Commons Sitting of 1 December 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost to the Exchequer in the present financial year for the education of children under the assisted places scheme; and what would be the comparable cost if those children were educated in the maintained sector.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): My Department expects to pay grant of about £3·2 million in this financial year in respect of the 4,185 pupils admitted to assisted places in September. The average cost of providing for that number of pupils to attend maintained secondary schools for two terms this year is also estimated to be £3·2 million.
    Mr. Carlisle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the scheme has been an outstanding success, that it represents real value for money for the taxpayer and that it has been welcomed by thousands of parents throughout the land as widening the choice for their children's education? How many children are entering the scheme from the lower income groups?
    Dr. Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. One-third of parents with children in the scheme have a family income which means that they pay no fees at all. Another one-third have an income which is below the average wage. Two-thirds of the children involved are therefore from families earning below the average wage. There is no doubt that the scheme is bringing into excellent schools, with good sixth forms, pupils from deprived backgrounds.
    Mr. Flannery: Cuts in education are biting so deeply that teachers are coming to the House this afternoon to complain bitterly that the public education system is suffering worse than ever before. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that public money is being used to help private education and to give favours to those who are already favoured at the expense of our children?
    Dr. Boyson: There is such a queue for private education that it does not need any help. The help is required to enable academically able pupils to go to those schools irrespective of family income. The cost of attending the Edward VI grammar school in Birmingham
    122
    is £756 a year. I explained in a letter sent to one of my hon. Friends yesterday that the cost of school education in the maintained sector between the ages of 11 and 16 is £1,004, and over the age of 16 it is £1,623. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original reply, he would realise that the overall cost would be the same as if the children involved were in the maintained sector.
    Mr. Montgomery: In view of the undoubted success of the scheme, has my hon. Friend any plans for extending it?
    Dr. Boyson: I shall pass that comment to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is nice to have that vote of total confidence given to the scheme by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dobson: What are the Government's educational priorities when they can give more than £3 million subsidy for private schools but are not prepared to give any extra money to implement the Education Act 1981 to provide better special education for handicapped children?
    Dr. Boyson: I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Opposition Front Bench at Question Time, but I am in slight disagreement with his question. I have already explained that the cost of educating these children in the State sector would be the same. Our priority in the education system is to give all children, handicapped or not, the maximum opportunity possible wherever they attend school.

    School Curriculum (Less Academic Children)
    Mr. Mylesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for improving the school curriculum for the less academic children in the last two years of compulsory schooling.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): In these two years, the curriculum, without sacrificing rigour and without trying to provide initial training for specific jobs, should have a greater practical slant for all pupils, whatever their abilities and aptitudes, than it now has in most schools. I shall do what I can to bring about this change.
    Mr. Myles: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that practicality takes precedence over so-called equality so that the talents of students may be utilised in the best possible way in their future lives? Does he agree that it is stupid to try to make everyone equal when they are not?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. We seek, and shall continue to seek, equality of opportunity, so far as that is practicable.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State accept that the introduction of a single examination at the age of 16, which he is thought to favour, would go against the aim of increasing practicality which he has just stated?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I shall try to study the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am still learning the job in some subjects. The complex problem of examinations is one that I still have to master. However, I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Lyell: Is not one of the problems higlighted by the Scarman report that a large proportion of children in

    123
    Brixton leave school without being properly educated in the three Rs? Will my right hon. Friend give his attention to that problem?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that is a crucial problem. We shall do all that we can do to help the teachers in what is often a difficult but indispensable task.
    Mr. Kinnock: In my usual spirit of generosity, may I help the right hon. Gentleman? The proposition put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was that a greater concentration on examinations would reduce the practical value of the curriculum for students in their last two years of secondary schooling. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in the development of what the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) call the three Rs, will he accept that—in the words of the secondary school inspectors' report of 1979—a reduction in the obsession with examinations will lead to the fruition of greater competence in the basics of education?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not believe that it is necessary to make a sharp dichotomy between a shade more emphasis on practicality in the curriculum and on examinations.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to make any changes in the student grants system.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans for major changes in the structure of the awards system.
    Mr. Alton: How does the Under-Secretary intend to reply to the submission from the National Union of Students that the real value of the grant has been reduced by about 7 per cent. since 1978, and that some costs, such as hall fees, have risen by as much as 40 per cent. during the same period? Will he tell me what advice I should give to the welfare officer of the Liverpool students' union, whom I met yesterday, who says that many students are now facing grave financial hardship?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I recently met representatives of the National Union of Students and had a useful exchange of views on that occasion. Its arguments and those of the hon. Gentleman will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend when he settles the level of grants.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the allocation of £500,000 to the Open University to enable unemployed people to study free of charge. Does he acknowledge that there may be difficulties in applying that money, because some people may get work as others leave work? Will he allow maximum flexibility in the way that the money is applied by the Open University in this excellent cause?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The scheme that has been developed by the Open University, in conjunction with my Department, is imaginative and will need to be flexible, as I am sure it will be.
    Mr. Christopher Price: How will the Secretary of State reply to the Public Accounts Committee's demand
    124
    that student grants should be cash limited? Is the Under-Secretary aware that, inevitably, if student grants are cash limited the Robbins principle will be completely eroded? In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that principle, he can read it on the Order Paper in question No. 20. Do the Government still believe in the Robbins principle, or will they redefine it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has also now remembered the Robbins principle. The Department will take into account the considerations that he has mentioned, together with other considerations, in replying to the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Rhodes James: In addition to the problem of student grants, will my hon. Friend give further consideration during the next few months to the problem of the parental contribution? I declare an interest.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend heard what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Whitehead: The Secretary of State said that he was still learning the job. May we take it that Ministers in the Department have learnt the lesson of their predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), and abandoned the pernicious notion of introducing a system of student loans?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department are reconsidering student loans. The argument is not perhaps quite as open and shut as the hon. Gentleman makes it sound. Many countries operate loans systems. The effect that they have on students depends entirely on how they are designed.

    Burnham Committee
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will allocate a place on the Burnham committee for the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): As my hon. Friend stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) on 23 November, my right hon. Friend has written to the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers to say that he does not propose to grant representation on the Burnham further education committee to the association.
    Mr. Lawrence: Why does not the Burnham committee in general, and the further education committee in particular, reflect more closely the representation of the teachers's unions and their strength in the country? Is it equitable and democratic that the National Union of Teachers, which represents only 50 per cent. of teachers, should have such a dominant voice on the Burnham committee?
    Mr. Shelton: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, the NAS/UWT is represented on the Burnham committee, but it is the Burnham further education committee that is in question. Two criteria are applied: first, the percentage of the total number of teachers in the sector which the union has; and, secondly, whether the membership is drawn from any particular description of teachers within that sector. According to those criteria, I am afraid that the NAS/UWT has no representation.
    Mr. Newens: Does the Under-Secretary recognise that an increase in the multiplicity of teachers' representatives on these organisations—particularly when, as he said, they do not have a membership which justifies representation—can only make it infinitely more difficult to allow the teachers to speak with one voice and reach decisions? Does he accept that, in the long run, any increase in representation from different organisations will only worsen labour relations in the teaching sector?
    Mr. Shelton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not entirely agree with him. What is important is whether the union meets the criteria.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that those criteria are too inflexible to meet the case in point? This is an important and influential union. Does he accept that the two criteria that he adumbrated are too narrow and should be reconsidered?
    Mr. Shelton: These criteria are in the Act under which the Burnham committee was set up. Of course, they can to some extent be at the discretion of my right hon. Friend. Should the situation change, no doubt these matters can he reviewed in future.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise the complete confusion in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who did not even know the difference between the Burnham further education committee and the Burnham committee? The reality is that on the further education committee—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Instead of giving information, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put his words in the form of a question.
    Mr. Flannery: I asked the Minister a question. Is the Minister aware that the majority of teachers in further education are represented by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—whose representatives will be coming to the House this afternoon—and that the National Association of Schoolmasters has few members in further education and should not be represented?
    Mr. Shelton: I have no need to defend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has great knowledge of these matters. The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers has at least 2,000 full-time members in further education.

    Manchester (Secondary Education)
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his rejection of the Manchester local education authority plan for reorganising secondary education in the city.
    Sir Keith Joseph: My reasons for rejecting the city of Manchester's proposals are set out in the Department's letter to the authority of 12 November, a copy of which was sent to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that the delay involved in the rejection of the Manchester scheme will add to the anxiety and uncertainty facing both teaching staff and parents in the city of Manchester? Is he further aware that the city of Manchester's ratepayers will
    126
    be involved in £1 million of additional expenditure as a result of the rejection of the reorganisation scheme? Will he explain how one determines the proven worth of the three schools concerned?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I studied this subject profoundly before reaching such an important decision. I very much regret the delay involved for Manchester, its ratepayers, teachers, parents and pupils. That is why I hope that the city of Manchester will come back as soon as possible, when it has had time to reconsider the proposals. Many characteristics have to be taken into account when deciding proven worth. Academic results are not the only characteristics, but they are an important component.
    Mr. Silvester: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many people in Manchester feel that it is better to suffer the delay that results from the decision than to be stuck with a scheme that will damage our schools for many generations?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Marks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Manchester education committee will recommend to tomorrow's city council meeting that it accept all his conditions and that Whalley Range, Parrswood and Burnage high school be excepted from the scheme and that provision be made for single-sex education for those over the age of 16? If the council accepts that proposition tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman give the scheme immediate approval so that it can take effect next September?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I welcome the council's quick reaction. However, I still have a quasi-judicial function, and objectors to the new scheme must be given an opportunity to make objections in accordance with the statute. When that period for objection is over, I guarantee to give urgent consideration to the issues involved.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in the North-West welcome his statement that he is unwilling to weaken schools of proven quality which continue to demonstrate their success in sixth-form provision, and this could apply to other schools in the North-West, such as the Lancaster Royal grammar school and the Lancaster girls' grammar school.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Each case has to be decided on its merits. I am trying to carry out part of the Conservative manifesto.
    Mr. Beith: If the Secretary of State is not prepared to allow Manchester to develop on the basis of a sixth-form college system or to allow Liverpool to make proper use of the under-used Paddington school premises, what discretion has any local authority to achieve the reduction in school places that the right hon. Gentleman demands?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to generalise about decisions that have to be made on individual merits, as I see them.
    Mr. Whitehead: What definition of proven need puts the case for three schools over the case for 23 schools, which costs an additional £1 million in delay and which is adopted—I understand—against the advice of the Department and Her Majesty's Inspectorate?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I think that the hon. Gentleman meant "proven worth", not "proven need". The answer to the question that he meant to put is "Educational quality for the children".

