making the landlord liable in cases where he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe that the actions taken by him, or on his behalf are likely to cause the occupier to give up occupation or to refrain from exercising his rights. I believe this is a significant additional measure of protection for tenants and one worthy of your Lordship's support.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are of a different nature and in effect give an additional defence to a landlord who faces a claim for damages under Clause 33. As it currently stands, subsection (7) of Clause 33 allows that in proceedings to enforce a liability a landlord may defend his actions by proving that he believed or had reasonable cause to believe that when they took place the occupier no longer stayed in the House.
These amendments now also provide a similar defence which will apply if the liability arises because of withholding or withdrawing of services. In such cases, the landlord will have a defence if he can show that he had reasonable grounds to withdraw or withhold the services. This might apply, for example, if the landlord was genuinely of the opinion that the tenant had left the house to work elsewhere for a period or that he had made alternative arrangements to receive the services in question, or that a one-off form of service, for instance repairs, had been carried out to the tenant's satisfaction and no further work was needed. Ultimately, the facts of each case are, of course, for the sheriff to judge upon. The three amendments to which I have spoken I think improve the clarity of Clause 33. I ask your Lordships to support them. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, I propose to put this amendment and the next two amendments together, if your Lordships agree.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 34 [The measure of damages]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 21, line 3, leave out from first ("any") to end of line 5 and insert ("substantial development of any of the land in which the landlord's interest subsists or to demolish the whole or part of any building on that land.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 34 sets out the basis on which the sheriff is to assess damages when a tenant has been illegally evicted. As it stands, the damages will be calculated as the difference between the value of the property in the open market with a sitting tenant and the value with vacant possession. In his assessment, the sheriff is to exclude any development value of the property. In other words, he is to assume that the property will remain in residential use.
Concern has been expressed that this limitation means that there is not a sufficient deterrent to landlords tempted to evict illegally in order to redevelop their property. It is in response to that that the Government are proposing these amendments which allow certain development value to be taken into account in the sheriff's assessment. This increases the illegally evicted tenant's right to compensation.
The amendments will mean that a landlord who evicts illegally will be liable to lose any profit he might have hoped to make if he redevelops the property for other residential use. This is directed, for example, at landlords who might otherwise be tempted to evict their tenants illegally so as to convert the property into flats for sale.
I hope your Lordships will agree that these amendments offer a useful element of additional deterrence to illegal eviction. No doubt some would have preferred us to go even further, but I believe that the amended provision strikes a fair balance which should moderate the behaviour of unscrupulous landlords and offer tenants an added measure of protection. In view of that, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 21 line I I, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The reference in subsection (2)(c) above to substantial development of any of the land in which the landlord's interest subsists is a reference to any development other than—

(a) development for which planning permission is granted by a general development order for the time being in force and which is carried out so as to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission is so granted; or

(b) a change of use resulting in a building on the land or any part of such a building being used as, or as part of, one or more dwelling-houses;

and in this subsection "general development order" has the same meaning as in section 40(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and other expressions have the same meaning as in that Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Housing Tribunals.
In the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, after section 113 there shall be inserted the following section—
Housing Tribunals
113A—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment of tribunals, to be known as housing tribunals, to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on them by subsection (2) of this section.
(2) A complaint may be presented to a housing tribunal by the tenant of a house to which Schedule 10 of the Act applies against his landlord that the said landlord has failed to carry out his obligations under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule.
(3) Where on a complaint under this section the housing tribunal finds that the grounds of the complaint are well-founded, it shall make an order requiring the landlord to carry out such of his obligations under the said Schedule as it thinks fit and may make an order requiring the landlord to pay to the tenant compensation of an amount corresponding to any damages he would have been ordered by a sheriff court to pay to the tenant for his failure to carry out the aforesaid obligations.
(4) The tenant or the landlord may, within a period of 28 days beginning with the date of any decision of a housing tribunal, appeal to the sheriff on a question of law arising from such a decision.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for proceedings before housing tribunals." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which is an attempt to simplify and put right the great difficulties that many corporation tenants have found themselves in. Now that we are going, perhaps rightly, to extend the number of landlords and number of bodies, tenants need a simple method of appeal against failure to carry out repairs, and any other difficulties they may have with their landlords.
As a Member of Parliament some years ago, the majority of complaints that I received concerned the failure of a corporation to carry out necessary repairs such as damp-proofing. That caused a tremendous amount of bad feeling and great discomfort and danger to health on the part of the tenants.
A tribunal or going to arbitration are established methods of obtaining justice rather than going to court. It would be a very simple matter to establish housing tribunals. Tribunals are commonplace. There are industrial tribunals, social security appeal tribunals, children at risk tribunals and children's hearings. But there is no such tribunal for housing, which is one of the most important matters in the country. Most complaints in the housing field have been dealt with internally. That is quite unsatisfactory.
Tribunals are a cheap method of dealing with complaints. They could save a great deal of trouble and a great deal of money. They might apply to and help to fulfil the terms of the amendment that has just been moved by the Minister where he has to protect tenants against the deliberate failure of a landlord to carry out improvements in order to drive the tenants out.
The courts would have a role, in that there must be an appeal from the tribunal to the court. But tribunals would simplify matters enormously in this very important field of housing. As I have said before, the failure by landlords to carry out repairs is the most common reason for complaint. On the part of
334
the landlord, that failure to carry out repairs is the most common method of getting rid of a tenant if he wants the house for another purpose.
The mechanism already exists, in that there are rent assessment committees which deal with fair rents in the private sector. There should be a big reduction in their workload after the implementation of this Bill. Therefore, they should be able to cope with the new function. I think this is a sensible suggestion and I hope that the Government will be able to look at it with some favour. It appears to simplify matters, and the courts in this country are already overloaded. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the amendment and I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he said that the courts in Scotland were overloaded. No doubt the Minister is fully aware of that. Further, it is a matter which can be dealt with very quickly. It is very difficult for certain tenants to get into court. If they do not satisfy the legal aid requirements—certain tenants do not—the cost of fighting over whether the landlord or the tenant should have carried out repairs is a prohibitive expense for them to undergo in enforcing their rights under their lease.
Speaking as a resident of Edinburgh, which had the misfortune to have a Conservative administration for some time, I can tell the House that until 1984 there was much difficulty in a considerable number of litigations against the Conservative-led administration as regards its failure to keep up to its legal obligations. That necessitated a number of litigations in the sheriff court which were wholly unnecessary. I should have thought that a tribunal could deal with such complaints much more easily. I therefore support the amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his comments on tribunals. In many cases it is undoubtedly the position that they have the advantage of greater simplicity and lesser costs for the tenant than going to the courts.
Schedule 10 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 contains important rights for tenants. It imposes various obligations on a landlord to repair and maintain the property which he has let. The Government recognise the importance of Schedule 10, and that is shown by the fact that in this Bill we are—in Schedule 8 to the Bill—introducing changes which will reactivate paragraph I of Schedule 10 and which will extend the landlord's obligations to include such things as common heating plant which may be outside any individual house.
As regards tribunals, I do not think that the new clause proposed by the noble Lord is necessary. Tribunals are established where there is a need for some special professional knowledge which may not be available to a court. No such special knowledge is involved in forcing a landlord to carry out his repair obligations. A court is well equipped to enforce those. There already exists an effective enforcement agency for the landlord's obligations under Schedule

335
10—the sheriff court. If a landlord fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 10, any aggrieved tenant can apply to the court, not only for damages but to have him ordered by the court to do so. There is no need to invent a completely new kind of enforcement mechanism —the "Housing Tribunal" —for that purpose. The sheriff is already there and I can see no advantage to the tenant in removing his jurisdiction.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister answer the point that has been made about the delay and the overloading of the courts? It seems to me that it is all very well to say that there are perhaps remedies, but certainly in some parts of Scotland tenants have great difficulty in activating those remedies. Surely a tribunal could speed up the process and relieve the courts of a burden. Perhaps the Minister can answer those points.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in general terms I can only agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said. The courts are under great pressure and in many cases tribunals perform a useful function in speeding up matters. However, for the reasons which I have given, it is more appropriate in this case to leave the remit of the sheriff's court as it is rather than to attempt to replace it with a tribunal.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he will deal with the matter of costs. The cost of litigating in a sheriff's court is considerable in relation to a failure to carry out repairs. I am endeavouring to raise that major point. The cost for someone who is not entitled to legal aid —legal aid limits have been tightened recently —is very heavy. There is a severe disadvantage for anyone who wishes to recover through a sheriff's court that to which he is entitled in law. A tribunal would avoid that problem. Perhaps the Minister will consider that point.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The question of cost is very important. If we had evidence that the cost of having recourse to a sheriffs court was significantly greater and proved to be a disincentive to ensuring that the remedy was effective, that would be a matter for our attention. However, there is no reason why costs should be high before the sheriff. Costs are very high before many tribunals. In order to have grounds for replacing the role of the sheriff's court, we would have to have substantial evidence that the costs of tribunals were significantly lower. I do not believe that that evidence exists.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I apologise to the House for interrupting. However, the noble Lord must consider that the cost of an application to, say, an industrial tribunal is very low compared to the cost of taking the same case to the sheriffs court if the litigant is not entitled to legal aid. The cost of taking a fairly simple case to a tribunal dealing with rents is very low indeed compared with the cost of raising an action in the sheriff's court.
Whatever advice may have come via messenger to the Minister, I believe that I can claim rather more
336
experience of sheriff's courts than he has and I profoundly disagree with his advice. We must arrive at a cheap method of enabling people to solve their differences without making the situation too complicated. At the moment, the cost of going to court is so high -that someone who is not entitled to legal aid under fairly restrictive limits will give away his remedy because he cannot afford to litigate.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can answer two other points. Is it possible, in a matter which goes before a sheriff's court, for a person to appear without legal assistance? If so, would be have the help of the sheriff in pursuing the case or, alternatively, could it be pursued through the small claims procedure?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am impressed by the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. He made two very important points about cost and delay. Perhaps the Minister can indicate what delays are to be encountered in proceedings of that kind before sheriff's courts in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I believe that courts are overburdened and that delay is undesirable. A tribunal is a simplified system and would appear to me to be much more efficient in dealing with such matters.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister must be impressed, as I was, by the arguments put forward by a lawyer against feeding his own profession more money. We are dealing with a serious point. A tribunal is not expensive and it has been pointed out that we shall have underworked tribunals. They do not require specialist knowledge. Both landlord and tenant are protected by an ultimate right of appeal to the sheriff's court. Surely the Minister must take the matter away and look at it again. All the evidence produced from this side of the House contradicts his answer, which does not appear to make the case against the amendment at any point. Perhaps the Minister will give me an assurance that he will do that.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I shall take the matter away and look at it. I am impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said, based on his personal knowledge of costs and efficiency. I have had no direct experience in the matter. However, I should repeat that many tribunals are expensive and many sheriff's courts are not expensive. In any case, costs follow success. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has a point and it could be that in this case we shall find that there is sufficient evidence to replace sheriff's courts with tribunals. The noble Lord, Lord Morton, will not mind my saying that I suspect that when we look into the matter we shall find that the evidence is insufficient. Nevertheless, I am happy to take the matter away and consider it.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could answer my questions. The answers might influence his decision.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for not answering his questions. I shall look into those matters and write to him.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, with those multiple assurances I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I reserve the right to return to the matter at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Cases excluded from sections 23 and 24 ut Rent (Scotland) Act 1984]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 22, line 12, after ("persons") insert ("provided that there are not more than two household units in addition to the owner or a member of his family.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 is a simple one. Exceptions are rightly provided in the Bill for people who have genuine lodgers in their houses. My amendment ensures that the lodgers are genuine and that the landlord who has people residing in a house where he himself resides is not running a business. It is a straightforward safeguard and would provide the people in occupancy of a house where there are more than two households with some form of protection. That is only right and proper.
Amendment No. 30, which is grouped with Amendment No. 29, simply defines a household unit. It appears to me that there is a loophole in the Bill which ought to be closed. The amendment closes that loophole and would stop the landlord running a business and taking advantage of the Act. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am only too pleased to have added my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to these two amendments. The Scottish Council for Single Homeless, which has very wide experience of these matters, takes the view that it is not unreasonable for a landlord to have two lodgers. It has supported the concept of the tenants' rights legislation. A "household unit" has been employed to cover the range of size of household that a lodger or occupier might represent. A lodger household could be a single person, a single person plus a cohabitee, a married couple, a single parent, etc.
If a resident landlord has more than two households in addition to his own family on the premises, it is reasonable to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has suggested, that he or she is running a commercial business. In such circumstances at the very least occupiers should have the limited protection of the short assured tenancy.
I should add that from information I have received the definition of household unit is broadly based on that contained in Sections 24 and 25 (Homeless Persons) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The two amendments have the support of Shelter (Scotland) and the Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, bodies which have a great deal of daily experience of this matter. I am very happy to be able to support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend says about the amendment. I do not know enough about the technicalities to know how it would work, but I know that there is a problem, particularly in university towns such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, where rooms are let to students.
I believe that in another place an undertaking was given that something would be done about this situation; but nothing has been done. I wonder why it has been left to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, to put down an amendment, and why we have not so far had a government amendment. Perhaps they have had second thoughts.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the arguments which have been deployed. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for introducing the amendments. I fully appreciate the important points he makes; but nevertheless I cannot agree with the amendment.
One of the aims of the legislation we are considering is to encourage more people to let empty rooms in their houses. This is a simple and straightforward way of increasing the supply of accommodation, particularly for single people. One factor which deters people from letting their empty rooms is the fear that they will not be able to evict an unsatisfactory tenant easily. The wish to be able to do so is understandable when someone is offering to share their house.
I believe that all of your Lordships accept that some such exemption for genuine resident landlords is desirable. The concern which has arisen repeatedly during the Bill's passage both here and in another place has centred round how to ensure that only genuine resident landlords benefit from the exemption. In response to that concern, we have significantly tightened up the definition of resident landlord both in Clause 37, which we are now discussing, and in Schedule 4.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, would go further and limit resident landlords for the purposes of Clause 37 to those who let to no more than two household units. But such a restriction would bite very heavily indeed. It would, for example, remove the exemption from a landlord letting spare rooms in his house to three students. I am afraid that any figure we might suggest would be arbitrary and would lead to unfair treatment of genuine resident landlords. I therefore stick to the view that the Government's approach —to ensure that the definition is such that it covers only genuine resident landlords —is the right one. I therefore hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I totally agree with the Minister that a government does great harm if they produce legislation which makes it impossible for a private landlord to let a room or makes it impossible or very difficult for him to get rid of a tenant. However, in this case we are talking about households —two households not three students. I

