Legal Aid Bill Lords
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1
Restrictions On Orders For Contributors
'Where a legal aid order is made pursuant to section 7 above giving legal aid
any contribution order required shall not be payable by more than one instalment and shall not exceed the amount which he is capable of paying forthwith in accordance with the Regulations made for the purposes of section 7 above.'.— [Mr. Archer.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
7.28 pm
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause concerns the most controversial provision in the Bill, which introduces contribution orders. The issue was discussed repeatedly in Committee and we have made it clear that we believe that the introduction of these orders is a profound mistake. We have given our reasons and I do not propose to repeat them at length. However, as the argument for the clause is that in two categories of case our reasons apply with particular force, I am bound to remind the House of the nature of our previous debates. First, we believe that contribution orders will discourage those who are charged with criminal offences from accepting legal aid orders. We know that about 20 per cent. of those who are offered civil aid certificates for civil proceedings reject the offer when they are told of the contribution that they will have to make. And, as the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) said on Second Reading, there air many who will not ask for legal aid orders in the knowledge that a contribution will be required. He helpfully drew the Committee's attention to paragraph 4.35 of the report of the Benson Commission, which said:In the presence of the hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that we greatly regretted his absence during the Committee, which we did not believe was his fault. 7.30 pm Of course, it may not be in the best interests of a defendant not to avail himself of legal aid, even when it is subject to a contribution, but people under pressure do not always act according to enlightened self-interest. So we believe that the consequences will be either that those who have a defence will nevertheless plead guilty or that they will conduct contested cases unrepresented. Those consequences will not be conducive either to the ends of justice or to the expeditious dispatch of business in the courts. That is our first objection. Secondly, we believe that there will be problems of enforcement. The Solicitor-General explained in Committee that the normal methods of enforcement will not take effect until the proceedings are terminated, so that all that can be done during the proceedings is to invite the court to consider whether to revoke the order. If the arrears accumulate at the committal stage, the matter will fall to be considered by the magistrates' court. I am sure that it will not overlook the fact that if it revokes the order and the defendant appears unrepresented, it will be necessary to have a full committal in the old style. If there are other defendants, they will all be involved in a long committal. That will ensure that every penny which might have been recovered by way of contributions will be more than swallowed up in the additional costs. If the matter reaches the Crown court, it will fall to the Crown court to consider whether the order should be revoked. We have been told that there will be no revocation until the defendant has had an opportunity to make representations. So there will be an interruption of all the other court business while there is a hearing before the judge, so that he can hear the representations and consider whether to revoke the order. And there will be consequent demands on court time with all the expense that accompanies it. No doubt the judge will reflect that if he revokes the order he may find himself hearing a contested case with an unrepresented defendant, so he will be unlikely to activate that consequence. So, while the unknowledgeable, small-time criminals and inadequates will refuse legal aid orders, this will get around among the cognoscenti: "Do not refuse the order. Just apply for it and then default on your contributions. Nothing very much will happen to you". The Widgery committee gave that as one of its carefully considered reasons for advising against the proposal which the Bill seeks to introduce. Thirdly, a new range of tasks will be added to those of the staff of magistrates' courts. It may emerge that, after all the injustice, the heartaches and the aggro, such savings as emerge will be swallowed up in overtime payments to clerks in magistrates' courts. They will have to investigate means to assess the total contribution, to divide it into the appropriate number of instalments, to collect and record such it instalments as are paid, to watch for the arrears' and notify em to the courts. They will have to reassess the resources when there is a change of circumstances. At present the circumstances of some of my constituents change from week to week. This week they are working overtime to deliver an order and retain a much needed customer. Next week they are reduced to part-time working. The week after they are retained by their employer only with the help of temporary short-time subsidy. So all those calculations will fall to be made not once, but repeatedly. We have seen the anxieties which have been occasioned in the legal profession by the Government's proposals to close legal aid assessment offices in areas such as Leeds and Cardiff. Solicitors believe that that will delay yet further the processing of applications for civil legal aid. We shall seek other opportunities to debate that. The magistrates' courts will not find those problems any easier to solve when applied to criminal legal aid. The measure would entail taking on more staff. The Solicitor-General sought to reassure us that the extra work could be absorbed by the existing staff. So we assume that that would entail overtime working. We find it hard to believe that at present the staff of the magistrates' courts have so much spare capacity that they can absorb the extra work without creating a ripple on the surface. The anxieties expressed by the Law Society in a letter sent to the hon. Members on 19 May were well founded. The contents of that letter were much discussed in Committee. It was concerned, among other things, that the"We have received evidence that potential clients are deterred from consulting a solicitor for fear of incurring substantial costs. We believe that this fear, even when unjustified, is a very real one and everything possible should be done to allay it."
I hope so, too. Those are the reasons which we deployed. I do not propose to repeat all those reasons in detail. Our arguments fell on deaf ears. The Government are persisting in their proposals. All those who offered the benefit of their expertise to the Government and who gave so much careful study to the subject—the Legal Action Group, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Association of Probation Officers and even the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, with so much expertise and experience—will be left to cry out in future "We told you so." The recommendations of the Widgery committee have been ignored. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on legal services have been ignored. But all that advocacy pales before a much more persuasive advocate. I shall quote a formulation of the case, on which I cannot improve:"proposed new arrangements will not cause any increase in delay in the grant of legal aid or in the possibility of later delays if there is a failure to pay later instalments of contribution."
That was said by the Lord Chancellor in a former incarnation. He said it during the Second Reading debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, Hon. Members who were in the Committee on that Bill will recollect an exchange between the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and me about our respective attitudes to what became the provision of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. He opposed the proposal, as he fairly said, because the contribution was to be levied at the end of the proceedings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued for the proposal in the present Bill, so he can claim, as he did with a great deal of justification, that he is being thoroughly consistent, although consistency in a bad cause is a dubious value. I had the advantage of being a PPS at the time, so I retained my normal taciturnity and said nothing during the debates on the proceedings of that Bill which might be quoted against me. I voted for the Widgery proposals, which represent the present position. I have never sought to resile from that. The Lord Chancellor, as he then was not, leading for the Opposition at the time, opposed the very principle of providing for any contribution towards criminal legal orders. He was far more hostile than either the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn or I on that matter. He insisted that there should be no order until the result of the proceedings was known because, he said, it was monstrous that someone might have to make a contribution to the costs of the defence if it transpired that he was acquitted. In Committee, the Lord Chancellor gave the very warning which we have repeatedly given in the present proceedings. On 14 March 1967 he said:"I quite understand that it is attractive to say that a man who is proved to have means and who, after a long trial, is convicted ought to pay something towards the costs of his own unsuccessful defence. At first sight, there would appear to be no flaw in that argument, but the answer, surely, is that if he has means he can be dealt with by being ordered to pay the whole or a substantial part of the costs of the prosecution, without any additional legislative structure, and to pay a fine in addition. If, on the other hand, he is acquitted, I see no reason why he should be asked to contribute towards the cost of his defence."— [Official Report, 12 December 1966; Vol. 738, c. 80.]
He was less charitable to the arguments for requiring any contribution than we have been. He dismissed the then Government's briefing by invoking the words of Chesterton:"Is it not also dangerous? May it not also be the case that persons who would justifiably have asked for legal aid in order to put forward a defence which might well succeed would be deterred from doing so if they knew, as they will do as I understand Clause 45—if I am wrong I hope to be corrected—that a large sum of money will be mulcted from them towards the legal representation they thereby obtain? I think that persons of that kind will be found and that proper defences will be deterred by those provisions if they are carried into effect. "— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 March 1967; c. 846.]
"easy speeches
I do not say that. I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor is a cruel man. I do not believe that the Solicitor-General finds the speeches which he has been making on the subject easy. Perhaps the fault lay with our advocacy of the case. With all the arguments and authorities on our side, we failed to persuade the Government. So the proposal will proceed. We are realistic enough to recognise that we cannot prevent it. The new clause accepts that and tries only to restrict it. It is common ground that we must balance the potential savings, such as they are, against the undoubted disadvantages. We propose that it might not apply in two cases where the objections appear especially strongly and where, therefore, the balance of the argument is substantially altered. The first is the case of people under the age of 21. There are many precedents in statute law for distinguishing between persons aged under 21 and persons aged 21 or more. Such a precedent appears in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 which provides in section 19 for sentences of imprisonment on people aged under 21. In section 21 of that statute, limitations are imposed on the powers to impose custodial sentences on a person under 21 if he is unrepresented.That comfort cruel men."
Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman develops that point, perhaps I may return to a general one that he made earlier. He was good enough to refer to me in the opening part of his speech. Does he agree that the present system is that a small down payment is required and at the end of the case further consideration is given about a final contribution? If a person is acquitted, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept, it is the experience of most practitioners that that is not required. As I understand it, the Bill will provide that there will be a continuing contribution until the conclusion of the case. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman envisage—it would seem to follow that this would be the case, to be fair—if a person is acquitted an order will be made for the repayments to that person of the payments that have been made?
7.45 pm
The present position is exactly as the hon. Gentleman outlined it. If he read the report of our debate in Committee, the hon. Gentleman would recollect that the Bill provides for the remission of contributions until the hearing. So those who have made some of their contributions but not all will not be required to pay the remainder. I understand that, except after acquittal, there is no provision for the return of contributions which have already been made. There is, therefore, a risk of real injustice, the very injustice that the Lord Chancellor referred to when he led the then Opposition. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that matter out. He will understand that I have skated over much of the ground that was covered in Committee simply in the interests of brevity.
There are respectable precedents for making the distinction which we now seek to make between people aged under 21 and people aged 21 and over. I mentioned two provisions in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, one of which specifically refers to people under 21 who are unrepresented. They are repeated in clauses 1 and 2 of the Criminal Justice Bill now reaching its final stages in the House. I notice that the first nine clauses of that Bill are headed "Custody and detention of persons under 21". So we are making a respectable distinction, especially for the purpose for which we are making it—the need for representation. There are several relevant considerations. First, if a person under 21 is asked for a series of contributions, it is less likely that that person will be in stable employment. He will therefore be less likely to have the capacity for making adjustments to his expenditure. That, in turn, will make it more likely that he will be deterred from applying for a legal aid order or from accepting one if it is offered. If that person appears unrepresented, he is probably less likely to have the assurance to deal with the situation and to make an adequate defence. He is less likely to be articulate in a formal setting. There is a real danger that justice will not be done. If the courts have that in mind, as we hope that they will, it is probably less likely that arrears will be visited with revocation. But, again, those who will benefit will be those who are knowledgeable and most in touch with professional hardened criminals, those who are most experienced in these matters. As it is less likely that someone under 21 will be in stable employment, the prospect of variations in his income from week to week will be so much the greater. That will lead to additional work and overtime in the offices of magistrates' courts. All the arguments which we have deployed against the proposals are enhanced in the case of defendants aged under 21. As for a defendant who faces the prospect of a long term of imprisonment, the dangers of appearing without adequate advice and proper representation are clearly so much the greater than in other cases. It has been suggested that legal aid ought to be provided irrespective of means and without any contribution for some offences. To discuss the possibility of free representation for defendants in criminal cases would extend beyond the permissible boundaries of the debate. The same is true of a discussion of whether justice requires that for some offences representation should be available as of right. But we are not going as far as that. We say only that for these offences the position should remain as it is. That has been outlined concisely by the hon. Member for Anglesey. We suggest that seven years' imprisonment should be the cut-off point. Some may believe that that leaves too wide an area in which the defendant who faces a substantial sentence will be left to the circumstances that will follow from the Government's proposals. We deliberately made our proposal extremely limited. We are not trying to challenge what the Government are doing, however much we may deplore it. We are trying to provide for exceptions in two cases. There are two classes of case where the Government's proposals would operate especially harshly, so harshly that the whole balance of the argument is changed. Our proposals are restrained to the point where they might be criticised as selling out to the Government. I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond in the same spirit. We have a legal system of which we properly like to boast. It still enjoys the respect of the world. But I suspect that we now want to have it on the cheap. There are limits as to how far it will retain that respect if we insist on cutting too many corners. The Lord Chancellor was right in 1967. The new clause is really a proposal that he should eat only half the words that he uttered then rather than all of them.I shall be brief. As a practising solicitor and one who practised in the criminal courts for a fair period, I read the Official Report of the Committee proceedings with great interest and formed the view—I hope that I am right—that the Solicitor-General did not really have his heart in these proposals. On the practical fears expressed by hon. Members on both sides that in some circumstances the ineluctable result of the Government's proposals would be that defendants would go unrepresented, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's replies were unconvincing to say the least and did not grapple with the real practicalities of the situation.
The new clause seeks to mitigate some of the worst features of legislation that is not only offensive but impracticable. The Government should look afresh at the likely consequences of this. The case that has been put by so many organisations is overwhelmingly against the proposals. The Government may not wish to look at it afresh as a matter of principle, but in strictly practical terms they should reconsider the proposals, because I believe that the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers have been impelled to make this decision not on any question of principle or because they really believe in it, but because the Treasury is demanding that they try to make savings in legal aid. If there are any savings, as the Solicitor-General claimed in Committee and on Second Reading there would be, I believe that they will be minimal. The burden rests upon him—he has signally failed to discharge it in any of the debates so far—to prove that the savings will be worth while. Indeed, he must do more than that. He must show, as in my submission he has failed to do so far, that the rights of a substantial number of people to be represented and to have their cases properly defended will not be imperilled. The courts will face grave difficulties, as they will have no real flexibility. A person may be tried on a serious charge involving complex matters on which he cannot defend himself properly. If such a defendant is without representation, that will be a grave reflection on the standards of justice that we have come to expect, and are entitled to expect, in this country. I shall say nothing of some of the other issues that were raised, as they are not wholly germane to the new clause. In my view, however, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has put an unassailable case in favour of mitigating at least one of the worst consequences of the proposals. The overwhelming majority of solicitors who practise daily in the criminal courts—I am no longer one of them—fear that the consequences of the legislation will be dramatic. To make matters worse, as my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, there will be a similarly dramatic increase in the administrative burdens on the already heavily overworked court staff. As a result of other Government policies, sufficient staff to undertake the increased duties are not available. That in itself is serious enough. It is just not good enough for the Solicitor-General blandly to rebut the argument by saying that he is satisfied that everything 'will work out all right, that there are sufficient staff and so on, as he blandly asserted in Committee. Incidentally, the note that he struck in those debates was strongly in contrast to the note that he struck in debates on earlier Bills when he was leading for the Opposition and I was the Minister, when he expressed concern about the increased burden of duties on staff dealing with bankruptcies and insolvencies. In many respects, those were far less serious matters than the issues with which we are now dealing. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West took part in the debates on at least one of those Bills, he will no doubt recall the stance taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman at that time and how markedly different it was from his stance on these proposals as Solicitor-General. I fear that unless a new clause along these lines is accepted, grave hardship will result for this group of people. It is incumbent upon the Solicitor-General to allay the anxieties which we have expressed today and which my right hon. and learned Friend and others expressed in Committee. So far, he has signally failed to do that. We do not make these proposals in any party political sense. Grave anxieties are felt by many people in both professions. The Solicitor-General should not be allowed today to get away with the broad general assurances that posed for genuine argument in previous debates.The Government have argued that one of the objects of the Bill is to introduce greater fairness and to try to achieve a contribution towards defence costs from those who are clearly able to pay—particularly, if I may say so, those who have benefited from crime and who have managed to secrete their unlawfully gained assets. Such people find it easy to pay for the topmost lawyers in the country to put forward defences and sometimes to gain acquittals that might not have been obtained by less expert lawyers.
The position was set out quite fairly in an article in The Sunday Times of 11 July under the rather unfortunate title "How Lawyers Bend Justice". The article concludes by mentioning a case in whichNo doubt that is the only reason why I ever achieved acquittals. The article also states:"the juror said that the poor performance of the defence counsel was a factor in the decision to find the men not guilty—the jury felt sorry for them!"
It is those people whom the Bill is largely designed to catch. We must judge the Bill on whether it will achieve that objective. 8 pm Another reason for the Bill is to try to equate criminal legal aid more with civil legal aid in the way in which contributions are made. However, there is a difference in that, whereas access to the civil courts is on a voluntary basis, access to the criminal courts is not voluntary for those who are charged with offences. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) is right to express the fear that these provisions may act unfairly. We must examine the provisions to see whether that fear can be assuaged. I restrict my remarks to the new clause. There are three potential elements of unfairness. The first is the ability of the legally aided person to pay the contributions. Clearly, if he is unable to do so he will not be properly represented. That would be wrong. The second is the contribution expected from other persons, particularly spouses. Neither of those two matters comes within the new clause, but there will be an opportunity to debate them later. The third unfairness is whether, at the conclusion of a trial, a person who is acquitted and who has been brought to trial through no fault of his own—he has not put himself in a perilous position—will receive repayment of contributions made under the present system. There is a small down payment and at the end of the trial it is a matter for the judge or the magistrates to decide whether an extra contribution should be made. Under the Bill there will be a continuing course of payment. That will operate unfairly if no provision is made for repayment, as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, not just of payments made from the beginning of the trial, but in respect of payments made before that time."The three most lucrative areas for organised crime in Britain are gambling, drugs, and pornography. Men charged with serious criminal offences in these areas have virtually unlimited money to pay for their defence. It follows that they can afford to engage the finest that the Bar can offer."
I am not anxious to rush to the defence of the Government on this or any other matter, but there would be provision for just such a case as the hon. Gentleman cites for the judge to award costs in one form or another to a defendant. That would have the effect that the hon. Gentleman seeks to obtain.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has pre-empted my peroration. Therefore, he will agree that the new clause is not justified and that the Government should be supported. Clause 8(5) states:
"At the conclusion of the relevant proceedings the court in which those proceedings are concluded may, if it thinks fit—
More important, the subsection continues(a) remit any sum due under a legal aid contribution order from a legally assisted person which falls to to be paid after the conclusion of those proceedings or, if that person has been acquitted, remit or order the repayment of any sum due from or paid by him under such an order".
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and I seem to be ad idem. The facility is provided within the Bill and that assuages my fears on that matter."(b) remit or order the repayment of any sum due from or paid by an appropriate contributor under such an order; and where a legally assisted person successfully appeals against his conviction the court which allows his appeal may remit or order the repayment of any sum due from or paid by him or an appropriate contributor under such an order."
Will the hon. Gentleman answer two questions? Since that provision applies only where there is an acquittal, how is the person aged under 21 to know in advance whether he will be acquitted? Secondly, how many young people under 21 does the hon. Gentleman think will have read clause 8(5)?
The clause does not refer only to an acquittal. It states:
It adds:"At the conclusion of the relevant proceedings the court in which those proceedings are concluded may, if it thinks fit".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in that respect. My point is that the unfairness would reside in a Bill that would not enable a person who was acquitted to be able to recoup, by order of the learned judge at the conclusion of the proceedings, payments made when that person had been brought to court through no fault of his own. Under the present system no costs are awarded to a successful defendant if, in the consideration of the learned judge at the conclusion of the proceedings, that person has brought the proceedings on his own head. The clause appears to make no fundamental difference to the existing system."which falls to be paid after the conclusion of those proceedings or, if that person has been acquitted, remit or order the repayment of any sum".
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the normal rule and principle relating to costs should not apply? That is to say, costs follow the event. There has been a recent practice direction by the Lord Chief Justice. Why should not those rules apply?
That would be importing the whole element of cost in civil courts into the criminal courts. I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about the recent direction by the Lord Chief Justice. That is helpful to the Bill. The courts will be able to translate that guidance from the Lord Chief Justice into reality through this clause. There is nothing arcane in that. There is nothing to prevent a court from following the advice of the Lord Chief Justice.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's answer to my question will not be as arcane as that given to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is it not a fact that the merits of the defence where a court decides to award costs are never explored? A submission may be made on grounds of law to dismiss the case and the judge may have to uphold that, although he has not heard the full nature of the defence. In such circumstamces, there is a risk that many courts will not deem it appropriate to make an award of costs or remit the payments that have been made. Does the hon. Gentleman perceive that danger?
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. One is capable of perceiving whether a defendant has brought proceedings on his own head by looking at the prosecution papers. One does not need to know the nature of the defence. The prosecution papers will show whether a person has put himself in a perilous position. Those papers are available to the learned judge who will make his decision, perhaps halfway through the case after legal argument that there is no case to answer, or on acquittal after the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence.
I am grateful for this opportunity to make a short contribution to an extremely important debate. If I express my apprehension that not more hon. Members are present, it is simply because this is not a lawyers' Bill—no doubt the rumour circulating in the Corridors is that it is—but rather a consumers' Bill in a real and meaningful sense of the word. Frankly, the consumer—the person who wants to apply for legal aid—is being sold very short indeed.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will not think it offensive if I ask why the Government, in a most obstinate way, are setting their face against all the advice given to them by so many bodies outside the House. Often, in Committee and thereafter, Governments of the day are faced with mounting criticism. In this case, the Law Society, National Council for Civil Liberties, the Legal Action Group and so on were to a man unanimously opposed—It must have been a slip of the tongue, but the Law Society is certainly not opposed to these proposals. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the agreed statement made at the last sitting of the Committee.
Although the Law Society made an agreed statement, the vast majority of the solicitors' profession—I use the Law Society in that sense—is totally opposed to certain provisions in the Bill, as the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) said, for very good reasons. Those solicitors are concerned, as is the SDP, that rights given to citizens by the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 will be denied to the ordinary man in the street who wishes to apply for legal aid. The Government are driving a coach and horses through the principles enshrined in that Act.
While I support the general tenor of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, there is something that I have difficulty understanding. The hon. and learned Gentleman served on the Committee, and although he holds these strong views I do not believe that he ventilated them or exercised his vote in any way. Does that represent the standards that are currently deployed by the Social Democrats?
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a cheap party point, in keeping with the kind of philosophy permeating the old parties these days, so be it. Had he been present at the first sitting of the Committee he would have heard me voice my disquiet about these provisions. I therefore hope that he will have the courtesy to withdraw what he has just said.
rose—
I shall certainly give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw what he said.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly present at the Second Reading Committee, but he was not present at any time when a vote was taken. Is that correct?
8.15 pm
The hon. Gentleman alleges that I did not express my views in Committee. That is wholly untrue. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his remarks, but he has not the decency to do so.
These changes are designed to bring criminal legal aid more into line with civil aid. There is a crucial difference between the two. In criminal cases it is not a question of a person voluntarily coming before the courts, and there is an assumption that a defendent is innocent until proved guilty. That is why I was surprised at some of the views of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) on costs. The SDP is worried about several aspects of the Bill. We are worried by the fact that the wife's income can be taken into account when deciding what contribution can or should be made to a husband's defence. If the breadwinner is convicted and imprisoned, the wife could find herself in the intolerable situation of having no alternative in certain circumstances but to apply for supplementary benefit. The civil legal aid system costs about £12 million a year to administer. So far as I know, the Government have not given an assessment of how much this measure will cost, but the proposed new scheme will certainly equal the cost of administering the civil legal aid scheme. In 1979 the Royal Commission on legal services concluded that such costs were prohibitive. The Government are seeking to hit persons at a most vulnerable time in their lives, when they have been charged with criminal offences and are often not at their best in reaching sensible, reasonable or dispassionate conclusions on the conduct of their affairs. That is repugnant. The House has no power over the administration of this scheme or the civil legal aid scheme, no Minister is directly responsible for legal services and the legal system, and the Lord Chancellor's Department is the only Department that is not subject to Select Committee scrutiny. Those are three cogent reasons for supporting the new clause. I am particularly perturbed at the twelfth report of the Public Accounts Committee on the administration of justice and court fees, which suggests that the Government should seek to recover a greater proportion of the costs of providing court services, including the salaries of judges, by increasing court fees. The cost would inevitably fall on those who use the courts. That was made plain in the evidence to the Committee, including the evidence of the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department. It appears that the Government's reason for introducing the proposal is to claw back as much money as possible from those who are using the criminal courts. At the same time, with regard to the civil courts, the costs of going to law will become more and more prohibitive. We believe that we are returning to the pre-1948 position, and it will be said that justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all. That is the danger of the Government's proposal, and that is why we shall support the new clause.I can only describe the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) as an absolute travesty of the arguments. It may be that because he has taken so little part in them to date he has not grasped them. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that I know that the overwhelming majority of solicitors are against the Government's proposal. That is absolute rubbish. If the hon and learned Gentleman had been in Committee or had read the report of it, he would know that the Law Society supports and always has supported the principle that those who can afford to make a contribution should do so.
Perhaps it has escaped the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) that the organisations which are opposed to the Bill—I shall not use the exaggerated terms that other hon. Members have used—are opposed in principle to any contribution to criminal legal aid. That is at the basis of their opposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman also accused the Government of seeking to hit at persons at a vulnerable time. That is absurd. I have said over and over again that it is up to the Government to make the regulations. The onus is on us to make the regulations in such a form that only those who can afford to pay have to pay. If we fail to make the regulations in a form that gives effect to that, of course everyone may criticise us. I have never shrunk from that. It is a pity that there are so many prophets of doom.Having regard to the tone of the Solicitor-General's speech and putting aside the cant and the humbug, the Law Officers have become the Treasury's poodles.
Where the cap fits, wear it. Perhaps those who speak of cant and humbug know more about it than the Government.
This is a straightforward difference of opinion. The groups to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred in much more measured terms than the hon. and learned Gentleman—who seems intent on cramming as much as he can into a few lines—recognised that there is a genuine difference of opinion here. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), who seems to be able to deduce from the written word what one's feelings are, that there is no question of my heart not being in this. I believe the argument is right. It is a short one and I recognise that others may hold different views, but I think that they might at least do us the credit of allowing us to hold our views with equal sincerity. I am sorry that hon. Members feel it necessary to be such prophets of doom. It is said widely that the Government's proposal will discourage people from accepting legal aid. If we get the regulations wrong and people have to pay sums that they cannot afford to pay, it will discourage them, but there is no reason to put the point in the terms in which it has been put. It is also said that there will be problems of enforcement. There will be assessment and administrative problems, but no one on the Government Benches has ever shrunk from these. What very few right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches seem to want to recognise is that we have had extremely detailed discussions with those who will have to work the system. Surely they are the people best able to express an opinion about it. They might be wrong. Some of the fears expressed might come about, but there has been a tremendous amount of thought and effort put into ensuring that those fears do not come about. The system will be as simple as possible. The Justices Clerks Association, representing those who will have to carry out the administrative work, accepts the difficulties that will have to be faced and assures us that it can cope with them. This scheme is not something thought up by the Government themselves. The essence of it originated from those professions, which are now said, without justification, to be overwhelmingly against it. The Justices Clerks Association has had a hand in the detailed working from the start. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred to the speech of my noble and learned Friend in the other place. He gave me 10 minutes' notice but that is not sufficient time in which to take instructions. I should, however, like to remind the House of what my noble and learned Friend said at the beginning—The speech was not in another place. It was in this House.
I am grateful for the correction. I shall not take more time on the matter. I shall simply remind the House of what my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said at the outset of the debate on this matter in the other place. Those who suggest that there are Treasury machinations behind the proposal and that I or any other Law Officer is a tool of the Treasury might take heed of what he said. My noble and learned Friend said:
That is the purpose of the provisions in the Bill. The Government will stand or fall by whether they give effect to them in the practical details appearing in the regulations. I hope that most people will subscribe to the principle that, while those who cannot afford to contribute should not, those who can afford to contribute should, and that they would wish the Government well in these endeavours."When urgent improvements to the legal aid system are delayed for lack of money—and I regard that as the present situation—it cannot be right to stay as we are. We must ensure that those who cannot afford to contribute are not required to contribute. But we must improve the arrangements so that those who can afford to contribute do make some contribution".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 1982; Vol. 428, c. 541.]
One of the unique features of the contribution proposals outlined in the Bill is the fact that no individual, let alone any reputable organisation, has come out enthusiastically in their favour. The Solicitor-General says that the Justices Clerks Association will willingly work the scheme and will not shrink from the difficulties. That is very different from actively wanting the scheme or actively supporting the scheme. Nothing that the Solicitor-General has said in his speech today or in his speeches in Committee has answered the criticisms made about the administrative costs of the new scheme, of the increased bureaucracy to be brought about and of the potential dangers to the liberty of the individual. The best the Government have managed is some sort of tepid, sceptical and reluctant acquiescence while the fact remains that the overwhelming—
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman describe the words of the Law Society as being tepid and reluctant acquiescence when it says:
"The Law Society has always supported the basic proposition that those who can afford to make a contribution, out of income or capital, towards the cost of criminal legal aid, should do so".