    Burnham Further Education Committee
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is now in a position to announce a decision regarding the awarding of a seat on the Burnham further education committee to the Association of Polytechnic Teachers, following the exchange in the House on 21 May and the announcement of consultations by his predecessor on 22 June.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Strongly held views have been expressed for and against the proposition. I have not heard the arguments of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers, so I have invited its representatives to put their case to me before I take a decision.
    Mr. Latham: As this matter has been dragging on for a long time, and as it cannot be the most significant matter awaiting my right hon. Friend's decision, will he try to determine it as quickly as possible?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend's comments are valid, and the answer is "Yes".
    Mr. Newens: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that it is not his policy to recognise every small organisation? If he did, none of the representative bodies would be able to reach any agreement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this organisation represents only a small group of teachers, who are admirably represented—for the most part—by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I find this statutory function invidious. I have to take all the arguments into account.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend's predecessor considered the matter carefully and decided that the association should be represented? Why is it necessary to consider the matter again?
    Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend has not given the whole picture. My predecessor expressed an inclination in one direction, but decided that it was necessary to hold consultations. I must take the results of those consultations into account.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Now that the Secretary of State has set up a public sector body in which the polytechnics are only a minority shareholder, what arguments are there for giving that small minority body a seat when teachers across the whole range have been adequately and properly represented for many years by one trade union?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Strong arguments are put to me both for and against inclusion. I must resolve the arguments as soon as possible.

    School Meals
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current number of meals being served in schools each day compared to 1978.
    Mr. William Shelton: The necessary information will not be available until the new year, by which time all the returns under the 1981 school meals census will have been received and analysed.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that the Minister does not want to give the figures because they have decreased considerably? Is he aware that in 1978 the children of the unemployed qualified for free school meals? Why do they not qualify now?
    Mr. Shelton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The 1980 census was published in January 1981. The 1981 census will be published at the beginning of next year. If the hon. Gentleman asks this question in a few months' time, he will receive the answer. As the hon. Gentleman must know, there is a statutory obligation that the children of those on family income supplement and supplementary benefit should have free school meals. In addition, two-thirds of local education authorities give more free school meals than they are required to give under the statutory obligation.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is there any evidence that the introduction of the cafeteria system—even in primary schools—has led to an upturn in the number of those eating schools meals?
    Mr. Shelton: Unfortunately, it is too difficult to say. We shall know the answer in January or February when this year's census is published. However, my hon. Friend is right. There are signs that the upturn has started.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister take it from me that there has been a distinct drop in the number of meals available to schoolchildren? Does he accept that the main concern of those involved in education is that, geographically, the poorest areas have suffered most? Will he please promise to discriminate positively in favour of the weakest in our society?
    Mr. Shelton: There is a considerable variation between one education authority and another. However, that does not seem to be based on the poverty or otherwise of the authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to monitor the effect on nutrition of recent legislation. That will take place in the not-too-distant future.

    Nursery Education
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to expand the provision of nursery education within the State system.
    Dr. Boyson: There is provision in the Government's expenditure plans for modest capital expenditure to enable those authorities that wish to do so to increase their nursery accommodation, mainly by converting spare primary accommodation.
    Mrs. Short: Why did the Minister introduce new regulations concerning the attendance of children in nursery classes? Is it not essential to expand nursery education now, with the help of the Government, bearing in mind that such a large number of families, particularly in deprived areas, are living close to the poverty line, thanks to the Government's policies?
    Dr. Boyson: A total of 6,000 more children were in nursery education in January this year compared with

    129
    January last year. The hon. Lady may be interested in the figures for Wolverhampton. In 1980, 62 per cent. of 3- and 4-year olds were in nursery and primary schools, whereas in January 1981 the figure had increased to 65 per cent.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in present circumstances it may be no bad thing not to expand nursery education, so that more young children can be at home with their mothers?
    Dr. Boyson: We always welcome my hon. Friend's interventions, and we shall undoubtedly take his views into account.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Minister aware that we wish there had been nursery schools when the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was young?
    Mr. Cryer: There is room for improvement; he was brought up in a cave.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the Select Committee, the Rampton committee and, most important of all, the Scarman committee, have put strong emphasis on the need to increase and improve nursery facilities? Instead of announcing modest capital expenditure, will he now announce an increase in current expenditure to facilitate that development?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the House would be much poorer without the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). Had he attended nursery school instead of a home playgroup, and had his views changed as a result, we would all have been the worse for it.
    There is, no doubt, a case for nursery schools in certain circumstances. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) talked earlier about positive discrimination. It is good to know that of the 6,000 extra nursery places in January this year, 5,000 were in urban areas. Without doubt, nursery places are most helpful in areas with a large number of one-parent families, ethnic deprivation and inner-city problems.
    Mr. John MacKay: Does my hon. Friend accept that a vast expansion of nursery education would be equivalent to lowering the starting age of children at school? Would it not be far better to encourage the pre-school playgroup movement?
    Dr. Boyson: The pre-school playgroup movement has been the greatest self-help movement since the war. We should do all that we can to pump-prime it. I believe that it will celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary in 1982 and is planning a special week. I trust that all hon. Members will take an interest in the movement at that time.

    Mathematics Teaching
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) on 12 November, Official Report, c. 160, he is now in a position to make a statement on the report of the Cockcroft committee relating to the teaching of mathematics in secondary schools.
    Mr. William Shelton: My right hon. Friend is arranging for the report to be published as soon as possible. We expect it to be of wide interest to parents and employers as well as to the education service.
    Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the conclusions of that report, local education authorities should use the advantage of falling rolls substantially to step up in-service training and retraining in this subject?
    Mr. Shelton: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I entirely agree with him.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Can the hon. Gentleman give us a date for publication, as everyone wants to read the report, not least the Select Committee?
    Mr. Shelton: The report was received on 10 November. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be published early in the new year.

    Student Unions
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to alter the arrangements made for the financing of student unions so as to make subscriptions to them voluntary rather than mandatory.
    Mr. Waldegrave: With the exception of Oxbridge junior common rooms, there are no subscriptions to student unions, which are now financed through the recurrent income of their parent institutions.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that a growing movement within SACUM—Students Against Compulsory Union Membership—believes that part of Tory philosophy is responsible freedom? Does he not believe that the case of Paul Soden, who was excluded from Manchester polytechnic because he was not prepared to pay that part of the annual subscription that was due to the students' union, is quite wrong, particularly as he qualified and was eligible for admission to the polytechnic? Will my hon. Friend give this case and the whole matter of voluntary membership his urgent attention?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Department is indeed giving the whole matter urgent attention. I think that at the back of my hon. Friend's mind are worries about political and other activities that do not appear to be connected with the original purposes of student unions. I believe that Mr. Soden was unwilling to contribute to the students' union that part of the fees that he calculated to be necessary. That would be a difficult precedent to accept, because students might then regard themselves as free not to contribute that part of their fees which, for example, they regarded as covering other departments that they did not use.
    Mr. McNally: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is worrying to hear that the Department is urgently considering this matter? Is he further aware that the "loony" Right of the Tory Party has been sniping at student unions for more than 20 years? Is he also aware that, apart from the odd tomato, the cultural, athletic and education benefits to be gained from such unions are part of a student's overall education? Does he agree that the student movement has produced at least as many distinguished Members of this House as has All Souls?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has more direct experience of "loonies" in politics than I. Indeed, they have driven him out of the Labour Party. There is a real question to answer about ultra vires activities by student unions, and this is a more complex question than that of

    131
    mere membership of student unions, which are normally recognised in the charters of universities or the orders governing polytechnics. We are looking seriously into that question.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Is it not a fact that in a large number of institutions of higher education the student union is, for example, an integral part of the feeding arrangements of students? Surely it would be as sensible to have voluntary subscriptions to unions as it would be to have voluntary subscriptions to chemistry laboratories or libraries of medieval French.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As always, my hon. Friend makes my point more elegantly. There is much to be said for his suggestion.

    Teachers
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the number of teachers who (a) qualified in 1980 and 1981 and (b) obtained teaching posts.
    Dr. Boyson: About 21,000 persons successfully completed courses of initial teacher training in England and Wales in 1980, of whom 72 per cent. had obtained teaching posts in the United Kingdom by the end of October 1980. Corresponding figures for 1981 are not yet available.
    Mr. Marks: It is dreadful to think that 28 per cent. of qualified teachers have not obtained jobs. Does the Minister not realise that the mere maintenance of the present teacher-pupil ratio at a time of falling rolls means lower standards? Would it not be preferable to give those teachers real teaching jobs rather than other jobs, thereby forcing other people on to the dole?
    Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman, who had a distinguished teaching career, rightly said that 28 per cent. of trained teachers had not found jobs. It is as well to remember that many of them have either taken other jobs or gone abroad. The 28 per cent. figure relates to 1980. Under the Labour Government, 31 per cent. had not found jobs by the end of October 1978, and in 1977 the figure was 40 per cent.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still a shortage of mathematics and science teachers in many areas? Will he draw that fact to the attention of school leavers who are considering teaching as a career?
    Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend is correct. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sent a circular letter saying that attention is being paid both to the quality of the training and the subjects in which the teachers are being trained. There is no point in studying subjects for which there is already a surplus of teachers.

    Universities and Polytechnics
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the age group 19 to 25 years he expects to be attending universities and polytechnics in each of the next 10 years.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The percentage of the 19 to 25 age group attending universities is expected to fall from about 3·6 per cent. in 1980–81 to about 3 per cent. by 1984–85.
    132
    A further 1·5 per cent. of this age group were attending polytechnics in 1980–81. It is not possible to give the projections requested for the polytechnics, or for the universities beyond 1984–85.
    Mr. Bennett: Which members of the Cabinet would have managed to get into university if they had been part of the "bulge" generation and had faced the cuts that the Government are now imposing on universities? Is it not scandalous that the Government are denying to the next generation the opportunities that many members of the Cabinet and of the House enjoyed?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that none of my right hon. Friends would have had the slightest difficulty in getting into university in any age. Many of them would have been in universities, even in the eighteenth century—[Interruption.] There will be a fall in the participation rate, which we all regret.
    Mr. Forman: Apart from the needs of people between the ages of 19 and 25, what encouragement does the Department intend to give to mature students going back to university or polytechnics on a continuing and optional basis?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important subject. This year the University Grants Committee, for the first time in its distributions, tried to protect mature students specifically. It remains an important aspect of Government policy to do that.
    Mr. Whitehead: As we now know that the fall in the number of university student places will be about 20,000 in three years, is not it incumbent on the Government to state the equivalent fall in the number of polytechnic places?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Policy decisions remain to be taken after discussion with local authorities about the implications for polytechnics and other colleges in the maintained sector.