339
am not sure that one could not put a figure on it. Perhaps the Government would like to extend the number to three households.
There is nothing to prevent someone from taking, say, a small hotel, letting it out as a business and saying that it was his place of residence and that he was merely taking in lodgers. I think that we have a point. I think that the Government might well take another look. I accept the argument that in the past some legislation covering furnished accommodation reduced the amount of accommodation available for single people and others. However, I think also that we have a point here to cover instances (which may be quite numerous) of people trying to take advantage of this loophole in the Act.
In withdrawing the amendment, I hope that the Government will take a look at the situation: but I reserve the right to bring this matter forward again at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Transfer of existing tenancies]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 27, line 2 at end insert —
(": and
(c) the tenant has given his consent in writing for the interest of the landlord to cease to be held by a public body or the tenant has concluded a lease under the provisions of section 57(2) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the most important amendment that we have to consider tonight —at least in relation to the volume of correspondence that we have received. The amendment we propose is to add that:
"the tenant has given his consent in writing for the interest of the landlord to cease to be held by a public body or the tenant has concluded a lease under the provisions of section 57(2) of this Act".
As I shall endeavour to explain, there is a view held by a considerable number of tenants of public authority housing that the Government have gone back on assurances that they have given.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all secure tenants of public sector landlords retain their existing right to remain secure tenants and cannot be forced against their will to become assured tenants. Clause 42(1) and (3) provide that where the interest of a public sector landlord in a secure tenancy ceases to be held by that landlord, the tenancy can no longer be a secure tenancy unless it passes to a second public sector landlord. In other words, a secure tenancy is automatically terminated by virtue of a change of ownership from a public landlord to a private one. Those provisions appear to override the secure tenant's existing legal right not to have his secure tenancy terminated except in specific circumstances laid down in Section 46 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, and the change of landlord is not one of those conditions.
Clause 42 also appears to override an important principle of security of tenure, which is that a change of ownership of a tenant's home cannot force a
340
change to the tenant's existing security of tenure. The effect of the clause is to leave secure tenants with no statutory right to object to the termination of their secure tenancy should their public sector landlord decide to transfer them to another landlord.
The amendment seeks to ensure that where a public landlord proposes a change in ownership of a house which would result in a change of security of tenure, it can only be done with the full agreement of the individual tenant concerned and not the majority of the tenants of that class of house.
The most important public sector tenant's right is the right to a secure tenancy which was introduced by this Government in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which is now in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The most important aspect of the secure tenancy, naturally enough, is the security. Fundamental to that security are the statutory limits imposed by the 1980 Act on the circumstances in which a secure tenancy can be terminated. Those limits are now in Section 46 of the 1987 Act and are very specific.
Under that Act a secure tenancy can he terminated if the landlord and tenant agree in writing to terminate the tenancy, if the tenant gives the landlord four weeks' notice of his own intention to terminate or the tenant dies leaving no successor. The landlord can only terminate the tenancy if the tenant has abandoned the house or an order for repossession has been granted on one of the grounds in Schedule 3. The landlord cannot terminate the secure tenancy simply by virtue of selling the house to another landlord, but this is what the Bill appears to do.
That raised considerable doubts with the National Federation of Scottish Special Housing Association Tenants Associations. On 28th September 1987 the Minister's right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State wrote to Mr. Reynolds, the chairman of the Steering Committee for the National Federation, saying specifically —and I quote from that letter which I assure the Minister has been delivered to the recipient:
"The first point which I emphasised was that SSHA tenants will not lose any of their legal rights when they become tenants of Scottish Homes. They will continue to have security of tenure, the right to succession, the right to buy and all the other statutory rights which this Government gave to SSHA tenants, and to other public sector tenants, in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, for which I had personal Ministerial responsibility. Those rights will remain guaranteed by existing legislation and therefore it will be impossible for anyone to deny tenants their rights".
The basic purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those rights remain. If the Bill had incorporated what the Minister's right honourable and learned friend had said, that would be fair enough and we should have no objection. Unfortunately, Clause 42 denies the existing rights of secure tenants by providing that a secure tenancy is automatically terminated when a change of landlord takes place. This clause needs to be read in conjunction with the existing powers of public authorities to transfer ownership of all or part of an estate to another landlord and the similar powers which the Scottish Homes will inherit from the SSHA.
Section 12 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 gives local authorities these powers and under the formal agreement between the Secretary of State and

341
the special housing association, the housing association has equivalent powers. Scottish Homes will inherit the SSHA's powers under Clause 2(2) of the Bill. In order to dispose of all or part of an estate the public authority needs to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. Under the existing legislation these powers simply mean that the landlord can change, as ownership is changed, with the approval of the Secretary of State but the rights of the secure tenants cannot be changed by the simple change of landlord. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the change in landlord and therefore the change in security can only be acquired with the individual tenant's written agreement.
In the other place the Secretary of State said on 1lth January that:
"There is not and never has been any proposal whatsoever to impose any degree of compulsion on any individual SSHA tenant". —[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/88; col. 45.]
He challenged the Opposition to state one single way in which tenants will be compelled to obtain new landlords. Again, at the Report stage another Minister said that:
"No solution will be forced on anyone against his or her will". — [Official Report, Commons, 293/88; col. 1003.]
There is not a word of compulsion for public sector tenants. However, then on 28th June of this year the Minister concerned was reported in the Glasgmv Herald newspaper and in The Scotsman as saying:
"In large scale disposals, although a majority of tenants would have to be in favour before the Secretary of State could agree to an authority's proposals…it is possible that a minority might have to transfer against their will".
That is the point of this amendment; it is to deal with the situation where obviously the Government have changed their mind. Instead of saying that each individual tenant with a public authority as landlord will have the right to retain security of tenure, they now say that so long as a majority (51 out of 100) decide that they want to transfer to someone else, the minority (the other 49) have no option whatever: they will have the terms of their tenancy changed without in any way being in favour of it or consenting to it. That is the point of the amendment. It is a clear breach of the undertaking of the Secretary of State in the letter of 28th September 1987 to the Scottish Special Housing Association Tenants Associations that I quoted. That is the purpose behind the amendment. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not dare add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has said. He has put the case absolutely clearly. I merely say that I support the amendment on grounds of the principle that the minority must be protected. In this case the minority is put at grave risk by a vote of the simple majority. It is against assurances given by the Government that I trust and hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory reply to this enormously serious point.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I cannot add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has said except to say that I have throughout this Bill sought to establish clarity. I believe that it is of the utmost
342
importance. Tenants should understand their position clearly and fully. I cannot reconcile this clause as it stands at present with, for instance, Section 54 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 which states:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy agreement, the terms of a secure tenancy may not be varied except… by agreement between the landlord and the tenant".
I do not see how those words can be reconciled with the present drafting of the Bill. I believe that my noble friend will seek to reconcile them and may very well find a way to do so, but so long as those sections are at sharp variance, I think that they are not a desirable way of enforcing certain relationships on tenants in Scotland.
So far as I can understand, the Government are trying to say that a secure tenancy can only be held with a public authority, of which a description has already been given. That, I believe, is what the Government want to do. If they want to do that, they should make it clear that the provision is confined to that and does not contain other elements.
Section 54 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 deals with this perhaps even more clearly. It states that notwithstanding any provision contained in the tenancy agreement, a secure tenancy may not be brought to an end except —and one can see what has already been referred to. I find this terribly difficult to reconcile. I believe that confusion is the worst of all evils in a housing Act. Tenants must know where they stand. It is our business as a revising House to do our utmost to ensure that they do.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has dealt at great length with the arguments which have been produced by the various organisations concerned in this matter. I do not propose to reproduce the excellent brief which I have received from Shelter and other bodies which feel strongly about this. I ask the Minister only to reply on one basic and fundamental point. I quote from the Shelter representation, which says:
"Despite contrary claims by the Scottish Office, the passing of clause 42 unamended will result in the loss of a secure tenant's right not to move to a private landlord without his individual consent".
There is a matter of fundamental importance.
"Clause 42 will also cause a secure tenancy to automatically cease to be a secure tenancy at the moment of sale to a private landlord".
That strikes me as being the crux of the issue and makes it extremely difficult to defend the existing provisions of Clause 42. I would welcome from the Minister some assurance in this connection.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the case has been stated so well by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna that I do not think it necessary or desirable that I seek to gild the lily in any way.
However, I am interested in the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about this provision in the previous Act. I have been considering the Schedule 6 amendments to the previous Act, both apparently major and minor amendments. At a quick glance I cannot see anything about that previous provision being repealed. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is so infrequently wrong on such matters that he picks up that we are entitled to know where in the Bill the