8.30 pm
Yes, I would, because the Law Society in its briefings to us has never said that it supports the proposals. The Solicitor-General knows that well. Any support that the Law Society has given has been qualified. Whether the Solicitor-General wishes to accept it or not, the fact remains that an overwhelming number of organisations have expressed outright hostility and opposition to the idea of assessing and means testing contributions for criminal legal aid in the same way as for civil legal aid. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) listed those organisations. Since I have referred to the Law Society, I shall add that the West London Law Society is strongly opposed to the provisions and said so in its briefings to myself and to other Members of the Committee.
The Government stand in solitary and far from splendid isolation in supporting the proposals. That is not surprising, since there is no rational justification for them. Nothing that the Solicitor-General said has succeeded in convincing the critics that there will be any discernible saving for the legal aid coffers. On the contrary, all the evidence is that more court staff will be necessary to work out the complicated contribution and payment arrangements. Delays will be caused by defendants wishing to represent themselves rather than seek legal representation. That will place a greater strain on the resources of the police and on court staff. As more defendants either refuse legal aid or withdraw their application on the grounds that they cannot afford the contributions or because they have what they conceive as more urgent claims on their resources, so the administrative costs will grow. Defendants will wish to represent themselves, which will lengthen court proceedings, and more time will be spent by the police and court staff in dealing with defendants personally rather than with solicitors or counsel. It will also lead to further delay in cases that come to trial due to indecision or uncertainty in instructing solicitors to act on a defendant's behalf. Thus the proposals cannot be justified on the grounds of making substantial savings. The civil legal aid scheme costs £12 million a year to administer. It is most unlikely that the criminal legal aid scheme, as envisaged by the Government, will cost any less. Since the scheme cannot be justified on grounds of either savings or cost, we are entitled to ask on what grounds can it be justified. It cannot be justified because of major dissatisfaction with the present procedure for granting criminal legal aid. The only reason that can be advanced is the desire that is shared by everyone in the House and everyone with experience of the courts, that those who have high incomes or capital salted away and who are charged with a criminal offence—including the frauds, pornographers and drug peddlers referred to by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best)—should not have their legal aid costs paid entirely out of public funds. Of course we agree that we wish to catch such people but it is unlikely, for the reasons put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West and by others in Committee, that they will be caught by the provisions. They will know how to evade payment and will succeed in salting away their funds. Those who are likely to be caught are those who are uncertain of their rights and who will plead guilty rather than seek legal representation because they believe that it would be too costly or because they wish to get the case over quickly and more cheaply. But they do not appreciate fully the effect of that or understand that they may have a proper, respectable and ultimately successful defence. Among those greatly at risk are young offenders and juveniles. We wish to protect them by our new clause. A conviction brought about because someone wishes to plead guilty rather than seek legal advice in the mistaken belief that it is better to do so can jeopardise him for the rest of his life. A criminal conviction obtained unnecessarily will haunt him for the rest of his career. We also wish to protect those who face sentences of imprisonment of seven years or more. We all hoped that the criticisms of the Bill advanced by the various groups and in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House would have caused the Solicitor-General and the Government to withdraw the proposal. However, they have not done so. They have ploughed on and their arguments have become more ragged and spurious. I hope that my right hon and hon. Friends will support the clause in the Lobby and, in so doing, protect many people from the folly of the Lord Chancellor in adding the provision to an otherwise worthwhile Bill.Quesion put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 274.
Division No. 291]
| [8.40 pm
|
AYES
| |
Abse, Leo | Ennals, Rt Hon David |
Allaun, Frank | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) |
Anderson, Donald | Evans, John (Newton) |
Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Ewing, Harry |
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Field, Frank |
Ashton, Joe | Flannery, Martin |
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Ford, Ben |
Bagier, Gordon A.T. | Forrester, John |
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Foster, Derek |
Beith, A. J. | Foulkes, George |
Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) |
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
Bidwell, Sydney | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) |
Booth, Rt Hon Albert | George, Bruce |
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
Bray, Dr Jeremy | Gourley, Harry |
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Graham, Ted |
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) | Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) |
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Hardy, Peter |
Buchan, Norman | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) | Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith |
Campbell, Ian | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
Campbell-Savours, Dale | Haynes, Frank |
Cant, R. B. | Heffer, Eric S. |
Carmichael, Neil | Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) |
Carter-Jones, Lewis | Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) |
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Home Robertson, John |
Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, | Homewood, William |
A'drie
| Hooley, Frank |
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Howell, Rt Hon D. |
Cohen, Stanley | Howells, Geraint |
Coleman, Donald | Hoyle, Douglas |
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Huckfield, Les |
Conlan, Bernard | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
Cook, Robin F. | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
Cowans, Harry | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) | Janner, Hon Greville |
Crowther, Stan | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas |
Cryer, Bob | John, Brynmor |
Cunliffe, Lawrence | Johnson, James (Hull West) |
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) |
Dalyell, Tam | Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) |
Davidson, Arthur | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Kerr, Russell |
Davis, Terry (B'ham Stechf'd) | Kinnock, Neil |
Deakins, Eric | Lamond, James |
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Leighton, Ronald |
Dewar, Donald | Lestor, Miss Joan |
Dixon, Donald | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
Dobson, Frank | Litherland, Robert |
Dormand, Jack | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
Douglas, Dick | McCartney, Hugh |
Dubs, Alfred | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
Duffy, A. E. P. | McElhone, Frank |
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | McGuire, Michael (Ince) |
Eadie, Alex | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
Eastham, Ken | McKelvey, William |
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) | McWilliam, John |
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Marks, Kenneth |
English, Michael | Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) |
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) |
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn) | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Silverman, Julius |
Maynard, Miss Joan | Skinner, Dennis |
Meacher, Michael | Snape, Peter |
Mikardo, Ian | Soley, Clive |
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Spearing, Nigel |
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Spriggs, Leslie |
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) | Stallard, A. W. |
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | Stoddart, David |
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) | Stott, Roger |
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Strang, Gavin |
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland | Straw, Jack |
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
Newens, Stanley | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
O'Halloran, Michael | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
O'Neill, Martin | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Tilley, John |
Palmer, Arthur | Tinn, James |
Park, George | Torney, Tom |
Pavitt, Laurie | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
Pendry, Tom | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
Pitt, William Henry | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster) |
Prescott, John | Weetch, Ken |
Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Wellbeloved, James |
Race, Reg | Welsh, Michael |
Radice, Giles | White, Frank R. |
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) | White, J. (G'gow Pollok) |
Richardson, Jo | Whitehead, Phillip |
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
Roberts, Allan (Bootle) | Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W) |
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton) |
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Wilson, William (C'try SE) |
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) | Winnick, David |
Rooker, J. W. | Woodall, Alec |
Roper, John | Woolmer, Kenneth |
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Wright, Sheila |
Rowlands, Ted | Young, David (Bolton E) |
Sandelson, Neville | |
Sever, John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
Sheerman, Barry | Mr. James Hamilton and |
Sheldon, Rt Hon R. | Mr. George Morton. |
NOES
| |
Alexander, Richard | Budgen, Nick |
Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Bulmer, Esmond |
Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Butcher, John |
Ancram, Michael | Cadbury, Jocelyn |
Arnold, Tom | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
Aspinwall, Jack | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda |
Atkins, Robert (Preston N) | Chapman, Sydney |
Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E) | Churchill, W. S. |
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone) | Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) |
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
Bendall, Vivian | Clegg, Sir Walter |
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) | Cockeram, Eric |
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | Colvin, Michael |
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Cope, John |
Best, Keith | Cormack, Patrick |
Bevan, David Gilroy | Corrie, John |
Biffen, Rt Hon John | Costain, Sir Albert |
Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Cranborne, Viscount |
Blackburn, John | Crouch, David |
Blaker, Peter | Dickens, Geoffrey |
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Dorrell, Stephen |
Boscawen, Hon Robert | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
Bowden, Andrew | Dover, Denshore |
Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Dunn, Robert (Dartford) |
Braine, Sir Bernard | Durant, Tony |
Brinton, Tim | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John |
Brooke, Hon Peter | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) | Eggar, Tim |
Browne, John (Winchester) | Elliott, Sir William |
Bruce-Gardyne, John | Emery, Sir Peter |
Bryan, Sir Paul | Eyre, Reginald |
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell | McCrindle, Robert |
Faith, Mrs Sheila | Macfarlane, Neil |
Farr, John | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
Fell, Sir Anthony | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
Fenner, Mrs Peggy | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
Fisher, Sir Nigel | McQuarrie, Albert |
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) | Madel, David |
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles | Major, John |
Fookes, Miss Janet | Marland, Paul |
Forman, Nigel | Marlow, Antony |
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | Marten, Rt Hon Neil |
Fry, Peter | Mates, Michael |
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mawby, Ray |
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
Glyn, Dr Alan | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
Goodhart, Sir Philip | Mayhew, Patrick |
Goodhew, Sir Victor | Mellor, David |
Goodlad, Alastair | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
Gorst, John | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
Gow, Ian | Mills, lain (Meriden) |
Gower, Sir Raymond | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Miscampbell, Norman |
Gray, Hamish | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
Greenway, Harry | Moate, Roger |
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds) | Montgomery, Fergus |
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Moore, John |
Grist, Ian | Morgan, Geraint |
Gummer, John Selwyn | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
Hamilton, Hon A. | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Mudd, David |
Hampson, Dr Keith | Murphy, Christopher |
Hannam, John | Myles, David |
Haselhurst, Alan | Neale, Gerrard |
Hastings, Stephen | Needham, Richard |
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Nelson, Anthony |
Hawkins, Sir Paul | Neubert, Michael |
Hawksley, Warren | Newton, Tony |
Hayhoe, Barney | Normanton, Tom |
Heddle, John | Nott, Rt Hon John |
Hicks, Robert | Onslow, Cranley |
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Osborn, John |
Hill, James | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Parris, Matthew |
Hooson, Tom | Pattie, Geoffrey |
Hordern, Peter | Pawsey, James |
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Percival, Sir Ian |
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) | Pink, R. Bonner |
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Porter, Barry |
Hunt, David (Wirral) | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) |
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Prior, Rt Hon James |
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Proctor, K. Harvey |
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Rathbone, Tim |
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) |
Kaberry, Sir Donald | Renton, Tim |
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Rhodes James, Robert |
Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
Kimball, Sir Marcus | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
King, Rt Hon Tom | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
Knight, Mrs Jill | Rifkind, Malcolm |
Knox, David | Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) |
Lamont, Norman | Rossi, Hugh |
Lang, Ian | Rost, Peter |
Langford-Holt, Sir John | Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. |
Latham, Michael | Ryman, John |
Lawrence, Ivan | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Scott, Nicholas |
Lee, John | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1) |
Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Shepherd, Richard |
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) | Shersby, Michael |
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Silvester, Fred |
Loveridge, John | Sims, Roger |
Luce, Richard | Skeet, T. H. H. |
Lyell, Nicholas | Smith, Dudley |
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
Speed, Keith | Trippier, David |
Speller, Tony | Trotter, Neville |
Spence, John | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Viggers, Peter |
Sproat, lain | Waddington, David |
Squire, Robin | Wakeham, John |
Stainton, Keith | Waldegrave, Hon William |
Stanbrook, Ivor | Walker, B. (Perth) |
Stanley, John | Wall, Sir Patrick |
Steen, Anthony | Waller, Gary |
Stevens, Martin | Ward, John |
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) | Warren, Kenneth |
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) | Watson, John |
Stradling Thomas, J. | Wells, Bowen |
Tapsell, Peter | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) | Wheeler, John |
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Wickenden, Keith |
Temple-Morris, Peter | Williams, D.(Montgomery) |
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. | Wolfson, Mark |
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter | Younger, Rt Hon George |
Thompson, Donald | |
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) | Tellers for the Noes: |
Thornton, Malcolm | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
Townend, John (Bridlington) | Mr. Carol Mather. |
Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 2
Computation Of Resources
'Regulations made for the purposes of section 7 above shall not require:
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with one of the most objectionable, unfair and discriminatory aspects of the contribution proposals. As I am sure the House is aware, the Bill proposes that the resources of the spouse, both as to income and capital, will be aggregrated with that of the applicant for legal aid when an assessment is made for the purpose of deciding what the weekly contributions should be. As 85 per cent, of those coming before the criminal courts other than for motoring offences are men, those proposals will hit women particularly harshly. The rationale of the proposal is that since the criminal legal aid scheme is to be administered in the same way as the civil legal aid scheme where the spouse's income is aggregated, it is reasonable that criminal legal aid should be similarly aggregated. That is a wrong argument. In civil legal aid the spouse and the family benefit, or should benefit, from any damages that the husband or wife may receive as a result of court proceedings or settlement. In addition, if there is any conflict of interest between the husband and wife in civil proceedings—say, in the divorce case—the aggregation of resources does not apply. However, with criminal legal aid the circumstances are different.
I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument with regard to civil legal aid and the aggregation there. However, there is aggregation in criminal legal aid at present. A spouse's means are taken into account. That measure was passed by a Labour Government in 1967.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the contributions are so small in that case that they do not materi-ally affect the spouse. The effect of this will be very different.
First, it is wrong in principle, as most people would agree, that an innocent spouse should pay for the misdeeds or criminal activities of the husband or wife as the case may be. He or she may be completely ignorant of the partner's crime, because the criminal activities may have been deliberately concealed. Therefore, it is wrong that the innocent party should pay for the crimes of his or her partner. Indeed, for the wife it may be the last straw. There may already have been enough strain on the marriage as a result of the partner's criminal activities to entitle her to say that enough is enough and to welcome the fact that he goes to prison as the best thing for him. However, it may be a different matter for the husband.I can understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument as far as it goes. However, I fail to understand his apparent assumption that anybody charged with a criminal offence is guilty of it. Perhaps he will explain.
Of course, I do not assume that. I am talking about a case where a wife is heartily sick and tired of dealing with somebody who has perhaps committed many criminal offences and who may have reason to believe that this is just another in a long sad story.
Women and families will suffer further hardship as contributions will be made from income from the time that the legal aid order is made. Therefore, the family's income will be depleted for several weeks or months. As the House knows, it frequently takes about a year for a case to come to trial. The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) was right to point out that it may result in an acquittal. In that case, the money will be refunded. However, during that lengthy period, the difficulties and tensions that are bound to arise when someone in the household is charged with a criminal offence will be increased as a result of the added financial difficulties. In response to my query in Committee, the Solicitor-General said that he did not envisage a legal aid certificate being revoked if the wife refused to pay the contributions. He said that he did not foresee that happening if an amendment that he had in mind was accepted to make the revocation of the legal aid certificate dependent on the wilful refusal to pay. I am glad to see that the Solicitor-general has tabled an amendment along those lines, although it does not deal with what will happen if the wife refuses to pay. I know what will happen—because the Solicitor-General has told us—if the accused wilfully refuses to pay. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman must tell us whether the legal aid certificate will be revoked if the wife refuses to pay. If he says that the court would not revoke a certificate in those circumstances, because there has been no wilful refusal to pay, it makes nonsense of the whole provision. The family versed in criminal law will escape its responsibilities easily, knowing that there is no need for the spouse to pay because the court will not revoke the accused's certificate. One of the worst aspects of the proposals is that a whole range of benefits that the spouse receives will be taken into account when assessing the contribution. One of those benefits is child benefit. It seems morally wrong that payments that are meant to benefit the family and the child should go towards the defence of the accused. The new clause sets out many other non-contributory benefits which should not be taken into account when assessing the spouse's resources. In addition to child benefit, it namesThe purpose of the new clause is to ensure that those benefits are not taken into account when an assessment is made. Many women will be affected by the proposals. The Government sought to play down the effect that the proposals will have on spouses and the effect that aggregation will have on the amount of the contribution. The Lord Chancellor claimed that a two-child family would pay only £3 a week—assuming that only the father works and earns an average wage. There is an obvious flaw in those figures. Only 5 per cent. of working men have dependent wives. The earnings of most married women, as the legal action group bulletin points out, even from part-time work would greatly increase the contribution payable. The same family with the wife earning the average £47·50 gross a week would have to pay £12 a week. That is a substantial contribution. 9 pm In Committee we drew the Solicitor-General's attention to the fact that the contribution proposals relating to capital would mean that those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement would have to pay out of capital. The Solicitor-General said that he would put forward an amendment to deal with those on supplementary benefit and he has. We feel that it is wrong that those on very low incomes such as those receiving family income supplement should have to make a capital contribution. In those circumstances, we feel that the new clause should appeal to the House. It is wrong that the wife, who is an utterly innocent party, should have to contribute substantially from her own resources. That might lead to greater strain on an already strained marriage. I ask that the new clause be supported."non-contributory invalidity pension, mobility allowance, attendance allowance, industrial death benefit, child allowance, invalidity care allowance or educational maintenance allowance."
The hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) has acknowledged that civil legal aid is aggregated and that a spouse's means are taken into account. He says that it is wrong for that to be done for criminal legal aid. When I intervened and pointed out to him that it is already done in criminal legal aid, he said that those means are a small factor in the assessment of a contribution, but he did not deny that aggregation takes place.
I find that hard to comprehend. I know that it would be wrong for the sins of the fathers to be visited on the sons and that the hon. and learned Member for Accrington was not in the House in 1967, but it was the Labour Government, in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, who enshrined the principle that a spouse's means were to be aggregated for criminal legal aid. I shall wait with interest to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has to say. The hon. and learned Member for Accrington has made some good points that need to be answered. I wish to make two points. The first is that the savings threshold of £1,310 is considerably less than the present threshold for supplementary benefit of £2,000, which is shortly to be increased to £2,500. As there is no maximum for a capital contribution towards legal aid, the savings of a spouse in excess of £1,310 could be demanded by the court as an initial contribution to the costs of the defence of the defendant spouse. If the breadwinner were convicted and sent to prison, the other spouse would have little alternative but to apply for supplementary benefit. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will deal with that when he replies. If a spouse refuses to pay a contribution, there is nothing in the Bill—certainly there will be nothing in the regulations that are likely to emanate from the Bill—to compel that spouse to do so. There is no threat of revocation. That was made clear in Committee on 28 June by my hon. and learned Friend when, in response to an amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Accrington, he said:I know that later my hon. and learned Friend will introduce a new clause dealing with a defendant's wilful default. However, many hon. Members will be concerned that there is nothing to compel a spouse to make a contribution through threat of revocation. The paradox is that many other hon. Members on both sides of the House will say "But there is nothing in the Bill which says categorically that a defendant's legal aid order will not be revoked if a spouse fails to make that contribution." I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will seek to overcome the paradox. There will be opposition from hon. Members who believe that a spouse should be forced to make a contribution through, perhaps, the threat of revocation, and there will be others—I hope the majority—who will say that it is wrong that if a spouse refuses to make a contribution there is nothing in the Bill which states categorically that the defendant will not have his legal aid removed."I am advised that the court could not revoke in such circum-stances. That is assuming that the provisions for revocation are tightened up, as I keep promising they will be. In those circumstances, nobody could show that the accused had been guilty of wilful default."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D: 28 June 1982, c. 71.]
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) has said that this is a consumer's Bill and not a lawyers' Bill. However, I hope that the House will excuse me, the first non-lawyer, for daring to intervene in what has been a lawyers' debate so far.
I think that we all accept what the Solicitor-General said in reply to the debate on new clause 1, when he argued that it should be the principle that those who can afford to pay should pay. My right hon. and hon. Friends accept that. The argument arises when a decision is made on where the level should be drawn to separate those who we think can afford to pay and those who we think cannot. I contend that the civil legal aid regulations are drawn far too tightly. The Solicitor-General has said that he has consulted various legal organisations. Has he consulted the consumer organisations? Did he consult, for example, the citizens advice bureaux, which have to deal with many inquiries? When I talked to those who represent the bureaux I found that they did not like the new regulations. To introduce the aggregation that is set out in the new clause in criminal proceedings is a dubious proposition. I know that we have aggregation now but it is proposed to change the system that is used to compute resources. It is a dangerous proposition. For example, let us take one of the benefits mentioned in subsection (b) of the new clause—the educational maintenance allowance. It is wrong that in any computation one should count the educational maintenance allowance, which is paid for a specific purpose. If that is counted and if it means that the family income will be reduced, part of the purpose of the educational maintenance allowance will be lost. The child for whom it is payable will not receive the benefit because the family will have to pay a greater contribution for legal aid. One point with regard to civil computation, but which also applies to this matter, worries me. It is about the vague thing called notional capital. In the assessment of capital resources, as I understand it—the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong—when one counts capital, it is not just the amount of money that one has in the bank, but notional capital that counts. I had a case in which a woman wanted to apply for legal aid for a civil action. She had no resources of her own and no money in the bank. However, her father had left her a share in a house. He had three daughters. The house was divided between the three daughters. However, none of the daughters could sell her share of the house because the mother had to remain in the house while she was alive. She was still alive, so there was no way in which the daughter's share of the house could be realised. However, that was counted as notional capital—one-third of the estimated capital value of the house, which she could not sell. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor and received an unhelpful reply saying that there were places in London where notional capital could be sold and realised, which that lady could do if she wanted.At a price.
The hon. Gentleman is right.
Will that idea of notional capital apply in the assessment for criminal legal aid in the same way as for civil legal aid? It is important that in the debate some of us who are not lawyers should take part. As Members of Parliament we get the sticky end when our constituents come to us and say "These are all the resources that I have. I have an attendance allowance and a mobility allowance, yet I have to pay for legal aid out of my income. My children are suffering." I am unhappy about that. I hope that the House will accept the new clause.Despite the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), I cannot echo his arguments. I have four reasons for saying so.
First, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can be heard to say that aggregation is objectionable in principle. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the resources of the spouse, and for that matter the resources of the parent when the applicant is a minor, are already aggregated. That flows from the Legal Aid Act, 1974, which was a reflection of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, for which the Labour Party was responsible. Therefore, what was right then cannot be wrong now in principle. Secondly, if the new clause is implemented, it is certain to have revenue implications. When one is dealing with resources, one is concerned with priorities. The new clause does not represent a proper assessment of priorities. My third objection is that the new clause is one-sided. The law already provides that when asses sing contributions regard must be had to the cost to the applicant of maintaining a spouse or dependent children. I do not see why, in principle, regard should be had to the cost of maintaining a spouse while ignoring the resources that that spouse brings into the family home. Finally, the House knows that in cases of supplementary benefit regard is paid to the capital and income of a spouse living with the claimant. I see no reason why, in dealing with legal aid, we should apply a test that is more generous than that applied to supplementary benefit. For those reasons, I hope that the new clause will fail.The question of principle has been fully dealt with. It is pretty late in the day for the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) to talk about aggregation being wrong in principle when it is common form in criminal legal aid and civil legal aid. The spouse will be no worse off under these proposals than he or she is under the present system. As I shall show, he or she will be better off.
9.15 pm Hon. Members are forgetting that, of course, it would be wrong to take account of spouses' resources if they were separated or if the case arose from an alleged assault by one on the other or similar circumstances. They would be excluded by the regulations. But when spouses are living together, in general, as the House knows, resources are aggregated. This can be seen as the corollary of the allowances made in computing disposable income. If it were to be abolished, the allowance for a spouse—which on present plans is likely to be about £27 a week—would also have to be removed. The allowances for children, which are likely to range from about £12 to £28 a week, would have to be reduced. Housing costs would have to be apportioned. All those allowances, or disregards as they are called in the profession, rest on the assumption—which I should have thought is a normal and reasonable assumption—that for many purposes a married couple's resources and commit-ments are shared. Disaggregation of income would not only be more unfavourable for many families; it would also be extremely difficult to operate. I have given some reasons why. The House must remember that we are discussing pay-ments that are to be made from income, not separate contributions that are ordered against one spouse or the other. We are discussing a contribution that must be assessed on the joint income of both the husband and the wife. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) was right to say that, irrespective of whether we achieve our objective of ensuring that those who cannot afford to pay do not and that those who can afford to pay do, much depends on where we draw the line. I have always accepted that obligation on behalf of the Government. It is fundamental. It must be remembered, however, that the regulations have not yet been drawn up. Some reference was made to why the Consumer Association greatly disliked the regulations. They have not yet been drawn up. Now is the time to express views about what should or should not be included in them. It is a little previous to say that they are wrong.
Who has been consulted about the regulations?
There has been the widest consultation. More than once, I have personally invited in Committee all those who have opinions about the matter to express them. I also circulated to the Committee a forecast of the figures that the Government have in mind so that others may comment upon them.
It is a matter of opinion as to where the line should be drawn. It is to be observed that those who say that this will wreak hardship give as an example a Member of Parliament with a wife in a part-time job and two children, the Member of Parliament earning the normal salary and the wife earning £2,500. That is a not insubstantial joint income. The contribution is assessed at £22 a week. Those who criticise that must remember that someone must pay. The choice lies between Joe Soap the taxpayer and the person who finds himself in those difficulties. The public—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members do not share our view of a household as a joint effort by people who share their resources. When all the representations have been made and taken into account and the figures finally decided, it will be for the public to judge. We must always bear in mind that someone will have to pay—either the taxpayer or the person concerned. Surely no one can fault the principle that the person concerned should pay what he can afford. That will be the purpose of the regulations. The second part of the new clause suggests that a great many specified benefits should be disregarded. Of course, some of them must be regarded. The regulations will provide for what is and is not to be disregarded. Some will be disregarded just as they are in civil legal aid. I appreciate the argument that it would be wrong for benefits designed to meet specific additional needs to be taken into account. That is a matter for the regulations and I assure the House that we shall carefully consider which benefits fall into that category. I give a word of warning, however. In civil legal aid, child benefit is taken into account, but the allowances for children are 50 per cent. higher than the corresponding allowances for supplementary benefit. If child benefit were not taken into account the allowances for children would naturally have to be lower, so it is not as simple as some Members suggest. It may, of course, be preferable to adopt that approach and to disregard the benefit and to lower the allowance in respect of each child. We shall also consider that carefully. I hope that that gives a useful indication, however brief, of the Government's thinking on that part of the matter. To summarise, aggregation of spouses' resources and commitments is a long-standing feature of both criminal and civil legal aid. It is right in principle and if the principle were abandoned the results would be both anomalous and administratively difficult. The question of which benefits should be disregarded is, I suggest, more appropriate for the regulations. I hope that the House will reject the new clause.I do not wish at this stage to get bogged down in questions of principle. I wish to comment on what is likely to happen in practice.
While the hon. Lady is still on the question of principle, perhaps she will allow me to correct an error that I made earlier. I fear that I did the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) an injustice when I said that he was not responsible for the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which introduced the concept of aggregation. I understand that not only was he in the House at that time, but that he served on the Committee that dealt with that legislation.
Perhaps I should not have been so gracious as to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to argue about the principle. I am worried about how the legislation will work in practice. It is no use hon. Members saying that because it is a matter of principle everything that flows from it is bound to work in accord with what we imagine the principle to be. That is not so.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) raised the valid point that, as in many such matters, the consumer groups—those at the receiving end of much of this legislatiorr—are rarely consulted. Had they been consulted, there would have been plenty of comeback. Approaches made to me in my capacity as spokesperson on women's rights show that many such groups, particularly the citizens advice bureaux, are apprehensive about how the proposals will operate in practice. Whatever the logic of the principle that those who can afford to pay should be made to do so, it is feared that many people, especially women, will be adversely affected. Nobody has so far dealt with the effect on women of the Government's proposal.We have heard much about the terrible financial effect on female spouses, but not much about the effect on male spouses. Many women are charged with shoplifting. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the income or capital of the male spouse should be taken into account when assessing the contribution to legal aid in those cases?
I am not making a special plea for women. I take the same view on spouses whether male or female. Whatever the reasons, and we do not know them, it is mostly men who commit the crimes of the type that we are discussing. Therefore, in introducing a regulation, or a law, which states that the income of spouses must be aggregated for legal aid it logically follows that women are much more likely to be disadvantaged than men. I am saying not that men should pay, but that women should not. However, in applying the principle in this clause women will suffer much more than men. Only 15 per cent. of the crimes concerned are committed by women.