    University Grants Committee
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to replace the University Grants Committee with another mechanism for allocating Government funds to universities.
    Sir Keith Joseph: No, Sir.
    Mr. Renton: Is not the University Grants Committee being asked to change overnight from being an elderly tortoise to a young tiger? Is it really equipped to deal with cutbacks and redundancies? Will it and the Secretary of State look specifically and humanely at individual universities that can show that the net cost to the public purse would be less if their costs were spread over five years rather than over three years?
    Sir Keith Joseph: We are ready to consider my hon. Friend's latter proposition if it is worked out in a way that will achieve savings for the taxpayer in the years desired. On the former proposition, the UGC has presided over expansion for many years and honourably undertook, and is equipped for, the peer reviews necessary for the allocation of funds.
    Mr. Kinnock: Following the exercise by which the universities try to establish by various means the savings

    133
    that would accrue as a consequence of delaying the cutbacks, when does the Secretary of State expect to make a final decision and response? Will it be before next February, when so many important meetings will take place in universities about arrangements for the following year against the background of quick and big cuts?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am studying urgently the paper that I have received through the UGC from the vice-chancellors and principals relating to an important aspect of the subject. I understand the urgency.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is that no single body covers the whole of higher and further education. Is it not a great mistake to divide higher education between universites and the other aspects? Will my right hon. Friend consider that?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is presiding over efforts by the local authorities to achieve a more coherent approach.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not crazy, when the country is crying out for better technology, to impose the worst blows on the technological-based universities such as Salford, Aston, Bradford and others? Is the Secretary of State aware that 700 engineering places are to go at Salford as well as 500 other students and 550 staff?
    Sir Keith Joseph: After the reductions there will be at least as many places as there were before for such training.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Brazilian Foreign Minister. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen, after which I shall attend a dinner given by Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Hamilton: Has the Prime Minister had time to read the article on the front page of The Guardian this morning about the Government's proposal to scrap the National Health Service as we know it? Does she recognise that the Health Service is the most popular public service that we have? Is she aware that any threat by her to undermine the basic principles on which it is based would create a revolutionary situation in the country? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, give a categorical assurance that not even she will stoop to such skulduggery?
    The Prime Minister: The principle that adequate health care should be provided for all, regardless of ability to pay, must be the foundation of any arrangments for financing the Health Service. Some time ago, on 30 July 1981, my right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State, announced that a working party had been set up to examine different methods of financing the Health Service. [Interruption.] Only the minds of members of the Opposition are closed to new ideas. They will not even look at new ideas.
    134
    I am certain that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) will welcome the fact that under a Conservative Government there are 1,000 more doctors and 21,000 more fully qualified nurses and midwives in the National Health Service than there were when his party was in power.
    Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the leaders of the second largest trade union in Britain on having accepted yesterday a pay settlement of 5 per cent. that covers almost 2 million workers in the engineering industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that workers who, in the national interest, settle for such moderate pay rises will have little patience with others with industrial muscle who seek to damage the nation at the expense of other people by putting in extravagant claims?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the report to which my hon. Friend refers. That settlement will help to keep prices competitive and will therefore provide a better chance of expansion and more jobs in the engineering industry. I congratulate all concerned.
    Mr. Foot: As the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is of such crucial importance, and since great suspicion is bound to be aroused by any approach by the Government to the National Health Service, may we have an assurance that there will be a debate in the House before any further proceedings on this issue are allowed?
    May we have a direct answer about another report in the papers this morning, following the statement by the director of the British museum to a Select Committee?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The British museum is where right hon. Gentleman should be.
    Mr. Foot: All right, I know that the barbarians on the Government Benches are not interested in a great institution such as the British museum, but we hear with great alarm that the director of the British museum is saying that if nothing is changed the museum will have to close in two years. If Tory Members do not care about that, we do. May we have an undertaking that the Prime Minister will intervene today to put a stop to such barbarian nonsense?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, the setting up of the working party was announced in July. It is continuing its work and will identify alternatives for financing the Health Service. I expect that those alternatives will be looked at to see what details are required for further work. There was a debate on the National Health Service two weeks ago. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if not his hon. Friends, will welcome the fact that there are now 1,000 more doctors and 21,000 more nurses and midwives than there were under the Labour Government.
    With regard to the museums, I gave a reception for the museum directors and members of the board yesterday evening. The grant in 1981–82 is 7 to 8 per cent. above that for 1980–81. The museums may look forward to an increase next year, but the precise amount will have to await the full public expenditure results.
    Mr. Foot: Will the Prime Minister take account of what is said by the director of the British museum? Does she agree with him—because he knows the facts—that if these conditions prevail the museum will have to be closed in two years? Will she intervene to stop that right away?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that the grant for museums this year was nearly 8 per cent. above that for last year. Next year it will be above that for this year. That is reasonable under all the circumstances.
    Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister accept Chancellor Schmidt's recent statement that the British and French nuclear weapons will have to be discussed in the present intermediate missile negotiations that have just commenced? Will the right hon. Lady use this opportunity to reconsider her position on Trident? Will she also tell the House what her view is about a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first statement, alleged to have been made by Chancellor Schmidt, I do not know about it. He has never made any such statement to me. If that is what he thought, I would have expected him to make a statement to me, to President Mitterrand or to both of us together. With regard to Trident, I understand that the United States is going for D5. Until the United States has made a final decision, we cannot make a final decision. The right hon. Gentleman's third point was about a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone. I always view with great suspicion suggestions for nuclear-free zones, particularly by a country that could easily withdraw its weapons behind the Urals and still have the capacity totally to destroy Europe.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to address a letter of congratulation to all those at British Aerospace who have achieved the major deal with the United States Government to supply £500 million worth of Hawks, to be used by the United States Navy? Is that not an example of yet another British company being a world beater?
    The Prime Minister: I give my warm congratulations. The contract has yet to be precisely defined, but the Hawk is an excellent aircraft. It is wonderful to see other countries recognising that fact and viewing the possibility of placing orders with Britain.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some time ago.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Prime Minister think again about tomorrow's announcement? Is it not hypocrisy to profess concern for the poorest in society and at the same time deliberately to inflict a third and savage increase in council rents, a further increase in prescription charges, an increase in the national insurance contribution and lastly a cut in the dole?
    The Prime Minister: As there is to be an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow, it is possible that I shall be doing more thinking about it today. Without confirming or denying any of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will subscribe to the principle that those in work should make it their duty to look after those who are out of work.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend today consider the new training initiative? Does she agree that it constitutes the most determined effort ever by any Government to tackle the grave problem of youth unemployment? Will she ensure that any schemes arising
    136
    from the initiative have a high vocational content so that the young people will have a practical hope of an effective job to go to?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the House will warmly welcome details of the new training initiative when they are announced at about the turn of the year. They are designed to give more young people more training so that they have a better prospect of getting new jobs. Taking that together with the youth opportunities programme and the prospect of the scheme for young workers, which comes in on 2 January, I believe that there is a good deal of hope for young people leaving school that they will be able to get training, further education or jobs.
    Mr. David Steel: Did the Prime Minister notice that last Thursday the people of Crosby passed judgment on her Government, and as the new Member for Crosby will take her seat this afternoon, is it not the Prime Minister's turn today to feel jolly jealous?
    The Prime Minister: Hardly. I do not believe that there is anyone in the House to be jealous of.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend consult her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland now that the decision has been given about the go-ahead for the NATO base in the Western Isles to ensure that that base, which is essential to the protection of the United Kingdom, and which will create many jobs in that area, is no longer held up?
    The Prime Minister: I shall do my best to comply with my hon. Friend's request. He is as anxious for the whole of the United Kingdom to be protected as I am, and that sufficient jobs go to Scotland.

    Earnings-related Benefit
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister if she will take steps to publicise the additional benefit that can be obtained by persons registering for earnings-related benefit in the last week of the current, compared with the first week of the following, year.
    The Prime Minister: The abolition of earnings-related benefit at the beginning of next month, and the transitional arrangements that accompany it, are being publicised through posters in DHSS local offices and unemployment benefit offices, through a new leaflet, and in the media.
    Mr. Bennett: If the Government's economic strategy is working, why is it necessary to abolish the earnings-related benefit, which will mean that new claimants will be £11 a week worse off?
    The Prime Minister: That matter was fully debated when it was put through the House. There was an opportunity to vote on it. I have nothing to add to the detailed discussion that took place.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Will my right hon. Friend also give publicity to the fact that pensions have been increased by 52 per cent. under her Administration? When the cost of social security benefits is increasing so rapidly, is it not common sense to give top priority to those most in need, including pensioner couples, widows and disabled people?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly what we have done. In fact, retirement pensions have kept up with the cost of living.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the imposition of the NATO base on the Western Isles is resisted by most of the people there—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's question is not related to earnings-related benefit.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to repeat that the Government's policy on the taking up of social benefits is to give publicity to what is available and to encourage the maximum take-up at the same time as the Government pursue their perfectly legitimate campaign against the fraudulent claims about which we are sometimes abused?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has expressed it perfectly. I cannot improve upon what he has said. I can only endorse his remarks.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that when poor families apply for any benefit, the benefit office checks to see whether they are entitled to any other benefits at the same time?
    The Prime Minister: That is an administrative matter. It seems to be a good idea that that should happen. I shall, of course, convey the suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who may have heard it, to see whether it is administratively possible.