343
Government are creating a set of conflicting provisions.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna and other noble Lords have said, they have had much correspondence on this issue from individuals, small housing groups, tenants' associations and the larger bodies representing groups of tenants' associations, and it causes a great deal of anxiety. It makes one realise that there is a great deal of worry about the loss of representation by either the SSHA or local authorities. People knew where they were then. If things went wrong they knew to whom they could go. I do not say that they were totally satisfied with what they did, but at least they knew on which door to knock, and it gave them a little security.
Here they are entering an unknown world with, as has been pointed out, the loss of secure tenants' rights. The Minister may be able to reassure us on this. However, it seems as though they go from secured to assured tenancy the moment they are transferred. They are not allowed to sign a document. The moment that they are transferred they go from secured tenure to assured tenure.
I do not understand why the Government are so adamant on this. Surely the secured tenancy will work itself out in a fairly short time, almost certainly within a generation, which in terms of housing is nothing. It would be a very progressive step if all the tenancies under Scottish Homes were assured tenancies. There is a very natural resentment among people that their houses should be transferred or sold under them without their having any part to play in it. Unless the Minister has something very important to say, I support the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, we have received well-informed letters of complaint. People have gone to the trouble of going to organisations which know about housing law. They have secured background information from them and have written these letters. It is a great, and I think an unnecessary, worry. I ask the Minister to concede what is contained in the amendment. Perhaps he will explain more fully the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on whether tenants move from a secured to an assured tenancy. I support this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was not going to intervene because what I know about this issue I have read in the press. I saw an article in today's Scotsman shortly before we began this Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was addressing the doubt of people as to what would happen to them if the majority wanted to change and they were left behind. I should like to have heard my noble friend's answer before I spoke because I should like to hear all the arguments. However, it seems to me that what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said about the clarity of the situation is absolutely crucial.
As I understand it, if the Secretary of State for Scotland is saying that the rights which the person
344
would have under the new arrangement are as good as the rights that he had before, and if he knows that, then the fear of the change of landlord would be enormously lessened. But it is the doubt that is worrying Shelter. I read that it has taken legal opinion about this. It seems to conflict with the Government's legal advice, if I understand aright.
Perhaps my noble friend could say something about the clarity of understanding of the situation for the individual tenant. That is a very important issue. It is not simply whether matters remain the same but whether the rights all transfer. I hope that my noble friend can help me on that issue.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I think it is very important to be clear about the point at debate in relation to this amendment. It is not about whether the Government are taking away a right of veto by individual tenants over the transfer of their houses from one landlord to another. I know that the briefing material supplied by Shelter (Scotland) gives this impression, but there is not and has never been such a right of veto. This is not point which is affected by the opinion of counsel, to which I shall come in a minute. It is a matter of fact that Clause 42, whether amended or unamended, has no bearing at all on the powers of public housing authorities to transfer houses to other landlords.
There is a point in this debate, quite different from the question of veto of transfer, which involves an issue of interpretation of the existing statute. The point at issue concerns the tenancy status of tenants after they have transferred, not whether they should transfer. The question of interpretation is whether Clause 42 has a different legal effect from the existing statutory provisions, which derive from the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 and have been consolidated into Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that Clause 42 is intended as a restatement of the existing statutory position. The Government believe that the existing statutory position is that where the landlord under a particular tenancy changes from being a public body to a private sector body the nature of that tenancy changes with the change in landlord. The change is from a secure tenancy to the appropriate type of private sector tenancy. At present the type of private sector tenancy which results is a protected tenancy and in future it will be an assured tenancy, since assured tenancies are replacing protected tenancies.
My right honourable friend's view of the existing statutory position reflects the fact that he was the Minister who piloted the Tenants' Rights Act onto the statute book, as well as the legal advice available to him from the Scottish Office, which was corroborated by an opinion which the Scottish Special Housing Association sought from senior counsel in April 1987. Shelter (Scotland) takes a different view and I understand that it has in the past few days obtained an opinion from counsel which supports its interpretation.
Clearly it will serve little purpose in this debate to bandy alternative counsel's opinions. There is an honest difference of view. I accept that Shelter (Scotland) genuinely holds its view. I regret that there

345
has been a lack of similar recognition in some quarters. That is as may be. The accusation of bad faith which has been levied against my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is quite baseless. Those who have suggested that have debased the debate. It does not add to the genuine difficulties we have to face and try to resolve.
The issue at the heart of this debate is whether a secure tenancy should carry over where the new landlord is a private body. There are two reasons why it should not. First the workings of secure tenancies are in some detailed respects tailored directly to the circumstances of public housing authorities and would be anomalous if applied to other housing bodies. Secondly, and more important, it is not necessary for a tenancy to continue to be a secure tenancy in order to protect tenants' rights.
I want to explain this second point more fully. We have indicated that we shall he taking steps, including amendments to the Housing Bill when it reaches your Lordships' House —the English Housing Bill, for clarification —to ensure that changes of landlords cannot take place where a majority of tenants are against the change. This will put tenants collectively in a position to insist on the rights which they want, which may in some respects go beyond their existing rights. Given that they will have that power, there is no need for their tenancies to continue to be secure tenancies rather than assured tenancies.
To answer my noble friend Lord Selkirk. who raised the question of Section 54 of the 1987 Act, I believe that the man in the street would regard it as common sense that if somebody becomes the tenant of a private body, the normal landlord and tenant law applies to that person. This is the basis on which the Tenants' Rights Bill was drafted in 1980 and we are in no doubt that it achieves that effect. I am advised that Section 54 of the 1987 Act consolidated from the 1980 Act does not put that in doubt. Neither the nature of the tenancy nor the nature of the landlord are terms of the tenancy. I should be happy to write to my noble friend on this matter.
In relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said, just as the 1987 Act does not terminate a tenancy if the landlord changes, neither does Clause 42. It provides for the nature of the continuing tenancy to be appropriate to the private sector; that is, an assured tenancy. I hope that by trying to elucidate these points I have been able to explain what I perceive to be a genuine difference of view. I trust that your Lordships are made the wiser by it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Minister, but he has made the confusion worse. Do I understand that we are to wait until we see the English Bill when it eventually comes to this House and then, having already passed this Bill, we shall know what it means? There is something coming in the Housing (England) Bill, if I may put it that way, that if the Government can get it through will affect the Housing (Scotland) Bill. It is a most unsatisfactory position, if I may say so quite bluntly. We are to consider something which we know nothing about, apart from what the Minister has said. We are to have an amendment to this Bill which is still before the House and could be amended by the
346
Government at any time. The Marshalled List shows that one or two of these amendments have come from the Government; I should have thought the great majority. But there is to be another amendment that will affect this Bill coming in another Bill that is still to have a Second Reading before this House. We do not know the detailed terms of it. I can hardly think of anything more unsatisfactory.
All we are told is that the majority of tenants are to have the say. Are the minority to have no rights? We are considering individual families, individual tenants and each individual tenant at present has a secured tenancy.
It is strange indeed to be addressing a Conservative Government trying to assert the rights under contract and under statute of individuals against the state. The Government are saying that by passing the Housing (Scotland) Bill they are taking away rights which this 1980 Conservative Government gave to those tenants. They are taking away by Act of Parliament rights about which the tenants can do nothing. The position is totally unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will consider taking this away and thinking about it.
As he fairly said, there are two legal views at least. I do not wish to be thought to be giving a legal view. I am giving my own view. I cannot say whether that is legal or illegal as I am not quite certain, but it is my view speaking from this Bench. I should have thought that the Government could at least have considered taking this away. having another look at it and perhaps taking legal advice. They have a considerable amount of legal advice available to them. Is the Minister prepared to consider that rather than to have me force a Division at this time of night?
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will consider the point further. There is a conflict. It is no good getting away from it because it is as clear as crystal. The words:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the tenancy agreement, the terms of a secure tenancy may not he varied except".
are pretty clear cut. The simplest individual can understand the nature of what is being said. There may be a way round; it may be that the law should be changed. Maybe those words should be rescinded from the 1987 Act. It puts us in a most embarrassing position and I ask for the noble Lord's help.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I understand the difficult situation in which some noble Lords find themselves in relation to this clause. Of course I am prepared to read and see the case that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. Of course I shall do so and if I believe that the clause needs to be examined in any way we shall certainly do so.
I must repeat what I said. It is the Government's firm view that the clause does not need amending. Without commitment at the next stage of the Bill I shall look at what has been said and if I and my colleagues believe that something must be done that will happen. I can give no assurance that I shall bring forward amendments at the next stage, but I shall look at what has been said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should have thought —perhaps "hoped" is a better word —that the Government would look at anything that was said in any debate and consider it. I hoped that the Minister meant more than that on this occasion. However, if he does not —and I understand from his view that he does not and that this is merely a formal, "I shall read Hansard" —then in the circumstances I regret to say that I must ask for the opinion of the House.
9.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Nicol, B.

Airedale, L.

Parry, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove. L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grimond, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hughes, L.

Selkirk, E.

Jay, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

McNair,L.

White, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird. L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Limerick, E.

Belstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mersey,V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strange, B.

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ferrers, E.