A fear expressed by citizens advice bureaux is that many families are already in severe financial difficulties. Whether the person charged is eventually found guilty or innocent, the method of recouping the money that has been paid out will plunge them into even further difficulties. One of the worst aspects is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) said, that a person may be innocent and wholly ignorant of the crime that has been committed by the spouse, but will nevertheless be called upon to pay. Another unacceptable aspect is that child benefit will be included in assessing a person's ability to pay. One of the big changes we made in the payment of child benefit was that it would be paid to the mother, as of right, for her children. The House now appears to be going back on that principle by saying that child benefits will be taken into account in the assessment. I do not see how that can be dealt with in the regulations. A variation is to take place in that the final assessment will be payable weekly from the time that the legal aid order is made and in advance of the trial. If a defendent is acquitted, what method, if any, will be applied to return the money? Will the money be completely lost?I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to know immediately that the Bill provides for repayment on acquittal. A court may order the repayment of all sums that have been paid. If the usual practice is followed, where costs follow the event, such an order will be made and all the money paid back.
I do not dispute that an order can or will be made for the money to be paid back. However, at what stage will it be paid back? A family that has already been forced into grave financial difficulties—my hon. Friends have already shown that that will happen—will have to wait some time for the money to be paid back. That complication arises from money being paid in advance.
There is a further aspect that will cause difficulties. Some women's organisations have pointed out that under the Bill income will be assessed jointly and the amount to be paid then drawn. If one of the partners says "I have no intention of paying for your defence. I am disconcerted about what you have done. I do not want to know.", who is legally responsibly for that element of the contribution? It is possible that some spouses will refuse to be assessed. They are anxious to know what will happen. Will the remaining spouse be liable for the whole amount, or will some means be found of charging the spouse who has not paid?The accused person in whose favour the legal aid order is made would be the only person responsible for paying the contribution.
That is obvious.
It is said that it is obvious that the person in whose name a legal aid order is made is responsible for paying the contribution. However, if that contribution has been assessed jointly on the income of both spouses, and if one says "I will have nothing to do with this. I refuse to pay", what will happen to the person seeking his defence via a legal aid certificate and unable to pay the full contribution? Many people are worried about that.
Incidentally, there is no explanation about what is meant by "a spouse". We may well find that, as well as some legal spouses, some common law spouses may be able to evade the responsibility that the Bill seeks to impose. Will a common law man and wife be regarded as spouses for the purposes of the Bill, or will it apply only to people who are legally married? So far as I am aware, no arrangement has been made to cope with common law spouses. In many of our debates, the question of a woman's income and her work is often completely overlooked. When I first became interested in this subject, and questioned the amount of money that a family would have to contribute, the Lord Chancellor's Department claimed that a two-child family would pay approximately £3 a week. However, that assumed that only the father was working. I believe that about 5 per cent. of working men have dependent wives and children and that the remaining families are to some extent supported by working wives. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor's Department's estimate should be much higher. As the average family today often consists of both a working wife and working husband, that fact must be taken into account when trying to play down the contribution that a person is expected to make. The argument is that people ought to pay if they can afford to do so and that it should not be left to the taxpayer. However, many people who will be affected will already be in receipt of benefits or will be forced to claim benefits when the financial contribution order to the legal aid certificate is made. They may well have to claim other benefits to survive. We have already been told of the difference between the £1,300 savings threshold for legal aid and the £2,030 which makes a person ineligible for supplementary benefit. When legal aid certificates are made many people will have to seek benefits in order to live. What then has been the saving to the taxpayer? There wll be no saving because the taxpayer, from another pocket, will have to subsidise and keep them because their income has been reduced by the way the legal aid certificate money has been calculated. I understand the principle, and no one would argue with the principle that people who can afford to pay should be made to do so. The difficulty occurs when we apply the principle to large numbers of people who cannot afford to pay. Then there is no saving to the taxpayer because they go to the other resources of the State to get back the money that they have paid out. We believe that this will not work in practice and will have a detrimental effect particularly on women, but we would apply the principle of our objection to spouses across the board.Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 281.
Division No. 292]
| [9.40 pm
|
AYES
| |
Abse, Leo | Cryer, Bob |
Adams, Allen | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
Allaun, Frank | Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) |
Anderson, Donald | Dalyell, Tam |
Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Davidson, Arthur |
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) |
Ashton, Joe | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) |
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) |
Bagier, Gordon A.T. | Deakins, Eric |
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) |
Beith, A. J. | Dewar, Donald |
Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Dixon, Donald |
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Dobson, Frank |
Bidwell, Sydney | Dormand, Jack |
Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Douglas, Dick |
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) | Dubs, Alfred |
Bray, Dr Jeremy | Duffy, A. E. P. |
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) | Eadie, Alex |
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) | Eastham, Ken |
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) |
Buchan, Norman | Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) |
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) | Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) |
Campbell-Savours, Dale | English, Michael |
Cant, R. B. | Ennals, Rt Hon David |
Carmichael, Neil | Evans, John (Newton) |
Carter-Jones, Lewis | Ewing, Harry |
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Faulds, Andrew |
Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, A'rie | Field, Frank |
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Flannery, Martin |
Cohen, Stanley | Ford, Ben |
Coleman, Donald | Forrester, John |
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Foster, Derek |
Conlan, Bernard | Foulkes, George |
Cook, Robin F. | Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N w'd) |
Cowans, Harry | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
Craigen, J. M. (G'gcw, M'hill) | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) |
Crowther, Stan |
George, Bruce | Palmer, Arthur |
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Park, George |
Gourlay, Harry | Pavitt, Laurie |
Graham, Ted | Pendry, Tom |
Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Prescott, John |
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
Hardy, Peter | Race, Reg |
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Radice, Giles |
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) |
Haynes, Frank | Richardson, Jo |
Heffer, Eric S. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
Home Robertson, John | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
Homewood, William | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
Hooley, Frank | Robinson, P. (Belfast E) |
Howell, Rt Hon D. | Rooker, J. W. |
Howells, Geraint | Roper, John |
Hoyle, Douglas | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
Huckfield, Les | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Rowlands, Ted |
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Ryman, John |
Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Sandelson, Neville |
Janner, Hon Greville | Sever, John |
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Sheerman, Barry |
John, Brynmor | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
Johnson, James (Hull West) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) |
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Silverman, Julius |
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Skinner, Dennis |
Kerr, Russell | Snape, Peter |
Kinnock, Neil | Soley, Clive |
Lamond, James | Spearing, Nigel |
Leighton, Ronald | Spriggs, Leslie |
Lestor, Miss Joan | Stallard, A. W. |
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Stoddart, David |
Litherland, Robert | Stott, Roger |
Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Strang, Gavin |
Lyon, Alexander (York) | Straw, Jack |
McCartney, Hugh | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
McElhone, Frank | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
McKelvey, William | Tilley, John |
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Tinn, James |
McWilliam, John | Torney, Tom |
Marks, Kenneth | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton) | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster) |
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn) | Weetch, Ken |
Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Wellbeloved, James |
Maynard, Miss Joan | Welsh, Michael |
Meacher, Michael | White, Frank R. |
Mikardo, Ian | Whitehead, Phillip |
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W) |
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton) |
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | Wilson, William (C'try SE) |
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) | Winnick, David |
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Woodall, Alec |
Morton, George | Woolmer, Kenneth |
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Wright, Sheila |
Newens, Stanley | Young, David (Bolton E) |
O'Halloran, Michael | |
O'Neill, Martin | Tellers for the Ayes |
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Mr. Ioan Evans and |
Paisley, Rev Ian | Mr. Allen McKay. |
NOES
| |
Alexander, Richard | Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone) |
Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) |
Ancram, Michael | Banks, Robert |
Arnold, Tom | Beaumont-Dark, Anthony |
Aspinwall, Jack | Bendall, Vivian |
Atkins, Robert(Preston N) | Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) |
Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E) | Benyon, Thomas (A'don) |
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) |
Best, Keith | Grist, Ian |
Bevan, David Gilroy | Grylls, Michael |
Biffen, Rt Hon John | Gummer, John Selwyn |
Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Hamilton, Hon A. |
Blackburn, John | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
Blaker, Peter | Hampson, Dr Keith |
Body, Richard | Hannam, John |
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Haselhurst, Alan |
Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hastings, Stephen |
Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
Braine, Sir Bernard | Hawkins, Sir Paul |
Brinton, Tim | Hawksley, Warren |
Brooke, Hon Peter | Hayhoe, Barney |
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) | Heddle, John |
Browne, John (Winchester) | Henderson, Barry |
Bruce-Gardyne, John | Hicks, Robert |
Bryan, Sir Paul | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. | Hill, James |
Budgen, Nick | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
Bulmer, Esmond | Holland, Philip (Carlton) |
Butcher, John | Hooson, Tom |
Cadbury, Jocelyn | Hordern, Peter |
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) |
Chapman, Sydney | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
Churchill, W. S. | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) |
Clegg, Sir Walter | Jessel, Toby |
Cockeram, Eric | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
Colvin, Michael | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
Cope, John | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
Cormack, Patrick | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
Corrie, John | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
Costain, Sir Albert | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
Cranborne, Viscount | Kimball, Sir Marcus |
Critchley, Julian | King, Rt Hon Tom |
Crouch, David | Knight, Mrs Jill |
Dickens, Geoffrey | Knox, David |
Dorrell, Stephen | Lamont, Norman |
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Lang, Ian |
Dover, Denshore | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Latham, Michael |
Durant, Tony | Lawrence, Ivan |
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | Lee, John |
Eggar, Tim | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
Elliott, Sir William | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
Emery, Sir Peter | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
Eyre, Reginald | Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) |
Fairbairn, Nicholas | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell | Loveridge, John |
Faith, Mrs Sheila | Luce, Richard |
Farr, John | Lyell, Nicholas |
Fell, Sir Anthony | McCrindle, Robert |
Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Macfarlane, Neil |
Fisher, Sir Nigel | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
Fookes, Miss Janet | McQuarrie, Albert |
Forman, Nigel | Madel, David |
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Major, John |
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | Marland, Paul |
Fry, Peter | Marlow, Antony |
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
Garel-Jones, Tristan | Marten, Rt Hon Neil |
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Mates, Michael |
Glyn, Dr Alan | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
Goodhart, Sir Philip | Mawby, Ray |
Goodhew, Sir Victor | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
Goodlad, Alastair | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
Gorst, John | Mayhew, Patrick |
Gow, Ian | Mellor, David |
Gower, Sir Raymond | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
Gray, Hamish | Mills, lain (Meriden) |
Greenway, Harry | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds) | Miscampbell, Norman |
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
Moate, Roger | Smith, Dudley |
Montgomery, Fergus | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
Moore, John | Speed, Keith |
Morgan, Geraint | Speller, Tony |
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Spence, John |
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
Mudd, David | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
Murphy, Christopher | Sproat, Iain |
Myles, David | Squire, Robin |
Neale, Gerrard | Stainton, Keith |
Needham, Richard | Stanbrook, Ivor |
Nelson, Anthony | Stanley, John |
Neubert, Michael | Steen, Anthony |
Newton, Tony | Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) |
Normanton, Tom | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
Nott, Rt Hon John | Stradling Thomas, J. |
Onslow, Cranley | Tapsell, Peter |
Osborn, John | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
Page, John (Harrow, West) | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Temple-Morris, Peter |
Parris, Matthew | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
Pattie, Geoffrey | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
Pawsey, James | Thompson, Donald |
Percival, Sir Ian | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
Pink, R. Bonner | Thornton, Malcolm |
Porter, Barry | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) | Trippier, David |
Prior, Rt Hon James | Trotter, Neville |
Proctor, K. Harvey | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
Rathbone, Tim | Viggers, Peter |
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) | Waddington, David |
Rees-Davies, W. R. | Wakeham, John |
Renton, Tim | Waldegrave, Hon William |
Rhodes James, Robert | Walker, B. (Perth) |
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Wall, Sir Patrick |
Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Waller, Gary |
Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Ward, John |
Rifkind, Malcolm | Warren, Kenneth |
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Watson, John |
Rossi, Hugh | Wells, Bowen |
Rost, Peter | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
Royle, Sir Anthony | Wheeler, John |
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. | Whitney, Raymond |
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Wickenden, Keith |
Scott, Nicholas | Williams, D.(Montgomery) |
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Wolfson, Mark |
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Younger, Rt Hon George |
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | |
Shepherd, Richard | Tellers for the Noes: |
Shersby, Michael | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
Silvester, Fred | Mr. Carol Mather. |
Sims, Roger |
Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 3
Review Of Income And Capital Limits
'(1) The Lord Chancellor shall in the tax year 1983–84 and in each subsequent tax year review the limits prescribed in relation to disposable income and disposable capital for the purpose of determining whether those limits have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain.
(2) For the purposes of any such review the Lord Chancellor shall estimate the general level of prices in such manner as he thinks fit.
(3) If on any such review the Lord Chancellor concludes that any of the limits in question have not retained their value as mentioned above, he shall prepare and lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an uprating order increasing those limits at least to such extent as is necessary to restore their value.
(4) If a draft order laid before Parliament in pursuance of this section is approved by a resolution of each House the Lord Chancellor shall make the order in the form of the draft.
(5) If on a review the Lord Chancellor determines that he is not required to prepare and lay the draft on an uprating order he
shall instead lay before each House of Parliament a report explaining his reasons for arriving at that determination'.—[ Mr.Archer.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause represents a principle that we discussed in Committee. It deals with a problem encountered in many areas of administration—the erosion of statutory limits by inflation. The Government went to the electorate and pledged to solve the problem of inflation by the monetarist policies with which we are all familiar. The Government were prepared to solve it at the cost of massive unemployment, at the expense of small companies and by destroying Britain's industry. We have unemployment, the Government have inflicted massive damage on Britain's industry, they left a trail of small companies in liquidation and we still have inflation. The problem with which the clause seeks to deal is still with us. The problem of pensions was tackled in section 125 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which imposed upon the Secretary of Slate an obligation to review inflation annually, and to bring pensions into line with inflation. In the case of Metzger v. The Department of Health and Social Security, the Vice-Chancellor considered the implications of that obligation. We believe that there is room for a similar statutory arrangement for legal aid. It is common ground that eligibility levels should be uprated year by year. In Committee, the Solicitor-General confirmed that that was the Government's intention. For many years, the limits were eaten away by inflation. When legal aid was introduced, nearly 80 per cent. of the population was included within the eligibility limits and by 1979 that figure had fallen to about 40 per cent. The Legal Aid Act 1979, passed shortly before the general election, restored the proportion almost to 80 per cent. Already the limits were being uprated each year by statutory order to remain abreast of inflation. That was the Red Queen principle—we were running to try to stay in the same place. When the Government returned to power in 1979, they made the normal provision for uprating, so that there were two upratings in 1979—the major statutory uprating before the election and the normal annual uprating later to stay in the same place. But there were no upratings in 1980 or 1981. I understand that the Lord Chancellor is as subject to the Government's cuts as everyone else. But that is the argument for a statutory obligation. It is less easy to miss out when times become hard. It is all too easy to impose the burden of cuts, on those who are most vulnerable and I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor would have welcomed the support of this clause in his battle with the Treasury. In Commitee, the Solicitor-General used one argument against our proposal. He said that it went further than was the case with pensions because, he said, the Government had changed the principle of the Social Security Act 1979. That Act provided that the Secretary of State should uprate pensions in accordance with increases either in earnings or in prices, whichever was more favourable to pensioners. It is true that the Government deleted the bit about earnings. Pensioners were no longer to have a statutory right to share in increases in prosperity. Perhaps that does not matter, since there have been no increases in prosperity since the Government's policies took effect. We took the Solicitor-General's point and have returned with a proposal which is not open to that objection. Our proposal now seeks only to impose an obligation to stay abreast of prices. The clause would operate on the regulations made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (2) of clause 7 and would apply only to the limits for criminal aid. It might be argued that we have made no similar proposals for civil legal aid. There are two reasons for that. First, it would have been out of order in a Bill dealing with criminal legal aid and, secondly, it registers our belief that the need to ensure that defendants in criminal proceedings are represented properly is of a different order from the need in civil proceedings, important though they may be. Our proposal seeks to keep people out of prison. It is about civil liberties and should be more akin to welfare legislation than to civil legal aid. The Solicitor-General referred to the proposal in Committee as an open-ended commitment. It is nothing of the kind. It is clearly limited. We propose a modest commitment to do what the Solicitor-General told us in Committee that the Government had every intention of doing. The House will not require me to develop the case further.The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) is correct. One argument that I advanced in Committee has been met, but only one. The remainder of my arguments are as sound now as they were then. It is an open-ended commitment, because it would be impossible to say how much it would cost in the next year. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor cannot give such a commitment. To do so would bind his hands by limiting the extent to which he could assign priorities on legal aid expenditure.
I assure the House, as I did the Committee, that the importance of keeping the financial limits for criminal legal aid under regular review is fully recognised. Subject to economic constraints, we intend that the new limits will be uprated regularly. I ask the House to accept that assurance.Question put and negatived.
New Clause 4
Report As To Contributions
'The Lord Chancellor shall annually lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the number of legal aid contribution orders made, the total sum ordered to be paid, an analysis of the contributions determined during the year compared with previous years, the total sums respectively collected and in arrears, the number of repayments made to legally aided persons in respect of their contributions, the total sum repaid and the administrative costs respectively of assessing, collecting and repaying contributions, respectively in the magistrates' court and the Crown Court, the number of orders revoked for non-payment, with details of the Courts ordering such revocation; and the number of defendants refusing an offer of legal aid either because they do not wish to pay the contributions or for some other reason'.— [Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall move the new clause briefly, because we dealt with the principle in Committee. The Solicitor-General made certain observations about its shortcomings, which I hope I have covered by adding certain matters to the new clause that I moved in Committee. The purpose is to ensure that the new contributions proposal is properly monitored by Parliament, not only because of the fears that have been expressed about the likely effects that it will have on accused persons, but because of the likely expensive administrative costs. No one knows how much the existing system for assessing and running the legal aid scheme costs, because the cost gets lost in the general budget of running the magistrates' courts. The danger is that unless there is a proper method of monitoring all the matters that are involved in the new complicated procedure for assessment, Parliament and the people who are affected by the proposals again will not know the exact costs. That is surely wrong when public money is involved. The Solicitor-General, in answer to my proposals in Committee, said that one of his objections to the new clause was that it did not cover everything that we need to know. He said:He added that it would be necessary"We shall need all of that information, and more still."
I have taken up the offer and added to my new clause the requirement that the information that is given includes"to keep a close watch on the use by the courts of their powers to revoke legal aid orders for non-payment. The Government will want to know about that, and we shall be very ready to make such information available".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 1982; c. 102.]
so that we know which courts have a bad record in that respect and which courts operate more generously and liberally. We have also included the requirement to make available information of"the number of orders revoked for non-payment, with details of the Courts ordering such revocation",
I agree that we should have information about whether there is a consistent pattern of revocation in certain areas, or whether certain defendants, certain offences, certain categories or certain age groups consistently refuse legal aid, so that we may know whether the scheme is working properly, or whether it is subject to the pitfalls and dangers which many of us have predicted. I need not elaborate further on the reason for the new clause. It is essential that Parliament should have the maximum information possible to see how this controversial scheme is working. I trust that the Solicitor-General will be as helpful as he possibly can—I put it as neutrally and kindly as that—in reply."the number of defendents refusing an offer of legal aid either because they do not wish to pay the contributions or for some other reason".
I agree that the maximum information that will be useful must be obtained by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and made available to all who are interested. I am gratified to find that the proposals in the new clause have, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, adopted some of my suggestions in Committee.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Legal Aid Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Brooke.]
Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
As I was saying, I am gratified that the proposals in the new clause have adopted some of the suggestions that I made in Committee about information that could usefully be obtained, but which was not included previously.
There can be no doubt about the Government's attitude to the collection of useful information, but I must advise the House that it would be premature to permit the Lord Chancellor to make such a report until we are satisfied that our information requirements have been properly defined. Further consultation is necessary with interested parties, especially the Justices Clerks Society, which will be responsible for collecting the information. It will be necessary to consider carefully whether it is possible to disentangle administrative costs connected with the collection of contributions from other administrative costs, bearing in mind that the one thing that we do not want to do is to waste any of the money saved on unnecessary administrative procedures. That should go towards providing better legal aid for other people. The likelihood is that much of the information listed in the new clause will be published in the criminal statistics. The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid may also wish to publish some information in its annual report. I assure the House, as I assured the Committee, that it is intended that the new arrangements should be carefully monitored and that the information obtained should be freely available. It would not be sensible to bind the Lord Chancellor to publish a detailed report when the cost of collecting some of the information might far outweigh its usefulness. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the new clause.Question put and negatived.
Clause 6
Refusal Of Legal Md By Magistrates' Courts
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 7 leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This is a narrow amendment which proposes an obligation in the Bill to do what the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General assured us they wished to do in any event. In another place, my noble Friends raised the question of the vast variations in the refusal rate of applications for legal aid orders between one magistrates' court and another. That matter was raised again on Second Reading and in Committee. For the record, let me repeat what I said in Committee. In the Official Report of the Second Reading debate I am recorded as saying that according to the criminal statistics for 1980 the national average rate for refusal was 23 per cent. I accept that the fault was probably mine. The real figure was very much in my mind at the time. Whether the fault lay in my natural confusion or, as I suspect, in my natural inaudibility, the figure is 14 per cent. However, the refusal rate for Uxbridge is 36 per cent. and for Highgate 33 per cent., while for Hampstead next door it is only 4 per cent. I find it hard to believe that any local factor could account for that difference. On Second Reading and in Committee I mentioned that Warley, in my constituency, had a refusal rate of 23 per cent. and that that was particularly disturbing in a busy court with no duty solicitor scheme. I said that I had written to the clerk to the justices. I have since received from him a very careful and courteous reply attempting to identify some of the possible reasons and pointing out that the court sought to comply with the Lord Chancellor's circular LCD 81(3) of 27 March 1981 enjoining the courts not to exceed the Widgery criteria. One happy consequence of the correspondence, of which I am delighted to tell the House, is that there is shortly to be a meeting with those concerned in the borough of Sandwell to explore the prospect of establishing a duty solicitor scheme in both petty sessional divisions in the borough. The Solicitor-General responded to our concern by moving a new clause in Committee to introduce what now appears in the Bill as clause 6. It gives wide powers to the Lord Chancellor to provide recourse to an applicant who has been refused a criminal legal aid order by a magistrates' court. I accept, of course, that the Lord Chancellor proposes, in good faith, to make provision, but we should like to know a little more about how he proposes to exercise that power. Of course I understand the need for him to hold consultations, but I hope that by now some of those consultations will have taken place and that the hon. and learned Gentleman can give us a little more information. We had intended to introduce some form of parliamentary control over the regulations and we tabled amendment No. 3 for that purpose. However, I am told that it is unnecessary since that control would exist anyway. I note that the Solicitor-General has tabled amendment No. 2 to that same clause and that may be its purport. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able at least to allay our curiosity, if not to satisfy it, concerning what the Lord Chancellor proposes to do. I do not propose to develop the argument further, as it has been developed frequently before. If I sit down now, the Solicitor-General may be enabled to pursue that course.I understand the reasoning behind the questions that have been put to me. I shall do my best to allay any fears. Nothing is quite as simple as it seems at first sight, and the amendment would create substantial difficulties.
The main reason is that although clause 6(2) allows different provisions to be made for different cases, the insertion of a requirement such as that envisaged in the amendment would make it obligatory for regulations to be made governing ad cases. There are many cases for which it would not be sensible to institute a right of recourse. For example, more than 1 million minor traffic offences are dealt with in the magistrates' courts each year and, although I am not sure that the amendment's proposers intend this effect, the insertion of a requirement in subsection 6(1) would oblige the Lord Chancellor to make regulations covering all of them. That would clearly be a waste of resources. It is not necessarily intended to confine the further right of application to "either way" cases, but the need for a right of recourse is probably strongest in that area and it may be desirable, at least initially, to make regulations dealing only with those offences. If it later became appropriate to extend the right of further application to some other offences, under the flexible arrangements contained in clause 6 as it now stands no further primary legislation would be required. There is a second reason why I must resist the amendment. Clause 6(3) requires that regulations should be made with the concurrence of the Treasury. A requirement on the Lord Chancellor to make regulations would be inconsistent with that requirement. I should like to make it clear that I object to the amendment on practical grounds. I am at one with its proposers on the principle of introducing a right of further application as soon as practicable. I am advised that consultation is taking place with, among others, the Law Society and the Justices Clerks Society, about the court or body most suitable to hear applications by refused persons. That is the first thing that we have to decide, and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for his suggestion, which has been put to those whom we are consulting. It is still our view that the Law Society's legal aid committee may be the best option, but one has to keep an open mind and listen carefully to the views of others. Whatever final decision is taken, it is essential to bear in mind that two of the most important features of any arrangement made should be that applications are dealt with promptly, so that there is no delay to proceedings, and that the body chosen should be able to obtain sufficient information from the applicant to make a fully informed decision. The flexibility given by the clause in its present form will contribute to the fulfilment of those objectives, and it might be hampered by substituting for that flexibility the fixed requirement which would result if the amendment were carried. I hope that the House will not accept it.I am unhappy about the Solicitor-General's response. We have heard this story so often before. We say that we shall see how it goes and re-adjust it if necessary. That is exactly what happens with legal aid in other circumstances.
The Solicitor-General will be aware of the constant rows that I have in the House when I raise constituency matters on this subject. My constituency is in one of those areas that is reluctant to give legal aid. We have continual difficulties with Highbury and Old Street magistrates' courts. They will no doubt be delighted by the Solicitor-General's arguments. The system is flexible, but they need not carry it out if they do not wish to do so. I have talked to the Solicitor-General's Department about the problem. I give an example in another sphere. Day after day people fall over and hurt themselves but cannot get legal aid to make a claim for damages under the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961. I have taken that problem to every Lord Chancellor of all parties since 1964, and each one has explained to me that the 1968 decision in Meggs v Liverpool Corporation is only a guide to legal aid committees, but they take it as gospel, and none of my constituents can obtain help from the legal aid committee, which interprets the law in its own way. I believe that here we have a chance to do something positive. I do not understand the Solicitor-General's argument that if "may" is changed to "shall" that will destroy the intention behind the clause. It would read:It would be a positive, not a negative, measure. The Solicitor-General argues that the provision should be left woolly—that is what he calls flexibility, which is a legal term for woolliness—so that one can talk and argue wound the point for hours. Those of us who represent areas where legal aid is a lifeline to those who find themselves in difficulties and having to face the courts do not want this great flexibility. People want their rights. The Solicitor-General no doubt represents a constituency where he can go home at night and lay his head on his pillow and go to sleep. If he were to represent my constituency he would get a telephone call at about half-past Twelve at night and have to go to the local police station to see the wives and families of men who had been taken in and to try to find a friendly solicitor who will obtain legal aid for the man. Hours and hours of one's life are spent, day in and day out, week in and week out in that way. Do not talk to me about flexibility. I have it every day of the week. This is another occasion on which we are deciding new law and making sure that it will not treat people properly. 10.15 pm I hope that the House will not accept the Solicitor-General's assurance that flexibility will mean that everyone will be dealt with justly. I do not believe that. My experience of the courts in the area that I represent suggests that there is enough flexibiliy to result in some people being treated unjustly. Whenever Members of Parliament raise these matters with the Law Officers Department and the Lord Chancellor, their response is "This is a matter of judgment or local magistrates and we cannot interfere." That is true, but I am concerned about the quality of their judgment on occasions. It seems that if there is flexibility there will in some instances be injustice. I do not accept the Solicitor-General's assurance, and I support the amendment."Provision shall be made by regulations".
I seek the leave of the House to speak again. I share some of the concern of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). It is true that "flexibility" is another word for imprecision. Although I do not normally fly to the Government's defence, I recognise two of the arguments which the Solicitor-General advanced. It is true that there is a need for consultation and I am pleased to know that consultations are taking place.
It is fair to say that the amendment as it is framed may impose an obligation to make regulations that may prove to be unnecessary. The Opposition Front Bench does not propose to press the amendment. However, we shall watch with interest what becomes of the provision that we are discussing. I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch will share our concern.I, too, seek the leave of the House to speak again. With respect, I think that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has misunderstood the purpose of the Bill. For example, he spoke of the unhappy person who needs assistance in court in a hurry. The first part of the Bill is designed to ensure that there will be a better system of duty solicitors, who will be paid to deal with the situation that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
My objections to the amendment are purely practical. I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his support. If we made "may" into "shall", regulations would have to be introduced to cover every case. That could well have the effect of gumming up the system. We want to concentrate on the areas where the action that the hon. Gentleman wants is most needed. I assure him that we have every intention of making progress.Amendment negatived.