Television Licence Fee
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department Mr. William Whitelaw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the television licence fees. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the BBC has made an application for an increase in the colour television licence fee to about £50 to last for three years. In considering that application it is my duty to ensure that the corporation's home services are adequately funded, and at the same time to have regard to what is fair to the licence fee payer.
I have therefore decided, and have today laid the necessary regulations, to increase the fee for a colour television licence from £34 to £46 and for a monochrome licence from £12 to £15. The new fees come into effect at midnight tonight. It is my intention that this level of fees should last for at least three years and I shall make it clear to the BBC that I shall expect it to pay off its current deficit and live within the revenue that these new levels of fees will produce until the end of the 1984–85 financial year.
My purpose in deciding on an increase to last for at least three years is to make the licence fee system work as it should. It is also my aim to fix the level of fees for a period that will enable the corporation to plan ahead more effectively. A three-year increase will require considerable financial discipline on the part of the corporation, and the extent to which it will be able to pursue its plans for new or improved services will depend crucially on its ability to keep down its costs, particularly labour costs.
In that context, the board of governors has announced that it has commissioned a wide-ranging review of the systems by which the BBC monitors its efficiency. I welcome that decision, which indicates how seriously the board of governors takes its responsibility for ensuring that the licence fee paying public get an efficient service and value for money.
I recognise that it is not easy for some people to find the licence fee in a single lump sum each year. I therefore intend to provide a range of means to enable members of the public who wish to do so to spread the cost of the licence fee over the year. To supplement the successful and widely used television saving stamps scheme, I have approved plans for the introduction of payments by instalments. We propose, during next summer, to start accepting monthly instalments towards the following year's licence fee by means of direct debit from bank accounts, and to introduce at least a pilot scheme for payment by credit cards. That will be followed, I hope by the summer of 1983, by a scheme for the payment of monthly cash instalments over post office counters towards the following year's fee.
I believe that the three-year increases that I have announced today, coupled with greater flexibility in the methods of payment, will do much to strengthen the licence fee system and preserve the independence of the BBC.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that Opposition Members believe that the BBC should be financed in a way that both preserves its independence and enables it to maintain the high level of its programmes? I therefore accept that an income of the sort that the Government propose is
140
necessary, and that it should be obtained by means of a licence fee. However, is the right hon. Gentleman equally aware that a television licence fee of £46 will bear heavily on some members of the public, particularly retirement pensioners? The fact that the increase will be reflected in the retail price index is no comfort because, at best, the pension will be adjusted next November to compensate for tonight's new licence level and, at worst, next year's pension increase, like this year's, will not reflect the full change in the cost of living. Nor will the variety of easy payment schemes be of much benefit to most pensioners, few of whom—whatever may be said to the contrary—will ever possess credit cards, and all of whom will be required to pay instalments on next year's licence fee this year, in advance of receipt of programmes.
Therefore, I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said in the summer, that we shall not support the proposed increase unless a concession is made for retirement pensioners and the chronically sick.
May I suggest one means of raising compensating revenue for that purpose? Is it not absurd that the Savoy Hotel, for example, with hundreds of television sets used for commercial purposes, should pay the same licence fee as a single pensioner? Should there not therefore be a separate and higher commercial fee, separate from and higher than the domestic licence? Should it not be levied on every set in commercial use?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman accept that the licence fee is the best method of financing the BBC. I am also glad to hear him say that the sort of income that I have designed through the licence fee is what he believes to be correct for the BBC over the next three years.
I accept that the problems of pensioners cause considerable anxiety. The easy payment schemes that I have proposed to introduce supplement the television stamps, which are available to pensioners and are helpful. A large proportion of television licences are now taken out by that method, which shows that it is valuable and worth while.
I accept that there is a problem with hotels. We set up a working party on the matter, which recommended that hotels should pay more. I am prepared to consider how best we should implement that proposal.
Mr. Peter Emery: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that a 36 per cent. increase in the licence fee is steep but that people will accept it on the understanding that it is essential to keep the BBC independent of any political pressure? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend also ask the BBC to look particularly at those small areas of the country where reception is very bad? There are areas that have been promised improvements in their reception for five and six years—places in Devon where hills and coombs make ordinary reception difficult? That promise by the BBC has not been fulfilled. Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in those areas will find it unpleasant to have to meet this increase when they have had no improvements in reception over the last five years?
Mr. Whitelaw: On my hon. Friend's first point, it is fair to say that the proposal for an increase in the licence fee is to last for three years. It is important for the House

141
and the country to appreciate that under the arrangement there will be no increase in the licence fees for three years from now.
I am acutely aware of the difficulties of reception in some areas, because my constituency has some of the same problems as my hon. Friend's constituency. The BBC appreciates that, and it will do its best to remedy the problems as soon as possible.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not a fact that pensioners' money goes into Government bank accounts a year before it is needed? In other words, why can we not have a scheme whereby instalments are paid towards the current year's licence fee to help pensioners with the cost? If, as I agree with the Home Secretary, it is desirable to give the BBC three years' freedom from having to come back to the Government, will not the Government have to do better in controlling inflation than they have done so far in order for the scheme to work?
Mr. Whitelaw: In fixing the licence fee it was important to decide on many different assumptions. That has been done, and I have come to the conclusion that the figure which I have produced, which has not been disputed, meets the requirement of being fair to the BBC as it produces its programmes and at the same time is fair to those who pay the licence fees. I thought that I had produced many proposals to help pensioners. I shall be prepared to consider any others that fall within the instalment principle to which reference has been made.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Home Secretary consider allocating a small proportion of the licence fee specifically for the subtitling of television programmes for the deaf? I have a special interest. Will he congratulate the BBC on the splendid work that it has done so far in subtitling programmes? Is he aware that far more subtitling would be appreciated by the deaf on the part of the BBC and that the IBA should do much more as well?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I will pass on what he has said to the BBC. I believe that it has made considerable efforts on behalf of the deaf. I know that it wishes to go further and that it will seek to do so. I will pass on also the right hon. Gentleman's views to the IBA, which I have no doubt it will convey to the television companies.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there would be enormous support in the country for a concessionary scheme for pensioners even if that meant the rest of us having to pay slightly more than £46?
Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said, but he must appreciate some of the problems involved. If we were to give a concession to pensioner households, which would mean any household of which a retirement pensioner was a member, the colour television licence fee would have to rise to £70 for those who paid it in full and the monochrome licence fee would have to be increased to £25. Such a scheme would help many households in which the pensioner members are not especially those whom the House would wish to help, including the Leader of the Opposition and, during the currency of the increased licence fee, myself.
Mr. Derek Foster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be greeted with
142
widespread dismay by pensioners throughout the North of England? Does he realise that the swingeing increase will put television out of their reach? When will he come forward—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members have no sympathy for pensioners. That is well understood. When will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a realistic concessionary scheme for all pensioners? It is pathetic to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that there is only one conceivable scheme. When will he provide a proper concession for pensioners?
Mr. Whitelaw: First, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Secondly, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear that we believe it right to provide help for pensioners through the retirement pension and not through benefits in kind. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members shout about that, I stress that the Government have honoured their pledge in full, and more, to ensure that pensioners are safeguarded against increases in the cost of living. Pensions have risen faster and further than the increase in the cost of living.
Mr. George Foulkes: That is not true.
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, they most certainly have risen as I have described. What is more, the television licence fee is taken into account in the retail price index.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call five more hon. Members from either side of the House. That will be a good run before we turn to the next statement.
Mr. John Spence: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the renewal of the BBC's capital equipment? I should like to know how much is included in the increase that he has awarded the BBC for that renewal as opposed to how much the BBC requested.
Mr. Whitelaw: The discussions about the level of the fee covered all these issues. A decision was made on the basis of all the considerations which were put before us and discussed with the BBC. I do not wish to single out any one consideration.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government have cut the link between pensions and wages that the previous Labour Government established by law, and that pensioners are facing enormous difficulties? Does he understand that television is one means by which many pensioners keep in contact with the world? Surely he could and should consider a scheme for some modest flat rate charge to all pensioners to give them at least some compensation for the attack that the Government have made on pensioners as a whole?
Mr. Whitelaw: When the previous Labour Government were in office they never thought to introduce such a concession. They came to it in opposition. They did not implement the policy when they were in government. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that what I said about pensions having risen more than the increase in the cost of living is true and cannot be disputed statistically. That is something that he will have to accept.
Mr. Charles Morrison: May I emphasise the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)? Is my right hon. Friend aware

143
that there are more deaf people in the United Kingdom than there are Welsh people? Does he agree that even greater special regard should be given to the needs of the deaf?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that the BBC has gone a long way to deal with the problems of the deaf. I hope that it will be able to go further. The licence fee was determined in consideration of what the BBC will be able to do in Wales with the Welsh programmes, which is an important issue. I take my hon. Friend's point about the deaf.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel that he has missed the opportunity to take the BBC licence fee out of the political arena and that we shall see yet again the political intimidation of the BBC as we come, at the end of the three-year period that he has announced, to a general election? Is he aware that many Opposition Members believe that special arrangements should be made to improve the quality of service that is provided by the BBC for old-age pensioners? The increased licence fee should have been even higher and should have been linked to inflation.
Mr. Whitelaw: By establishing a clear position for the BBC for three years ahead the Government are surely doing exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman said. Surely such action underlines the independence of the BBC, which is crucial. That is why I attached so much importance to fixing a licence fee for three years. On the hon. Gentleman's second question about pensioners, I have made clear my position and I wish to stand by it.
Mr. Paul Dean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that every increase in the licence fee, whether it is introduced by a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, increases the difficulties for pensioners and others on modest incomes? In view of that, will he give urgent attention to the many anomalies which exist within the licence arrangements and to the possibility of alternative sources of revenue for the BBC?
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has long campaigned for pensioners and I applaud his efforts in so doing. I appreciate the difficulties that ensue from increasing the licence fee on the scale that I have announced, but I contend that the increases are fair to the BBC and to the country. We still have one of the lowest licence fees in Europe. That is important to accept. I accept that there are anomalies in the system. I do not wish to overcome those by taking away some of the concessions that are already made. That would be harsh and unreasonable. I shall consider the anomalies to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Mr. Edward Lyons: I appreciate the need for the BBC's profits to be funded, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that an extra £1 a month in instalments for a retirement pensioner is an enormous extra impost? Secondly, as black and white television sets are largely in the hands of the poorest sections of the population, will the right hon. Gentleman at least freeze the fee for black and white sets instead of increasing it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says as being one of the anxieties of announcing any increase in this field. The increase in the fee for a monochrome set would be regarded as reasonable in the circumstances.
Mr. John Gorst: Would my right hon. Friend clarify the position about the people whose licences expired on 30 November and who have already paid the old rate? Will they be required to pay a supplement on it or will they be allowed to keep their new licences at the old rate?
Mr. Whitelaw: What I have said about the new fees comes into effect at midnight tonight. If anyone has paid before midnight, he gets his licence at the old fee and not the new one.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the concessions he has offered today will be warmly welcomed by all the pensioners in East London who have Diners Club credit cards?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman enjoys such snide remarks, but there are many, other than pensioners, who may wish to pay fees in that way. It is perfectly sensible to provide a variety of ways of paying the licence fee. I do not see why that should be the occasion for snide remarks.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to the anomaly to which my hon. Friend referred—the concession now available to pensioners who live in warden-supervised accommodation. Is the Minister aware that many pensioners who do not have that advantage are often worse off financially than those who live in that accommodation and that they find the anomaly annoying and frustrating?
Would the Minister not consider removing the anomaly by raising the fee to all old-age pensioners but by less than the figure which he has announced to the House today, and funding it by the sort of proposal put by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—by increasing the charges to hotels and other commercial institutions?
Mr. Whitelaw: First, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I will certainly consider the position about hotels and see what further revenue we might get there. I am certainly prepared to consider that, but I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that any revenue from that source, if we decided to go forward with it, would certainly not meet the sort of increase he has suggested on the other front.
I accept that anomalies exist but I would not wish to remove them by taking something from people who already have it. That would be a very harsh decision.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I discern from the mood of the House that there is now a great desire that television should be treated as a social service. Would it not be much simpler to collect the licence fee by adding £1 a week to the National Health stamp so that everybody who worked paid and so that when we all retire or are off work we get the concession?
Mr. Whitelaw: The simple answer to that is "No, Sir."
Mr. Hattersley: Since the Home Secretary has shown some sympathy for the idea of a commercial fee, which