Torrington, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Goold, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.18 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 39:
Page 27, line 22, leave out ("it belongs to").
Page 27, line 23, at beginning insert ("it belongs to").
Page 27, line 27, at beginning insert ("it belongs to").
Page 27, line 30, at beginning insert ("it belongs to").
Page 27, line 34, at beginning insert ("it belongs to").
348
Page 27, line 35, at beginning insert ("it belongs to").
Page 27, line 36, at beginning insert ("it belongs to").
Page 27, line 37, at beginning insert ("it belongs to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I readily confess that at first sight this group of amendments may look rather strange. Nonetheless, I can assure your Lordships that the amendments are necessary. First, I should explain that the original need to amend the clause arises because we had failed to extend the provisions of Clause 42 to Crown tenancies. Amendment No. 32 achieves this aim.
However, this amendment has repercussions for the drafting of the clause and Amendments Nos. 32 to 39 are needed to maintain the grammatical integrity of the Bill. I commend this group of amendments to your Lordships.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, at first sight this seems to be the biggest piece of rubbish which has been brought forward in this Bill. One is taking out the words, "it belongs to" at the end of the preliminary part of the clause and then sticking them in front of (a), (b), (c) and so on. I assume that the reasoning is that if they are not inserted all over the place they might be thought to apply only to subsection (a) instead of applying to each of them. However, I do not see how that interpretation could possibly have been put on it because if one reads the Bill as it stands it states:
"an islands or district council… or (b) a regional council…or".
It then continues with a number of "or"s. This would have read exactly the same if, instead of putting in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), it had been one long and difficult-to-follow paragraph with the word "or". I cannot see that the first "or" is any different from the last "or" in paragraph (a). As it stands, it means that this provision applies to all or any of the sections.
We are frequently told that we should not be putting in words to lengthen a Bill unless it is absolutely necessary. In any reading of English, even in the convoluted intepretation which legal people may use, I cannot see that there is any doubt that "it belongs to" as it stands applies to every one of these sections. May we be told what advice, if any, was given as to why it was necessary to substitute one such expression by seven?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I have sympathy with the sentiments behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I can assure him and your Lordships that the introduction of eight new references to "it belongs to" is not a frivolous one; nor is it because, as your Lordships might say, the Government like to say something eight times instead of only once. The amendment is needed to maintain the grammatical integrity of the Bill.
As your Lordships will recall, in the final day of the Committee debate on the Bill many references were made to grammatical integrity. Indeed, the names of Sir Ernest Gowers and Dr. Johnson were mentioned more than once. I have little doubt that these amendments would meet with the approval of Sir Ernest Gowers, although I have to admit that they might not have met with the approval of Dr. Johnson, who, even though he would have said they made

349
matters clear, often had his own reasons for disagreeing with matters. Be that as it may, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will feel that we have made an improvement here which leads to greater clarity.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, if the noble Earl thinks he can get me to say that, it means he is inviting me to stand on my head. I have no intention of doing so. I am not prepared to accept that. When the Question comes, I shall say "Not-Content"; but I shall not take it any further than that, and I shall not divide the House. It is nonsensical for this to be in the Bill; but it would be even more nonsensical to divide the House on the matter.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 27. line 37, at end insert ("; or
(h) it belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or to a government department or is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Statutory tenants: succession]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 27, line 42. leave out subsection (1) and insert ("(1) In section 3 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (which makes provision as to statutory tenants and tenancies) in subsection (1) after the word "sections" there shall be inserted "3A,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 41, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 42, 93 and 95.
During the Committee debate on the Bill, my noble friend Lord Selkirk tabled an amendment to clarify the presentation in statute of the Government's proposals on succession to regulated tenancies. His arguments were supported by a number of your Lordships to the effect that Schedule 6, as introduced by Clause 43, was complicated and not a satisfactory way of presenting the rather complex changes which we were proposing to the succession rules. I promised to look again at the matter; but I gave notice that because we were dealing with complex matters, any other approach would be likely still to pose some difficulties to the casual reader. Also, I explained that alternatives to the standard textual amendment procedure employed in the drafting of the legislation might lead to three new schedules being added to the Bill.
Since the Committee debate we have put considerable effort into producing a formulation of Schedule 6 that would meet your Lordships' concerns. As a result of the amendments, Clause 43 will amend Section 3 of the 1984 Act so that it now introduces different schedules which will come into play in different circumstances. Schedule 6 becomes the vehicle for importing two new schedules to supplement Schedule 1 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, which will remain in its present form subject to a minor drafting change.
Briefly, under the revised format, Schedule 1 of the 1984 Act will continue to apply to succession in cases
350
where the original tenant or the first successor to a regulated tenancy dies before commencement of Part II of the Bill. Schedule I A, as set out in Schedule 6 of the Bill, will apply to succession in cases where the original tenant of a protected tenancy dies after commencement of Part II of the Bill. Schedule 1 B, as set out in Schedule 6, will apply to succession in cases where someone who was a first successor to a regulated tenancy dies after commencement of Part II of the Bill.
I am grateful to your Lordships, and especially to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, for bringing about this improvement to the Bill, making it more readily comprehensible. Together with the information booklet which will be available, it should make it easier for tenants and landlords alike to know where they stand.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the new Schedules 1A and 1B incorporate the transitional provisions which the Government promised to introduce in Committee. The provisions, which are set out in paragraph 3(a) of Schedule 1A and paragraph 3(i) of Schedule 1B, provide a right of succession to a statutory assured tenancy for members of a tenant's family who have already lived with the tenant for six months at the commencement date of the Bill. They will not have to fulfil the new two-year residence requirement.
Finally, the amendment to Schedule 9, which amends Schedule 1 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, is purely a drafting one.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank my noble friend warmly for this improvement. It greatly adds to the ease of understanding by many people of this very important Bill. I believe that the Bill is richer and nobler for what the Minister has done. I thank him sincerely.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 28, line I, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert —
("(2) After section 3 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Statutory tenants and tenancies: further provision as to succession
3A. —(1) Where the person who is the original tenant, within the meaning of Schedule 1 to this Act, dies after the commencement of section 43 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, the provisions of Schedule 1A to this Act shall have effect for determining what person (if any) is entitled to a statutory or statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house.
(2) Where subsection (1) above does not apply but the person who is the first successor, within the meaning of the said Schedule I, dies after the commencement of the said section 43, the provisions of Schedule 1B to this Act shall have effect for determining what person (if any) is entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession.
(3) In any case where, by virtue of any provision of the said Schedules IA or I B to this Act, a person becomes entitled to an assured tenancy of a dwelling-house by succession, that tenancy shall be a statutory assured tenancy arising by virtue of the said section 43.".
(3) Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of inserting new Schedules 1A and 1B into the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Information as to determination of rents]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 29, line 6, leave out from ("information") to end of line 8 and insert ("as may be so specified with respect to rents under assured tenancies which have been the subject of, or taken into account on, references or applications to, or determinations by, rent assessment committees.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as currently drafted, Clause 46 enables the Secretary of State to specify what sort of information concerning market rent determinations may be kept and made publicly available by the rent assessment panel, but the information is limited to that relating to actual determinations made by rent assessment committees for assured tenancies. This will be a useful source of data for rent assessment committees when considering other applications for rent determinations for assured tenancies and of use to members of the public who wish to check if the rent that they are paying is in line with the market rent.
The amendment is designed to improve those data. It does so by enabling my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ensure that the rent assessment panel keeps information derived not only from an application which results in a rent determination but also from an application which does not. As your Lordships will be aware, there are three circumstances in which no determination will be given: first, when the application is withdrawn, presumably because landlord and tenant have reached an amicable agreement; secondly, in the case of a short assured tenancy, when there are insufficient similar assured tenancies in the area for the rent assessment committee to make comparisons, and thirdly, when it is clear that the rent sought by the landlord for a short assured tenancy is not excessive in relation to rents for similar properties in the area.
As currently drafted, Clause 46 might not allow the information derived from such applications to be kept by the rent assessment panel. However, the information could be very useful to rent assessment committees considering future applications for rent determinations and to landlords and tenants seeking information about the appropriate level of rent for a tenancy. The amendment is therefore designed to ensure that this extra information will also be kept. I hope that this explanation will enable your Lordships to support the amendment and to agree that it is desirable. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in general I agree with what the noble Earl has said. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask him a question. Throughout the Bill there are so many references to "as may be so specified", "which will be specified" or "should be specified". Can the Minister give some indication when these matters will be specified? There is a tendency to be thankful to leave a Bill and there may be a great many loose ends. I am sure that in time they are tidied up. I am sure that these matters would send the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, into a real tizzy in trying to work his way through all the promises that have been made. It is a
352
criticism of legislation in general. I believe that recently we have had rather a good deal of it because there seems to be a number of holes in legislation which have to be filled by specification or some other order. Can the Minister say when he believes these steps will be taken? Will it be before the Royal Assent is given? The Bill will be rather meaningless otherwise.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, all forms to be specified will be in regulations subject to the negative resolution. We hope to have them ready to lay before the House this autumn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 52 insert the following new clause:
("Code of Practice for landlords
. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations contained in a statutory instrument prescribe a Code of Practice for the purpose of ensuring that the landlord, other than a landlord specified in subsection (3) below, of a house which, or a part of which, is let as residential accommodation observes proper standards of management, maintenance and repair.
(2) The regulations —

(a) may make different provisions for different types of houses, tenancies, landlords and circumstances:

(b) shall impose a duty to comply with the regulations:

(c) shall designate an appropriate body to monitor the operation of the Code of Practice, receive complaints about breaches of the Code of Practice and take appropriate action to ensure that the Code of Practice is enforced.

(3) The regulations shall not apply to a registered housing association where it is subject to supervision and control by Scottish Homes under section 1(e) of this Act or to any of the public sector landlords mentioned in section 61(2)(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 of a housing trust which was in existence on 13th November 1953.
(4) If a person knowingly contravenes or without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the Code of Practice in relation to any house or tenancy he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have reached one of the important amendments to the Bill. I hope that the House will bear with me if I am fairly detailed. I know that it is a cause of great anxiety for many people and therefore I should like to have a fairly full answer from the Minister. A new clause is to be inserted after Part II of the Bill. The purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to draw up a statutory code of practice to ensure that private landlords conform to minimum standards of management and maintenance of the homes of tenants.
This code of practice will apply only to those landlords who are not already subject to some form of registration, monitoring or approval under this Bill. The purpose of the code of practice is to provide some minimum management standards once the private rented sector is deregulated. Without such a code of practice the Government will have no means of ensuring that landlords do not exploit the deregulated market by providing poor quality accommodation and poor standards of management. We shall still not have a balance between the level of demand and supply. The market will still be very much in favour of the landlord. Sadly, I can see that