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
The amendment fills a gap in clause 6, which was added to the Bill in Committee. It provides that where a court or body exercising the power in clause 6—that is, allowing an appeal—makes a legal aid order after further application for a person who was refused legal aid by a magistrates' court, the assisted person shall contribute in the same way as if he has been granted legal aid by the magistrates' court. This seems entirely logical and I commend the amendment to the House.'(4) Where a legal aid order is made by virtue of regulations made for the purposes of this section, the provisions of this Act relating to legal aid contribution orders shall have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.'.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7
Legal Aid Contribution Orders
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'income' to 'of' in line 42 and insert—
'and disposable capital are treated as not exceeding the prescribed limits at any time when he is in receipt of supplementary benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 and that a person's disposable income is treated as not exceeding the prescribed limit at any time when he is in receipt'.
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
The amendment implements an undertaking that I gave in Committee. If it is accepted by the House, the capital of those in receipt of supplementary benefit will not be taken into account. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 seek to achieve a similar effect. They will ensure that capital will not be taken into account when an applicant is in receipt of family income supplement. As I said in Committee, I have given the matter further thought and I have consulted the Lord Chancellor.
There are two differences between supplementary benefit and FIS that are relevant to the argument. One is that there is no limit on capital with regard to the granting of family income supplement. The other is that once family income supplement has been awarded, it is paid for one year, even if the recipient's income rises to a level at which he would no longer be eligible. Those are two not insignificant financial differences in the opinion of my right hon. and noble Friend and myself, which distinguish that position from that of a person in receipt of supplementary benefit. Therefore, I am happy to be able to implement the undertaking that I gave with regard to supplementary benefit, but for the reasons that I have given I cannot go further and extend the exemption to family income supplement.I thank the Solicitor-General for ensuring that no one in receipt of supplementary benefit will have to make a contribution out of capital towards criminal legal aid. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for carrying out the undertaking given in Committee, which was in response to an amendment that we moved. He has been as good as his word.
I would have hoped that the Solicitor-General could have done the same in regard to those in receipt of family income supplement because I think that he would agree that it is wrong that those who live on the Government defined poverty line should have to make a contribution out of capital. That applies to those in receipt of family income supplement. However, I appreciate the distinction that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made between family income supplement and supplementary benefit. Therefore, I shall not press our amendments, much as I would like to see those on family income supplement not having to make any contribution out of capital.Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9
Enforcement Of Legal Aid Contribution Order
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 3, leave out from 'paid' to end of line 4 and insert:
During our discussion of clause 9 in Committee the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) raised the question of interpretation with regard to the use of the word "forthwith". I gave an explanation of what it was intended to mean. I think that that was what it meant. However, the wording contained in this amendment will put the meaning beyond doubt. For that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.'on the making of the legal aid contribution order, the court may direct that the legal aid order shall not take effect until that sum is paid.'
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 8, line 7 after 'paid', insert:
'by the legally assisted person'.
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
Government amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 10, in page 8 line 12 at end insert:Government amendment No. 11'and unless satisfied that the failure to pay was in wilful disregard of the order of the court'.
A good deal of our time in Committee was taken up rightly with the circumstances in which a legal aid order might be revoked. I gave an undertaking in Committee to tighten up the circumstances in which an order might be revoked. These amendments give effect to that undertaking.
The effect of the amendments will be to ensure that courts revoke legal aid orders for non-payment of contribution only where they are satisfied that the legally assisted person was able to pay contribution at a time when he was required, but failed to do so. The amendments also require courts to be satisfied that the legally assisted person, at the time that revocation is being considered, is able to pay all or part of the amount due, but refuses or fails to do so. It will be noted that amendment No. 8 prevents the power to revoke being used when the appropriate contributor has failed or refused to pay. The other amendments that are being discussed in this group are designed to achieve the same purpose. They are all aimed at the same target. The Government's amendments secure precisely and in full what was intended by the other amendments.We are grateful to the Government for taking account of the proposals that we made earlier. It is an important improvement. It will spare a great deal of hardship and prevent a great deal of injustice. In the circumstances, I do not propose to move amendment No. 10.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 9, in page 8, line 10, leave out `without first' and insert 'unless satisfied, after'.
No. 11, in page 8, line 12, at end insert—
Clause 11
Payment Of Costs Of Legal Aid
I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 38, leave out 'section 37(1)' and insert: `subsection (1) of section 37'.
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.
This is a new matter, but I can deal with it briefly none the less. The amendments enable the Lord Chancellor to prohibit by regulation some or all forms of topping up in criminal legal aid. Topping up is the payment for counsel or a solicitor acting for a legally assisted person in addition to the sums that are paid by legal aid. It may be divided into three categories—first, the payment for additional fees of lawyers acting under a legal aid order; secondly, payment for additional lawyers, for instance instructing leading counsel, when legal aid orders are limited to one counsel; thirdly, payment to secure additional evidence, such as the employment of an inquiry agent to trace witnesses.
In civil legal aid, all forms of topping up are prohibited, but in criminal legal aid there is at present no restriction. It is clear that the first form of topping up that I mentioned should be prohibited. It would be offensive if solicitors said "I shall act for you on legal aid, but I cannot work for the rates that I will get from legal aid so you must make up the difference". I emphasise that we have no evidence that that has happened, but it is important that we ensure that it cannot. It would undermine the legal aid system if it occurred. Both halves of the profession support that view. The other forms of topping up raise more difficult questions. The Lord Chancellor would not intend to prohibit them without the agreement of the profession. The Bar and the Law Society have naturally been consulted about the amendment. I invite the House to support it.Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 13, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
'(2) Provision may be made by regulations for prohibiting or restricting the receipt by counsel or a solicitor acting for a legally assisted person of payments otherwise than under the said section 37.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 12
Payment For Advice And Assistance Where Legal Aid Order Is Subsequently Made
I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 7 leave out from 'proceedings' to end of line 9.
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
These amendments remove the requirement that the defendant should only be given credit towards his legal aid contribution for any contribution paid in respect of advice and assistance where the same solicitor gives his advice and assistance and acts for him under a legal aid order.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 16, in page 9, line 10 after '(2)' insert:
'If the solicitor assigned to the person in question by the legal aid order is the same as the solicitor who gave the advice or assistance'.
No. 17, in page 9, line 24 after 'effect', insert:
'in a case to which subsection (2) above applies'. —[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 14
Consequential Amendments And Repeals
I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 10, line 34 after 'In', insert:
'the definition of "legal aid contribution order" in section 25(1) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, in section 92(1) (b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and in'.
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 19.
These amendments are purely technical.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule
Repeals
Amendment made: No. 19, in page 12, line 12, column 3, at end insert—
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.'In Schedule 4, paragraph 4.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Shipbuilding (Great Britain)
10.30 pm
I beg to move,
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if you would be prepared to take this and the next order together. They involve the same principle, and from the point of view of Northern Ireland we should be happy to have them debated together.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The shipbuilding industry is under threat in many areas and many hon. Members wish to speak on this order. I therefore suggest that the orders be taken separately, so that hon. Members have the full time in which to put constituency cases.
Unless there is unanimous agreement that the orders be taken together, they must be taken separately.
The purpose of the order is twofold: first, to prolong the shipbuilding redundancy payment scheme to 30 June 1985, the maximum period permissible under the statute; and, secondly, to improve the benefits under the scheme.
As to the prolongation of the scheme, I should first assure the House that this should not be taken as an ill omen for the industry or any cause for alarm. As I told the House in April, British Shipbuilders has made striking progress in financial terms from the depth of the shipbuilding recession. Losses have declined from £110 million in 1979–80 to the very creditable result last year of £19· million loss. Order books now stand at around 540,000 compensated gross registered tons compared with a low of 400,000 tons this time last year. British Shipbuilders has increased its market share to 2·5 per cent. of world new orders, which is the best result of any year since vesting day. These results were obtained in what the chairman has described as "generally difficult trading conditions" and undoubtedly much of the credit must lie in the painful steps which the corporation has had to take to make itself more efficient. The Government have fully supported the corporation in that, to the extent of nearly £600 million since we came to office. British Shipbuilders' recent report also discloses problems ahead. On merchant shipbuilding, the chairman states that the world industry is beginning to feel the effects of a deepening recession in the shipping market. He comments that the current offshore boom which started in 1980 is coming to an end and that ship repair has suffered very poor trading conditions. As the House knows, on 15 July British Shipbuilders announced major restructuring plans designed to restore the ship repair division to viability. As the chairman stated, the immediate market prospects overall for the corporation for 1982–83 do not look encouraging. Not all the news is bad. British Shipbuilders clearly stands to benefit from the consideration being given to the ship replacement orders following the Falklands operation, and the current naval construction programme is being pressed ahead as rapidly as possible. British Shipbuilders and the private sector ship repair companies are benefiting from the refurbishment of merchant ships as they return from the task force. I know that the House is interested in one particular order, and before I sit down I shall say a word about that. In this context, the House will also be interested to know that we have decided to relax the rules on credit for conversions. When we extended the scope of the home credit scheme to conversions in 1979, the normal credit period was limited to five years. In view of the increasing importance of conversion work to the ship repair industry, we have now agreed that for a period of 12 months credit of eight-and-a-half years should be available under the home credit scheme as a matter of routine for all conversions with a contract price of over £1 million. I know that this will be welcome to the industry. The House will be interested and pleased to know that the European Commission has recently given approval to a further tranche from the intervention fund of £20 million both for British Shipbuilders and the private sector until the expiry of the fifth directive at the end of December. The future of the intervention fund after December will need to be considered against the background of discussions in the early autumn on what Will follow the fifth directive. Against the background of British Shipbuilders forecasting more difficult conditions ahead, it would clearly be prudent to prolong the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, but we must all hope, as the chairman has said, that British Shipbuilders can take these conditions in its stride and press forward with its plans. I turn now to the case for improving the scheme. The scheme was first introduced in 1978 with retrospective effect to British Shipbuilders' vesting day. Since then, while the framework of the scheme has remained unaltered, the benefits available for those over 40 have retained their value in real terms through annual adjustments in the ceiling for reckonable earnings in line with the general redundancy payments scheme. The maximum level of those earnings has gone up from £100 in 1978 to £135 now. On the other hand, the lump sum of £300, which is all that is paid to the under-40s under the scheme, has lost considerably in real value, and to restore its 1978 purchasing power about £500 would now be needed. This has tended to overlook the hardship of redundancy for younger men, and the main thrust of the order is to remedy that situation and to give a better deal to the under-40s. We have also received representations that the terms of the scheme are unfair to middle management, because of the effect of the £135 a week maximum. However, the scheme has proved to be very cost-effective. At a cost of about £55 million to date, about 20,000 employees have been persuaded to accept redundancy with relatively little industrial disruption. Although there are other costs associated with closure, this compares with an annual saving in British Shipbuilders' manpower costs of more than £150 million. None the less, the effectiveness of the scheme on the present terms has clearly been diminishing. The effect of article 2(3) is to revise the provision for the payment of lump sum benefits so that the sum for the under-40s is related to age and service in place of the current flat lump sum of £300, which is paid to all people under 40. From now on it will be related to both age and service—as with those above 40. For a person of 25 with five years' service and earning £100 a week, the benefits will be £1,000. A person of 39 with 20 years' service earning £100 will receive £4,000 plus an age amount of £450, making £4,450 in all. The minimum entitlement is £500, which is received by all those over 19 with more than a year's service. The proposals will also give some improvement in benefit to the over-40s. This is done partly through a modest improvement in the lump sum through the new age table set out in schedule 1, but chiefly through the new multiplier in schedule 2, which links the length of service element with the previous earnings to determine the larger part of the lump sum and the whole of the sum that is available for income support. It is right that only the over-40s should be eligible for support payments, as they have greater difficulty finding new work. The third major improvement is the new definition of previous earnings which entitles scheme beneficiaries to have their benefits based on one and a half times the maximum under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act—that is, up to £202·50 a week at present. This has been a subject of considerable concern to management and representations have been received from SAIMA among others. The new definition appears in article 2(1)(b). We hope that it will help middle management. I know that this is a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer). One effect of the changes is that the maximum entitlement under the scheme will go up from £11,550 to £17,200. This is very much a theoretical maximum. It would apply only to someone with 20 years' service who earned over £200 a week. The increase on the previous earnings maximum is the chief factor. A man of 50 with 25 years' service earning £130 a week would have received £10,335 in all under the scheme if he remains unemployed. This is now increased to £10,900. I apologise for bombarding the House with these figures. It is, however, important, if hon. Members are to judge the scheme, that they should see the sort of lump sum payments and income support payments that will be available under the scheme. I shall place in the Library a table that will set out some examples of the changes although there are many combinations that one can take. British Shipbuilders will be publishing an updated version of its booklet giving advice and explanation on the working of the scheme. To date, scheme beneficiaries—this is the best statistic to give the House an overall impression—have been receiving, according to British Shipbuilders, about £3,700 on average. British Shipbuilders calculates that this will go up to an average of about £5,000. The proposals have been discussed extensively with British Shipbuilders' unions and management and are broadly acceptable to both. Another alteration in article 2(4) increases the minimum weekly income support payment from £10 to £20 a week. This means that those who are receiving only modest payments will receive them twice as quickly. This goes some way to deal with the problem raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) from time to time—the interaction of these payments and supplementary benefit. For people on very low incomes, this will go some way to modify the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. One of the technical amendments being made is to ensure that all work on the construction of mobile offshore installations is in future brought within the scope of the scheme. This is achieved by articles 2(1)(c) and 2(1)(e). Now that these activities are an essential and important part of British Shipbuilders' work, it is important that the rights enjoyed by men engaged in them are the same as those working in more traditional fields of British Shipbuilders. This is a technical amendment, and such employees, if they become redundant, are for the most part already covered under the scheme. I emphasise that the timing of the change should cause no particular concern. It should not be inferred that a substantial number of such redundancies are imminent. It is merely that, as currently drafted, the scheme does not apply to offshore work before vesting day, of which there was very little, nor to employment in this work by those who have joined British Shipbuilders since vesting day. Fairness dictates that those engaged on offshore work should share with those elsewhere in the corporation equal rights to benefit under the scheme. I turn to another technical amendment. British Shipbuilders has made a frequent practice of making payments of 12 or 13 weeks' pay "in lieu of notice" to its employees who have accepted redundancy. Views have been expressed that such a payment may in some circumstances rank as a company scheme within the meaning of article 11 of the redundancy payments scheme. If that is the case, the payments made to the employee under the so-called company scheme would be deductible from those paid under the redundancy scheme proper. It is desirable that British Shipbuilders should have the discretion to make those payments in lieu of notice without the risk that, in some cases, the payments might be held to be deductible. We have taken the opportunity in article 2(6) of the draft order to clarify the position by ensuring that such payments up to a maximum of 13 weeks are not to be regarded as company schemes, so there is no risk that they might be held to be deductible. That will afford British Shipbuilders some discretion and flexibility to use payments in lieu of notice as an added inducement to their employees to accept redundancy. The growth in the practice of making payments in lieu of notice has had a unwelcome side effect and we are taking advantage of the opportunity in the order to rectify it. Before the making of Statutory Instrument 1981 No. 315 in March last year, one requirement for receipt of the weekly support payments under the scheme was that former British Shipbuilders' employees should, if unemployed, be registered for employment. But the 1981 order altered that and provided that, to become eligible for benefit under the scheme, an employee also had to be eligible for unemployment benefit or, if he was ineligible, it had to be the case that he would have been eligible but for falling within one of seven listed categories, for example, that he was sick or had become self-employed in the meantime. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment gave the reasons for that change in Committee in February last year, he said that the amendment was so designed that the new link with unemployment benefit did not disentitle anyone who would otherwise be entitled to receive benefits under the scheme. Assurances to the same effect were given in other places. We have since discovered that we had not allowed for a complex position, which is when pay in lieu of notice was granted by British Shipbuilders to the employees who accepted redundancy and the period in respect of which pay was given was longer than the period to that employee under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The period for lieu of notice payments exceeded the statutory notice period and, for that excess period, a person could not receive benefits under the scheme. Therefore, we are taking action under the Appropriation Act to protect those who are currently receiving benefit under the scheme and who are at risk of being affected by the position. They are receiving the scheme benefits in full. To put the matter right for the future and to ensure that the assurances given by my right hon. Friend are scrupulously honoured in their entirety, the Government are widening the definition of "unemployed person" so that it includes as an eighth proviso the receipt of pay in lieu of notice for the day in question. That is done in article 2(1)(d) of the draft order. I apologise for the complexity of the explanation, but it is a difficult and important matter. Naturally, I hope that little use will be made of the scheme and I have emphasised many times that it should not be interpreted as ushering in an era of great difficulty for British Shipbuilders. I hope that that company can take in its stride the less encouraging outlook that has developed in the market. The Government will certainly give it all the help that they can. I am sure that the House would expect me to say something about the Cunard requirement for a container ship—the so-called replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor". We are not expecting an announcement until the end of this week. As Lord Matthews said, the gap between British Shipbuilders and its competitors is very large, but we are continuing to explore ways of bridging that gap. We are anxious to find a way. I commend the order to the House. In the Government's view, it is clearly right, given the less encouraging market and the resultant uncertainties, to prolong and enhance the scheme.10.49 pm
A debate on this order relating to improvements in redundancy payment provisions in British Shipbuilders is both timely and apposite. I congratulate the Minister of State on the careful way in which he explained the amendments. My hon. Friends and I appreciate his proposal to place tables in the Library so that we may consult them. I do not agree that this measure is not an ill omen, but it is perhaps symptomatic of the times in which we live and the difficulties now facing British Shipbuilders.
Unemployment is already more than 3 million, and is high in those areas where British Shipbuilders has its main operations—the Clyde, the Tyne, The Wear, Teesside, Merseyside and—these days, under this Administration—on the South Coast and in the South-West. There is no doubt in the minds of thousands of men and their shop stewards and full-time officers in the industry that they face a crisis of impending redundancy. It is only a matter of days, and well within the memory of the House, since an announcement was made affecting possibly 1,500 shipyard workers on the Tyne, in South Shields and Jarrow. If those redundancies are confirmed, it will be a catastrophe for South Shields. The Minister of State should be in no doubt about that. So, to say that this debate should not be taken as a portent of trouble to come is the understatement of the week. Disaster is already facing the 1,500 shipyard workers and their families. I agree with the Minister of State—and, for that matter, the managemer.t of British Shipbuilders—that there is likely to be a further decline in demand for ships because of the recession. Orders for new vessels have decreased, compared with the last year. All our information leads us to conclude that that situation is likely to obtain for a number of years—forecasts say until perhaps the mid-1980s.I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He says that there seems to be a decline in orders for new ships, but there is one outstanding type of ship for which there is no decline. If the Government were to take some action, they could fulful the Minister's hope that this document would be used very little. If he put his money where his mouth is straightaway, we could deal with the shortage of other ships later.
I agree, and I shall come to that matter in a moment.
The House recently debated the hiatus in naval orders, which, again, is the result of this Government's policies. That shortfall in expected work for British Shipbuilders had a major impact on the Clyde, the Tyne and the Mersey. Redundancies are likely to result. Again, the Minister of State was less than candid about the likely impact of Government policies on jobs for shipyard workers. It may sound reassuring and comforting to people outside who listen to or read this debate and see the sums that the Minister mentioned, but the effect of redundancy payments has gone well beyond their original intentions. The number of jobs disappearing as a result of men being offered large sums to leave industries, with little thought of the long term, when they are young and middle-aged men, is a grave cause for concern. I and many of my hon. Friends know, representing industrial areas as we do, the problems that are now being faced by people who, within the past few years, have taken significant sums of money to leave industry only to find that the money does not last for ever. Those large, attractive, sums soon run out when the bills come in. The long-term social consequences for them, their families, the communities and the country as a whole should be considered seriously. However, that is a subject for another debate that we cannot go into detail on tonight. Workers in British Shipbuilders have steadily and consistently over recent years been improving their productivity and performance since vesting day in 1977. As is demonstrated by the report published a few days ago on the accounts for 1981–82, the corporation has stayed within the cash limits set down by the Government. Wage negotiations have again been moderate, and excellent team work throughout the corporation has again helped to increase productivity. All that has taken place against a background of reduced financial support from the Government. The Minister mentioned the intervention fund. Of course, that is welcome, but I would remind him that in 1977 the fund was originally established at £65 million and later increased to £85 million with a much greater percentage of support for any one particular order than exists at present. In real terms the amount of support that the Government are now giving through the intervention fund, taking inflation into account, is nothing like the amount of support that British Shipbuilders were being given at that time. I disagree with the Minister, as I am sure do my hon. Friends, that the prospect is anything like as rosy as he tended to suggest for workers in the shipyards. The future for many of them is grim and threatening. I mentioned the Tyne redundancies, announced last week. Recently several of my hon. Friends and I met representatives of workers from the Tyne yards as a whole. They left us in no doubt that, come the autumn of this year, without further significant orders, many hundreds, if not thousands, more jobs are likely to be put at risk. That is rather strange to those workers who, a few months ago, saw the P and 0 order for a major cruise ship go abroad and, more recently, a Furness Withy line order go abroad. Now they contemplate the prospect of the replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor" going abroad, on this occasion probably to the Far East. The Government's policies and attitudes do not appear strong enough to the workers. Such work as the early delivery of the "Ark Royal", HMS "Illustrious", HMS "York" and HMS "Liverpool", from the Clyde down to the South Coast, has been praised over and over again by the Royal Navy, newspapers, management and the Prime Minister herself. I shall read out some of the comments that appeared on the work done on merchant vessels and conversions for the task force.And again,"Round the Clock Working as race is on to finish warship orders … Yards respond to the Falkland crisis."
Such comments have come from all sides on the efforts made by the shipyard workers. The men have also been delivering merchant vessels early. However, early delivery brings them face to face, not with more orders or Government support, but with the dole queue. That is the result of improving productivity and of responding to pleas from the Navy and Government Ministers to get those vessels down the slipway. No one can complain about the perfomances of British Shipbuildiers and its management and men." 'Busting their guts' for the Falklands—HMS 'Liverpool' is completed well ahead of schedule."
Yes, they can.
No one can complain because in many cases not only has productivity improved—despite what the hon. Gentleman says—in leaps and bounds but British Shipbuilders' tenders are the lowest in Europe. As the Minster recently confirmed in a letter to me, British Shipbuilders has a statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of national defence in maintaining a shipbuilding capability. How is it to be able to maintain that capability if hundreds of millions of pounds of orders in the past three years, and under the Government's policies, are to continue to go abroad?
British Shipbuilders is told that it must be competitive, but it is competitive with any firm in Europe. Indeed, 60 per cent. of its present merchant order book is for export. When we talk about competition, we are discussing not competition with Europe or even with the United States of America but about competition with one part of the world, the Far East and Japan and Korea. British Shipbuilders does not consider that that competition is based on market forces or, indeed, that it is fair. We have some sympathy with that point of view, and we are not alone. The Institute of Shipping, based in Bremen, says the same thing. A recent article in Lloyd's List states:The threat is posed not only to British Shipbuilders but to world shipyards. It is common knowledge that these days, the Koreans take the Japanese price and then promise to deliver for 5 per cent. less, regardless of other costs. Many people—not only those in British Shipbuilders—will argue that many of those tenders will barely pay for the cost of materials and labour. Therefore, when talking about competition, we should be talking about competing on an equal basis, with equal levels of support, equal financial arrangements and equal costs for borrowing and the funding of orders. We shall then discuss something that matches like with like."South Korea 'poses a threat to the world's yards'."
Is it not significant that under article 92 of the Treaty of Rome, the payment of State aids and subsidies to companies and industries within the EEC is prevented, although we are willing to buy from countries that pay those subsidies? Is there not a contradiction?
The general view is that the Government are trying to play the game by one set of rules and other Governments are playing an entirely different game.
rose—
I shall not give way as I wish to make a brief speech and I have already given way twice.
Are not the workers in our shipyards worth something in return for the efforts that they have made both recently, and in the past few years? Do not those people and their families—the men who were lionised in the press during the Falklands crisis—have a future? Should they continue to make a contribution to our trade and defence effectiveness? We are a major maritime nation. Do we need a shipbuilding industry? The answer to those questions from the Opposition, and the Labour Party in particular, is an unequivocal "Yes". There is no such clear commitment from the Government, who cannot make up their minds whether we should maintain a major shipbuilding capability. In the first quarter of the year more than 60 per cent. of all OECD orders went to the Far East. The General Council of British Shipping has drawn attention to that problem, as have others in other countries. The position will continue without more aggressive Government support. British Shipbuilders, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the National Union of Seamen call upon the Government to have a maritime strategy, and we subscribe to that approach. How can we stand aside from this serious and deteriorating background? How were the Swedish Government able to intervene a few days ago to ensure that three container ships in the same consortium as Cunard are to be built in Swedish yards? Is there any doubt that the French vessel will be built in a French shipyard? If those vessels were for an American line they would be built in an American shipyard. Taxpayers are making a significant contribution to enable Cunard to replace the "Atlantic Conveyor", and it seems incredible to most people that it will not be, and cannot be, built in a British shipyard. I shall return to the subject of the "Atlantic Conveyor" shortly. The Government have even created difficulties for British Shipbuilders over the sale of HMS "Invincible". If they had not reneged on their agreement with Australia there is a strong possibility that they would have ordered another vessel from British Shipbuilders. I say to the Government and the Navy "The Tyne workers can build another 'Invincible,' but the Navy cannot build another Swan Hunter." If Swan Hunter's yard and facilities are allowed to go they will almost certainly never be replaced. Against a background of orders lost to the Far East and British shipping lines going abroad for their ships, how can the Minister say that redundancy is not likely to grow and threaten shipyard workers? If Cunard eventually places an order in the Far East, the country—this issue cuts right across party boundaries—will greet the decision with derision. How will British Shipbuilders survive as maritime shipbuilders against that background? Mixed yards like Swan Hunter are dependent upon both naval and merchant shipping orders for research and development, design, material ordering, and union co-operation. "Why co-operate when all that the future offers is to work oneself out of a job?" is what shipyard workers are asking. They feel that Lord Matthews and the Government do not give a damn about their future. The prize for working for Great Britain and the task force is a place in the dole queue. Praise in the Daily Express and other newspapers is empty rhetoric when workers are faced with that prospect. Patriotism does not pay the bills for these workers and praise does not fill the slipways. Only orders for ships do those things. The shipyard workers want actions and not words. The Minister of State says that there is a ray of hope. We welcome that. We think that there is no reason why the Government should not be saying categorically after weeks of argument, vacillation and delay, that the order will be coming to Britain. Cunard will get at least £10 million worth of taxpayers' money and people of all shades of opinion believe that that money and the money for the order should be spent and invested in Britain. Cunard and the Government should work harder to bridge the gap. They owe that to our shipyard workers. Among other things Lord Matthews is the proprietor of the Daily Express. Underneath the title of the newspaper the following appears: "The Voice of Britain". Bearing in mind all that has gone before, if this order goes abroad shipyard workers will conclude that the voice of Britain as expressed by Lord Matthews is a voice that speaks with a forked tongue.11.12 pm
I shall not speak for long at this declining time of night. Bristol is not a shipbuilding port, although it once was. The "Great Britain" was built at Bristol, but that was rather a long time ago.