145
has been pressed on him from both sides of the House, does he propose to make a further statement about his examination before he lays the order, or does he expect hon. Members to vote on the present pattern and hear his views afterwards?
Mr. Whitelaw: Because I have to study the views of the working party on hotels, which could not possibly affect the broad basis of the decision I have taken today, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to approve the situation as it stands.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Secretary Howell: statement.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By, I am sure, a momentary oversight, you have forgotten that I have spoken on these matters from the Front Bench. I might have had a fairly valuable contribution to make—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. As usual, I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has given me the opportunity to say that I do my very best to ensure that those on the Front Bench who run back up to the Back Benches, are not given the same preference as real Back Benchers. I think that is fair and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman's sense of fair play will lead him to agree with me.
Mr. Faulds: I am happy to yield to your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, because we are about to have the happy introduction of moderation, reason and true feminity in contrast to the tough aclamantine type that we usually have to suffer.
Mr. Speaker: We shall have the statement first. Mr. Secretary Howell—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I simply draw your attention to the fact that some hon. Members, who are not in the happy position of being able to go from the Front Bench to the Back Benches, have difficulties in being called—never mind the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
Later—
Mr. Peter Snape: Without repeating the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how you decide which Front Bench spokesmen can be called to speak from the Back Benches? Are all Front Bench spokesmen equal? Some of us regard the matter that has just been discussed as at least as important as Front Bench responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that I called one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who is a member of his union, if that is what is worrying him. Otherwise, I am not anxious to make a firm rule that no one who speaks from the Front Bench can ever be called when he is on the Back Benches. If it were the will of the House, of course, I would respond to it, but I have not yet had any indication of that.

Lorries, People and the Environment
3.56 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on lorries, people and the environment.
Heavy lorries have been the subject of continuing debate and controversy for over 10 years. The problems are complex and intractable, but decisions have to be taken. We need above all to end the present uncertainty about future lorry weights which is currently placing a handicap on investment in the commercial vehicle industry.
To clarify the issues, the Government appointed Sir Arthur Armitage in July 1979 to conduct an independent inquiry into the whole problem of lorries and their effects on people and the environment. Sir Arthur and his four independent assessors took evidence very widely, and reported in December 1980. The Government are very grateful to them for their wide-ranging report. It has aroused great interest. A large number of people and organisations have put their views to me, and there have been two debates in the House. The Government thought it right to take time to consider fully the many points that have been raised.
The effect of big lorries on people and communities is a matter of deep concern. The lorry is an offensive element in the environment, and it will make the environment progressively worse unless we take decisions now which will change the trend over the coming years. Our aim is to ensure a more civilised development of freight transport in the future, which will mean a better environment as well as a healthier economy.
The measures the Government will be taking to achieve this objective are outlined in a White Paper published today. These measures are directed to keeping lorries away from the places where people live, through the provision of more bypasses, to making the vehicles quieter and cleaner, and, in particular, to keeping their numbers down.
However, to keep costs down, road transport must be efficient and economic. Our present maximum weight limits on lorries place an economic handicap on much of our industry.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Disgraceful.
Mr. Howell: Our regulations prevent many existing lorries from being loaded to their full technical weight carrying capacity. This is wasteful. It makes transport costs higher than they need be, which in turn feeds through into prices and makes our exports less competitive.
The Government agree with Armitage's rejection of the heavier axle weights proposed by the European Commission. We have also announced our rejection of a maximum weight as high as 44 tonnes, which was the heaviest vehicle recommended in the Armitage report. All the safeguards suggested in the report have been considered very carefully and the Government are now convinced that maximum lorry weights can safely be raised to 34 tonnes for four-axled vehicles, and 40 tonnes on five axles. These changes are set out in draft amending regulations which are being circulated today by my Department for consultation. Copies are available in both the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

147
The proposals outlined in the White Paper will apply to Northern Ireland and, where appropriate, will be given effect through separate action under the relevant Northern Ireland legislation.
As well as bringing economic benefits to industry and ultimately to the consumers, through savings in industry's transport costs of around £150 million a year, there will be benefits to the environment. The heavier vehicles will be no bigger than the biggest vehicles on the roads today. Their higher load capacity will enable industry to meet demands for freight services with fewer vehicles than would otherwise be needed. There will be safeguards in the regulations on the design of the heavier vehicles to protect roads, bridges and underground services.
We cannot afford delay. To do nothing would help neither the environment nor the economy. Freight users, vehicle operators and manufacturers are unable to plan ahead while the present uncertainty lasts. It is through the decisions taken now, and the actions initiated, that we can achieve over the years ahead the improvements we are seeking.
Mr. Albert Booth: Does the Secretary of State for Transport recall that his predecessor, in the debate on the Armitage report, said:
"Whatever we decide on this issue,"—
he was referring to heavy lorry weights—
"I shall make a comprehensive statement on Armitage covering all of the main recommendations."—[Official Report, 17 June 1981; Vol. 6, c.1088.]
The Secretary of State's statement lamentably fails to measure up to that undertaking, as does the White Paper which it introduces. To that extent he will be judged as having reneged on his predecessor's undertaking.
The lorries that the Secretary of State is proposing will be more damaging to the roads of this country than the 44 tonne lorries proposed by Armitage, when measured by Armitage's own criteria. The Secretary of State is proposing to allow on the roads of this country a 38-tonne lorry with a 10·5 drive axle—a higher drive axle weight than any at present on our roads.
Why has the Secretary of State made no proposal whatever to allocate to heavy goods vehicles the higher costs that they impose on road building and maintenance, to which the Armitage report referred? Why is the Secretary of State ducking the heavy goods vehicle taxation issue, which Armitage highlighted very effectively?
Why is the Secretary of State ignoring 90 out of the 91 recommendations in the Foster report relating to lorry operator licensing?
The Secretary of State's offer to have a study made of the need for lorry action areas in a number of our cities—when compared with the clearcut Armitage proposal that the Government should make grants to local authorities to cope with some of these problems and recoup that cost by taxation of the heavy goods vehicles—is lamentably inadequate.
The bypass commitment in the White Paper, measured against the requirement, as acknowledged by the Government, for 400 bypasses, is like feeding a peanut to a hungry elephant. It recognises the problem but responds to it by a pathetic gesture. The minor amelioration of a
148
major problem is a figleaf behind which the Secretary of State cannot hide a massive concession to the road freight haulage lobby.
Those who are now suffering from the effects of the present heavy lorries will be among those who are most disappointed or shocked by the Secretary of State's announcement.
Mr. Howell: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's version and interpretation of what I have said this afternoon or of the White Paper. The proposals in the White Paper are comprehensive and cover—indeed, go beyond—the full range of points made in the Armitage report.
The overall effect of the proposals, as there would be up to 10,000 fewer lorries, would mean that there would be 5 per cent. less road damage for any given level of activity.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of higher taxation on the lorries which do the most damage. The White Paper makes it clear that we have taken the powers to prepare for that, and we propose to go in that direction. There is no question of ducking that. In the Department, we are making a new assessment of track costs to enable us to move along that path. I do not understand, therefore, why the right hon. Gentleman raised that point.
It is true that the Armitage report made several proposals concerning lorry action areas. We have already started to discuss them with local authorities. We are not shelving the idea, but it raises a number of sensitive and difficult local issues, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. He would be the first to criticise if we rushed into general undertakings before discussing matters properly and fairly with the local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the proposals as being a concession to the freight industry. He is totally wrong in that respect. There is a major advance for the environment within our grasp here, because there will be lorries which are no bigger and which will be greatly reduced in number. At the same time, they will benefit industry in terms of more investment and more jobs. If he is not in favour of that, it is a strange departure from what I understood his position to be.
Mr. John Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who live, walk and push prams in the narrow streets of many of our towns and villages are likely to accord to his proposals a welcome that falls a good deal short of rapturous?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that his observations on the environment and on keeping lorries away from people would carry a good deal more weight if the road programme were not at such a low ebb and if progress on bypasses were not so sluggish? Is he further aware that his proposals would be more palatable if some reference had been made to his preparedness concerning ideas on lorry routes? There appears to be nothing forthcoming there.
Mr. Howell: I am aware that the present lorry size and weight are very unpopular. If there were any suggestion about bigger lorries—apart from the 1½ ft. extra on the cab—and if we were talking about lorry trailers, I should be wholly against it. We are talking of the same size of