353
for quite a long time to come that situation will remain.
The deregulated market could provide poor quality accommodation and standards of management unless some new provision is made. The amendment has been widely drafted to allow the Secretary of State flexibility in making different provisions for different kinds of houses, tenancies and landlords in order to meet the various circumstances one encounters in a community.
The Government's stated objective in deregulating the private rented sector and introducing assured tenancy is to expand and improve the supply of rented accommodation. They have rejected the proposal supported by a wide range of other housing organisations, including Shelter, that all landlords offering assured tenancies should be subject to some form of registration in order to protect tenants from the worst landlords. Practically all groups involved in housing believe that there should be some protection. This proposal is consistent with the original concept of assured tenancies introduced in England and Wales under the 1980 Act, whereby landlords could operate assured tenancies only with the approval of the Secretary of State.
We still believe that a registration scheme would be the most effective means of ensuring that an expanded private rented sector operating assured tenancies offers good quality management and standards. The Government have accepted the desirability of a registration and monitoring system for housing associations and of a system of approval by Scottish Homes for landlords taking over public sector housing under Clause 2. Likewise landlords seeking to take over public sector housing under Part III would be subject to the approval of Scottish Homes, and Scottish Homes may revoke its approval if the landlord proves unsatisfactory.
As in all these cases the only landlords operating in a deregulated system who will not be subject to any form of scrutiny are arguably those who are most in need of control —private and, for the most part, very small or individual landlords who are currently operating under the existing system and of whom a significant minority are characterised by an inability to offer reasonable management or decent housing standards. All of us have come across this frequently. While Part II of the Bill offers some limited individual right to the tenant, this is no argument against the proposal for a code of practice. Even with the existing protection of the Rent Act, the individual tenant is all too often deterred from seeking to enforce his rights because the process of enforcement proves too intimidating and costly. The code of practice proposed in the amendment would assist the individual by providing a mechanism by which the tenant could take his complaint to a third party.
The amendment allows the Secretary of State to appoint an appropriate body to monitor the operation of the code of practice, to receive complaints about breaches of the code of practice and to ensure that it is enforced through the courts if necessary. In the view of a number of organisations, including Shelter, the most appropriate body would be the local authority. In some parts of the country
354
Scottish Homes would quite definitely be the appropriate body. A code of practice would provide a landlord with guidelines as to the reasonable management of his property. Responsible landlords should welcome this guidance. It would make competition a great deal fairer and would not permit the landlord to allow his property to deteriorate, which in the short term might be a good thing from his point of view. The content of a code of practice would be for the Secretary of State to determine, but we would envisage that it would contain guidance on management, repair and maintenance standards and on tenants' and landlords' rights and obligations.
My introduction of the amendment has been long. I am grateful to those organisations which provided advice. It is an important amendment for the tenant, especially for the small tenant not living in property owned by one of the larger organisations such as a local authority or Scottish Homes, and who is therefore more likely to be open to exploitation. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before I answer, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, whether he was also speaking to the other amendments in the group?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, yes. I should have said that I was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that your Lordships will not he surprised when I tell the House that I shall not accept the amendments. However, I shall probably speak for even longer than the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
We believe that it is both unnecessary and contrary to the central principles of the Bill to impose a code of practice upon landlords, when there is already adequate provision to protect the interests of both private sector and tenants' choice tenants. It seems to me that the new clause set out in Amendment No. 44, proposing a code of practice, reflects the unjustified view that all private landlords need to be subject to onerous checks and controls on their activities.
The fact is that the vast majority of private landlords fulfil all their responsibilities adequately, and the Government, through the Bill before your Lordships, are taking active, positive steps to deal with bad practice where it arises. We are, for example, reactivating and strengthening the landlord's repairing obligation set out in Schedule 10 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. We are also giving every assured tenant a right to a written statement of the terms of his tenancy, which will ensure that both landlord and tenant are clear about their respective obligations, and will make it easier to enforce them should a dispute come to court. The fundamental aim of Part II of the Bill is to revitalise the private rented sector. By enabling landlords to receive a proper rate of return, we shall ensure that they receive enough in rent income to keep their property in a proper state of repair. The removal of rent control will also encourage a better balance between supply and demand in private renting. This

355
will put more power into the hands of the tenant —the consumer —thus forcing on bad landlords the choice of either improving the service they provide or failing to let at all.
I am convinced that this straightforward approach will effectively oblige landlords to fulfil their responsibilities. This should be contrasted with the code of practice proposed, I fear, by this amendment. It would tackle in a very heavy-handed way the problem of a relatively small number of private landlords who do not fulfil their repair and maintenance obligations.
As regards Amendment No. 52, I support the principle that landlords approved as receiving landlords for the purposes of tenants' choice should, so far as it is reasonable in the circumstances, cooperate with local authorities in the discharge of their functions relating to homeless persons under Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. But I believe that Scottish Homes should, and will, have regard to local authorities' capacity for carrying out their functions relating to homeless persons when it considers applications for approval by prospective new landlords.
Scottish Homes will want to be satisfied on a wide range of other points before such approval is given. However, I believe that it should be left open to Scottish Homes to take into account such factors as it considers reasonable in each case before it issues any approvals under Clause 54. I do not believe we need —or should spell out —such factors on the face of the Bill, or that we should in any way seek to restrict Scottish Homes's discretion. I suggest therefore that the amendment is unnecessary. It is also undesirable, in my view, because it would tend to highlight just one of the many points to which Scottish Homes might have regard in reaching its decision.
I do not think that amending Clause 54 would be the right way to give statutory expression to the policy intention here. It would be simpler and more direct to amend Section 38(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to include approved tenants' choice landlords as bodies which should have an obligation, if requested, to co-operate with local authorities in exercise of their duties under the homeless persons legislation.
I remind the noble Lord that tenants' choice is all about individual tenants opting for a new landlord. Therefore in Part III of this Bill we are not talking about large-scale disposals of local authorities' housing stock; we are talking about transfers of individual tenanted property. In so far as the transferring tenants remain in the property, it will not be relevant in the local authority's search for accommodation for people it determines are homeless. However, where a transferred property becomes vacant, it will be in the interest of the new landlord to ensure that it is soon re-let. It would, therefore, also be in his interest to make the accommodation available to house homeless persons if the local authority needs the accommodation at the time.
356
I believe therefore that mutual self-interest will, in practice, help to deliver the type of co-operation which the amendment suggests and which I would support. With that in mind, there is no need to set out in Clause 54 or Section 38 of the 1987 Act a requirement of the type suggested. I hope that from what I have said your Lordships will understand that, whereas I fully appreciate the concern felt about codes of practice and what should be put into practice, we feel that to include the requirement in the Bill is not the way to go about the matter.
I am aware that Amendment No. 53 has been suggested by the Scottish Institute of Housing, which is concerned that new landlords might offer transferring tenants a poor quality of service. The fears expressed by the institute and by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the absence of any statutory code of practice will lead to malpractice and maladministration are wholly misconceived. I say that for several reasons. First, I must emphasise that under the terms of Clause 54 Scottish Homes will have to approve all receiving landlords. I can guarantee that Scottish Homes will be a highly responsible body. Moreover, it will be subject to guidance and administrative rules and, as necessary, directions by the Secretary of State. Scottish Homes will therefore have the necessary powers to ensure that only landlords offering an acceptable level of service become approved landlords. In addition, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure through his oversight of how Scottish Homes exercises its functions that it undertakes its approval role sensibly and properly.
I can assure noble Lords that before Scottish Homes approves a landlord as a receiving landlord under Clause 54 it will wish to be satisfied that it is a stable and responsible organisation with a long-term commitment to the provision of rented housing for those who need it, and to a good level of service to tenants, and that when a vacancy arises it would normally be prepared to keep the stock available for renting at rent levels within the reach of those with income levels characteristic of that part of the population currently housed by the public sector.
I say "normally" because there may be occasions when it will be entirely sensible, for example, for a landlord to sell the property. The Clause 60 requirement for Scottish Homes's approval for first disposal will be an effective safeguard. However, all that can be achieved without a code of practice as such and without such a code being enshrined in statute. If Scottish Homes is to carry out, in the most effective way possible, its functions of approving receiving landlords, it must have flexibility and freedom of action. It would be unreasonable to expect the same criteria to apply when Scottish Homes comes to consider applications for approval from, let us say, private sector companies, or cooperatives or community housing associations set up by the tenants themselves. Nor would it be sensible for universal hard and fast rules to be laid down, for example, for rent and service levels and on rights of succession, exchange, and tenant participation.
Let me repeat that under the tenants' choice provisions in Part III no tenant will be pressed into

357
changing his landlord against his will. The tenant will need to approve the initial approach by the prospective new landlord to his existing landlord and the lease which the prospective new landlord offers him before the sale can go ahead.
Once the lease has been agreed, it cannot be changed without the tenant's agreement. One of the factors which Scottish Homes will take into account before approving a landlord will be the level of information and advice he is prepared to make available to assist tenants in reaching a decision. Of course Scottish Homes will have an important role to play in providing information to tenants. In practice therefore several protections for the tenant are built into the procedures. To impose a statutory code of practice over and above those safeguards is unnecessary and undesirable. I hope and believe that when considering the assurances that I have given about the way Scottish Homes will go about the approval process and the guidance which it will receive from the Secretary of State, noble Lords will agree that the amendment is undesirable and should be withdrawn.
I have gone on rather a long time, but I feel that this is an important area which I know was discussed at length in Committee. While I am rejecting the amendment, I hope that from the answers that I have given noble Lords will understand the spirit with which we propose that Scottish Homes should advance.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that Schedule 10 of the 1987 Act is a pretty full schedule. I should not have thought there was any complaint about that. But a point was raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on how the tenant enforces the provisions of Schedule 10. I shall not say that they are all ill-tempered landlords or ill-tempered tenants, but such landlords and tenants exist on both sides. What means does the tenant have? Has he got to go to the sheriff or will Scottish Homes help the enforcement of such repairs as may well be absolutely necessary and necessary in haste?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sure that with the representations that have been made to many of us, notably from the Institute of Housing in Scotland, people will be somewhat reassured by the statement which has just been made by the Minister. The only point of doubt is this. All right, the guidance will be given; directions may be issued by the Secretary of State to Scottish Homes. But there are no criteria in these general statements against which the landlords will be judged.
Although the Bill as it stands provides for the approval of landlords by Scottish Homes, it does not provide specific criteria. The general statement that has been made is extremely welcome. I wonder whether the Minister might think it could be more satisfactory and allay the concerns of the Institute of Housing if criteria were established which could offer guarantees of decent treatment to tenants. I am not suggesting that all landlords are rogues, although
358
there is a tradition in Scotland which assumes that. I am not arguing that point at this moment. I am simply saying that the Minister should give due weight to the very deep-rooted concern of the Institute of Housing, which is not a party political body. Then people will know what are the criteria on which these approvals will be judged. That is all.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, by leave of the House, of course I think I see what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is aiming at. I had hoped that by the long statement I made he would understand that we are just as keen to deal with the situation to which he refers as he is. But it is all in the method of doing it.
I think that both at Committee stage and on Report we have a genuine difference. The criteria which the noble Lord mentions against which matters should be judged will be mentioned in the individual approvals. Any criteria designed to cover every possible transfer would be too general, I fear, to be effective.
Perhaps while I am speaking I might answer my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who asked me how a tenant enforces Schedule 10. The answer is that it is up to the tenant to take action himself through the sheriff court.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think the Minister did his best to try to satisfy some of the points which were raised. He must be thinking that there is something wrong with the Bill in that it does not completely satisfy everyone. I believe that part of the problem is that the whole Bill is based on the idea that supply will meet demand. We are a long way from that. Although the Minister is smiling and thinking that when this Bill goes through the demand will be met, I think it will need a few more Bills in this House and in another place before the supply and demand in Scotland are in any way balanced. In some ways people go for the standard of living, and the demands of people increase.
The problem about this Bill is that, as I said, I would be happy if Scottish Homes was responsible for monitoring the code of practice in certain areas. In other areas it would be the local authority. Plenty of flexibility is allowed for in the amendment which we have put down. Therefore, it is rather disappointing that the Minister did not look a bit more closely at it, or at least that he was not willing to concede anything.
We certainly accept that Scottish Homes is a responsible body. If it is not a responsible body, our housing situation will become even worse in the next decade or so than it is now. The entire Bill assumes that people will be responsible. Even in his last intervention the Minister suggested that people who felt that they were hard done by by a landlord should take him to the sheriff court. But we are trying to deal with peripheral people, the people on the edge. They do not want to go to the sheriff court. It would be far too expensive for them.