I wish to raise the rather narrower issue of redundancy payments and the position of middle management employees, who are much affected by the level of the payments because of the upper limit of the scale. I must declare an interest because the Shipbuilding and Allied Industries Management Association is part. of the Engineers' and Managers' Association, which is my union. My general secretary has corresponded with the Secretary of State on this issue and I have personally corresponded with the Secretary of State. The situation that arises in shipbuilding redundancy payment schemes is one that could apply elsewhere, but it is especially significant in this debate. There is a real discrepancy these days between the upper limit of earnings counting for redundancy payments and the upper limits which count for national insurance purposes. In 1965 the upper earnings limit for national insurance purposes was £18 and for redundancy payment purposes it was £40. By 1982 the national insurance contributions upper limit became £220, and for redundancy payments it was £135. There has been a complete reversal in 17 years. There have been certain charges in State pension arrangements which have had an effect on the percentage rates charged to employers and employees, but the operation of the national insurance fund has remained basically unaltered for a long time. In contrast, the amount of earnings upon which national insurance contributions are levied has increased at a far faster rate than the earnings limit that counts for redundancy payments. It is appalling to see the discrepancy between the two scales. I am the first to admit that the process occurred under successive Governments—notably in 1972, 1973, 1976 and 1977—but there has been a much greater rate of change since 1979. Therefore, since 1979, the upper earnings national insurance limit has increased by 63 per cent., but the limit on pay for redundancy purposes has increased by barely half that, at 32 per cent. Successive Governments have increased percentage contribution rates for national insurance when unemployment has risen. The original intention of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 was to compensate those who became unemployed. The effect of Government policy has been insidious. In 1965 the maximum level of earnings for redundancy pay was 223 per cent. of average male earnings, but by 1981 it had declined to 93 per cent. In short, the system discriminates particularly against the somewhat higher paid employee, which was never the original intention. From the correspondence that I have seen, the minsterial answer is this. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with it. It is that we can now depend more and more upon extra-statutory redundancy payments. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs because there is nothing positive about that. It depends upon trade union strength and the situation in a particular industry. Non-statutory redundancy is uneven and uncertain. It also discriminates against the public sector. The Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order enables me to draw attention to a bad trend that does not always get the attention that it deserves. I confess that there have been some improvements in that scheme, due to strong trade union representations, in which my union played its part, particularly on the length of service, age limits and so on, but the fault of the difference between national insurance limits and the upper level of redundancy payments remains.
11.17 pm
I have participated in several of these debates over the years. The report the following day in the Daily Express and other such newspapers states: "Golden Handshakes for Shipyard Workers." The Minister smiles. He has seen such reports. I re-emphasise the point that he made. We are not talking about vast sums of money. As the Minister said, from 1980–81 the average was £3,700—not a great deal when a career and a job are being sacrificed.
One survey conducted in 1979 showed that only 4 per cent. of the people made redundant at that time were eligible for £5,000 and that well over half of those made redundant would get less than £1,000. Since then the figures have risen, but the amount is small compared with the sacrifice that the men and the communities are making. I make this point strongly. We are talking not only about jobs here and now, filled by individuals, but about the future for many communities, the seed corn and the young people who come into the industry. When people sell their jobs in this way, they are often selling the future of their community and their district. The Minister said that support payments would not be paid to the under-40s. He used the word "naturally" or "understandably". It is not natural or understandable. In the areas of major shipbuilding there is massive long-term unemployment. In Tyne and Wear alone over 80,000 men are seeking jobs. One-third of them have been out of work for more than 12 months. It matters little whether one is 30 or 50. If one is out of work and a shipyard worker on the Tyne, one will be unemployed for many years. I hope that the Minister will look at that matter for future occasions. The Minister said that he thought and hoped that little use would be made of the scheme. I wish that I could share his confidence. His phrase "little use" will sound to my constituents like a classic cliché. The Minister knows that 10 days ago the Government's financial constraint on British Shipbuilders resulted in the town that I represent being decimated. British Shipbuilders announced that there would be about 1,500 redundancies in the ship repairing industry. All the repair yards in South Shields, which have been building ships since Roman times, are to be closed. The planners estimate that for every job in the yard there are three jobs outside. That illustrates the effect on towns such as mine. Already the area has 29 per cent. male unemployment. I do not exaggerate. If the redundancy scheme goes through, we shall be talking of about 40 per cent. male unemployment. Yet the Minister says that he hopes that little use will be made of the scheme. I hope so, too. My hope and his hope will be realised only when he is prepared to take action. The Government are about to pay £10 million to Cunard. What is the total extra cost of labour of the scheme? Is it more than £10 million or less than £10 million? When I consider that sum, I think about the building yards on the north side of the town. I note the lack of orders. I realise that the Government are contemplating allowing a firm to build a vessel overseas. I fail to comprehend that. I wonder why the Minister has not been frank with the House. Perhaps he does not know. Before I came to the House tonight I heard the news. The Secretary of State for Defence has decided to give £3 million to Cunard if it builds a ship in the United Kingdom. Why did the Minister not tell us that? Was he not told? If he was not told, he should find out what is happening. It should not be a question of the Government trying to bribe Cunard to build that ship in the United Kingdom. Does Cunard not realise that men died on the ship that it is to replace? Is there no patriotism? I have been reading newspapers from the First World War, when there was a great debate about conscription. One of the arguments was "When there is conscription of labour, why should there not be conscription of capital?" The near traitorous action by the Cunard directors, who are prepared to put profits before their country, gains no support among the ordinary people of our country. I demand that the Minister takes action to retain jobs for shipyard workers. We have needed shipyard workers in the past—and, by God, we have needed them in the last two or three months—and we shall need them in the future. We want some action.11.24 pm
I do not disagree with many of the remarks from the Opposition side of the House, but I should like to add some words in support of the orders and on the background against which they are presented.
The House should agree to the orders. The schemes should be extended and the basis of lump sum payments should be changed. The limit on the previous earnings rule should be increased. That is all acceptable, fair and equitable, but the House should pass the orders with a heavy heart. I wish that they were not necessary. A sad state of affairs confronts us in the shipbuilding industry. Other hon. Members have mentioned the unemployment levels in their constituencies. I tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that we already have male unemployment rates of over 40 per cent. in some parts of Middlesbrough, and I am sure that that is also the case in his area. We have lost 100 ship repair jobs at Smith's dock and 900 further redundancies were declared by the British Steel Corporation this week. A threat also hangs over the ICI petrochemical complex on Teesside. I sometimes think that those in other areas do not appreciate the scale of the disaster that is hitting people's lives in the North-East. The prospects are extremely grim. The Government must take a share of the blame not only for the domestic situation, which we tend to concentrate on in the House, but for some of the international situation, which affects shipbuilding much more than some other industries. When the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister he did much to try to get the strong economies in the world to reflate, to push the weaker economies into reflation and to increase demand in the world economy. The present Prime Minister and her Government have led the world in their monetarist, deflationary policies. Reagonomics and Thatcherite policies have become the norm throughout the Western world, and the result is the depression that faces the West. The Government have as much responsibility to try to ensure that demand is increased in the world economy as they have to ensure an increase of demand in the domestic economy. Because of the present state of the British industry, the enhanced scheme will have to be used by British Shipbuilders. When the 1,500 redundancies on the Tyne and the Tees were announced, British Shipbuilders blamed the "appalling market conditions" and those words were taken up by the BSC in announcing its 900 redundancies on Teesside a few days ago. No matter what the Government do to get inflation and interest rates down, to improve the other economic indicators and to make companies competitive—I am all in favour of that—it will all have been achieved for nothing if the demand is not there. People will still be going on the dole and will not have the jobs that they had in previous years and the jobs that they deserve. Redundancy schemes will fuel inflation by increasing the public sector borrowing requirement and by pouring money into the pockets of non-productive people. The money will be spent not on productive investment, but on compensating people for losing their jobs. That is not the productive way to use public expenditure. It should come as no surprise that we are in the present state of affairs. The Government should realise, as has been made clear, that they are in truly exceptional circumstances with this industry—more so than with other industries in the world. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) referred to the competition that we face from South Korea. I recently looked at some comments that were made earlier this year by the chairman of Lloyd's Register of Shipping, especially those relating to the development of the South Korean shipyards. He described it in the most forceful terms. He said that the development of South Korean yards was a most disturbing factor and that, inevitably, the work that comes from yards that are struggling for orders in other parts of the world is still substantial and that those shipyards would be a threat to British yards. They were the views not of Opposition Members but of the chairman of Lloyd's Register of Shipping, warning about what is happening. That represents extra capacity on a world market that is already over subscribed. Everyone knows that. Therefore, how can we be surprised by the prices that are being quoted for the "Atlantic Conveyor"? We are told that the Korean yards quoted Cunard $58 million for the replacement, Japan $65 million, British Shipbuilders $80 million and others quoted up to $115 million. British Shipbuilders was by no means the most expensive, which is the impression that some people have tried to put around. But what an enormous gap. When compared with $115 million, can anyone believe that $58 million is a real market price? It is not. As has been pointed out, that price would not even pay for the materials, never mind the overheads and the manpower to build the ship. I should like to know what the Government are doing to find out, so far as is possible through the available channels, how the discrepancy is arising. Is it the case that such a low quotation can be made by another yard on truly competitive terms, or is it, as we know from the passing of other industries, an example of a Government and a sector of industry pursuing a world-wide strategy to ensure that they capture the markets of the world? Are they intent upon undercutting the competition of other yards around the world, thereby forcing them out of business, and taking over those markets in the long term? In other words, are they pursuing the loss-leader approach over a long period of time to undermine our position? The Minister shakes his head in disagreement. If that is not so, let us have the facts and understand whether it is exchange rates or other factors that affect prices that enable the Korean yards to quote prices that are so much lower than those of other shipyards in Europe, especially that quoted by British Shipbuilders. The Government have a duty to the taxpayer, British Shipbuilders and its workers to discover why that discrepancy occurs. There would be much greater understanding and acceptance of the circumstances if it were discovered that the quotations were being made on truly competitive lines. I do not believe that for one moment but they might be a little more acceptable if that could be proved.The ITV news broadcast mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said in effect that Lord Matthews had got his sums wrong and that the price differential was not £15 million. Whitehall sources had said that it was only £6 million and that the Government were prepared to give £3 million towards that, so the loss would be only £3 million.
As I was in the Chamber, I did not hear the 10 o'clock news, but I hope that what the hon. Gentleman says is true. Lord Matthews getting his sums wrong does not create great confidence in Cunard, but if it leads to the "Atlantic Conveyor" order going to a British yard we should find some consolation in that. Lord Matthews, Cunard and the Government have a duty to stop at nothing to ensure that that order comes to the North-East. The work is urgently required. The quality of the work done there and the effort that has been made have already been described. They are a testimony to the capability of those yards to carry out that work, and there is no justification for the order not going to them.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the message that the House has given him loud and clear today. In terms of both the "Atlantic Conveyor" and the general demand within the economy, the Government have a major responsibility to take action. Pouring money into redundancy schemes is not a way to create wealth or get people back to work but a waste of resources. Concern has been expressed about the scale of the payments and the possibility of misuse. To me, however, it is not the level of payments that is wrong but the fact that alternative employment is not available. It is the way in which the economy is being run that is wrong, not the level of redundancy payments. My father left the steel industry with a pittance after working in it for 40 years. Such a tendency should not be perpetuated. If people have worked for 20 years or 25 years in an industry, they are entitled to a reasonable golden handshake of the kind to which only management has been entitled in the past. That is eminently justified and that is why the order should be approved. The fault lies in the way in which the economy is being run so that those people are condemned to the scrap-heap, in many cases for the rest of their lives if they are nearing retirmement age, and certainly for a great deal longer than should be the case. Therefore, in supporting the order today, I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that have been made and will press his colleagues in the Government to introduce a package of measures in the not-too-distant future—if it is too late to do this before the Summer Recess, then certainly in the autumn—to try to get the British economy going again and to increase demand so that major industries such as shipbuilding get the orders that they should. The Government must also take action abroad to ensure that the international economy gets a boost, which can happen only if the kind of policies that the Government have been pursuing are ended not only here but throughout the world.11.38 pm
In one sense I was grateful to the Minister today, because the longer he spoke the greater was the image of my grandmother rekindled within me. To the many choices and chances in her life she used to respond that half a loaf was better than no loaf at all. The longer the Minister spoke, the more that image came back to me.
When I visit the Cammell Laird shipyard, the message from the men is not that they are not grateful for improvements in redundancy payments, because of course they are, but their demand is for more work and they ask questions that I cannot answer. As the Minister hopes to respond briefly to the debate, I hope that he will have time to answer those questions. They ask how Parliament can find the time and the taxpayers' money to give them redundancy payments. More importantly, they want to know how Parliament can vote their money to pay unemployment and supplementary benefit but cannot find the money to keep them in work. They pose important questions about our national accounting. The money is available for redundancy payments and to keep men and women idle, but it cannot be found to support the shipbuilding industry to the extent that many hon. Members wish. I was pleased with the new note struck by the Minister when he commented on British Shipbuilders' annual report. He commented on the striking progress. Indeed, he could have done a better job than British Shipbuilders, because the main table in the annual report setting out the cost to the Exchequer is presented in "funny" money. It does not take account of inflation. If inflation is taken into account, and if one's starting point is the year in which the Government were elected, one finds British Shipbuilders' losses reduced 13-fold since 1979, cash requirements reduced three-fold and the subsidies going to the industry via the intervention fund have been more than halved. The Minister was right to talk about striking progress, but what are the Government doing? They have come forward with redundancy payments but have not offered much other positive assistance to help the industry. Part of the problem facing shipbuilding is that it is one of our old, staple industries. The conventional wisdom about those industries is that they are dying and the sooner we get rid of them the better. Yet a new industry is arising within shipbuilding. For example, the Cammell Laird yard in my own constituency has diversified considerably over the past few years. It is no longer concerned merely with shipbuilding but is massively concerned with offshore work. The skills that have been developed to meet those requirements are considerable. That is why Labour Members have pleaded with the Government to abandon their view of shipbuilding as an old, staple industry that must quietly be done away with. Instead, they should recognise that industry's success. A number of forces in Merseyside have argued against those of us who have gone into the yard and told the men "The only hope of having a long-term future is to improve your productivity". Such forces have a vested interest in the yard not succeeding. However, Cammell Laird recently produced HMS "Liverpool" in four years instead of five. People are now asking "Was it worth while making that effort and putting so many men that much nearer the dole queues?" All the Members of Parliament for the area have argued that it was worth while, but that will be proved only if there is another order. The Government should look at British Gas and its placement of orders for Morecambe gas. It is making every possible effort to ensure that those orders go to British firms. Why do not the Government follow the policy outlined by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he was Secretary of State for Industry, who believed that the Government have a duty to use public sector orders to increase our efficiency? The Government have a major success on their hands. When will they find the time to debate, instead of redundancy payments, positive ways to encourage that success?11.45 pm
On every occasion on which the House has discussed the shipbuilding industry since the Government were elected the purpose has been to curtail the borrowing limits, to impose new cash limits or to extend the redundancy payments scheme. It is sad that hon. Members should welcome redundancy payments, when we know that these mean more jobs lost. However, those thrown on the scrap-heap have the right to be cushioned financially. The order bribes people into idleness.
Hon. Members are not discussing a few jobs. We are talking about the devastation, socially and economically, of whole communities that depend on the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. My hon. Friend and Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) remarked upon what would be the effect of 1,400 redundancies in South Tyneside. It seems ironic, in the aftermath of the Falklands war, that the spirits of the shipbuilding community should be so low. I think of those who worked so hard in the ship repair yards of the River Tyne to get HMS "Fearless" ready and the the "Illustrious" finished ahead of time and who are now threatened with redundancy. If the "Atlantic Conveyor" is built outside this country, it will mean that the Government are imposing unemployment. Many people would regard the building of that ship in a yard outside this country as an act of betrayal by Cunard and Lord Matthews. It is no good Lord Matthews talking about patriotism during the Falklands war if his deeds show what patriotism means to him after the war. I saw the flags outside the homes of shipyard workers in my constituency at the weekend welcoming home their sons from the Falklands. Those sons, awarded medals for fighting the Falklands war, will be showing them to their parents who are standing in the dole queue. We are not competing against Japanese, Korean, German, French, Swedish or Italian shipyards. We are competing against terms offered by Governments outside this country. It is a political game, and the sooner that the Government recognise that the better. It is no argument for the Government to say that they are curbing public expenditure, when the cost of benefit payments and losses of taxation and national insurance are taken into account. The 14,000 workers paid off in the ship repairing industry will cost £7 million in benefits and loss of insurance and taxation. The replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor" will mean 25,000 tonnes of steel being produced by steel workers in this country at a time of crisis in that industry. Materials will account for 60 per cent. of the price of the replacement. Every year, British Shipbuilders places orders amounting to £550 million for materials and equipment. Ninety-four per cent. of purchases are made from United Kingdom companies. The major part of a ship's price is not controlled by British Shipbuilders. Even if the men in the industry agreed to work for no money, we could not compete with the Koreans. The British shipbuilding industry and its workers have shown that they are willing to co-operate and that they wish to have a viable industry. Last year only 1 per cent. of working hours were lost through disputes. Since nationalisation in 1977, more than 100 bargaining units have been reduced to one. The workers have accepted the redundancies. Thirty-six shipping berths have closed. Employment on merchant ships has dropped from 38,000 to 18,000. The British shipyard workers now wish the Government to prove that they also wish to have a shipbuilding industry, which is vital to an island economy.11.50 pm
I shall be very brief, because I understand that the Minister may wish to tell us all the good news when he replies. I hope that he has some good news.
We must realise that the original Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978 provided a cushion effect for men who were changing jobs. The Minister made great play of the fact, when he introduced the document, that it would be seldom used. I hope that in his reply he will tell us on what he based that assumption. I, as my hon. Friends, have met shipyard builders and repairers on the Tyne and the Wear. They have informed me—I suspect that they are much better informed than the Minister—that in the shipbuilding industry there will be no work after September and that in the ship repair industry here is no work now and nothing for the foreseeable future. On that basis alone, how can the Minister tell the House that he hopes that the scheme will be little used? The tragedy is that we are not now talking about cushioning people when they change jobs. We are talking about closing down, on the Tyne and Wear and industry that will never be reopened. Although I appreciate that the trade unions are in favour of the scheme, I tell the workers to divide the redundancy payment lump sums by their wages and they will discover that they are selling out for peanuts.11.53 pm
I am in a dilemma because the last time that I talked to the House about taking the powers to enable us to introduce improvements in the scheme I was accused of being alarmist. The accusation was made that the fact that I was bringing the powers must mean that more redundancies were in the pipeline. Many interpretations were put on the fact that I had appeared at the Dispatch Box and was taking the powers. All that I wished to do tonight in my introductory remarks was to emphasise that the timing of the order was not related to a plan that had been put to me by British Shipbuilders. I wished to calm unnecessary fears.
At the same time, I emphasised—I have no intention of misleading the House—that the market outlook for shipbuilding is not good. I quoted what the chairman of British Shipbuilders said about that. The climate is difficult. I simply expressed my hope that we need not make too much use of the scheme. We all share that hope, but we know that the outlook for the industry is difficult. Naturally, there have been comments about a replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor". There is not much that I can add to what I have already said. I said that the Government were exploring ways of bridging the gap. The question of a possible Ministry of Defence involvement was raised. I confirm that the Ministry of Defence is involved in discussions with Cunard, along with the Departments of Trade and Industry, on a replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor". Its usefulness in the Falkland Islands has led the MoD to take an interest in its replacement, but it is too early to comment on the results of the discussions. The hon. Member for 'Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the reductions in the intervention fund. There has been a reduction, and it was deliberate Government policy. The same has happened throughout Europe. It is a European policy to cut back shipbuilding aids, because subsidies are having a counter-productive effect. They are increasing capacity and driving down the price of ships, and that is not in the interests of the industry. That is why Europe feels that it should cut back subsidies so as to be in a better position to meet competition from the Far East. The hon. Member made a forceful speech, in which he struck new heights of oratory that we had not expected in this debate on a statutory instrument. However, at one point it was not attached to terra firma at all, and that was when he talked about subsidies and the fact that there is not a free market in shipbuilding. He asked why we were playing according to the rules when everyone else was cheating. He ignores the fact that this Government have given considerable subsidies to British Shipbuilders. It is a travesty to suggest that we are alone in the world—would that it were true—in cutting back subsidies. We have given considerable amounts. In public dividend capital, intervention fund assistance and other assistance we have given nearly £600 million of subsidies to British Shipbuilders since we came to office. The problems arising from Korea and Japan cannot simply be dismissed as ones of subsidies. I recently visited Korea and the Hyundai shipyard and saw the advantages there of modern equipment, lower wages and very high productivity. People work there on Saturdays and Sundays. They have tremendous advantages. It is not simply a question of subsidies. That is not the answer. We must strive to become competitive and improve our productivity. The hon. Member for Whitehaven mentioned maritime policy. He would like British owners to place more orders in British yards. Of course, we should like that, but we must have regard to British shipping, which is an important economic interest. He accused British shipowners of putting profits before jobs, but he was Nearly in the position of putting shipbuilding jobs before shipping jobs, which are also important to this country. The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) came back to the usual argument—it is all a lack of demand in the economy, as though somehow shipping is not a world-wide market. Whatever else our Chancellor of the Exchequer does, he does not determine the demand for ships in the world. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman must know that. However, he had his answer to that too—that it is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who have inflicted their economic policies on the rest of the world. He endows the Government with great powers of persuasion. I venture to suggest that it is not so much the powers of persuasion, but the facts and obvious rightness of those policies that has led other countries to adopt them. I stick to the view that I expressed at the beginning of the debate. Of course, we want to see British shipbuilding prosper. Of course, we do not want to see increasing redundancies. However, we have felt it right to present the order to the House. It makes substantial improvements in the terms for those who are in the unfortunate position of losing their jobs. Those improvements in that scheme have been and will be widely welcomed in the industry. I commend the order to the House.Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
Shipbuilding (Northern Ireland)
12 midnight
I beg to move,
There are separate but identical Northern Ireland and Great Britain shipbuilding redundancy payments schemes. Both were made under the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978. Our objective is to facilitate the orderly reconstruction of the United Kingdom's nationalised shipbuilding industry by providing financial assistance for employees who in that process are made redundant or are transferred to less well paid employment in the industry. The benefits available under the schemes are the same for workers leaving both British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff. We have just debated an order dealing with the position in Great Britain. The order before us now proposes amendments to the Northern Ireland scheme which will preserve the position in Northern Ireland on a par with that in Great Britain. Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, dealt at some length with the scheme for Great Britain, as some hon. Members may not have been present to hear his speech, it would be proper for me to summarise the main points of the order. The main effects of the amendments will be to extend the scheme for two years to 30 June 1985 and to make all redundant employees who come within the scheme, notwithstanding their being under 40, eligible for lump sum payments with a minimum of £500. The over-40s already receive periodic payments as well as a lump sum and that reflects the greater difficulty that individuals in this age group have in finding other work. The benefits for the over-40s are also being upgraded, essentially by amending the tabulations used for calculating the entitlements of individuals under the scheme. In addition to this, the maximum weekly earnings limit for the purposes of the scheme is to be 150 per cent. of the maximum under the employment protection legislation. That figure would currently amount to £202·50 per week and the change will mainly affect those in the higher wage and salary brackets, particularly staff employees. Together with various technical amendments, the changes that I have outlined will ensure that Northern Ireland shipbuilding workers who become redundant will continue to be treated no less favourably than their Great Britain counterparts. In considering Harland and Wolff's immediate prospects, the Government have decided that it would be prudent to make provision for enhanced redundancy terms for workers leaving the company in the medium term. That Harland and Wolff is facing a difficult future is well-known, and I cannot hold out any prospect of immediate or easy solutions. In the preceding debate much reference was made to the condition of the shipbuilding industry world-wide. The industry has been affected by acute depression, with little respite for several years. Prospects for the medium term remain gloomy. Demand for new oil tanker or dry bulk tonnage is not expected to improve significantly until 1985 at best. Freight rates are currently at a very low ebb and the glut of oil tankers is well-known and is underlined by the large number of tankers laid up throughout the world. Moreover, Harland and Wolff operates at an end of the market—in large, relatively unsophisticated ships—which is particularly exposed to Far East competition. A recent study by the Association of West European Shipbuilders of the Korean threat to our yards showed that it was precisely in large bulk carriers that the Korean yards had the greatest cost advantages over Western producers. At the same time, several shipyards, notably in the Far East, are planning to expand their existing capacity. The market is therefore most definitely not in Harland and Wolff's favour, and so the company must clearly take very determined steps towards greater competitiveness if it is to weather the present and forthcoming difficulties. The Government are fully aware of the company's present position and prospects. We recently agreed a package of aid for Harland and Wolff under which more than £47 million from public funds will be provided to the company in the current financial year. That comes on top of about £270 million of assistance in all forms which has been provided to Harland and Wolff since 1966, and the total is now equivalent to over £600 million at today's prices. One has to ask whether such a sizeable sum of money could not have been better spent, in part or in whole, in support of other Northern Ireland enterprises, or put to reducing the overall burden of taxation. Part of that £47 million of assistance takes the form of subsidies paid from the Harland and Wolff intervention fund. The fund is available to Harland and Wolff alone of Northern Ireland companies and is designed to enable it to match competition for orders by subsidising its costs. I am pleased, again, to tell the House tonight that the European Commission has very recently approved proposals which the United Kingdom Government put to it for continuation of intervention fund subsidies for Harland and Wolff until the end of this year at least. The Commission has agreed that, because of the special circumstances of Harland and Wolff in particular and of Northern Ireland generally, we may continue to grant subsidies to Harland and Wolff at present levels—that is, up to 18 per cent. of the contract price of each ship—whereas other British yards may receive aid up to the lower figure of 15 per cent. This concession will apply only to large ships—Harland and Wolff's speciality—because, as I have just said, they are the subject of the strongest competition from the Far East. The Commission has also agreed that the amount of money which may be used to subsidise new orders will remain at £10 million for commitment on an annual basis, whereas the amount available to other yards has been reduced. The level and amount of subsidy will have to be reviewed towards the end of this year, but I am hopeful that the subsidy will be renewed. The Government—and, I might add, the European Commission—have therefore recognised the particular problems of Harland and Wolff and of Northern Ireland in general by providing a higher level of aid than is available for other shipyards in the United Kingdom. This aid should, we hope, give Harland and Wolff an edge over competitors in securing work in the near future. This and previous Governments have done an enormous amount to help Harland and Wolff to survive. That cannot be challenged. But I cannot emphasise too strongly that the company's future, its salvation, lies not with the Government but in the hands of the company—management and work force—itself. The Government cannot instruct owners to order ships from Belfast; only competitive prices, a reputation for prompt delivery and high-quality ships can do that. We cannot provide the company with a base-load of naval orders, because warship construction is not compatible with Harland and Wolff's facilities and skills. We have been advised by independent business men of the highest standing that Harland and Wolff's prospect of any major diversification, switching emphasis to non-marine engineering products, is virtually a non-starter. I repeat that Harland and Wolff's salvation is in the company's hands: if it cannot produce the ships that owners want promptly, and at the right price, no one in the company can count on a secure future of stable employment at Queen's Island. There is plenty of room for cost-cutting and improvements in delivery. The company's costs are far higher than they should be, and all too frequently it delivers ships late. That also contributes to major losses, which have to be added to the losses arising from the maintenance of production capacity far in excess of demand. All that makes it the more difficult for the yard to win a satisfactory level of new orders, despite the high levels of Government subsidy that are available. The company must, therefore, strive towards two targets: first, it must lower its costs; and secondly, it must improve its delivery performance. The company has sought consultants' advice, 'which is now being considered by the board, about how it can cut its overhead costs and bring its facilities more into line with demand. That is critical if employment in a more efficient company is to be secured, and I assure the House that cost-saving measures will have the Government's full support. Savings must be made if the company is to survive. The company—work force and management—has a simple but very stark choice—cut costs or go under. No Ministers and no one who has the first idea of the position that Harland and Wolff holds in Northern Ireland want to see the yard close, but it can close itself through being uncompetitive, through not cutting its costs sufficiently and by not winning orders. The company must also strive also towards the second objective, which is improved performance. With substantial Government help Harland and Wolff is now working on two large oil tankers and a 170,000-tonne bulk carrier. Those ships are perfectly geared to the yard's facilities. I am sure that many potential buyers will be watching to see whether Harland and Wolff can perform to specification and date, just as the taxpayer will be looking for performance to cost as well. It is not the Government but all employees at Queen's Island who are being put to the test. It will readily be appreciated that all this cannot be achieved without cost in terms of redundancies. Job losses there will be, there must be, if employment is to be secured for the majority. The choice is as stark as that for the whole company, management and work force: between a smaller, more efficient company and one which has effectively chosen to close itself. The Government have, then, had to take those factors into account in deciding to recommend to the House an extension and enhancement of the Northern Ireland shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme. I see no alternative to redundancies. They are essential in the battle for survival. They represent individual sacrifice and hardship. It is up to those who remain to make the sacrifice worth while. The order will help to alleviate the hardship of the individuals who lose their jobs, and I therefore commend it to the House.That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
12.13 am
I listened with a deepening sense of gloom to the Minister's comments. He has just spelled out a sentence of death on Harland and Wolff that at best will be delayed. I listened with horror as he described the £600 million subsidy as something that could possibly have been better spent elsewhere. I listened with desperate anxiety when he talked about an 18 per cent. subsidy for Harland and Wolff compared with 15 per cent for the rest of the United Kingdom. What on earth is 3 per cent., given the extra transport and energy costs in Northern Ireland? The Minister's whole philosophy stems from the Government's absurd belief that they should not interfere with the economy of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole.