149
lorry loads and about fewer lorries. While I certainly do not expect rapture, I believe that this is a move in the right direction, towards civilising the lorry.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the need for roads suitable for our freight pattern, which has been inherited from the past, and for the road programme to be designed to meet it. That is why, in the White Paper, I announced four new bypasses; that seven others have been advanced into the reserve programme; that 38 communities are having bypasses started round them in 1981 alone; and that 215 out of 275 towns of over 10,000 people on trunk roads are being bypassed. This is not entirely satisfactory. but it is the right way to proceed. My right hon. Friend is correct in emphasising that.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that on the Liberal Benches we would much prefer to see the former Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), back in his place, because he was the person who rightly refused to go above 32 tonnes in 1972? We believe that the Secretary of State has been bamboozled by his own Department. Will he exclude the Isle of Wight from having 40-tonne lorries, which we do not want?
Mr. Howell: I know the hon. Member's wish to go back into the past. I recognise the much greater experience in these affairs of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but we are facing a deteriorating situation. We have to grapple with it. Decisions have to be taken and cannot be ducked.
Local authorities have considerable powers, under the "Dykes Act", to impose bans and restrictions. They are not at the moment seeking more powers from me. I hope that they will use their powers imaginatively and extensively, as with the Windsor cordon, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If decisions have to be applied to Northern Ireland by a different legislative process, will the Minister give an assurance that they will take effect simultaneously in both parts of the Kingdom, since it would be absurd, in view of the volume of lorry traffic between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, if they were implemented at different times?
Mr. Howell: I shall do my best to ensure that that is so.
Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are appalled at his statement? I frankly do not believe that the lorries will not be bigger, heftier and more dangerous on the roads. I do not accept, either, that the existing regulations are sufficient to prevent the lorries from going away from the trunk roads and the motorways.
My right hon. Friend has said that he will be placing a statement in the Vote Office this afternoon. I warn him that I shall vote against the measure when it is introduced.
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend should read the White Paper, where he will see that lorry loads will not be any bigger. They are the same lorry containers as we see on our roads today, but instead of being 80 per cent. full they will in many cases be full. That will be of great benefit to many industries. For example, the chemicals industry has recognised that it will benefit considerably in terms of costs and jobs if it is allowed to use existing containers to full capacity. That should interest my hon. Friend.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Does the Secretary of State understand that the House considers his statement to be a complete betrayal of the protection of the environment? Will he be frank with the House and admit that the White Paper on roads for the next 10 years shows an investment programme for repairs and new roads that does not even measure up to the Armitage package? We must have some honesty. Is the Secretary of State aware that the new lorry loads are a dangerous intrusion into urban areas, cause damage to historic buildings and will not be supported by the general public, or, I hope, by the House?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates his case. Of course there are strong feelings on the subject, but the plain fact is that if there are fewer large and frightening vehicles around it is a step in the right direction. That must be accepted as part of the case and as part of the point on the other side of the argument. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the White Paper. He will see that there are real benefits for the environment as well as for industry if we get the balance right. We shall then reach a decision on the regulations.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Is more money to be spent on the bypass building programme and, if so, how much? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that enforcement will be improved so that lorries that do not conform to tougher environmental restraints on pollution and noise are not allowed to carry heavier loads?
Mr. Howell: On the question of expenditure, the additional bypasses that I have announced today in the White Paper will involve, during the years in which they are started, an extra expenditure of about £31 million in today's money. For next year, all the starts that are possible within existing public expenditure resources have already been announced. Will my right hon. Friend repeat his second question?
Mr. Higgins: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that tougher environmental restraints will be enforced effectively, so that lorries will not be allowed to carry heavier loads unless the restraints are conformed with?
Mr. Howell: We are determined to ensure that enforcement is extremely tough. At the same time, I wish that local authorities would use their powers vigorously to ensure that lorries are not overloaded illegally and do not travel where they are totally ill-suited to go.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call five hon. Members from either side, which I know is a very good innings. We must be fair to the hon. and right hon. Ulster Members who will follow.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the Secretary of State aware that many hon. Members, and millions of people who use cars and lorries on the roads today, know that motorways especially are reduced to single-lane traffic because heavy traffic is tearing the roads up? Is he aware that if the railways were used correctly and proper investment were made in the railway traffic industry for carrying freight, Britain need not have the sort of statement that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that Members on both sides of the House—from what has been said by his right hon. and

151
hon. Friends—are tired of Ministers coming to the House and conning the House and the public with statements such as he has made today?
Mr. Howell: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his last comment. I am setting out the Government's view as contained in a White Paper. There will be draft regulations and consultation and then a full debate. We must consider both sides of the arguments, which are familiar to many hon. Members. The Government have advanced their view about what they believe to be the best way forward. That is a fair and sensible approach to take.
I wish that what the hon. Gentleman said about the railways were true, but the reality is that with our geography—much shorter rail haulage and the non-availability of railheads in many areas, such as the West Country and Wales, from where many people send freight to the Continent—there is no opportunity for a major transfer to rail. I wish to see a transfer to rail, but there is no opportunity for a major shift.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement that lorry sizes will not increase is acceptable but that the damage done in Cotswold villages and small towns is mostly because of the weight of lorries, which shivers buildings and knocks them down? Will he also ensure that his Department is faster and more flexible when putting out notices and signs to forbid lorries of certain weights to travel on different roads?
Mr. Howell: We shall do what we can where it is our responsibility. As to lorry weights, the proposal in the White Paper is that there should be an additional axle on heavier vehicles so that the overall weight on each axle, which is what causes the damage, will, for the 40-tonne lorry, be less. My hon. Friend should bear that point in mind.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Has there been a study into the problems associated with the Severn bridge, which is a vital artery for trade to and from South Wales? For instance, could the bridge bear the additional weight, especially bearing in mind the fact that it is already plagued with lane closures and repairs of one sort or another?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Member is right that already, under the existing and I believe deteriorating position, there are problems with the Severn bridge. A study is being carried out with a view to making the Severn bridge secure for existing traffic, which will embrace any changes involved. It will also be safe for the 40-tonne vehicle.
Mr. Chris Patten: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that several Conservative Members agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and do not believe that the limited environmental measures announced in the White Paper come anywhere near to justifying the introduction of heavier lorries? I wish to apply the point of linkage, which is more popular in international affairs. Will my right hon. Friend note that I shall be prepared to start to consider the question of heavier lorries the day after the completion of the Bath eastern by-pass and not a moment before?
Mr. Howell: The Bath eastern by-pass is one project that we hope to accelerate. I am aware that the Government's views have not been accepted with rapture by many hon. Members and that we face a difficult dilemma which must be resolved. When my hon. Friend reads those proposals in the White Paper, he will understand that they are to the benefit of the environment. I try to persuade the House about that, because I believe that we have a duty to help both the environment and industry in such difficult times.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that not only are motorways crumbling at the moment but sewers and basements of buildings are in danger of collapse? Would it not be much more sensible to redirect investment and redirect freight on to the railways, which would be to the benefit of all?
Mr. Howell: I am advised that the introduction of heavier weights will make no difference to the problem of pressures on underground services. As for the shift of freight on to rail, I have already stated my view. I wish to see that, but as the Armitage report made clear and we all know, there are limits to what can be done in an economy such as ours and with our vast reliance on road freight.
Mr. Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at 40 tonnes gross weight, Britain's limits will be higher than in France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland? Even on axle weights, they will be higher than in Germany, Holland, Denmark and Ireland, so the proposals do not even have the saving grace of achieving greater freedom of movement over the Continent. Does the fact that my right hon. Friend is publishing the documents in a consultative form mean that he is prepared to think again about lorry weights?
Mr. Howell: The Government have an open mind to new evidence that may be brought forward on this difficult issue, but we believe that they are the right proposals on which to go forward. My hon. Friend has given some figures in making comparisons with overseas. He should also know that in France the single axle weight is much higher at 13 tonnes per axle instead of 10·17 in Britain. For the four-axle lorry the maximum weight in France is 38 tonnes. In Belgium and Luxembourg the weight is 13 tonnes per axle as opposed to 10·17 tonnes in Britain. The weight is higher in Italy, where the maximum for four axles is 40 tonnes and for five axles is 44 tonnes. The overall picture is a variety of different weights. We should reach our decision on the basis of our national needs, although that should help towards a more constructive European discussion.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that his aim of trying to keep heavy lorries away from residential areas will need a more ambitious bypass programme than that which he has discussed today? Does he also accept that in urban areas the lorry is a real menace to the environment—not only when it is moving, but when it is parked, often outside someone's home, and certainly not that of the driver? Will he do more to encourage local authorities to ban overnight parking of heavy lorries in residential streets?.
Mr. Howell: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to underestimate the considerable building of bypasses that has been, is and will be taking place as a result of