359
The Minister has already rejected the idea of a housing tribunal as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. At some point we shall need to get down to establishing the old wind and waterproof kind of system because there are too many houses still
360
outwith the good public sector. I include the SSHA in that. There are still too many houses in many parts of our inner cities that are so abominable that they require a code of practice. I am sorry that we have not been able to go further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Right conferred by Part III]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 30, line 42, after ("Homes") insert ("or public sector landlord").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to address the very principle of Part III of the Bill —the principle of choice. The amendment aims to give the tenants of public sector landlords and approved landlords equal rights when choosing a new landlord. The exclusion of public sector landlords from becoming receiving landlords undermines the declared objective of tenants' choice. I am sure the Minister must have read the many submissions and the analyses that have been written about the desire of the vast majority of public sector tenants to stay with their local authority landlord, or, if they are moving from the SSHA, particularly in the new towns, to move to an approved public sector landlord.
Sections 2(1)(c) and 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 make it possible for a local authority, without requiring the consent of the Secretary of State, to acquire property if it wishes to do so, provided it is prepared to give priority within its capital allocation to the purchase. But the principle of choice should not be the ability of local authorities to acquire other property. That is not the issue. The issue is the ability of any public sector tenant to choose the local authority as his new choice of landlord. The choice is supposed to be for the tenant.
Recent surveys of tenants in Scotland, as I mentioned earlier, show that in the Scottish new towns an overwhelming majority would wish to have the choice of moving to a local authority landlord with tenants' choice proposals made quite clear. If widespread choice is to be available to tenants in the public sector, they should not be denied the right to choose their local authority. Equally, if tenants of approved landlords are dissatisfied with their services, they should be able to have a true choice and be able to transfer to another landlord, either an approved landlord or a public sector landlord. As the Bill is presently written, if an approved landlord decides to sell acquired properties to another landlord, the tenants affected will have no choice in the matter. That destroys the whole principle of freedom of choice for tenants.
The Minister will have seen comments on this matter in the press. He will be aware that the results of polls of new town tenants showed that overwhelming majorities were in favour of coming under the local authority rather than under private landlords or Scottish Homes. In Cumbernauld there was a majority of 91 per cent.; in Irvine there was a majority of 88 per cent. I hope that the Minister is aware of those polls and believes that the people of Irvine, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth have a right to free choice. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am not sure that I have any standing in this matter. I do not fully understand
362
the delightful anarchy under which your Lordships' House operates. It has come to my attention, as they say in legal circles, that the grouping of these amendments is not accepted. I am prepared to speak on this amendment so long as I am able to move my amendments. If that is inconvenient —
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was speaking to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 51. I believe that we shall be taking Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 separately.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the usual channels made the recommendation that Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 were important enough to be considered separately. I should have mentioned that matter. However, the negotiations had not quite finished when I stood up.
10 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said concerning the amendments. The matter was fully considered in another place and in your Lordships' House in Committee. I continue, however, to be unable to recommend that any of these amendments be accepted.
The first three amendments would have the effect of allowing transfers to take place to, or back to, a public sector landlord. As I have previously stated in the House, such a provision would be wholly out of line with government policy, which is geared towards easing the burden on local authorities —a burden exacerbated by the sheer size of stock already within the public sector. Indeed, the figures were mentioned at Committee stage.
If the amendments were to be accepted, we should be adding to the problems at present being experienced. It has been argued that, by not extending the provisions of Part III of the Bill to public sector landlords, the declared objective of giving tenants a choice is undermined. I do not accept that. These provisions will in practice give qualifying tenants an additional right to transfer to a new landlord if they so wish, and will give them the opportunity to negotiate, for example, the terms of the lease on offer by the new landlord. I repeat that there is no element of compulsion. The tenant will be able to withdraw his consent at any time before the sale takes place. These amendments would in my view totally reverse the policy to which we are committed and which we have made clear at all stages of this Bill. We do not want to increase local authorities' near-monopoly of housing stock in some areas. Our aim is to see a diversification of tenure.
Let me turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 45 would enable one public sector landlord to require another to transfer property to it. But the uncertainties which would arise, the management problems which local authorities could face and the general merry-go-round of transfers

363
Which might result would be intolerable. No sooner would a tenant have transferred than he would be eligible to transfer again.
The right to acquire property under Part III of the Bill extends to property occupied by qualifying tenants under Clause 53(1)(a) who are secure tenants. But once tenants transfer under these provisions, they will be assured tenants. If, as Amendment No. 46 suggests, we add the words "or approved landlord" in line 42 on page 30, there would be no effect unless and until the definition of qualifying tenant was also amended. In practice, therefore. it would not be sensible to add the words suggested to the Bill because they would have no effect and would obscure the meaning of the clause concerned.
However, technicalities apart, the purpose of the amendment is clear. The intention is that tenants of approved private sector landlords should have the right to transfer to other approved private sector landlords (or Scottish Homes). Indeed, read with the previous amendment, the intention may have been to allow transfers hack to the public sector after the tenant has transferred under the Part III provisions from, say, a local authority to a private sector landlord.
I am, however, very concerned at the situation which would arise if this amendment was accepted. First, an approved private sector landlord would have the right to acquire a house from another approved private sector landlord if the tenant agreed. Can I emphasise that the selling landlord in this situation would be in the private sector. The selling landlord could, for example, be a tenants' co-operative, a housing association, or a building society. Although this body would own the property, it would be obliged, under this statute, to transfer it if the receiving landlord wished and the tenant agreed. It is a very different matter, I suggest, from our legislating here to determine the future of publicly owned property, now to suggest that privately-owned houses should be transferred without the agreement of the owner. I believe this is totally unacceptable, and that the House will agree with me on this.
Moreover, the wording suggested would have very wide repercussions. Not only would it cover houses transferred to approved landlords under the Part III provisions, but it would also apply to other houses owned by approved landlords. I doubt if anyone in this House would wish to undermine the position of non-public sector landlords in this way.
For these reasons, therefore, I strongly oppose this amendment. If it were agreed, there would be unacceptable instabilities in the housing market, even greater prospects of an accelerating merry-go-round of property transfers, and very considerable problems for both public and private sector landlords in managing and maintaining their stock. I hope therefore that noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, Amendment No. 51 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. It again attempts to widen the scope of Part III of the Bill to enable
364
islands and district councils to acquire stock from others in the public sector. The same arguments against its acceptance apply.
There is a point which I should like to raise which I feel is quite important. That refers to a quotation attributed to me in a document produced by CoSLA. I wish to make the point about the briefing which was circulated by CoSLA for this debate. It attributes to me at Committee remarks which, as Hansard shows, I did not make. I strongly deprecate that particular reference to me, which both misrepresents me and may have misled your Lordships. It refers to remarks attributed to me about polls but which I think if one reads Hansard, should probably be attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I should make it clear that I have a copy of the CoSLA briefing. I do not know whether the Minister has a copy. I am looking in vain for any reference to the noble Lord having said anything about polls. Therefore he has a different brief from the one which I have. The only reference to the noble Lord is a quotation from what he is alleged to have said beginning:
"Sections 2(1)(c) and 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act make it possible for a local authority without requiring the consent of the Secretary of State to acquire property if it wishes to do so provided it is prepared to give priority within its capital allocation to the purchase".
I think that that sounds like something that the Minister may have said, without having an absolute recollection of what he did say.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the freedom of tenant's choice is rather like the freedom which the original Model T Ford gave to its purchasers — they could choose any colour so long as it was black. This is really the same situation. A tenant may want to transfer, say, from a new town to a local authority and the local authority may be willing to accept him, but that freedom of choice is being denied by the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why that is so necessary.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I must make it clear that I now have the document from CoSLA in front of me. It is in connection with Clause 53, page 30, line 42. It says:
"When this amendment was tabled during Committee stage the Minister. Lord Sanderson of Bowden, said: 'Recent surveys of tenants in Scottish new towns show an overwhelming majority would wish to have the choice of moving to their local authority under tenant's choice proposals ".
That I did not say.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. He has a different brief from that with which I have been provided by CoSLA. I think that we had better leave the matter there.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to make that point absolutely clear and put it on the record. So far as concerns the question of choice, I think that we have made it very clear. Indeed, at Committee stage I was able to give figures about

365
various local authorities where the public sector housing stock in such places as Monklands district was very high indeed.
It is the Government's wish to let people of their own volition have further choice; that is, to move outwith the local authority and into any other housing that they would like. That is the view that we take in this Bill. It was implicit both at Second Reading and at Committee stage. Now again at Report stage it is clear that that is the Government's view. Under those circumstances I have to reject this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 31, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) above, "heritable proprietor" includes any person entitled under section 3 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (disposition by uninfeft person) to grant a disposition.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment covers a technical conveyancing point. It is intended to ensure that the expression "heritable proprietor" for the purposes of the tenants' choice provisions will properly cover all public sector landlords who are or may be in conveyancing terms "uninfeft proprietors". That is to say, they have become proprietors by Act of Parliament but have not completed title in their own name in the Register of Sasines or land registers. A similar definition applies for the right to buy in Section 82 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and I believe it is right to keep the two procedures in parallel as far as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 31, line 44, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have again tabled this amendment because it is a good one. It arises out of my concern for the way that things are shaping in many rural areas of Scotland with regard to housing for the people who live and work there or who wish to do so.
As is the case in so many areas, districts and parishes of Scotland, a number of people in agriculture live in tied houses. It is still a very necessary feature of the whole industry. The people who work on the farms and live in the tied houses in effect provide their own housing all their lives without receiving any subsidy from the Government. In the main they are satisfied to do so and it increases the efficiency of the industry.
However, it is necessary that they should have a house to which they can retire. In my area the old county council of Angus recognised that need and built a number of small houses for retired workers, and rural workers who have lived in tied houses have preference in the number of points allotted when it comes to retirement. That creates great stability in the industry and gives security to the people working in agriculture and living in tied houses. That is a very important point.
In the previous housing Bill the Government refused absolutely to disallow the sale of retirement houses. The only possible reason for a person wishing to buy a retirement house is so that their heirs can sell it after the parents die. In order to get out of that situation, the Government said that if the houses were fitted with certain fitments for the benefit of old people, such as rails and a bathroom and so on, they would then be regarded as a special case. Again, the Minister very kindly sent me a letter providing more information, showing that no district in Scotland had reached sales of one third of their houses in the rural areas. That appeared to me a strong argument for the one-fifth position. However, I was glad to have the information.
More and more people need reasonable housing in rural areas. Because of the high prices of houses, a great many people in London and in the high-priced areas sell their houses there and are able to purchase houses in the country areas. They do them up and make very fine houses out of them, but they make them unavailable for the local people. I know that the Government recognise that factor. I should like the Minister to give the assurances that he kindly gave me in a letter. That comforted me a little. It would be nice if he repeated them here. The main assurance was that the Secretary of State would consider the whole district down to village level. While that does not answer my amendment, it is a considerable concession. Although it would be far better to take the amendments as a whole, I hope that the Minister will he able to satisfy the House that he is at least doing something to alleviate the undoubted troubles which the new circumstances are bringing to country areas. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall listen with very great interest to what my noble friend says when he replies to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. I too have our homeland of Angus in mind where there have been groups of houses built in quite small clusters and in particular in villages where people who are retiring from working in the countryside wish to go. The nature of these clusters of houses is extremely important to the way that people live. I have not seen the details of the letter. I do not know what my noble friend has said about small areas coming within the one-third figure. If so, those small clusters could probably be protected in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has in mind. I shall listen to the reply with much interest. It sounds extremely important to me.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said. Indeed, I am sure that with his permission I shall be able to send a copy of the letter that I wrote to him to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
As I understand it, the intention of these amendments is to make it easier for areas to be designated as rural and thus be taken outwith the scope of the tenants' choice provisions. Amendment No. 49, however, simply appears to dilute the clarity of the current provision. The Secretary of State