We know from this debate and from the one that preceded it that the competition that Ministers talk about comes from countries whose Governments involve themselves in the planning, payment, investment and the production of ships. Yet the Government are abandoning shipbuilding in Britain and Northern Ireland and are abandoning those involved in the industry. The Minister has more or less said that he will pull out the plug if they do not cut their costs and pull themselves together. What are they supposed to do? Are they to make yet more people redundant? How small does Harland and Wolff have to become before it is viable? There is a work force now of about 7,000. What will it have to be if the company is to be viable? Will it have to be 5,000 or 3,000? Perhaps the company will have to contract to the extent of building rowing boats before it becomes viable. Is that what the investment in Harland and Wolff has been for? In the previous debate the Minister said something that chilled me, and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has said nothing to dispel my fears. The Minister of State, Department of Industry said that Europe has taken the decision not to subsidise, whereas we have been told in this debate that there will be a 3 per cent. increase in the subsidy for Harland and Wolff. If that is the Government's philosophy, the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland is doomed to die, and to die quickly. If that is the decision that the Government have taken—having listened to the Minister I suspect that it is—it would be far better if they said so openly and immediately embarked on a massive policy of restraint and put money into other investment areas and capital projects to provide alternative employment. Nothing could be worse than letting Harland and Wolff die and doing nothing about it other than saying that it must put its own house in order. It cannot do so without full and detailed involvement by the Government in precisely the same way as Governments involve themselves in Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Spain and in all the other shipbuilding nations. One example was given in the previous debate of three orders being given to the Scandinavian yards. Until we take a similar approach our industries will die. When Harland and Wolff dies, what will the Minister do? Will he pick on the next largest industry and say "Unless it gets its house in order it, too, will go to the wall"? If he adopts that approach, we shall go right through the Northern Ireland industries in that way. Indeed, that is what has been happening for the past three years. This is a desperate comment on the Government's economic policies. The extension of the scheme for another two years is welcome in its own right, but it shows the seriousness of the position that the company faces. Where is the Minister in the fight for the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor"? In the previous debate we heard many appeals for the order to be placed in British yards. I can understand that, especially when the appeal is made by those who represent shipbuilding constituencies. One of the tasks of the Northern Ireland Minister is to try to get the order for Harland and Wolff. The company is capable of building a replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor". If I lost the fight, I would argue that the company should be given the order to build the engine for the replacement vessel. Let us have some positive involvement by the Ministers responsible for Northern Ireland. The position in Northern Ireland is desperate. I have said many times that even the CBI in Northern Ireland acknowledges that the economy will not get off the ground again until the Government involve themselves in public expenditure programmes. I am the first to acknowledge that it is difficult to identify the right programmes that will bring the best sort of employment and the best return. However, that is no excuse for inaction. That does not mean that Ministers should sit back and do nothing. The Minister of State has told us that £600 million of subsidy could well have been spent elsewhere. We are told that the subsidy is to be increased by a marginal 3 per cent. That will not touch transport and energy costs. It seems that that is all that the company will get. There was nothing from the Minister about a battle to get orders for Harland and Wolff, only a demoralising speech that spelt doom and gloom to the workers not only of Harland and Wolff but of all the associated industries that will die with that great company. As the Minister said, redundancy payments soften the blow of unemployment but they do not necessarily resolve the individual's longer-term social and economic problems. A sufficiently large sum may give the individual a chance to find alternative work without undue hardship. Alternatively, combined with any savings that he or she might have, he might be able to start a small business or buy a shop, but that applies to a small number of people. The amounts of money that we are talking about are small for such encouragement. The other matter that I should like to draw to the Government's attention, if they are serious about generous redundancy payments, is the absurd ruling by the Government through the Department of Health and Social Security that for supplementary benefit purposes there is to be a savings limit of £2,000. What does that mean? It means that if one gets a significant sum that brings one's savings to over £2,000, one has to spend that money before one can get supplementary benefit. It would be fine if one could invest the money in an oil painting or something that would increase in value over the years, but no one is talking seriously about that. Therefore, the person is faced with the choice of either getting no supplementary benefit, or of spending the money on things that he may not need or on luxuries that do not involve more important and long-term decisions. Therefore, that £2,000 minimum savings level imposed by the Department of Health and Social Security is a positive discouragement to use the redundancy money effectively. I should like the Minister to take up that matter with his colleagues and get that rule changed. I note that article 3 is amended so that all employees are entitled to a lump sum worked out by age and length of service. That is a marked improvement on the fixed sum that was previously paid to the under-40s. I welcome that. In the long run the Government will be judged by the way in which they have allowed British industry, above all in Northern Ireland, to die. They have stood back and said "You must put your own house in order". The Minister did just that tonight. No one disputes the fact that industry can be run more efficiently and that improvements can be made. No one disputes that any of the successful economies of the world do not have a detailed and complex involvement by the Government, yet the Government have decided that that is no part of their job. To do that in Northern Ireland of all places is perhaps more than a crime—it is a sin against the people who have already suffered enough. If the Minister is going to let Harland and Wolff die, a massive education and retraining scheme will be needed for the workers who lose their jobs, not only the workers from Harland and Wolff but the workers from all the dependent industries and small companies that cling on to it. If those 7,000 people lose their jobs, the multiplier effect on the rest of the economy will be gigantic. The Government complain about increased public expenditure, but the area of public expenditure that has gone up the most desperately and in a most uncontrolled way has been unemployment benefit. So what on earth are we doing, with 21 per cent. unemployed, saying that Harland and Wolff will die if it does not put its own house in order. A minimum of 7,000 people will go on the dole and all the other people in the affected industries that rely on it and the people who rely on the work force in Harland and Wolff spending their wages in their shops and on their businesses will suffer. That is a dangerous economic nonsense. Much as I welcome the increases in the order, the Government have failed the country desperately, particularly in Northern Ireland. I want to hear why the Minister has not been fighting for extra consideration for Harland and Wolff, not just 3 per cent. but sufficient to make up for the difference in the transport and energy costs. I want to know why the Government are not fighting for the "Atlantic Conveyor" order and for the order for the engine of that ship. I want to know why they are not trying to arrange other orders, wherever possible, to keep Harland and Wolff working. When it comes to the crunch, people want not redundancy payments, but paid employment. That is not an unreasonable demand.12.25 am
I am pleased to follow the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). He has put his finger on the pulse of the issue.
I listened to the Minister of State open this debate and I heard his colleague open the previous debate. I noted a distinct change in emphasis and presentation. The brave face put on by the Minister in the previous debate was not put on by the Minister in this debate. The Minister spoke of the difficulties. He said that there was no immediate or easy solution. He mentioned the acute depression, said that things were gloomy and warned that costs would have to be cut or we would go under. I shall have to go back to Belfast and underline the Minister's comments. His were not the words of a Minister trying to encourage a work force to greater productivity. His were not words to inject enthusiasm into any would be shipowner who wants to place an order with Harland and Wolff. His words were prejudicial to any such project. His were the words of a Minister flying a kite and warning that he was about to close a shipyard. Anyone who reads the Minister's speech will understand that that is his message. His chilled and measured tones were more suited to a grave-side oratory. He spoke as if he were delivering the obituary at a funeral. I have a constituency interest, but Harland and Wolff has an impact on the Northern Ireland economy as a whole as well as on a small area of East Belfast. At one time Harland and Wolff employed 25,000 people. It now employs between 6,000 and 7,000. Many thousands in other trades are dependent on the shipyards for employment. The Minister's remarks tonight will cause great concern, not only in East Belfast, but in the surrounding area. What action has the Minister taken to try to get new orders for the shipyard? He says that greater productivity is needed. Even if the shipyard men work for nothing, they would not be competitive in relation to the Koreans or Japanese. Surely the Minister realises that there is a war between Korean and British Shipbuilders. Unless we have sizeable subsidies, Korea will wipe British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff off the market and take the whole shipbuilding scene to itself. It is more economic to pay subsidies to Harland and Wolff than to close the yard and pay redundancy and supplementary unemployment benefits. Unemployment and supplementary benefits cost about £5,000 a year per man. It is much more beneficial to give a man a job so that he can do something useful, especially in Northern Ireland. What has the Minister done to inject new orders? There is a flurry every two or three years as the last order is about to go down the slipway at Harland and Wolff. We then search for another job for the men. Why not use the time when there are jobs in the yard to get other orders. Too often the men hold on to the job that they have because they know that as soon as it goes they will join the dole queues. That does not help the productivity that the Minister wants to increase. Having heard the Minister's speech, the shipyard trade unionists will perhaps understand more readily why the Secretary of State has been so coy about dealing with their requests made to him. Is the Secretary of State not keen to put the facts to the shipyard men, and has he left it to the Minister to do his dirty work, as it appears he has done, tonight? If the Minister deals with that matter when he replies, I hope that he will also pass on to the Secretary of State the trade unionist's request for an all-party delegation to deal with what the Minister acknowledges is a serious situation. The trade unionists and a delegation of all the political parties in Northern Ireland should meet the Minister and the Secretary of State uregently, in the light of the Minister's speech. I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that Harland and Wolff would not be in line for any naval contracts. I do not accept that it could not be made into a yard that could take on that type of work. I must accept that it cannot do so at the moment, but with a little adjustment it could do so and be competitive at it. The Minister will recall that only a year or two ago the Royal Navy gave some repair work to Harland and Wolff, which it was able to carry out in the specified time. If it cannot be given shipbuilding work, it could be given ship repair work. What approaches has the Minister made to the Secretary of State for Defence about the matter? I trust that he is making every effort to get what work is available for Northern Ireland. The Minister seemed to scotch the idea of diversifying the work done by Harland and Wolff. He almost threw it out without any further consideration. His predecessor set up a team to consider diversification. I know that several possible projects were considered. Is the Minister telling the House that none of them is a possibility, That Harland and Wolff can only build bulk carriers, must wait until such orders come along and that it may not tender for anything else? If that is his message, he should make it clearly. The message that will go from the House tonight will not be about redundancy payments. It will be the Minister's ultimatum to Harland and Wolff that it must cut its costs or go under.12.32 am
Most right hon. and hon. Members will remember that when the shipbuilding industry was being nationalised by the Labour Government, we pressed strongly for the inclusion of Harland and Wolff, not because we were wildly enthusiastic about nationalisation—Harland and Wolff was already for practical purposes a Government-owned firm anyway—but because we saw great disadvantages in Harland and Wolff being left outside the larger structure.
The Minister said that Harland and Wolff has benefited because it has attracted a higher subsidy than other yards in Great Britain. That subsidy appears to have been attracted by bulk carriers—the only type of work that Harland and Wolff can be engaged in at the moment—not because it was isolated from or outside the rest of the United Kingdom. I fear that Harland and Wolff will remain stuck with producing only one article unless that sense of isolation is removed. The Minister warned that there is a limited outlet for bulk carriers. We all know that. That is all the more reason why Harland and Wolff should be encouraged, perhaps even jogged a little, to look outside the mould in which it has become stuck. The House is perpetuating that separateness by refusing to take the two redundancy payments orders together, as has been done previously. We pretend that there is nothing in common between shipbuilding in the two parts of the Kingdom. If Parliament behaves in that way, we can hardly complain if the two units grow apart or be surprised if the customers and potential customers regards the two as separate and distinct, and perhaps even as rival concerns. Is it any wonder that foreign shipping companies are perplexed when they are told that Britain's shipyards have been nationalised and made into one, when they have, in fact, been made into two? We have been assured time and again that relations are excellent and co-operation is good between British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff, but may we have examples of where British Shipbuilders, in a spirit of unselfishness, has passed on to Harland and Wolff orders for building ships or manufacturing engines that British Shipbuilders could have done itself? In the absence of proof we have to assume that big brother is a greedy and at times selfish bully boy. There was a curious incident around Easter time this year when a telex from a reputable source in Brazil alleged that British Shipbuilders' representatives there were doing their best to dissuade a ship owner from specifying Harland and Wolff engines in an order, apparently on the grounds, believe it or not, of the difficult political situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister of State and the Secretary of State investigated the claim and concluded that they had to accept the denial of British Shipbuilders. The denial was made by Mr. John Parker, the deputy chief executive of British Shipbuilders. He is a person of the highest integrity, but he is hardly in a position to listen to all that was being whispered by his subordinates in South America. It would be unfair to condemn those subordinates, because, even if the claim were true, they were doing no more than engaging in a commercial struggle with a rival concern, in much the same fashion as occurs in competition on free enterprise. The difference is that British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff are owned by the same Government, who have a responsibility to ensure that they do not lend support to one to the disadvantage of the other. It has been said that much of the previous debate was taken up by demands that the Government should ensure that the contract for the replacement for the "Atlantic Conveyor" should go to a British shipyard. If that means a United Kingdom yard, that is all right by us. Harland and Wolff should be given a fair opportunity to tender, because that is precisely the type of vessel that it is equipped to build. Many Harland and Wolff ships served in the task force and proved their worth and reliability. If Harland and Wolff had been encouraged to get out of the bulk carrier and tanker rut and to engage in defence contracts—I do not believe all those who say that the firm cannot do that—perhaps Belfast-built frigates and destroyers would have been less vulnerable than the ships that were lost in the South Atlantic battles. I conclude with a reference to the curious relationship between the Government, perhaps in the role of employer, and the shipbuilding employees. The latter organised a meeting in Belfast as long ago as 27 March, to which they invited representatives of the political parties. As one who attended, I found it a very constructive meeting. At that meeting it was agreed to request a meeting with the Secretary of State. I imagine that that request would have been on the Secretary of State's desk certainly within the week, as I received my copy four days later. The request had to be reiterated on 23 April, however, and it was not until 29 June that the Northern Ireland Office admitted that the letter—presumably the second letter—could not be traced. The replacement copy provided by the unions' sub-committee apparently did not reach the Northern Ireland Office until 11 June. On 29 June, the Private Office set out the reasons why it was thought that it would be far more appropriate for the deputation to meet the Minister of State. The unions disagreed, not through any lack of respect for the Minister of State and his abilities but mainly because vital national decisions were involved and, understandably, they believed rightly or wrongly, that their views should be expressed across the Cabinet table. In a letter to the Northern Ireland Office dated 6 July the Harland and Wolff shipbuilding sub-committee stated that it wished to put to the Secretary of State its views not just on Harland and Wolff but on the effect that any reduction or—God forbid—any closure of Harland and Wolff would have on the Northern Ireland economy in general. The secretary to the sub-committee concluded with the following sentence:On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I support that plea and that straightforward request, for this reason. Speaking in another place last Thursday, my noble Friend the Minister of State forecast that devolution might not rule for 20 to 30 years. That may even have been wildly optimistic. Certainly, responsibility for Harland and Wolff will continue to rest with the Secretary of State and his 10 successors. With that time scale in mind, I urge the Secretary of State to respond to the very reasonable request of the unions that is set out in the correspondence to which I have referred and has the backing of every political party in Northern Ireland. If the situation at Harland and Wolff is as serious as the Minister has warned us that it is, that is surely all the more reason for face to face discussions between Ministers and the work force upon whom so much depends."I would therefore reiterate the importance of meeting the Secretary of State and would like to press him for his attendance at the proposed meeting and hope that our request on this occasion will be treated with the seriousness which it obviously deserves."
12.43 am
I wish briefly to emphasise one or two points that have been made. I have a constituency interest in this matter as my constituency supplies steel and is thus indirectly bound up with the fortunes of Harland and Wolff.
After the sombre speech of the Minister earlier, no one can doubt the seriousness of the situation at Harland and Wolff. If anything disastrous happened to that firm, it would be a tragedy for the economy of Northern Ireland, not just for the 6,000 to 7,000 people employed by the company, as the multiplier effect would cause thousands more people in Northern Ireland to lose their jobs as a result. My hon. Friend the Minister is right to urge that everything should be done by Harland and Wolff to ensure that delivery of products is made on time and that the firm is as efficient as possible. No one can deny that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry is not competing in the world market place in the way that the Minister and I would wish, but every country in the Far East that is involved in shipbuilding has absolutely no regard whatever for competitive pricing. Under no circumstances do they aim to make a profit. We must therefore recognise that if Harland and Wolff is to survive—I sincerely hope that it does because of the dire consequences that would result in Northern Ireland if it did not—it will not be against the backcloth of profitability. It could never make a profit and still compete against the Far Eastern countries that subsidise in a vulgar way, to the extent that they are grabbing orders without any regard to profitability. In urging efficiency and the fact that the customer should be supplied with the product on time, I hope that the Minister wiI1 have regard to the fact that it is completely impossible for Harland and Wolff or any other British shipbuilding firm profitably to compete with Far Eastern countries whose Governments are intent on destroying what remains of the shipbuilding industry, not only in the United Kingdom but in Western Europe as a whole. Earlier this year, some of my colleagues were fortunate enough to attend a meeting with the chairman of Harland and Wolff who, like the Minister, underlined the seriousness of tie situation. I welcome the fact that management consultants are at present in Harland and Wolff. From talking to the chairman, I believe that there is room for improvement in the company. It will be completely impossible for Harland and Wolff to compete effectively, and we have a duty to the people of Northern Ireland to recognise that fact. Harland and Wolff is one of our great traditional industries, and to this day is one of our largest employers. The devastation that would be caused to the Northern Ireland economy and to the social fabric of the Province if anything untoward happened is absolutely unthinkable. A number of hon. Members have drawn attention to the need to encourage the Government and Harland and Wolff to consider the possibility of diversifying the product base. There is no doubt in my mind that we are putting a mill stone around Harland and Wolff so long as we encourage it to produce only a certain type of ship for which there is massive world overcapacity. I sincerely hope that the Government and the Department of Industry will give every encouragement to the British Steel Corporation to place any shipping order with Harland and Wolff. I know that BSC wants to act commercially and that it is considering the purchase of a ship from the cheapest source. However, I hope that BSC will not dream of looking anywhere other than British Shipbuilders or Harland and Wolff. Indeed, the type of ship required by BSC could be ideally built at Harland and Wolff. I wish to draw attention to the fact that men aged 57 and under will receive minimum payments lower than those of men over 62. As slightly younger people, likely to be made redundant at Harland and Wolff, will need more help than those approaching retirement age, the Government should consider some change in the balance of assistance.12.50 am
I welcome the convert from Damascus. I do not know whether the arm of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) has been twisted. The Minister's speech was a message of despair. I appreciate tremendous problems that confront Harland and Wolff. These are not of its making.
The Minister has talked of expert advice that calls for improved efficiency, for reduced costs and for improved delivery times. These matters are obvious. If the Minister means what he stated, he should take account of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who referred to the improvements and achievements at Cammell Laird. A sophisticated warship was completed in four-fifths of the usual time. There was an emergency. An all-out drive was made to provide the ship at the time it was needed to defend the interests of the United Kingdom in a far-off place. Those workers will not benefit from the improvements. They will find themselves in the same position as those employed at Harland and Wolff. We should not deceive people. The more efficient people sometimes are, the quicker they work themselves out of employment. I recall the expert advice given to the previous Government and their predecessors about the types of ship best suited to be built at Harland and Wolff. It can be seen how gravely we were misled. Some of my former colleagues may not share that view. To limit ourselves to bulk carriers and tankers was probably not the answer, although the so-called experts were loud in their pronouncements that this was the case. It is a fact that the Japanese are now worried about the Koreans and the Koreans are worried about their competitors. We are talking about price competition. Our specialised shipbuilding industry cannot hope to compete in terms of cost with nations that have a large reserve of cheap labour, not always highly skilled but trained to carry out part of a prefabrication process. The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) expressed some anxiety about steel supplies to Harland and Wolff. Not only that firm but the entire shipbuilding world is involved. Other nations seem to find an answer to that. They protect their shipbuilding industries by imposing an additional charge upon imports of either raw materials or the finished product. Perhaps the time has come to examine that system more carefully, although I have grave reservations about it. Although I welcome the improvement in redundancy payments, if they prove necessary—the Minister's message tonight makes that almost certain—perhaps he should return to the experts who are responsible for the present position, or move closer to the experts who advise him, and say "Take your finger out and if you cannot advise on what should be done about shipping, you must advise about diversification in steel fabrication or other areas that will meet a market demand?" If he cannot do that, perhaps he should take the advice of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and devote his energy to providing retraining facilities and more job opportunities, and close his ears to all the experts who misled me and who may have misled him.12.56 am
The Minister has cast great gloom over the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland. I believed that we were hearing an obituary notice for the shipyard, because if the ultimatum that he placed before it is taken seriously, the shipyard must close. It is not possible for it to cut its costing seriously, nor is it possible for the shipyard to become competitive because of what has already been said by both Conservative and Labour Members about the unfair competition from the Far East. If the shipyard is to obtain orders and to sell itself to those who are interested in giving orders for ships, the Minister should carry the flag and inject confidence into the industry. But by his speech tonight he has cast a great question mark over the future of the shipyard.
The fact that the shipyard is not part of British Shipbuilders is a great disadvantage. I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that those of us who sat together in bygone days were all worried about the isolation of Harland and Wolff. What we said has now come true.
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) about some of the benefits that I said would accrue from "Ulsterisation" of the shipyard, as we called it at the time. The order for two bulk carriers from BP would not have gone to Harland and Wolff had it been within the confines of the British shipbuilding industry. We could not have concluded the Mann Engineering deal, nor could we have fought off the EEC directive to get rid of 2,000 workers from Harland and Wolff when the Labour Party was in office. Those are three matters that we had in our minds in protecting Harland and Wolff, and keeping it under the Northern Ireland Office, so that we could control and manipulate the situation in favour of the work force at Harland and Wolff.
It will always be a matter of argument. We see the isolation of Harland and Wolff. The right hon. Gentleman's example, in which we were all concerned, caused us great heart-searching about British Shipbuilders' efforts to keep orders coming to Harland and Wolff. Had we been included, we should surely have got part of the cake, and we could have fought for part of the cake.
The position of the shipyard and its workers should be put clearly. The Belfast yard works is up against great difficulties, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) knows. Transport and energy costs tell against its competitiveness, compared with other shipyards in the United Kingdom. Surely, there should now be a response to the long called-for meeting between the political parties in Northern Ireland, the trade union representatives, and the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. Why has there been this long delay? My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in whose constituency the shipyard is situated, wrote to the Secretary of State asking why the meeting had not taken place. He tells me that he has received no reply. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said, all the political parties and the trade unions were anxious to have a meeting. There is great gloom at present in Northern Ireland. The Lear Fan operation has a question mark over it. Now, tonight, we have the sad news about the shipyard. What will it be tomorrow? Surely, it is now time to have an urgent meeting so that the matter can be spelt out. Is it not to be regretted that the Secretary of State did not take the matter on board sooner? I hope that the meeting will take place soon, so that we may know the facts. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will tell us what he has in mind for the proposed meeting.1.3 am
Inevitably, and quite properly, this debate has dealt more with the industry than with the immediate problems to which the order refers—amendments to the redundancy payments scheme. I shall deal quickly with two or three points and then come to the tone of my opening speech and the message that I delivered.
First, in answer to what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and others said about a possible meeting between my right hon. Friend and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and others, it is regrettable that, apparently, a letter was mislaid. On the other hand a reply certainly was sent, in the first instance, suggesting that as the Secretary of State had met the CSEU on several occasions and that it was apparently entirely a shipbuilding matter, the Minister directly responsible, namely, myself, should see the CSEU on that occasion. As one would expect, the Secretary of State has been extremely generous with his time in seeing various trade union deputations and those from other bodies. I believe that he had in mind anyway, and certainly as a result of representations made tonight, to ask me to suggest to the CSEU that a meeting might be appropriate if it were to cover an area of interest falling within its own field, which is large within the Province, going a bit further than simply Harland and Wolff. That seems to me be the right way to leave that matter. Several hon. Members have raised the question of what Harland and Wolff should build. Criticisms have been made of the decision by I think, the previous Administration, but I am pointing no fingers, that Harland and Wolff should concentrate on the larger vessels. At one time that seemed to be the right decision. It happens, as I have said, to be in that area of the market—the large oil tanker and dry bulk market—that there is the biggest depression.To put the record straight, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision to go in for that market was made long before the decision for direct rule in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to correct me. As I said, I am pointing no fingers in this matter. It happens that the facilities at Harland and Wolff are excellent for that purpose. However, there is no reason why it should not, if it so chose, tender for smaller vessels. It follows that because the facilities are specially designed for larger ships, it will carry some additional on-cost if it turns its hand to the smaller vessels. It must judge the balance between the metal work and outfitting as usual. That is a choice that the yard itself will have to make. It is in the context of the intervention fund that the Commission has agreed that vessels over 100,000 tonnes deadweight should attract the higher rate of support.
In his earlier speech my hon. Friend gave the impression that it was out of the question that Harland and Wolff should tender for naval vessels. Is that really the case? It used to build ships for the Royal Navy. It has not done so in recent years, but is it impossible for it to adapt to that?
My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth. I was coming to the question of naval orders. I am advised that Harland and Wolff's existing facilities are not suited for naval ship building. Any yard can be adapted, but the capacity for naval ship building in the United Kingdom is, I am informed, more than adequate for the purpose. Indeed, there has been some reduction in that capacity in the mixed yards. I doubt whether it would be right to spend the necessary sums of money to put Harland and Wolff in a position to make naval ships.
However, Harland and Wolff is fully capable of refit and repair work on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels. It is only in the past few days that I have again impressed on the Ministry of Defence the facilities that Harland and Wolff has and the dire need for orders of that sort. I hope that we can achieve a response in that area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have probably been involved in most of the limited numbers of orders that have been floating around within reach of Harland and Wolff. Indeed, my right hon. Friend personally takes a close interest and gives help where it is proper for him to do so.Will the Minister make an effort to get the "Atlantic Conveyor" order for Harland and Wolff? If not, will he make an effort to obtain the engine order for that firm? If not, why not?
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the "Atlantic Conveyor" was just the right type of ship for Harland and Wolff. However, although one has the impression that the "Atlantic Conveyor" was a sizable vessel, it was below the minimum size that Harland and Wolff has set out to build. Nevertherless, bearing that in mind, there is no reason why it should not tender for it. I understand that its price for such a vessel was very much in line with that of British Shipbuilders. My hon. Friend the Minister has made clear and confirmed the substantial difference in the tender price between British Shipbuilders and the competition from the Far East. The House heard what my hon. Friend had to say on that.
To revert to the theme of my remarks, hon. Members chose to hear what they wanted to hear and did not take in the whole of my speech. That frequently happens to ministerial speeches. I spoke with extreme realism, and in no sense did I give a message of despair. In no sense was my speech an obituary for the yard. I reject absolutely that it is ministerial intent to close the yard, and what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) said, when he accused the Government of abandoning Harland and Wolff, of pulling out the plug and of standing back from Harland and Wolff, is nonsense. As I reminded the House earlier, in this year alone the Government have put £47–5 million behind the company. Last year we put £46 million behind the company, and the previous year, £42–5 million. Those figures do not include such things as standard capital grants, shipbuilders' relief and the cost of owner's credit, and so on, although they were included in the total figure of £270 million. This year's figure of £47–5 million represents about £7,000 per employee at Harland and Wolff. That can hardly be seen as abandoning Harland and Wolff to its fate. It represents substantial Government support. Nevertheless, we must be realistic. If the company is unable to obtain orders with that level of support, and to get orders with 18 or 20 per cent. support as well as the credit arrangements available, there must be a question mark over it. However, the question mark is not as big as many hon. Members have said, because of a matter to which I have drawn special attention and which has often been highlighted. I refer to the scope for improved performance. Ministers may have repeated the message time and again, but if the taxpayer is to put such sums into the company, the least that he is entitled to expect is that the management and work force will do everything that they can to help themselves. That is the message that I gave from the Dispatch Box tonight. We know, just as the work force and the management know, that there is room for improved efficiency and for cutting waste and overheads. They probably do not need consultants to tell them, but consultants help to pinpoint the areas of improvement. there is scope for enormous productivity improvements in that yard. That is the message that I gave tonight. Given those improvements and the continuing Government support, the yard can carry on, but if those improvements are not made the company will not obtain the orders that are there to be had. The Government do not intend to close the yard. The only thing that will close it is lack of orders. I wanted to put the message across firmly, but in a balanced way, so that the yard listens not just to the sad voices that came from certain parts of the Chamber, but to the Government's realistic appraisal of the position.The Minister has only himself to blame if he is worried about that image. Did he not say that the £600 million could have been used in better ways? He has just refused to back Harland and Wolff to win the order for the "Atlantic Conveyor". What does he expect the people of Harland and Wolff to believe?