153
Government measures and the proposals in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman has a good point about the anti-social parking of juggernauts. That is one reason why I have accepted the Foster report proposal that licences for operators should be granted on a more stringent basis, taking into account the area from which the operator operates, which can cause unpleasantness for neighbours.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for a long time copies of the Armitage report have not been available in the Vote Office? Will he ensure that copies are available immediately so that hon. Members can compare the report with the White Paper? Would it not have been more seemly if, after becoming Secretary of State for Transport, he had listened to a debate in the House before arriving at any conclusions?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the stress imposed on a bridge by a vehicle whose length is less than the span of the bridge is a direct function of the total weight of the vehicle and not only of the axle?
Mr. Howell: I was not aware that the Armitage report was not available. I shall investigate that matter immediately. On the question of bridges and bridge spans, all the evidence suggests that the five-axle vehicle and the heavier weights will have no impact on bridges beyond that of vehicles of existing weights. I must make it clear that there will be no additional impact.
My hon. Friend mentioned a debate. I have received a great many representations and have studied the two debates in the House. I am not proposing that the House reaches a decision; I am putting forward a White Paper. The Government have arrived at certain views. Draft regulations will be circulated for consultation, which will require a minimum of two months. The House will then need to reach conclusions. We must reach a decision on the matter. My hon. Friend must concede that we have debated it for a long time. It would be wise, democratically, to reach a conclusion.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is not the Secretary of State aware that, far from his proposed policy taking lorries away from people, the combination of his policy and the cuts in public spending will force more and more lorries into residential areas? Is he aware that his decision to cut the M65 motorway at Whitebirk—the vital Blackburn to Preston link—means that thousands of heavy lorries will be forced through the residential areas of Green Bank, Broonhill, Shadsworth and Pleckgate in my constituency, to the dismay and anger of residents? Will he undertake to review the decision to cut the vital M65 link?
Mr. Howell: We are going ahead with the building of the Calder valley motorway, so I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is worrying about. I do not believe that he has any evidence for his other assertions, either.
Mr. Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of at least one of his hon. Friends—[Interruption.] As one who has read the Armitage report, I am fully aware of the implications of the White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend accept that it will be welcomed by industry, especially the commercial vehicle and building industry? [HON. MEMBERS: "Lobby".] That industry's interests are at a low ebb. Does he agree that the policy will need to be accepted by the
154
public, and that that will depend greatly upon the building programmes of local authorities? Unless they can get on with the job of building bypasses—including the GLC, which is anxious only to spend transport money on subsidising fares—the policy will not prove acceptable. What steps does he intend to take to ensure that local authorities, as well as the Department of Transport, provide bypasses?
Mr. Howell: There is more money available for new starts this year than there was last year. No lobbies should prevail on this issue. We must try to strike a balance that benefits the environment, comes to terms with a position that is deteriorating—it is not standing still—and which helps our industry and our economy. If we can follow that path, we shall do so. The White Paper points the way.
Mr. Booth: I am sure that it was not the Secretary of State's intention to mislead the House when he said that the five-axle 40-tonne lorry would not increase axle weights. Would he consider the latest information published by his Department, which shows that the five-axle 40-tonne vehicle would involve an increase in axle weights on the steering axle of the tractor to six tonnes, an increase in the weight of the two trailer axles from 8·5 to 9 tonnes, and in the case of the 38-tonne four-axle articulated vehicle an increase in the drive axle weight from 10·17 to 10·50 tonnes? Will he acknowledge that what he is proposing means an increase in axle weight?
Mr. Howell: I sought to make it clear—if I did not, I do so now—that the proposed 38-tonner would mean an increase in the drive axle weight from 10·17 to 10·50 tonnes. However, I confirm that for the proposed 40-tonner the relative figures for the five axles are six, eight, eight nine and nine tonnes, which in no case is as high as the 10·17 tonnes on the existing 32·5 tonner, and also the spread would be better. I hope that I did not mislead the House in any way.
Later—
Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member had better make his point of order as quickly as he can.
Mr. Straw: Within the hearing of the House, in reply to my question, the Secretary of State said that the M65 motorway was going ahead. I am sure that it was out of ignorance, and not deliberate, but the truth is that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the answer that he received, but that is not a point of order.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I hear the hon. Gentleman, perhaps I may say that I hope that it is a point of order, because I want the House to know that I always observe hon. Members who have not been called and who then rise upon points of order. I have a long memory.
Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that you have a long memory. I make no criticism of the Chair for not realising that my constituents in Denton Road, Silver Lonnen and Springfield Road are now suffering misery and that they will suffer—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members have constituency points to make. It is unfair to abuse the rules of the House in that way.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members—
Mr. Robert C. Brown rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is also affected, but he would let us proceed, it would be far better.
Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that point and I am grateful to you. It was not a constituency point, but reference has been made to the legislation that I introduced in 1973. In view of the enormous importance of the statement made today, I was wondering whether it would not have been convenient and appropriate, despite the fact that a new right hon. Member was being introduced, if you, Mr. Speaker, had felt able to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take that sort of point of order from anyone. It implies criticism of the Chair. It is just not acceptable.
Mr. Peter Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking points of order now. We must continue.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Right hon. Shirley Williams, for Crosby.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

STOCK EXCHANGE LISTING: INTERIM REPORTS
That European Community Documents Nos. 4356/79 and 8286/80, concerning Stock Exchange Listing: Interim Reports, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. John Patten.]
Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland
Mr. Speaker: Before entering on the main debate, I remind hon. Members that the Estimates before the House are Supplementary Estimates and do not extend over the whole field of Northern Ireland administration. Matters that are not covered by them cannot, of course, be debated at all. It follows from this that security matters in Northern Ireland cannot and will not be discussed under these Estimates today. Of those matters that are so covered, the scale of the financial provision that is sought is sufficient to allow a wide debate on agricultural support, loans to industrial undertakings and industrial grant, and, in the context of non-contributory supplementary benefits, a reasonably wide debate on the question of unemployment.
4.33 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.
The order, like its predecessors, is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The purpose of the draft order is to appropriate the 1981–82 Autumn Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments, which amount in total to £33 million. The 1981–82 Main Estimates, approved in July last, amounted to £2,311 million. The purposes of the supplementary provisions are described in the schedule to the draft order.
Before I touch on the main features of the Estimates, I should mention that, as is usual, more detailed information can be found in the Estimates volume, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office, and in the explanatory memorandum, which has been sent to hon. Members who participated in the last Appropriation order debate. Additional copies of this have also been placed in the Vote Office.
The most important aspects of this draft order are those concerned with agriculture, industry and social security. I shall deal with each in turn.
I turn to the first of the main components of the Autumn Supplementary Estimates. Hon. Members will see that additional provision of some £7·3 million is being sought under Class I, Votes 1 and 2, by the Department of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced on 27 March 1981 that up to £10 million of special aid was to be provided for Northern Ireland agriculture, and in the Northern Ireland Appropriation debate that took place on 17 July 1981 my hon. Friend the then Minister of State asked the House to note that Supplementary Estimates would be presented in due course for measures to be borne on Northern Ireland Votes as part of this special package of assistance for agriculture in the Province. This was in recognition of the serious problems facing the agriculture industry following two years of rapidly falling incomes, and the intention was that the extra aid would be allocated through various schemes to different sectors of the industry.
It is important for the House to appreciate that some £2·3 million of the available assistance relates to the existing suckler cow subsidy, which is borne on a United Kingdom Vote rather than on a Northern Ireland Vote and is therefore outside the scope of this draft order. A further £7·23 million is likely to be taken up, and these

157
Supplementary Estimates include provision for measures to develop beef cattle production, in particular, mainly through reductions in charges under the Department's artificial insemination service and its beef recording and performance testing scheme; and to aid silage production and the liming of grassland.
In addition, provision is also sought for a liquid milk subsidy that will benefit milk producers by enabling the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland to fix a higher wholesale price for milk going for liquid consumption without Northern Ireland consumers having to pay a higher price. There is also provision for aid to the intensive pig and poultry industries which will take the form of payments to operators of pig and poultry meat processing plants and egg packing stations. It is designed to prevent a rundown in pig, egg and poultry industries of the Province, which could have serious consequences for employment.
Pending the approval of Parliament, the expenditure on the liquid milk, lime and silage subsidies and on the aid for the intensive livestock sector is being met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund and a proportion of this supplementary provision under scrutiny now will be required to repay advances from that fund.
Secondly, passing on to the industrial development programme of the Department of Commerce, the net additional requirement of £6·2 million under Class II, Vote 2—General Support to Industry—brings total provision on this Vote to £187 million. This reflects the Government's commitment to sustaining a vigorous industrial development drive in the Province through the provision of financial assistance aimed at encouraging the establishment, development and the competitiveness of industrial undertakings in the Province. That is the thrust of the Government's policy. The Government believe that everything possible must continue to be done to maintain and to enhance the Province's industrial base. This is the only long-term answer to the serious unemployment problem that the Province faces.
I should like to go through the major items in the Supplementary Estimates. First, there is the additional provision of £2·9 million required under sub-head A1 to provide industrial development loans to assist Lear Fan, an American company engaged in Northern Ireland in the manufacture of a new fuel-efficient executive aircraft based on the application of carbon fibre technology.
An additional £2·4 million is required under sub-head A3 for industrial development grants, which are the major element in this Government's selective and job-related financial assistance programme. This programme, I think, is without doubt the most generous of any region in the United Kingdom. It reflects the determination of the Government to do everything possible to attract overseas development and overseas investment to the Province and also, equally importantly, to encourage local companies to expand and to maintain their employment.
We must depend both on investment coming from abroad and on the maintenance and expansion of the indigenous industrial base that exists in the Province. It is worth pointing out again that one Brussels-based consultancy has concluded that Northern Ireland has the best package of investment incentives in the whole of Western Europe. That is not to say that the Government are complacent about the situation. We shall constantly
158
keep the incentives that are available under review to ensure their continuing competitiveness and cost effectiveness.
Under sub-head D1, the same amount of £2·4 million that is needed under sub-head A3 is required for capital grants. These grants are broadly comparable to those available in Great Britain under the regional development grant scheme and, like them, are aimed at encouraging manufacturing investment.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an interesting series of grants and loans available to industry. Is he satisfied that enough is being done to encourage local co-operatives, for which there is a demand in Northern Ireland, that is not perhaps fully met by the schemes that he has outlined?
Mr. Patten: The whole House is aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in locally based co-operatives. The Government are taking action, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, through the business opportunities programme and other schemes brought forward under the aegis of the Secretary of State for Industry, to enable locally based cooperatives to be successful in the Province, as many are now beginning to be successful on this side of the water. What is available in the Province would make any dispassionate and objective observer of the economic scene, familiar with the concept of the enterprise zone, think that the economic help already available for the Province makes up the skeleton and some of the flesh of a full-blown enterprise region. This is not widely enough appreciated, particularly abroad.
Hon. Members will recognise, I hope, the priority for industrial development that underlies the provision which is now sought under the general support for industry Vote. I hope that the Opposition shares my sentiment when I say that there can be no hope of making significant inroads into reducing Northern Ireland's chronic unemployment problems unless we search everywhere for new employment opportunities, whether generated by indigenous companies or coming from abroad.
In spite of the adverse effect of the continuing world recession and the damaging image presented of the Province overseas, we shall continue to seek to create conditions that are conducive to attracting foreign investors. There is no point in beating about the bush concerning the importance of the image of Northern Ireland abroad and of the inhibitions that this image can sometimes put on people who might otherwise consider inward investment in the Province. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has returned recently from an industrial promotion tour of the United States and Japan, during which he has devoted a substantial amount of time, with his characteristic vigour, to trying to correct the misconceptions of Northern Ireland as a place in which to live and work for those who were considering investing in the Province.
We are taking as many steps as possible to refine and sharpen the overseas promotional effort by concentrating those efforts overseas on sectors selected for their growth potential and suitable to Northern Ireland location. There are many of them. My hon. Friend will doubtless draw attention to them later.
The Government have been accused in the past, I think wrongly, of concentrating their industrial development effort too much on attracting large, glamorous overseas