367
would continue to have the discretion implied by the word "satisfied" on page 32, line 1, and I cannot recommend that it be accepted.
Amendment No. 48 seems intended to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to make an order designating an area as rural when more than some fixed proportion—at present one-third, but one-fifth is suggested in the third of these amendments—of relevant houses have been acquired or purchased. However, the second requirement before an order can be made—that is, that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that an unreasonable proportion of houses sold are being used for such purposes as providing holiday accommodation—remains in place. So the change suggested, from "may" to "shall", would in practice be meaningless, again because the Secretary of State would still have the discretion to make, or not to make, an order as at present.
Amendment No. 50 would replace the present proportion of one-third of relevant houses with one-fifth in the first stage of the process of determining whether an order should be made. I believe that this desire to reduce the threshold is based on a mistaken idea of what is meant by the term "area". The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to that. As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill's consideration, we deliberately did not define that term in order to achieve as much flexibility as possible. Thus "area" could be district-wide or as narrow as the smallest hamlet, as the noble Lord said. It will be for local authorities to determine how and where they wish to draw the boundaries; and the present requirement that one-third of the houses must be sold should not be an insuperable problem given the flexibility of the term "area".
I hope that, having heard what I have been able to repeat and what I wrote to him, the noble Lord will understand th4t the Government are serious about this problem, understand it and, I hope, are measuring up to it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister with great interest and understanding. I am glad that he understands the problem. Certainly the terms that he has laid down will do a great deal to alleviate the problem in rural areas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Persons by whom right may be exercised]:
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Rights of Scottish Special Housing Association Tenants.
.—It shall be the right of any tenant of the Scottish Special Housing Association whose home is transferred to Scottish Homes under section 3(1) above to decide whether his home shall continue to be vested in Scottish Homes or whether it shall be transferred to—

(a) the district or islands council in whose area it stands; or

(b) any approved landlord.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of certain difficulties in Shetland which are well known to the Government. I wish to make two major points. The first is that the amendment concerns choice. We have already discussed choice this evening. I very much agree what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that, when it comes to the practicalities, choice to the Government appears to mean, as it did to Ford, that you can have any colour so long as it is black. Here is a clear occasion where local people have expressed a strong choice, but the Government appear to be dragging their feet. I do not understand why, and I hope that the Minister will be rather more sympathetic and forthcoming.
My other point is that this concerns a situation that occurs in Shetland. They are islands and it is not always convenient for the bodies on the mainland to exercise their authority in fairly remote islands. The genesis of the trouble is that some houses in Shetland belong to the Scottish Special Housing Association. The SSHA leaves their administration to the local authority. This has not proved an altogether satisfactory arrangement and the Scottish Special Housing Association now want to get rid of these houses.
I stress that it was clearly understood that there are options in the letter which the SSHA wrote to the tenants concerned. It set out a number of options. I am referring to a letter dated 18th December 1987. One of the options was to hand over the houses to the Shetlands Islands Council. There is no doubt that the option which the SSHA hoped the tenants would accept was to transfer the houses to the Hjaltland Housing Association—I spell that for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the old Norn language. It is a Shetland housing association; the word "Hjaltland" meaning "Shetland". However, when a vote was taken after various delays and some confusion, of the number who voted (only 57 per cent.), 70 per cent. wanted to transfer to the local authority as tenants; 20 per cent. wanted to stay with the SSHA; and no one explicitly said that they wanted to transfer to the Hjaltland local association.
I should like to make clear the fact that I do not believe that that implies any criticism of the association, the chairman of which is a fine man and I have no doubt that it is a good association. Nevertheless, there was a clear choice and a clear answer. The great majority of tenants wanted to be administered locally by their own local authority. They may have been right or they may have been wrong. I hold no particular brief for local authority housing; I believe that in certain cases it is right but that in others a change is perhaps due. However, there is no doubt that that is what the tenants wanted.
I understand that the reason for objecting to putting the decision into operation is that the Government have now suggested that if it were done the resources of the local authority would be overstretched. It has been said that the administration of the houses which are already in the hands of the local authority has not been perfect. That might be a problem if nothing was done to meet it but, no doubt, if the houses were transferred to the local authority it

369
would take on new staff or whatever was necessary to discharge its obligations as a landlord.
On the other hand, we are now told that the SSHA, which clearly wishes to withdraw from Shetland and was going to do so, has now said that it will stay on. It is widely believed that that has been done only because of the embarrassing situation in which it did not receive the answer which it wanted and in which the Government are being embarrassed by being forced to deny people what is clearly their first choice. In any event, the SSHA cannot stay in Scotland for ever and it admits that it is not in a very good position to look after the houses. In fact, it has never tried to do so, because it delegated administration of the houses to the local authority.
I should like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that they have said that they do not have a blanket approach to such matters. If ever there was a case for making an exception to the general rule surely it is Shetland. I do not deny that my new clause is. so to speak, a gloss on Clause 54. However, Shetland and other islands are in a different condition to the mainland. I believe that a large bulk of the island area is in a somewhat different position to that of the mainland of Scotland.
I have no particular views about the amendment. If anyone wishes to strike out the words "district or" that is acceptable so far as I am concerned because it will not affect Shetland. However, I am concerned because I do not understand why the Government have raised difficulties in this respect. On their own showing, they want choice; they continue to talk about choice. They admit that Shetland is in a difficult position. They admit that mistakes have been made and that far too little time was given to consult the tenants. Surely they must admit that, if there is any danger of the local authority being overstretched, there is an even greater danger of the SSHA or its successor being overstretched. I hope that they will look at the matter again. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 54, Amendment No. 55:
In paragraph (a), leave out ("district or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to confine the issue to Shetland. That is not to say that I or my noble friends Lord Carmichael and Lord Hughes have any objection in principle —
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I have no objection.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, nor, as I understand it, does my noble friend Lord Kirkhill have any objection to giving the tenants the choice of transferring to a district council if they wish to do so. However, obviously the Government do not regard "choice" as meaning "choice" but regard it as meaning something different. The choice is free so long as you decide to go to where the Government decide you should go. In this amendment we are trying to help the Government to allow the Shetland tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association to do what they wish to do.
370
The results of the recent survey were quite astonishing. According to the figures I have, a majority is given which makes the Government's majority in another place look rather silly because of the 130 houses, there are 117 tenants who wish to transfer to the Shetland island council. Of course, that is what is forbidden by the Government because that is a local authority and they are not to be allowed to do so. Three of them want to transfer to the housing association (which not being a Shetlander I shall not try to pronounce) and 10 of them were either undecided or could not be contacted. That shows a very decisive figure of choice which I suggest that the Government would ignore at their peril were it not for the fact that the prospects of anywhere returning more Conservative Members of Parliament seems to be rather restricted. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Goold, has hopes but they are rather less high than Ben Nevis!
The position is obvious. The Scottish Special Housing Association has totally failed to provide a service which the tenants in Shetland regard as satisfactory. They want to do something. There is no reason, apart from the Government's obduracy, that they should not be permitted to do so. Shetland is rather far away even from Edinburgh and certainly from London. I should have thought that there is a great deal to be said for allowing the tenants of the 130 houses do what they wish to do. Otherwise we shall have a 1984 view of freedom of choice which is that you can do anything you like as long as you do what I like. For those reasons, I beg to move the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 55. I should like to make it perfectly clear that that is not because I would not have been happier still to see carried Amendment No. 54. However, the rejection of Amendment No. 45 means that Amendment No. 54 could not carry the district council part of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has made perfectly clear, his intention in tabling the amendment was to state the position in Shetland.
During the war I was in the Orkneys for a time. When I was a Minister I was in the Faroes for a time. However, to the best of my recollection in the interval I have never been to the Shetland Islands. My only ground for supporting the Shetland Island's ideas is because, along with other Members of your Lordships' House, I met a delegation which included representatives of the island council and of the tenants of the SSHA. If I wanted to wish the Minister a tough time on the subject of Shetland, I would wish that he would meet those representatives because he would be a bold man if he insisted that he was not going to comply with their wishes.
However, the figures which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, have been updated by my noble friend. This was a survey which I believe was carried out at the beginning of the year. Since then the figures have changed slightly. The number of houses which the SSHA owns in Shetland has fallen from 130 to 125. So another five houses have been sold during the course of this year.

371
I was in touch with the SSHA by telephone today to find out exactly what the long-standing position has been. They originally built 169 houses in Shetland. That compares with more than 2,000 which have been built by the islands council. So the argument which the Minister put forward; namely, that it would be putting an intolerable burden on the local authorities to transfer the houses which were referred to in Amendment No. 45, certainly does not apply in Shetland, because I am quite sure that to increase 2,000 houses by a further 169 could not be considered to be an intolerable burden.
Of the original 169 houses built, 44 have since been sold, so there are now 125 left in the ownership of the SSHA. Of those, about 80 per cent. are in Lerwick, that is 136 houses, and the other 33 were spread over a number of small sites throughout the main island of the Shetlands.
As I understand the position, a number of years ago the Scottish Special Housing Association would have been delighted if it could have transferred the houses to someone else. As it is, the factoring of the houses is done on its behalf by the islands council. I was told by a representative of the islands council that the sum it was being paid for factoring the houses fell far short of its actual expenditure, and it is negotiating an even higher factoring fee, which makes the position even less attractive to the SSHA.
One of the reasons why the tenants decided in such overwhelming numbers to transfer to the islands council was that as regards collecting rents the islands council looked much more like a landlord than somebody miles away in Edinburgh. But there were other reasons which made them aware of the fact that they were not islands tenants: first, their rates were higher than those which the islands council charged, and, secondly, the arrangements for repairs to their houses were much less satisfactory because the islands council did not have sole discretion in the matter when it was a question of a major repair, and the reference back to Edinburgh inevitably meant delays. For those reasons the tenants think they would be much better off if the houses were owned by the islands council in addition to being factored by them.
As has been made quite clear by the Ministers in replying to Amendment No. 45, that would be contrary to their primary purpose which is, notwithstanding tenants' choice, to reduce the number of houses in local authority ownership. However, I would suggest that there is no comparison between the situation in Shetland and the situation in the district councils throughout Scotland. There is a strong case for giving different treatment to the islands. After all, the very existence of the islands council was a recognition of the fact that the islands are different from the rest of Scotland. When local government was reorganised—and I was involved in that at one stage—the recommendations of Wheatley were overturned so that island councils would in fact be set up as all-purpose authorities. Although the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen all wanted to be all-purpose authorities, that was denied.
372
Because the island situation is totally different, an all-purpose authority was granted. I do not expect that the Minister will change his mind at this stage even for these very special conditions in Shetland. I hope that the Secretary of State may be able to use the provisions referred to in the rural areas in considering the situation there, including Lerwick, together with a little Scottish Office judgment, so that the area can be excepted from the general provisions of the Act.
I apologise for having spoken at length, but I gave an undertaking to these people that I would put their case to the best of my ability in the hope that we might extract from the Government some undertaking to consider ways of dealing with this special situation. Out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly owned houses in Scotland, 125 in Shetland seek that special consideration be applied to them. I hope that the Minister's smile and the fact that his head is nodding up and down and not from side to side is an indication that he may be able to offer them something at the end of the day.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Shetland islanders must be proud at the weight being given to their representations in the House at this late hour. It is a reflection of the seriousness with which they view their position as an island community. I too receive representations from Shetlanders and should like to associate these Benches with them. I hope that their special case will receive special consideration from the Minister.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have been very interested in the contributions to the debate. Indeed, I am happy to answer on this matter which is obviously of great concern to the people of Scotland. My reply is quite full, because I think the subject has to be understood clearly by all concerned.
I have made clear in our discussion of Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 51 that the proposal that tenants' choice should be extended to cover transfers to local authorities is unacceptable. We have already debated that. I am particularly concerned at the proposition in relation to SSHA tenants for two reasons. One is the difficulties that local authorities and their existing tenants might face if substantial numbers of tenants whose landlord at present is the Scottish Special Housing Association were to decide that their homes should be transferred to the district council for the area.
The Government have made it clear that the first priority is to ensure that local authorities give a better service to their existing tenants. To add to the management tasks of local authorities, some of which are not coping very well at present, we believe would be a move in the opposite direction.
My second concern is that the SSHA tenants have been subjected to a long campaign of misinformation and scandalmongering, which is the worst possible background to make important decisions about their future position. We have consistently made it clear that one of the important features of tenants' choice is that tenants should be presented with full and accurate information about any option that they are considering. I repeat that our aim in Part III of the Bill is to extend tenants' choice and to do this in a way