There are many people in Northern Ireland who ask, as I asked rhetorically tonight, whether some or all of that £600 million might not have been better spent in supporting other projects or to the taxpayer's benefit.
The Government have provided between £45 million and £50 million in each of the past three financial years. We have been prepared to put money behind the company. It is not reasonable to expect that one should continue putting such sums of money behind a company in perpetuity. It will be at somebody else's expense. That is a realistic approach to the problem, which the hon. Gentleman does not always share. We are debating only the amendments to the redundancy payment scheme. I feel that the sums of money involved will be necessary, and that in those circumstances it is right to enhance payment to those who lose their jobs at Harland and Wolff. For those reasons, I commend the order to the House.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.
Northern Ireland Assembly
1.17 am
I beg to move,
I shall make a comparatively short opening speech and be prepared to answer questions if hon. Members would like me to do so towards the end of the debate. The draft order appoints Wednesday 20 October as the date on which election of Members to the new Northern Ireland Assembly will take place. The Assembly was dissolved with effect from 28 March 1975 under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The order, if approved, will be made under section 27(7) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The Northern Ireland Act 1982 is now on the statute book. I firmly believe, as I have said before, that the opportunity that the provisions of that Act offer to the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, to work out among themselves, at their own pace, arrangements for an acceptable form of devolved Government should be grasped. The Act does more than that. It provides the opportunity for the Assembly to become immediately more closely involved in scrutinising the day-to-day government of the Province and with the urgent problems that face Northern Ireland. It is right that the voices of Northern Ireland's elected representatives should be heard as soon as possible, responsibly and constructively debating the main issues of the moment. I have made it clear that Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office will co-operate fully to help the Assembly in its debates and work. Despite the doubts of some who have spoken in the House in the past few weeks, I am convinced that there is a growing expectation of and a desire for progress in the Province. There has been much speculation about how the Act will work in practice. We should now put such speculation behind us and turn our minds to putting the Act's provisions into effect at the earliest reasonable opportunity. That is why the Government have decided that elections to the Assembly should be held in the autumn. The choice of 20 October is designed to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for the chief electoral officer and his staff to prepare for the election and the Northern Ireland parties to campaign effectively after the holiday season and avoid the approach of winter with limited hours of daylight and the risk of bad weather. We have decided that the election should take place on a Wednesday, like local elections in Northern Ireland, so that the counting of votes, which will be a lengthy process in the larger constituencies, can be completed before the weekend. As hon. Members know, the elections will take place on the basis of the present 12 parliamentary constituencies and will return an Assembly of 78 Members. The order setting out the election timetable and the rules for the conduct of the election will be laid shortly, thus providing sufficient time preparation by the electoral staff and the parties.That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Day of Election) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
1.22 am
The order announces that the election will take place on 20 October 1982, but throughout the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill great importance was attached to the need for cross-community support and better relations with the Government and institutions of the South. We agreed with those sentiments on the Opposition Benches and with others that were stressed in the White Paper. We wish to see the widest participation in the election that is proposed by the order.
There is, however, a problem over the contents of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, which, in effect, disqualifies a member of the legislature of any country outside the Commonwealth from sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The White Paper recognised the unique relationship between Britain and Ireland and the inevitable link between the two communities. It stated:Any person from anywhere in the Commonwealth can stand for election to the Assembly. If he gets enough votes he can participate in the Assembly. I am advised that someone from Hong Kong, Zimbabwe or anywhere else in the Commonwealth can stand for the Assembly and, if elected, can take his seat. However, the existence of the 1975 Act means that other persons who were born in and who are living in Northern Ireland cannot sit in the Assembly. I understand that the criteria for disqualification from the House is being reviewed and that the Lord President of the Council will receive a report later this year. It was said in another place that the outcome of the review will have its implications for the disqualification criteria for the Assembly. I think that it is generally agreed that the law on disqualification is not satisfactory and that there are inconsistencies. I trust that the Secretary of State will find a solution to the problem or will be able to give a full explanation to the few citizens of Northern Ireland who will find themselves unable to take their seats in the Assembly if they secure enough votes to win the election. I understand why a few hon. Members are tittering, but it is obvious that there is a problem for the Secretary of State that should not be compounded. If we are to get cross-community support and the widest possible participation of people in Northern Ireland, we ought to look at those problems. Careful explanation by the Secretary of State is needed. There is no better time for him to do it than this evening. Those who are members of legislatures outside the Commonwealth are not debarred from standing for the Assembly. However, if they gain enough votes to win a seat in the Assembly, they can then be debarred by petition and disqualified. However, once elected, the persons have a choice. They can choose either to continue to be part of the legislature of any other country or to take their seats in the Assembly. There is a need for clarification. There is confusion on the issue. It is vital that the Secretary of State spells out in detail the position of those caught under the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. I am sure that the Secretary of State, as well as my right hon. and hon. Friends, would wish the election to be as smooth as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] My right hon. and hon. Friends have great confidence in their Front Bench spokesman, as I keep telling Conservative Members. They leave it to me to speak on such issues. I am sure that the Secretary of State would like to see the election run as smoothly as possible, with the widest spread of candidates. As we have said before, we all believe that cross-community support is vital. I hope that the Secretary of State will make that clear. It is vital for the good start of the operation of the election, whether it is on 20 October, 27 October or 1 January. This situation needs careful explanation. There should be the widest participation. I hope that every party in Northern Ireland involves itself in the election. I desperately want that to happen because that will bring about a better chance of success. All those who are not interested in the matter do not wish the operation of the election procedure to be successful. I have listened to that point of view often enough in the House. I want the election to proceed with the widest possible choice and the widest possible participation in Northern Ireland. I do not wish to see anyone disqualified. That requires careful explanation. The situation has not arisen out of the Secretary of State's choosing. It should be made clear whether the people I have mentioned can stand for election, and what happens to them if they stand and win enough votes. Do they have the choice of going back to the legislature or giving that up and sitting in the Assembly, if they desire?"So long as the existing institutions of the State are respected, those who favour change should not be debarred from playing a full part in public life."
rose—
I shall not give way as I am coming to the end of my speech.
There is confusion on the issue. The only person who can clear it up is the Secretary of State. I wish the assembly and the order success. The sooner we can proceed without any inconvenience to the election, the better it will be for the people of Northern Ireland.1.28 am
The Bill that we contested so long has become an Act. Now the question is as to when it should be implemented. Having given a good deal of thought to the matter, there is a sense in which I want to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I have come to take a slightly different view to that which I took at the beginning, when his proposals were made. On Second Reading the Minister said that the creation of the Assembly would help to restore security and build up the economy in the Province. I found it difficult to see any connection between what he proposed and the objective that it might serve. After thinking deeply and listening to what has been said in other places, I have come to the conclusion that there is a method and logic in what he proposes.
I shall deal with security first. We came to office with Airey Neave's plan, which amounted to the full integration of Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. It was made clear to the present Secretary of State's predecessor that if that happened there would be no co-operation from the Republic. The Northern Ireland Office argued strongly that the door should be kept open for the eventual reunion of Northern Ireland with Southern Ireland and that, if that did not happen, the IRA's attitude would make it difficult for the Dublin Government to co-operate. The previous Secretary of State tried to introduce a system of devolution. It failed. The IRA struck again. We had a chance to go back to integration, but my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, was persuaded to have another stab at devolution to keep the door open. That is what we are now discussing.Order. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is still on his preamble, but I remind him that the order is about the date of the election.
I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is the question of disqualification, raised by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), relevant under the order? If we are to discuss such matters, which appear to be extraneous to the order, surely my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is equally in order.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I pointed out in my speech that a report was due towards the end of the year about the disqualification measure. I was putting that in the context of the order.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unless this order or another order to similar effect is passed, the Act which has just received Royal Assent will not be implemented. Therefore, the decision whether to pass the order amounts to a decision as to whether, as well as when, that Act should be implemented. If there is no such order, the Act will be brutum fulmen.
It is not in order to debate the Act again. Right hon. and hon. Members will wish to use background information, but it would not be in order to reopen the debate on the Act.
I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be as brief as I can. I shall try to give the background information as briefly as I can. Much has happened since our last debate on the matter. Much has come to light since then, including my right hon. Friend's visit to the United States, which he hoped might help the economy.
There have always been hopes that American investment might come to Northern Ireland. The influence of Dublin in that respect would be important. Here again, I submit that the advice of the Northern Ireland Office has been "Keep the door open to the Union between the North and the South." I do not know exactly what transpired during my right hon. Friend's visit to the United States, but I suspect that he made it clear to American critics that we were not going for integration but that we were going for devolution and that, therefore, the door was being kept open. The original proposal contained in the Act was, therefore, not just an essay in devolution. The whole object of the exercise has been to keep open the door to a united Ireland. That was not made clear to us in earlier debates. We were told that that it was essential to a solution to the problem of terrorism and the improvement of the economy. The Minister of State said in another place that that may take some time—perhaps 20 or 30 years. But the objective is pretty clear. The rub is whether Dublin will wait. I apologise for not being present when my right hon. Friend briefly opened the debate. We have not yet had a reply to the question about Mr. Abbott's alleged conversation which was raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I do not know why. Several weeks have passed since the matter was raised. But there has been an answer from Dublin. The Foreign Secretary of the Republic has said that my right hon. Friend's proposal, which we are being called upon to implement, does not conform, in the spirit or in the letter, with previous undertakings. When I read that, I wondered whether it was just Irish extravagance of language or whether the right hon. Member for Down, South and Mr. Abbott were right about there being undertakings. Why was Mr. Haughey so much against the agreement? Is it because the proposals do not go quite as far as he thought had been agreed? I have the impression that both in Dublin and in the IRA headquarters they think that we are on the run. The bombings of last week cast a long shadow over the debate. It is a mistake to think that there is no collusion between Dublin and the IRA. I do not wish to suggest that they are working in harmony. Dublin is just as frightened of the IRA as Belfast. Nevertheless, just like the PLO and the sheiks in the Middle East, Dublin finds it convenient to use the IRA and dangerous to pull away from it. What my right hon. Friend is asking us to implement is becoming clearly a policy of trying to secure an end to terrorism and the bad economic situation by appeasement of Dublin and the IRA.Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going very wide again. I must ask him to address himself to the order.
We are being asked to implement a policy of appeasement. Its character has been underlined by the events of last week. That has happened since the Bill left the House to go to another place. When both the right hon. Member for Down, South and Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien suggest that such appeasement will not work, we ought to think extremely carefully.
It follows that if we had accepted the Neave proposals, the IRA would not have stopped its actions, and American help might have been delayed, but once London's determination had been made clear there would have been new thinking in Dublin and in the IRA. Only if we can give certainty about our determination to keep Ulster within the United Kingdom shall we give confidence to investors and deter the terrorists. I fear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on a slippery slope. His measure is law. The date for the first meeting of the Assembly has not been fixed, so why should he not delay a little? Why should he not reply to the bombers by saying that we wish to see what the attitude of Dublin, the bombers and the Province will be? He is rushing an election on the basis of boundaries that correspond to present constituencies and not to the new ones. Nothing would give greater confidence to the majority in Ulster than for the Government to delay the implementation that we are being asked to approve. If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to do that, I am sure that he will understand if those of us who care more than he does about the unity of the Kingdom vote against him.1.41 am
We are considering the order at a late hour and many hon. Members—not so much those in the Chamber as those in reserve elsewhere—might naturally wonder "Why the hurry?" It is of a piece with the haste with which the legislation that the order implements was passed.
That was an exceptional piece of legislation, in that it was introduced after Easter—it was post paschal—a season at which it is commonly considered to be belated to introduce major legislation. It had to be got through this House with the assistance of a guillotine and the time for it in another place was so short that serious complaints were voiced in the proceedings there about the adequacy of the opportunity to consider it. Upon the heels of Royal Assent to the Act, the order is brought forward. It fixes a date on which it will not be possible for the elections to be held on the new constituencies or on a base that everyone agrees is fairer than that which could be provided within the terms of the Bill, which relate to the existing 12 constituencies. It is a natural ground for bewilderment as to why so much haste has been attendant upon the passage and, now, upon the implementation of the legislation. Those who read the speech of Lord Gowrie in the concluding proceedings in another place would be all the more surprised. He said:Lord Gowrie had said earlier:"The proposals that we are making may need 20 or 30 years to mature, or to take hold."
—of durable institutions—"The Bill recognises that movement towards this goal"
But even those who heard that could hardly have been prepared to be told that it would be a generation before the institutions that were to bring to Northern Ireland the blessings of political stability—the arguments on which the Secretary of State's arguments for the Bill had been based—were dependent on a contingency so remote that many of us here could not reasonably hope to experience it. What, then, it might naturally be asked, was the haste either to cram through the Bill in the last two months before the recess or to fix the date for the elections at an unreasonably early time when fair and properly drawn constituencies were not available for the purpose? The answer is that the Secretary of State had been working to a time limit. I point out, first, one of the implications of the time scale adumbrated by the Minister of State in another place. If the devolution proposals and the new institutions of self-government adumbrated by the Bill are viewed by the Government as possibly 20 or 30 years ahead, it is clear that this is not a Bill to institute devolved administration in Northern Ireland. That is not its purpose. No Minister has ever introduced a Bill in the House to carry out a purpose and then declared that it would be 20 or 30 years before that purpose matures—I think that that is the right word—or takes hold. It is a Bill to set up an Assembly. The business of devolution is incidental to it and remote from the current contemplation of the Government. What the Government were doing and had to do was what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) way back in 1979 prophesied would be done—that an Assembly would be set up. That is the purpose of the Bill. The question therefore recurs. Why is there so much hurry to have an Assembly in October? The Secretary of State has explained that it is after the summer and before the winter, but the matter is a little more precise and reasoned than that. It has connections both more subtle and more significant than those with the seasons of summer and winter. By the end of the year, it is intended that there shall take place the third in the series of top level meetings between the heads of Government of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. Of course, when such meetings take place in November or December the aspiration is always expressed that the next will be after six months. That was the expectation after the Haughey meeting in December 1980 and after the FitzGeraId meeting in November 1981. It is generally accepted by those who arrange these matters, however, that one bids for six months and settles for 12. At any rate, another meeting will be due—indeed, as the Secretary of State knows, it is already being pressed for and the preliminary arrangements for it are probably already being fixed up—before the end of the year in order to continue the series. We are told that certain unfinished business must be dealt with at the meeting in December—the third meeting between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. That is the slotting into place of the element that was missing in the arrangements of November 1981 with FitzGerald—the slotting into place of a parliamentary tier of the Anglo-Irish Council. In order that Northern Ireland might be separately represented there, it was necessary that there should be in existence a separate Assembly for the Province. Indeed, as the Irish Prime Minister reflected on the last occasion, it was the absence of such an Assembly that had been the blemish and the gap in what was otherwise the success of his conference. It might be thought by some, but not by those who are well informed, that there is a speculative element in the explanation that I have just assigned for the date in the order before us. I assure the House that there is not. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has reminded the House that a week or two ago, the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic complained that in this legislation the Government had broken not only the spirit but the letter of the arrangments between the two Governments. The Irish Foreign Secretary explained that the Government had not consulted the Government of the Republic on the framing of this legislation, and as a consequence it represented a breach of the spirit as well as the letter. What is wrong with it from the point of view of the Irish Republic? What is it about the Act that broke the spirit and the letter—the letter in particular—of the arrangments? If one studies the speech of the Foreign Secretary of the Republic in toto, there is no doubt about what he believes the omission to be. It is a specific and binding link between the Assembly and the proposed parliamentary tier of the Anglo-Irish Council. If there were any doubt about that, the Secretary of State in his recent visit to Washington made the matter clear enough. He was explaining the lack of an Irish dimension in his devolution initiative. There is a reference to the Irish dimension in the White Paper, but there is nothing about it in the Act. That is where the breach has occurred in the spirit and the letter of the arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman said:"may be very slow indeed" —[Official report, House of Lords, 22 July 1982; Vol. 433, c. 985–6.]
That is a remarkable thing for the right hon. Gentleman to have said, because he has always maintained that there are no such arrangements or agreements. Why did he not say "There are no arrangements"? Why did he say "I do not think there has been any breach of any arrangements or undertakings that have been given"? Why did he not say "There are no undertakings at all"?"Nor do I consider that this is in any way a breach of any undertakings that have been given."
Because I just added the words "that have been given", that is all.
But the right hon. Gentleman also said:
The missing element will take time. It did not have to be put in the Act. There is no intention of breaking the undertaking that is part of the understanding arrived at between the Prime Minister and Mr. FitzGerald in November 1981. There is no intention of breaking it because it is something that can be filled in later on. The right hon. Gentleman continued:"I think you would recognise that the parliamentary body would take longer to get going."
That is what the Assembly is for. The overt element that evidently the Irish Republic considered that, on the basis of the agreements between the two Prime Ministers, it was entitled to expect is not in the Act. However the essential thing, an Assembly that can be so worked upon that it will provide the third leg of the Anglo-Irish Council—and thus the route of political progress towards the united Ireland which is the objective of the Irish Republic—is in contemplation, and is there. This is not a new story. The right hon. Gentleman is involved in an annual cycle that goes back at least three years and probably further. It was very marked in 1979 when a meeting took place on 5 October between Ministers and officials of the two Governments. That produced agreement on certain security measures. It was hailed in the press at the time as a remarkable achievement in cooperation between the two countries against the terrorist. But there was a quid pro quo, stated clearly in part of the communiqué, following the meeting, that did not achieve great publicity. It stated:"But this is something that we can continue to work away at."
Everyone who knows the language recognises what "political progress" stands for in the vocabulary of this intercourse. The communiqué added:"The Ministers also discussed the prospects for political progress in Northern Ireland."
They were going straight for power-sharing. At that stage, they were not going, as they are now, primarily for the instrument of the Anglo-Irish Council and the parliamentary tier. The warning, however, was clear. They emphasised the importance of an early initiative. Delay, they argued, is dangerous. Their co-operation, such as it is, is dependent upon there being no unreasonable delay in implementing what they regard as the spirit of the letter of the agreements made. It is for that purpose that the House, having had the Bill forced through it, is asked to write the date of 20 October into its implementation. It is a false and dangerous cycle in which the Government have got themselves involved. It is the cycle, as the right hon. Member for Pavilion has remarked, of appeasement. It is the cycle of the annual attempt to buy off blackmail. It will not succeed. It cannot succeed. That process never can, and never does, succeed. It is because some hon. Members wish to prevent the consequences of that hopeless attempt being inflicted upon this country and particularly upon the Province that we have opposed the Act and shall oppose the order."The Irish Ministers emphasised the importance of an early initiative leading to acceptable political institutions which both sections of the community in Northern Ireland could support and sustain."
1.57 am
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to those who would not be able to stand or who, if they did stand, would not be able to take their seats. His remarks had nothing to do with someone from Zimbabwe, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada or some other part of the British Commonwealth. The reference was to Mr. Seamus Mallon, deputy leader of the SDLP, and to Dr. Robb, a constituent of mine, who, according to the press, is about to join the SDLP. Mr. Charles Haughey, in his wisdom, nominated both these gentlemen to become Members of the Dublin Senate. They accepted their position in that House of the foreign State of the Irish Republic. By so doing, they disqualified themselves from getting into the Assembly.
If they are as keen as the right hon. Gentleman maintains they are to get into the Assembly, they can simply resign. They have a choice. Do they want to serve the people of Northern Ireland, or do they want to sit in the Dublin Senate? If Mr. Mallon is interested in the people among whom he lives and works and whom he represents, let him resign from the Dublin Senate and attend to his business in the county of Armagh. As for Dr. Robb, I prophesy that if he stands anywhere in Northern Ireland he will lose his deposit, unless he is lucky enough to get a safe SDLP seat, which is hardly likely at this election. If the Secretary of State attempts to tamper with that matter, he will go a long way towards causing far more upheaval in Northern Ireland than at present, so he should leave well alone. Perhaps after the 30 years that the noble Lord mentioned have expired, those men will be in a different frame of mind. Only one people—not this House—can stop a united Ireland, and that is the people of Northern Ireland. There is only one way for a Democrat to believe that the voice of those people can be heard, and that is through the ballot box. We have been told that there is a great change of opinion and that the wind of change is blowing. We have been told that various people will win seats, that there will be a great cross-community support, that orange will fade to yellow and that green will tincture the new mixture of colour. I do not believe a word of it, and 20 October will tell the true tale. People will know then what Northern Ireland really believes. On 20 October the people of Northern Ireland will say "No" to a united Ireland or to any steps that the House, the Government, Dublin or the United States of America may wish to take to bring Ulster into the Irish Republic. It is not on. The will of the people of Northern Ireland will keep Ulster out of an Irish Republic. The House could set up an Anglo-Irish Council and decide that all Northern Irish Members should be members of that council. The House could also decide that Mr. John Hume, who is a Member for Northern Ireland in Europe, should be a member of that council. but the Assembly, with a Unionist majority which I believe will be greater than any Unionist majority in Stormont—because the people of Northern Ireland are determined to cast a massive vote for the Union at this election—will make its voice heard and say what it believes about such a council. If the House wishes to set it up, the Assembly will have the power to finish it once and for all and to bury it in a Sadducee's grave. If hon. Members are not aware of the analogy, that is a grave without a resurrection. That Assembly, overwhelmingly Unionist, will be a buttress against any attempt to set up a credible Anglo-Irish Council or to take us down the road into a united Ireland. Winston Churchill said "Trust the people." I trust the people and am glad that the election is coming. I regret that it is not being fought on 17 seats, because I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that it would have been fairer to have it on that basis. When Unionist spokesmen said that it should be on the basis of 17 seats, the Secretary of State said that we should get away from the politics of confrontation. It is not confrontation; it is fact. The 17 seats would have been fairer for the community. However, I do not mind how many seats are involved, because I know that the people of Northern Ireland will give their answer loud and clear. I say to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that it would be an act of folly if the Secretary of State were to change the date. The IRA would rejoice. It would say "We got them to change the date." We have experienced terrible bombings for 13 to 14 years, and this city experienced them the other day. Homes are broken, hearts are sore and tears are shed. The IRA would say that that was all worth while, so the Secretary of State cannot change the date. The election must go on. I look forward to the election. The people of Northern Ireland will give their answer to the world and to Charles Haughey. Dublin said that not only had the letter and the spirit been broken but that they would take no interest in security in Northern Ireland unless their wishes and will were heeded. That was blackmail of the worst kind, and the people of Northern Ireland will not stand for it. The Secretary of State can look in vain to Dublin for help with his security policy. We need to secure the border. We need to bring back capital punishment for terrorist crimes. We need to pursue over that border those who murder people in Northern Ireland and deal with them as they should be dealt with. No doubt, in the coming months the people of Northern Ireland will prepare themselves for a great election struggle. On 20 October there will be an overwhelming Unionist voice and it will tell this House and the world where the people stand. For me, 20 October cannot come soon enough. I am glad that the Minister has learnt that STV counting takes a long time. I am glad, too, that it is to be on Wednesday, instead of Thursday, because I should not stand over a ballot box on the Lord's Day to see myself or anyone else elected. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has kept to the fore the traditional view of Ulster Protestants and that the voting and the counting will be over on Saturday. Dear help the people who have to wait until Monday to creep in on the thirty-third count.2.7 am
I welcome the order and I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing it forward in this way. If it had been delayed, and if he had accepted the advice that he has been offered this evening from various parts of the House, there would have been consequential problems.
I understand what has been said by those who disagree with the Act. I respect their point of view, but I do not share it. I take the view that Northern Ireland needs an Assembly and a voice of its own which can express and advise on matters relating to direct rule, and have a transferred power, fulfilling the conditions contained in the Act. I take issue with some hon. Members, not least with the right hon. Member for Pavilion who implied that anyone who disagreed with his point of view cared less about Northern Ireland than he does. If I were to argue that to its logical conclusion I could possibly claim to know Northern Ireland a little more than he and to have visited it more frequently. However, that would not resolve the problem. It resolves nothing to make such challenges one way or the other. I take the view that anyone who contributes to debates about Northern Ireland at this hour of the night must care. Those hon. Members who are frequently in such debates, while not sharing a joint approach on every occasion, demonstrate that they care. The essence of democracy is to listen to all sides. Those who represent Northern Ireland probably experience a pressure and awareness that is not felt so continuously by those who represent other parts of the United Kingdom. I refer not least to that created by the mindless killing and bombing that we have only recently experienced in London. No doubt there could be serious dangers in the rest of Britain of what is a continuous threat in Northern Ireland. In that regard I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that we should not go forward at this time with the Act. To implement the day of poll would have been seen by some as a capitulation to their demands and terrorism. It is still true that anything can be interpreted to suit one's views according to which side of the divide one belongs, which politic one represents or opinion one holds in Northern Ireland. The only difference that I have with the hon. Member for Antrim, North tonight is that I hope that there will not be an overwhelming majority of anything. I hope that at the end of the day there is a true representation of all the views that are ever-present in Northern Ireland. It is only in that way that they will be able to convince the House that they are ready and able to take the responsibility of a transferred power. The degree of transfer will be measured by the advice that is given, and clarion calls and loud drums do not always make the best common sense.2.12 am
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that he wanted a smooth election of the Assembly and that he wished it well. He also put forward the view that Senators of the Irish Republic should be allowed to sit in the Assembly.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to accede to such a request, I can think of nothing that would be more likely to make the election to the Assembly anything but smooth. Indeed, it would probably drive the Unionists in Northern Ireland into obstruction or even into abstention. We have heard some strong words already this evening from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), speaking for the Democratic Unionist Party, who is about the best supporter that my right hon. Friend has at present of his legislation. It is unfortunate that we cannot amend the order. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked what was the haste. Indeed, there are strong arguments for postponement. The date of the election should be fixed so that the election can be held for Assembly seats based on the new parliamentary constituencies of Northern Ireland. That is the logic of the legislation. In so far as there is any feeling in the Province about the Assembly, it is that that should be so. As one who does not want the Assembly at all, I ask, in a constructive spirit, for the deferment of the order. We welcome the Secretary of State back from the United States of America. In an editorial, The Christian Science Monitor quotes my right hon. Friend as saying:Judging from recent atrocities, the Act and the prospect held out by the order do not constitute any particular deterrent to terrorism. For what it is worth, it has always been my view that the terrorists are encouraged by every such political initiative, because it gives the impression that Ministers are uncertain about what should be done and are lukewarm in their maintenance of the Union. In The Irish Times of 14 July Mr. John Hume is reported to have said of my right hon. Friend:"We must get to the stage where people are responsible for their own decisions or else the extremists will flourish."
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend said that, but, if he said something like that, it confirms something that several of us said during our debates on the Bill. The devolved Administration on offer is most unlike ay to be taken up. According to the Minister of State, Lord Gowrie, the twenty-first century will probably arrive before the Act—so hastily passed under closure and guillotine—achieves its aims. If the House accepts the order, we shall be left with an Assembly that will be expensive. Is it £1 million per annum? It is likely to be troublesome to Governments, to put it mildly, and we could have had such an Assembly without the legislation that the House has painfully enacted. Why have an Assembly? The right hon. Member for Down, South gave an explanation that related not to the good government of Northern Ireland, but to the celebrated Irish dimension and to the parliamentary tier of the Anglo-Irish Council. I am a believer in a close relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. However, this is no way to promote it. If we are to pursue a proper partnership with the other sovereign State in the British Isles, it is essential to make sure of the Union. Otherwise, the people of Northern Ireland will not be carried with us. I wish that that simple point was understood. The Social Democratic Party has attended the debate. I do not know whether it has resolved its differences with the integrationist Social Democratic Forum in Belfast. However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made an interesting speech in Yorkshire on 16 July about the SDP's policy of"He tells the SDLP—and I think he should publicly say so—that he cannot conceive of an administration being formed without the SDLP but I'm quite sure he's not telling that to the Unionists."
through"breaking the mould of British politics"
In his speech, my right hon. Friend referring to what he called"a massive transfer of power, functions, personnel and public spending to 12 or 13 regional or national assemblies of Cabinet goverments".
said:"Labour's ill-thought out plans for Scotland and Wales"
Later he said:"After rigorous examination, debate and referenda old style devolution was at the time generaly rejected by politicians and public alike as a costly diversion from Britain's pressing problems."