373
that will tend to diversify ownership rather than concentrate it in one body. If we were to permit SSHA tenants to opt for the district or island council as their landlord, the percentage of stock in an area owned by the district or island council could, at least in some cases, increase substantially. This would contract rather than expand the diversity of choice available and would be undesirable as a general rule.
I believe, too, that the new clause as drafted may go rather further than the noble Lords intend. Under the tenants' choice provisions in Part III of the Bill, before a transfer can take place there needs to be a willing tenant and a willing new landlord. The wording of the new clause before us, however, would in practice oblige the district or islands council in paragraph (a) or the approved landlord in paragraph (b) to accept the transfer. This would be compulsory purchase in a somewhat unusual form. I very much doubt if all approved landlords would be willing to take on any and all ex-SSHA houses where the tenant wished to transfer to them.
To summarise, I believe this new clause is unacceptable both in principle and in a technical drafting sense. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
I now turn to the amendment to the amendment proposed by noble Lords opposite which affects Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. The noble Lord concentrated upon Shetland and made reference to discussions which have taken place on the future of SSHA houses in Shetland. The circumstances of this case where, as the noble Lord will know, special considerations apply, have been fully debated in another place. I will not therefore detain the House by reiterating the history at length but I wish to emphasise a number of key points. First, the Secretary of State's role in his relationship with SSHA in this matter is a limited one; namely, the question of agreeing or disagreeing where the SSHA seek consent to the disposal of any of their properties to other landlords.
The SSHA's initial proposal was to withdraw completely from owning their relatively small stock of houses in Shetland, and to achieve this by transferring the stock to—I cannot pronounce it—the housing association. If a majority of their tenants favoured transfer to Hjaltland Housing Association, the SSHA wished to provide an alternative for any minority of tenants who were not willing to transfer to that housing association. In the local circumstances it was considered that this could only be the local authority. However, I must stress that this was intended to enable the SSHA to achieve complete withdrawal and not a free-standing option.
The consultation with its tenants conducted by SSHA demonstrated that a large number of tenants are not currently interested in a transfer to that housing association as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, made clear. In the light of the tenants' response, SSHA concluded that it could not withdraw from Shetland. Consequently, those tenants who are not prepared to transfer to that housing association will simply continue to be tenants of the SSHA and, in due course, of Scottish Homes.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The organisation will be wound up—will it not?—but they will continue to be tenants of a non-existent body.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, when I have finished my story I believe that the noble Lord will understand one or two of the points which have not been clear until now. Given these changed circumstances, further consideration of transfer of SSHA houses to Shetland islands council does not arise.
Turning from the history of recent events in Shetland, I do not necessarily include the islands council in the category of local authorities which do not give a satisfactory service to their existing tenants. I am unaware of evidence one way or the other. However, I embrace Shetland within my remarks about tenants having been subjected to misinformation about Scottish Homes. I do not believe that it would be right to introduce this new clause which will be likely to foster more misinformation which we have already seen.
I am aware that the tenants residents group in Shetland has carried out a further survey, which is claimed to suggest that many tenants are in favour of transfer to the islands council. I have serious reservations about the work of this further survey. First, there has been a lot of canvassing in Shetland on this issue in the last three months and it seems unlikely in present circumstances that tenants were well placed to offer fully informed views in the present climate.
Secondly, the residents group's questionnaire contains at least one serious error of fact, which will have misled tenants about the impact of the Bill. I shall make that point very clear now. The questionnaire says that the Bill makes it impossible for tenants to transfer to the islands council. That is simply not true. Scottish Homes has power under Clause 2 of the Bill to sell its houses provided it is done in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State. This is the same position as prevails in relation to the SSHA and its tenants at present. No existing possibility is being closed off. Being told that transfer would be impossible in the future is bound to have influenced the views of tenants. This is important because the clear indication from the SSHA's consultation with its tenants at the turn of the year was that a very large proportion of tenants felt that they did not wish to be forced to take any decision at present.
The questionnaire is in other respects completely devoid of proper information about the implications for tenants of the choice canvassed. Full information is very important in cases such as this, and we have emphasised that it will be a requirement in relation to tenants' choice. The Shetland survey demonstrates a general problem in using short questionnaires which do not give tenants all the information they need to make a fully informed decision.
Scottish Homes will no doubt want to review in due course—this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—the arrangements for the

375
management of its stock across Scotland as a whole, including Shetland. Within that review I expect that particular consideration will be given to the future management of properties which are factored by local authorities on the SSHA's behalf.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made clear in what was an extremely useful contribution to the debate, it is important to realise that SSHA tenants in Shetland are not managed from Edinburgh. The houses are managed by the island council. The current question is not about the management of the houses but about their ownership. Even if at some future date Scottish Homes decides to change the management arrangement, it is important to remember that there is a clear commitment that Scottish Homes will have a decentralised structure. If Scottish Homes took over the management of the houses, they would be managed from the appropriate local office. I hope that as a result of the way I have gone through this important point—and as I have responsibility for the islands and highlands I have a special interest—noble Lords who raised the matter understand the position clearly and can draw their own conclusions.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he repeat what he said about the tenants being misinformed? I thought he said that the SSHA could transfer at this time to the island council. I may have misheard. Will he read that again?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was referring to the questionnaire which was sent out in the tenants' survey. The words were:
"This group, SSHARG, is concerned that tenants had to make decisions about transferring to a new landlord very quickly and feels that those tenants who opted for the Shetland Islands Council should be allowed to do so before the new Housing Bill makes it impossible".
I was trying to answer the point in regard to "makes it impossible". The questionnaire says this and it is wrong. Scottish Homes has power under Clause 2 of the Bill to sell its houses provided it is done in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State. This is the same position as prevails in relation to the SSHA and its tenants at present.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, does that include selling to the island council?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, under the present arrangements which the SSHA operates, which will be transferred straight across to Scottish Homes, if a case is made to the Secretary of State under Clause 2 this could be possible with the Secretary of State's agreement.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's information quite contrary to the information which I have been given. My information is that the Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland, Mr. Wallace, and others have been fighting for a long time
376
for tenants to be allowed to transfer to the Shetland Islands Council. It is strange that the Minister says that this is perfectly possible subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. One can only assume that the Secretary of State has not given approval. As I understand it, the SSHA was eventually persuaded to visit Shetland and to hear the tenants' views. In April agreement was reached that the SSHA would approach the Government to allow at least the 55 tenants who had previously expressed a wish to transfer to transfer to the Shetland Islands Council. They were told that the Government had refused this proposal. Perhaps that information is incorrect, but that is the information I have had.
As regards the issue of percentages, I am told that the question which the tenants were asked by a Glagow-based advisory service was,
"If you had a completely free choice of landlord, who would you choose?"
and 117 people out of 130 chose Shetland Island Council. If the Minister is at all concerned about choice—or freedom of choice—and is not really living in a sort of George Orwell world, I should have thought that that might at least receive some consideration. But, as my amendment is rather restrictive, I ask leave to withdraw it in favour of the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. No doubt the noble Lord will decide what to do with his amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make something absolutely clear. What has to happen first is that SSHA has to produce a scheme which will be presented to the Secretary of State. The SSHA Chairman has made it clear to tenants that he did not recommend sale to the Shetland Island Council, but the option is open to SSHA—as it will be to Scottish Homes—to present a case if it wishes, having taken everything into consideration. I have no doubt that Scottish Homes will do so in its review of the arrangements of management. If that happens, then of course there is a way forward which may be the course that SSHA, and its successor body, Scottish Homes, will wish to adopt. Obviously this is something they would have to study and take due consideration of tenants' views.
Amendment to Amendment No. 54, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, perhaps I may now deal with Amendment No. 54. To begin with I must say that I do not accept the view that the Shetlanders have been misled by some conspiracy on the part of the local authority. First, the Shetlanders are not very stupid people; they are most unlikely to be taken in over the period of a year or more during which this matter has been copiously debated.
Secondly, if there was any attempt to bounce anyone, it was done by the people from SSHA who said that they must have an answer within a month—a position from which they had to withdraw. So I frankly repudiate that explanation. I return to the point—which I shall not labour because everyone

377
who has been able to has spoken to it—that really this makes nonsense of the Government's protestations about choice.
Thirdly, the real reason why I wish to press this is that, if the matter was confused before—as the Minister has suggested it may have been—it is far more confused now. As I understand it, he said at the beginning that it was a matter of principle for the Government that no one could transfer from a private to a public landlord. He laid that down as an absolute principle. Then at the end he said that, if the Secretary of State agreed and it was recommended by Scottish Homes, they could do so.
The implication is that no Conservative Secretary of State would agree. Therefore we would have to wait at least until a change of government took place, because unless they were prepared to go against what the Minister has laid down as an absolutely firm principle, they could not agree to this. So I think that he is treating the Shetlanders with some lack of seriousness. He is not holding out any hope that they will get what they want—until at least we get a change of government or his Government change their ideas. I am afraid that I do not think that it is good enough to leave it at that and therefore I propose to test the opinion of the House.
10.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 54) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 27.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grimond, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Goold, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  INFORM: REPLACEMENT OF DIRECTORS
  INFORM: REPLACEMENT OF DIRECTORS
  SALMON POACHING IN WALES: STATISTICS
  SALMON POACHING IN WALES: STATISTICS
  SALMON AND TROUT POACHING IN WALES: CONTROL MEASURESs
  SALMON AND TROUT POACHING IN WALES: CONTROL MEASURESs
  FOREIGN WARSHIPS IN BRITISH PORTS AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  FOREIGN WARSHIPS IN BRITISH PORTS AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  DHSS: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINIES AND PROPOSED ACTION
  DHSS: EFFICIENCY SCRUTINIES AND PROPOSED ACTION
  AIRPORTS POLICY
  AIRPORTS POLICY