"Latent nationalism in Scotland and Wales could once again be fuelled by separate insititutions, so threatening the Union."
Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the order that we are discussing, which is about the date of the election.
I said earlier that I wished for a postponement of the date of the election to an Assembly that I do not want. I shall conclude my remarks by saying, in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's words, that the order is part of a process that is a costly diversion from the pressing problems of Northern Ireland and is part of a dark process which, again in the words of the Chief Secretary, threatens the Union.
2.21 am
The Government still seem to believe that the Northern Ireland people do not understand the effect of the legislation that has been passed. The Northern Ireland people understand clearly that this evening we are being called upon to pass an order for an election to an Assembly that the Government will consider successful only if it brings forward proposals for a power-sharing devolved structure in Northern Ireland. It is a system that the Northern Ireland people have long since rejected and will reject again.
We can leave on one side the 70 per cent. smoke-screen that has been bandied about since the earliest days of this legislation. Everyone in Ulster understands that what matters to the Government and the House is cross-community support. That is the polite way of promoting power-sharing. It is no use any politician in Northern Ireland saying that the first part of the legislation is OK—the election to the Assembly—and perfectly acceptable, because folk in Northern Ireland understand clearly where the election is supposed to lead. The Northern Ireland electorate is not interested in the method but in the end result, which they have already rejected. The power-sharing structure is the second part of the Act and one cannot have the second part without the first. If there were no election the power-sharing structure could never exist. The party of which I am proud to be a member has been against power-sharing. We had hoped that it was dead and buried and would not be resurrected. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office hope to have that resurrection. I believe that they will be disappointed, but I am worried about the pain, misery and sorrow that Ulster will suffer before they are prepared to admit the reality of that disappointment. We have always known that Ulster could get a power-sharing devolved Parliament at any moment that we wished to accept it. The fact that we have been without such a structure for these past years is the clearest possible indication that we are not prepared to accept it. We were not prepared to accept it in the past and we shall not accept it in future. The Secretary of State is setting up an Assembly to give him the answers and the structure that he wants. He will get the answers and the opinions of the people of Northern Ireland, and I believe that he will not like them. He has not liked the opinions that have been coming from the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the House. He would love to be able to say that we do not represent accurately the views of the Ulster electorate. He will find out two or three days after 20 October, whenever the results are known, that we reflect that opinion and that what we have said is the clearest voice and the most accurate reflection that he is likely to get. It would have befitted the right hon. Gentleman if he had decided to accept majority rule. That is what we are after. He would have served the country and the Province far better if he had stopped hob-nobbing with the Republic and its Ministers, who provide shelter for the IRA and share its political objectives. He should have been trying to defeat that evil organisation rather than dicker with those who share its objectives. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said that the terrorists are encouraged by every political initiative of this sort. I think that he was more accurate in using that phrase than he realised at the time. It struck me as one of the most telling phrases that has been used this evening. Every political initiative like this is aimed at power sharing, and power sharing is designed in the long run to take Ulster out of the United Kingdom and into an all-Ireland republic. I have fought that objective all my life, both in politics and before. I shall continue to fight it and I believe that the people of Ulster will remain outside that united Ireland and in the United Kingdom whenever the Secretary of State has joined those who have tried a similar policy in the past.2.27 am
With the leave of the House, I shall answer some of the questions that have been raised in the debate. I shall respond first to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who is entitled to fight for his beliefs. No one in the House would wish to take that entitlement away from him. However, I ask him to turn from his rather dogmatic and doctrinaire view and to think about what has happened to the Province that he loves and the people that he loves over the past few years. The economy, security and the political situation have hardly given him the success that he might have had if he has shown a little less of the doctrinaire approach and a little more generosity of spirit to his fellow beings in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to disqualification. I have taken legal advice so that I may present an accurate account of the law as it stands. Disqualification from the Northern Ireland Assembly has been the subject of recent press speculation and some public controversy. It has, of course, been mentioned this evening. First, the position on standing for election to the Assembly is that a candidate cannot be validly nominated unless he or she has consented to nomination. In giving this consent the candidate must state that he or she is aware of the provisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 and that to his or her knowledge and belief he or she is not disqualified from membership of the Assembly. Secondly, once an election has taken place, it is open to any person who believes that a Member should be disqualified from taking his seat to lodge an election petition. If the petition were to be upheld, the Member would be unseated and there would have to be a by-election for that seat. Thirdly, there have been suggestions that I could in some way remove or waive the grounds for disqualification that affect anyone in that position—Mr. Mallon's name has been mentioned—by exercising the power contained in section 3(3) of the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973. However, such a provision in an order under section 3(3) would be outside the ordinary meaning of the words that give the Secretary of State the power. It would amount to repeal of the provision in the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. In the absence of words in the enacting provision which expressly authorise the amendment or omission of provisions from primary legislation, I am advised that it would be ultra vices to include such provisions in subordinate legislation. In ordinary language, the purpose of the provision is to enable the Secretary of State to give the Assembly the power to waive disqualification where an honest mistake has been made by a Member and has been rectified. For example, if it were found, by chance, that someone held an office of profit under the Crown, that was pointed out to him after he had been elected and he said that he would resign from his office of profit under the Crown, that would be covered. However, the provision in question does not get us over the difficulty posed by someone like Mr. Mallon's continuing membership of the Irish Senate. Primary legislation would be needed to change the law in that respect. Mr. Mallon has a difficult choice to make. He must decide whether he can best further the interests of those whom he wishes to serve by membership of the Irish Senate or by seeking election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I naturally hope that he will choose the Northern Ireland Assembly, but he must be the judge of that. As the right hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned, there is currently a review of the criteria for disqualification from the House. I understand that the report will go to my right hon. Friend the Lord President later this year. Although the disqualification criteria for the Northern Ireland Assembly are not wholly identical to those for the House, there is a close link between the two. I am convinced that the outcome of the review will have implications for disqualification criteria for the Assembly. I believe that the right course is to await that report and to consider at that point whether any provisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, including the provision that Members of non-Commonwealth legislature cannot be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, require amendment. I have thought carefully about that sensitive and difficult issue and have concluded that the way that I suggest would be the right way to proceed. I make it absolutely plain that any changes in the circumstances that have been suggested in the past few days would require primary legislation.My right hon. Friend is leaving the matter open. There is a clear issue of principle that he must either say that he agrees or does not agree with. To give the impression that it is a mere technicality that can be dealt with by way of a later inquiry and to leave the matter open is once again to leave an air of instability about something that is extremely sensitive.
Certainly not. That would require legislation.
Does my right hon. Friend want it?
I am prepared to wait until the report has been received by the Committee that is looking at the matter. In time it will be presented to the House. I do not have to state hypothetically what might be my view in future. I am stating the law. I am entitled to my view, and it is that we wait.
What is my right hon. Friend's view?
It is that we should wait. I have just said that. That remains my view.
Is it not unfortunate to have on the record that a Minister says that he would like a certain gentleman to be elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly?
I do not think so. I have made it clear that if it is a case of his standing for the Northern Ireland Assembly or for the Senate, I hope that he will choose to stand for the Assembly. I hope that he will take that decision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to the Sloane affair. He asked me why we had not been able to deal with it before. I am anxious to deal with the allegations by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Antrim, South said in his letter to No. 10 that the author of the note about his interview with Mr. Abbott would make himself available to verify the information contained in his notes. Accordingly the head of the Civil Service arranged an interview which took place last Wednesday, 21 July. Mr. Sloane did not bring his original notes with him. He undertook to send them by post immediately, but the latest information is that they have not yet arrived. When the right hon. Member for Down, South raised the matter in the House, he said twice that his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, would be sending all relevant particulars to the Prime Minister forthwith. His letter to No. 10, dated 29 June, was in keeping with that undertaking. I was puzzled that he should write again on 15 July stating that he and his colleague would be available separately to offer evidence and information if that would be helpful, since if either of them had any relevant evidence or information it should have been given in accordance with the undertaking in the House and in the letter of 29 June. I have asked the hon. Member for Antrim, South either to confirm that he has sent the evidence in his possession or to send any evidence that he has about the allegations concerning interviews with Mr. Abbott promised on 29 June. Whatever else I may disagree with in the article by the right hon. Member for Down, South in the Sunday Express, I see that he has fallen into the habit of putting into inverted commas statements drawn from that set of notes, as if they were specific statements, when he has said in the House that they are only notes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion alleged that the Northern Ireland Office was keeping the door open to Irish unity. The Government's policy, as I have said times without number on the constitutional position, is enshrined in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish. That Act makes provision for periodic border polls to establish their wish. It implies that if the majority vote at such a poll is against continuing as part of the United Kingdom, that wish will be respected. In that way our policy is securely founded on the democratic principle of self-determination, not as our enemies maintain, a quasi-colonial policy of keeping Northern Ireland under British rule, come what may. It is in that sense, and in that sense alone, that the door is open to Irish unity at some time if the people there so wish. It is a gross distortion to suggest that this consistent policy of successive Governments is a conspiracy to work towards Irish unity. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said in what I thought was his election speech—I suspect that many people will hear it in the next few weeks and months—the people of Northern Ireland will decide the issue and it is right that they should. I believe and have always believed that the less that is done in London and Dublin behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland the better it will be. That will deny the right hon. Member for Down, South the view that everything that happens is a conspiracy.I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Would he remember that it was that type of lukewarm formula, that one would retain British sovereignty over the area for so long as the people so wanted it, that led to so many misunderstandings about the Falkland Islands and allowed the Foreign Office to try gradually to coax the Falkland islanders into union? Many of us are anxious that that is what my right hon. Friend is trying to do.
The two are not in any way comparable.
Anyone who knows Northern Ireland or its people understands that, irrespective of whether there is one or a dozen Acts of Parliament, if the people of Northern Ireland are not prepared to join the South, they will not do so. Unification can be achieved only by consent. It would not matter whether there was an Act of Parliament; it could not and would not happen. Anyone who knows the people of Northern Ireland must understand that. It is not difficult. They are an independent-minded people. They will not be pushed around, and quite right too. That is the position and remains the position. I turn now to the number of Assembly members per constituency and why we have gone ahead on the basis of 12 rather than 17 constituencies. I am aware that some political parties in Northern Ireland are critical of the fact that the election will be held on the basis of the existing 12 parliamentary seats. I have said before that the Boundary Commission report on the number of Assembly Members who are to be returned for each of the 17 new parliamentary constituencies would be implemented for the election only if it were received in sufficient time for the political parties and the chief electoral officer and his staff to organise on the basis of the new constituencies. I have not yet received the Boundary Commission's report. There can be no question now of any changes—which must be effected by Order in Council—being made in time for the election of 20 October. However, the allocation of seats in paragraph 11 of schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1982 is based on the 1982 local government register, which is the most up-to-date record available for the distribution of the Northern Ireland electorate. I understand that the Boundary Commission will present its final recommendations to me in September. It deserves credit for finishing its unique task—unique in view of the considerable number of new constituencies—as quickly as it has. In no way would it make it possible to hold the election this autumn. I know that it would suit some hon. Members if it could not be held this autumn. It is important that the elections be held as soon as is reasonably convenient so that the people of Northern Ireland can make their decision at the polling booth and the Assembly can start to get down to the important work that must be done. It is easy to find fault with any system and with any wish that one may have for Northern Ireland. I hope that perhaps we can unite in our desire to see this Assembly succeed and Northern Ireland prosper. Heaven knows, that part of the United Kingdom deserves our support and help. It is my wish, and that of the House, that we can lead it to a more prosperous and stable future.Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 11.
Division No. 293]
| [2.45 am
|
AYES
| |
Alexander, Richard | Boscawen, Hon Robert |
Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Butler, Hon Adam |
Ancram, Michael | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda |
Berry, Hon Anthony | Cope, John |
Bevan, David Gilroy | Dorrell, Stephen |
Blackburn, John | Dover, Denshore |
Dunn, James A. | Parris, Matthew |
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Prior, Rt Hon James |
Garel-Jones, Tristan | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Robinson, P. (Belfast E) |
Gummer, John Selwyn | Roper, John |
Hamilton, Hon A. | Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. |
Hampson, Dr Keith | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
Hooson, Tom | Scott, Nicholas |
Hunt, David (Wirral) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Silvester, Fred |
Lang, Ian | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
Lyell, Nicholas | Speller, Tony |
Major, John | Sproat, Iain |
Marlow, Antony | Stainton, Keith |
Mather, Carol | Thompson, Donald |
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
Mayhew, Patrick | Viggers, Peter |
Mellor, David | Waddington, David |
Meyer, Sir Anthony | Waldegrave, Hon William |
Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Waller, Gary |
Moate, Roger | Warren, Kenneth |
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Watson, John |
Neale, Gerrard | Wells, Bowen |
Needham, Richard | Wickenden, Keith |
Nelson, Anthony | |
Neubert, Michael | Tellers for the Ayes: |
Normanton, Tom | Mr. Peter Brooke and |
Paisley, Rev Ian | Mr. Alastair Goodlad. |
NOES
| |
Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) |
Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Proctor, K. Harvey |
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
Budgen, Nick | |
Farr, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
Goodhart, Sir Philip | Mr. William Ross and |
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Mr. Christopher Murphy. |
Molyneaux, James |
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Day of Election) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
Skelmersdale New Town
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Cope.]
2.55 am
In raising the question of unemployment in Skelmersdale, I shall seek to prove that the town is a special case with special problems and that it needs special help which, in the main, only the Government can give.
The unemployment figures for Skelmersdale are distorted because, for statistical purposes, it is linked with Ormskirk to form a common travel-to-work area. I think that the Minister of State, who met some of us earlier today, will agree that the 23·8 per cent. unemployment rate for the area as a whole is the highest in the North West and one of the highest in the country. However, that figure is diluted. The real unemployment rate for Skelmersdale is 34·3 per cent., and male unemployment there is 38 per cent. The total number of unemployed in the combined travel-to-work area is 7,316 out of which 5,424 are registered in Skelmersdale. As I have explained, for statistical purposes we are linked with the old town of Ormskirk, because of which the figure is diluted, and while an unemployment rate of 23·8 per cent. is bad, the real level for Skelmersdale is staggering. There are no new jobs, unemployment is high and there is no sign that the problem will be cured. It really is a dead end. Skelmersdale certainly has the highest rate of male unemployment in Great Britain, and apart from a few special areas in Northern Ireland, it must have one of the highest rates in the United Kingdom. As a special development area, Skelmersdale is allocated the highest level of grant-aid that it is possible to get. We must therefore ask how this situation came about and what can we do to remedy it. As we reminded the Minister this morning, a few years ago Skelmersdale suffered several serious body blows and in two or three fell swoops lost about 3,000 jobs. Although jobs can return in tens, twenties or even fifties, it takes a long time to fill a hole that big. In fact, it has never been filled since two companies left in such tragic circumstances a few years ago. That is why Skelmersdale now has such a high unemployment rate. The figure in Skelmersdale over the past 10 years has always been above the regional average. As the number creeps up nationally, so it mounts in Skelmersdale. The highest unemployment in the North West is to be found, I believe, at Birkenhead where it amounts to 20 per cent. The figure for Liverpool is slightly lower. If there is to be fine tuning, one has to spotlight where it should occur. This is a grim picture. It will be made worse in Skelmersdale when 300 Dunlop workers, now serving 90 days' notice, join the biggest queue in the United Kingdom. Earlier today, the Minister was kind enough to meet, at short notice, a deputation led by myself that included three of the leading members—although they would be too modest to say so—of the Labour group representing Skelmersdale on the West Lancashire district council. They were the leader of the council, Councillor Geoffrey Ellman supported by Councillor Malcolm Ford and Councillor Ray McManus. The Minister must have been impressed with the case that they put and the answers that they gave to his searching questions. The Minister will have been left with a profile of a town of about 42,000 people. It will not reach the planned figure of 80,000 envisaged in 1961. The figure grows only slightly. As one would expect in a new town, 33 per cent. of the population is under 16 years of age. There is a heavy dependence of engineering, semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. Only about 8 per cent. of those employed have managerial, administrative or office type jobs. Skelmersdale is not relying solely on the Government. There is a high degree of self-help. A name that has become almost famous in the Department of Employment is that of Father McKenna, who has generated infectious enthusiasm among those with whom he has come into contact. Over 500 young people who would otherwise be wasting away on the scrap heap are involved in Father McKenna's scheme, which endeavours to instil work disciplines and work skills. It is a tragedy that, at the end of the day, there is nowhere for these young people to go. Some are saying that it is not worthwhile taking part in the scheme because they cannot profit from the experience. I believe that hope must be kept alive for these young people. The Government recognise, I hope, that they have a special responsibility. I am not condemning a Tory Government for planning the new town in 1961. I would probably have cheered had a Labour Government planned it, among the others that Labour created. It was to be a new town offering a better, richer and fuller life than could be provided in the old Merseyside region. People were attracted to Skelmersdale. Unfortunately, the bright dream has been rudely shattered. We now have a tragic situation. With unemployment on such a scale, although other regions make special pleas, Skelmersdale stands out, not as a disaster area, but as a black spot that needs considerable Government help. The Government can offer help in three or four ways. The first is with Hughes International. The Minister knows of the company, because the matter is before his colleagues, although I had rather a dampening reply today from one of them. Hughes International is owned by an entrepreneur of the sort that the Government are said to favour—the "go out and get the business" type. He has promised to deliver—if the Government will be sensible about the export credit guarantee scheme—1,000 jobs to Skelmersdale. Those are real jobs, not Mickey Mouse jobs. That business has been secured, albeit in Nigeria, in the face of intense competition; and Mr. Hughes wishes to have realistic help from the Government so that he can create 1,000 real jobs. If the Government do the sums of taking 1,000 men off the dole—no matter how risky the enterprise—they must reward Mr. Hughes' endeavours and enterprise by saying that they will not be as rigid on export credit guarantees as they may be in other circumstances. They should treat if as a special case. The Government could also help us to build our new hospital. I told the Minister earlier today that the hospital has already passed the Government's test. They have conducted a profile to find what they call the "best buy", and Skelmersdale new hospital, slimmed down from the original grand design, passed the test. The reason why it was not built was that we were shunted from the Merseyside regional health authority into the North West regional health authority which immediately put us to the bottom of its long queue. Only the Government can rescue us. By doing that, they would fulfil a social need for a hospital. With such high unemployment, to force people to travel to the hospital in the nearest town of Ormskirk is a considerable burden. It would also create permanent jobs, both in the original construction and staffing of the finished hospital. The grand design will not be complete until the hospital is built. Another way in which the Government can help is by directing some EEC grants in our direction. Corby, because of the closure of the British Steel Corporation works, was considered to be a disaster area. I do not know its rate of unemployment, but I know that it did not have 38 per cent. male unemployment. The Government treated Corby as a special case and it was locked into a system of EEC grants. I do not know whether the fund that helped Corby can help us, but there must be a fund into which we can be locked. Although there may not be enough money to help us with the Hughes International deal, there may be sufficient to build the hospital. The Government should also take on board the proposal for the transfer of a Government Department. It would help to alter our profile if we had the managerial or administrative jobs that at present we do not have. Only 8 per cent. of our people are employed in that type of job. I understand that not all the Government Departments have been allocated, and I believe that Skelmersdale is an outstanding case for consideration. I finish on that note, because I want the Minister to have a chance to reply. He told us this morning that he would do his best to answer some of our questions. I have known the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently long to know that he will do his best. Skelmersdale is a town which, in its short history, has suffered a series of deep and heavy body blows. They have not been mortal. There is still a good life there. The people are willing workers. That, incidentally, is one reason why Hughes International went there. It had a profile done by outsiders on the best place to put a huge investment that would create 1,000 jobs and, contrary to popular opinion, Skelmersdale is not the worst of the new towns in the United Kingdom. It had the highest grant—something enjoyed by other areas—and it had good communications, but above all, it had good industrial relations. That is why a private entrepreneur is prepared to put a considerable amount of money into a place where he has faith in the people. I come back to what I was saying. We have suffered many body blows. We need a boost. We need a fillip. We need to give hope to the people. We have suffered too much bad news. I hope that, as a result of this debate, good news will soon flow to Skelmersdale, that the Government recognise that it is a special case, and that they will give us the special help that is needed to deal with a special problem.3.11 am
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on his success in securing an Adjournment debate, even at this late hour. I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice of some of the particular problems that he intended to highlight in the debate. This will enable me to respond in more detail to the points that he has made.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for arranging for me to meet this morning a deputation of councillors from West Lancashire district council. They have had a long day. Their endurance is as great as that of the hon. Gentleman. As a result of that meeting, I come to the debate this evening with a clearer understanding of the severe problems facing the area. The councillors presented their case forcefully, clearly, and enthusiastically. A number of the specific points that they made have been repeated here this evening, and I shall do my best in the time available to deal with each in turn. The hon. Member and the local councillors are understandably concerned about the high unemployment in Skelmersdale. I can assure them that the Government and I share their concern. We are acutely aware of the problems and anxieties that confront those who lose their jobs, or the youngsters who see no prospect of finding one. Unemployment rose sharply under the last Government, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept, and it has risen sharply under this Government. It is rising just as sharply under Governments abroad, although that brings no joy to anyone. We are suffering particularly badly at present from a combination of factors which have conspired to raise unemployment levels generally. The international recession caused by the massive oil price rise is one factor. We have also been coping with a "bulge" of school leavers coming on to the job market. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 33 per cent. of youngsters under the age of 18 in Skelmersdale. That shows the youth profile of this new town. But in this country we have been suffering in particular from the weaknesses shown by Governments over the past 15 years on ducking the really difficult decisions. When one considers that during the 1970s wage rates went up by 350 per cent. while productivity required to pay for them went up by only 16 per cent., it is not surprising that unemployment rose sharply under successive Governments. On top of all that, Skelmersdale, of course, has its own particular problems. The town suffered a major blow to its industrial base in 1976 when its two largest employers, Thorn and Courtaulds, closed with the loss of 2,500 jobs—25 per cent. of the town's employment. I recognise that that was a body blow. Since then the industrial development situation has been such that it has been difficult to secure sufficient employment opportunities to make good those gigantic losses. The Government fully recognise the special problems facing the area; and it is for that reason that Skelmersdale will retain its special development area status when the rest of the Ormskirk travel-to-work area becomes non-assisted from 1 August. As a special development area, the new town will continue to benefit from the full range of regional financial incentives at the highest level available in Great Britain. Skelmersdale will, of course, also benefit from the Government's policy of reducing the number of areas eligible for regional assistance so that aid is concentrated to a much greater degree on places with the worst problems, such as Skelmersdale. In the period since the Government came to office assistance worth over £1·7 million has been made available to firms in the Ormskirk travel-to-work area under section 7 of the Industry Act. It was estimated that this assistance would safeguard about 30 jobs and create nearly 1,800 new jobs. About £7 million in regional development grants has been paid to firms in the area. Nearly all of that assistance went to firms in Skelmersdale. However, the only way to obtain substantial and lasting impovements in the employment prospects of Skelmersdale and elsewhere is to get the economy back on to a sound footing. This is what the Government's policies are concentrating on. The hon. Gentleman would probably agree that the deployment of resources in Skelmersdale is not the most acute problem. Waiting for winds to blow into our sails is the root of our difficulties. However, industry has to play its part too. It has to continue its efforts to improve productivity, reduce costs, improve the quality and design of its goods and become more adaptable to changing markets. We are now through the worst of the recession, and employment prospects in the United Kingdom as a whole are improving. The news is no longer all bad. It is no longer all about redundancies—firms closing down, firms on short time—although I would be the first to admit that Skelmersdale has seen more than its fair share of these. There are plenty of good news stories too, even in Skelmersdale. Rodco Ltd., for instance, a joint GEC-Pirelli venture, has now completed construction at Stanley of its continuous casting plant for copper wire bar and will provide employment for 120 when in full production later this year. Despite the difficult circumstances, people in Skelmersdale are finding jobs. In the past 12 months nearly 2,800 people in the Ormskirk travel-to-work area were placed in employment by the MSC's employment service—nearly 2,000 of them in Skelmersdale. Many more, perhaps two or three times that number, will have found jobs by other means. The development corporation has recently completed a number of nursery factories and standard factories of mixed sizes, some of which have aready been let. In the deputation visit the hon. Gentleman made a point about rents which I noted carefully. Last year the corporation completed several workshops and all were let quickly, mostly to new businesses. In fact I understand that since this Government came to office some 50 new small firms have been established in Skelmersdale. Those are now employing about 700 people. The corporation still has a considerable amount of purpose built factory space, readily available to meet any future increase in demand, which will place the town in an advantageous position when the employment opportunities in the area improve. However, the hon. Gentleman has suggested this evening certain other ways in which the Government could help the area. The local representatives whom I met this morning also made a number of points, many of which I promised to look into, and I shall do so. They also handed me a copy of a detailed report, recently prepared by the council, on unemployment in the area which I hope to have the opportunity of studying in more detail later, although I had a chance to absorb some of its well deployed facts when I looked at it this morning. At our meeting this morning the councillors suggested, for instance, that my Department and the Department of Industry might get together with a specially formed body of local industrialists, local councillors and educationists to develop special initiatives in the area. They also thought that it would be useful for my Department to join Liverpool or Lancaster university to mount a full-scale study of the real causes of unemployment in new towns. I have said that I will look at these and various other points and I shall certainly do so. Some, like the lack of further education facilities in Skelmerdale, I shall take up with my colleagues in other Departments. There are one or two points that I can deal with now. There was some concern about the fact that changes in the funding arrangements for training workshops might jeopardise the future of the Skelmersdale training workshop. In fact, there have been no changes in the funding arrangemets for those workshops and none is envisaged. The sponsor pays 10 per cent. of the capital costs and the MSC makes up the other 90 per cent. Any capital replacement is funded in exactly the same way. I am told by the MSC that it knows of no problems or complaints arising from the Skelmersdale training workshop and its funding arrangements. I hope that that will be reassuring, particularly as I understand that this particular workshop is regarded by the MSC as one of the best examples in the country in terms both of its operation and the training offered. The deputation was also concerned to know whether the young workers scheme covered young people already in employment. I can confirm that employers who already have 16 and 17-year-olds on their staff can apply for support under this scheme for their continued employment provided that the younsters in question have been with the firm for no more than six months and that the other criteria of the scheme, includng the maximum level of earnings allowed, are met. The possibility that some Government work might be dispersed to Skelmersdale was also raised. A limited number of planned dispersal moves are in fact proceeding. But a dispersal policy is expensive and the need to contain public expenditure prevents any further initiative. However, when it comes to the location of new government work or the relocation of work for operational reasons, I am assured that the pressing needs of particular areas such as Skelmersdale—where the need is firmly acknowledged—will be given the fullest possible consideration. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that one way of creating new jobs in the town, as well as providing a better medical service, would be for the Government to pay for a new hospital to be built. This is, of course, primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secertary of State for Social Services, and I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to him. However, I understand that the North West regional health authority has a scheme in its capital programme for a community hospital in Skelmersdale which is programmed to start, I am afraid, some time ahead—in the early 1990s. The Skelmersdale scheme was originally to begin in 1981–82 but has, I understand—for the reasons sketched out by the hon. Gentleman—continued to slip back following revisions to the capital programme. I am told, however, that the regional health authority has given priority to ensuring that primary health care services are available within the new towns. Four health centres have been opened and a further centre is under consideration. And hospital services are, of course, available at Ormskirk and district general hospital where major developments are planned to start in 1986–87. It was suggested at the meeting this morning that money might be available from the European Community to finance a hospital. I shall pursue that further, but my initial understanding of the situation is that while the Community supports medical research in certain fields, health, being a direct Government responsibility, is specifically excluded from the ambit of the Treaty of Rome. However, I shall look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman criticised our export credits guarantee system. He mentioned, in particular, the problems experienced by Mr. George Hughes in obtaining Export Credits Guarantee Department support for large contracts, which he has been trying for some time to win in Nigeria. Again, this is primarily a matter for another Department, as I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman this morning. However, I will pass his comments to my colleagues in the Department of Trade. But I have already been advised by them that although ECGD is as flexible as possible in its requirem