159
investment projects and of overlooking the indigenous employment potential and the internal industrial vigour of the Province. I believe that such an accusation is false. We are equally concerned to maximise the employment potential of home-grown industry whether large, medium-sized or small.
Hon. Members may be aware of the recently published "Framework for Action" document that spelt out our commitment to local industry. The purpose of the document was to provide a statement of all the initiatives and schemes that the Government are undertaking in the industrial development sphere and to attempt to pull them altogether to demonstrate the coherence of the Government's strategy. Expenditure on this Vote is also aimed at maintaining as much as possible of the indigenous industrial and manufacturing base of the Province to provide a springboard from which we can take full advantage of an economic upturn.
I move now to social security. Under Class X, Vote 1, an additional sum of £5·6 million is sought in respect of the supplement to the Northern Ireland national insurance fund from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The supplement is calculated by the Government Actuary and the increased provision now sought follows the Government Actuary's latest assessment of the amount that is payable in the present financial year. Among the benefits paid from the Northern Ireland national insurance fund, as is the case with the national insurance fund on this side of the water, are retirement pensions and invalidity, unemployment, sickness and widows' benefits. Total outgoings from the fund in 1981–82 will be in the region of £489 million. I welcome the opportunity at this stage of welcoming the Social Democratic Party spokesman, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) who has doubtless been detained elsewhere at local celebrations. More than half the sum of £489 million that I have mentioned will be in respect of retirement pensions.
Under Class X, Vote 2, the sum of £14·2 million is being sought in respect of non-contributory benefits. Some £14 million of this relates to supplementary benefits. The rest relates to other payments such as non-contributory invalidity benefits and others. The requirement of £14 million for supplementary benefits has arisen largely as a result of the increasing numbers of unemployed who have been out of work for periods in excess of a year and who have thus exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit.
It is a matter of deep regret to the Government, as I am sure it is to the House, that it is necessary to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate that reflects the rising cost of unemployment-related social security benefits. It is difficult to find the right words that are not hackneyed through too much use on previous occasions. The words that I shall use are that the figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland represent a tragic human and economic picture. There are no other words to use.
I have already referred to the vigorous efforts that are being made by the Government in industrial promotion. We recognise, of course, that those efforts need to be complemented by shorter-term measures. They have to complement each other. It is our intention to present to the House a Spring Supplementary Estimate to provide for a package of employment measures similar to that
160
introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the meantime, most hon. Members—from the Province, at least—will know that the Northern Ireland youth opportunities programme is being expanded from 7,000 to 12,000 places during the current financial year. Further improvements are under active consideration, and in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland they are regarded as having special priority.
Finally, I want to mention the report of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), as it relates to our considerations this afternoon. I understand that it is to be debated in the House in due course. While the Select Committee made no recommendations whatsoever relating specifically to Northern Ireland Supply arrangements, we shall carefully consider any changes introduced in Great Britain arrangements to see whether they can be usefully adapted to Northern Ireland Supply procedures, which have been a matter of concern in the past.
I have tried to refer in adequate detail to what I believe are the major aspects of the draft order. However, I know that right hon. and hon. Members will raise other matters. Perhaps we shall hear the voice of the newcomer to the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), whom we welcome to these debates. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is present, will attempt to answer as many questions as possible. As usual, those that remain unanswered—some always remain unanswered, purely through lack of time—will be answered later in correspondence, as is our practice. With that promise, I commend the draft order to the House.
4.52 pm
Mr. J. D. Concannon: I gather from the Minister's speech that this is a narrow Appropriation order. I thank the Department and the Minister for the explanatory memorandum.
I pay tribute to my ex-colleague on the Northern Ireland Opposition team. He was a Government Minister for some time and had been on the Opposition Front Bench for some time, always giving me great help. I refer, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who is a great friend of Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, I have a new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who will be introduced to the intricacies of Northern Ireland and the debating procedures as we go along.
However, we shall miss the presence of Robert Bradford, who was so foully murdered. He attended every Appropriation debate in which I took part, representing his constituents and doing what he could, both for his constituency and for Northern Ireland. We shall have a debate on security before Christmas, so we can leave that matter until then.
The Minister's speech reminded me of the same speech that I made in 1978, with the odd figures up-dated. Basically, it was the same as the speeches that I made in 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978. It was none the worse for that. No one knows better than I and the Ministers who came after me the difficulty of selling Northern Ireland overseas. We know the completely false picture that is painted of industrial life and life as a whole in the Province. I accept the strictures of keeping closely to the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order, and I have no doubt that if I wander from it I shall be brought to order.

161
Class I, Vote 2, authorises a further £6·4 million for agricultural support. The agriculture industry in Northern Ireland has declined with frightening rapidity since the Government came to power. Farm incomes plummeted from £33·5 million in 1979 to £9 million in 1980, and it is already anticipated that the 1981 incomes will drop even further. At the same time, the Government have systematically squeezed the fanning sector by reducing funds from Government for a whole range of grants, subsidies and support services. The net effect has been to depress the industry and push Northern Ireland farming towards a low-output, subsistence type of agriculture.
Last March, the then Secretary of State publicly recognised the plight of farmers and promised increased aid. Today's Vote is of marginal help. We find it especially ironic that the Government are to give £3·7 million for an extra-statutory milk subsidy to enable a higher price to be paid for wholesale liquid milk—less than two years after they abolished milk aid. It is a cruel deception to take away assistance in 1980 only to give it back on a smaller, more temporary scale in 1981, as though a great favour were being granted to the farming community in Northern Ireland. Even with that assistance, dairy farmers in the Province still receive 1p per litre less than do their counterparts in England and Wales.
The agriculture industry in the Province desperately needs a co-ordinated and reliable policy from the Government if the present decline is to be arrested. Looking at the content of this Vote, we see no prospect other than continued piecemeal attempts to hold the industry back from the brink of disaster. We sincerely hope that the Government will adopt a more rational approach to Northern Ireland's agriculture in next year's financial allocation, but we see little sign of that.
Class II, Vote 2, is for £6·2 million. It is referred to as general support for industry, and I know that it is a supplementary Vote. However, this Vote represents a miserable addition to support for industry in Northern Ireland. At a time when the official register shows that there are 19 per cent. of the working population out of a job—there are probably many more unregistered unemployed—all that the Government offer is a paltry sum of £6 million, which will hardly make any impression on the industrial scene in Northern Ireland.
We are deeply concerned about the economic depression in the Province. Over the past two and a half years redundancies have far outstripped job creations, and factory closures are now commonplace. The dedication and hard work of the last Administration have been squandered for the sake of an unproven and unworkable economic theory. What has been easily destroyed will take many years to rebuild at vastly more expense than if factories had been kept open. It would have been better if factories had been kept open by subsidy or any type of Government help rather than allowing some of them to disappear and hoping that at some time or other they could be bought back.
In desperation, we look at what the Government have done to arrest the economic decline in the Province. The "sit back and let things happen" attitude has had disastrous consequences. That attitude showed itself in the closure of the Belfast-Liverpool ferry. Jobs and tourist possibilities have been lost, and Ministers appear to sit back despite the vehement opposition of Labour Members, trade unionists and the vast majority of those in Northern Ireland. I hesitate to say it, but such indifference appears symbolic
162
of the Government's entire attitude to the economic problems of the Province. Over the past few months we have seen little of consequence from the Government to lead us to believe that they have any genuine concern for the unemployed, either in Britain or in Northern Ireland. A glossy paper landed on my desk in September, entitled "A Framework for Action". My copy has all of my scribbled comments on the front. I doubt whether it would be in order for me to read them.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Read them anyway.
Mr. Concannon: I shall probably come to the substance of them. The well-meaning document was initially impressive, but in our opinion it missed the whole point about the problems of economic recovery in Northern Ireland. Private investment alone will never bring jobs to the Province. Even when investors and speculators decide to place their money in the Province, they often set up peripheral factories, which are the first to go when there is a financial pinch.
We firmly believe—the 1976 Quigley report supported this view and this document is virtually a rehash of Quigley—that only a strong and coherent regional policy, with public enterprises and planning agreements, will go any way towards helping the apparently unstoppable stream of factory closures and redundancies. One has only to look at the success of the De Lorean car factory to see a good example of how public money, in tune with private finance and expertise, can bring stable jobs to Northern Ireland.
At the end of October the company was making 400 cars a week and directly employed 2,507 workers in its Dunmurry factory. I understand that over 2,000 companies in the United Kingdom supply materials, components and services to De Lorean, in particular, British Steel in Sheffield, the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company in Wolverhampton, General Motors in Milton Keynes, International Paints of London and Lucas Girling of Birmingham.
If we take the average payment made to an unemployed claimant in Northern Ireland and multiply it by the number of workers at De Lorean, it is possible to see how much it would have cost to keep those people out of work. By my calculations, it would cost almost £6 million a year and that figure does not take into consideration the loss of national insurance and tax contributions made by the employers and the extra spending power it produces within Northern Ireland. I am sure that shopkeepers and everyone else in Northern Ireland will confirm that. It is also important to bear in mind the effect of unemployment on jobs in those other 2,000 companies, which I am reliably informed can match at least, one for one, the jobs provided by De Lorean. If those jobs were not there or had to go, the cost to the Exchequer of keeping those people on unemployment and other benefits would be over £12 million a year, without taking into consideration national insurance, tax and other factors.
Our experience', and the De Lorean example, leads us to the conclusion that only State-led and State-directed investment can bring jobs to Northern Ireland on a large scale. It is evident, or should be evident—it is certainly evident to those who have been involved in Northern Ireland—that such action had a good effect on the political life and the security of the Province.

163
The problem in the Province is now so serious that it requires radical and imaginative action. Such action is sadly lacking in the present Administration. Every step that they take serves to compound the evil of economic stagnation and unemployment. There have been several other cosmetic alterations in the last few months. While we welcome the decision to set up a single industrial development board for Northern Ireland, we stress that mere administrative rearrangements will not in themselves solve anything. The board must be able to act independently and be given at least as many powers as the Northern Ireland Development Agency had under the Labour Administration to take investment initiatives. Above all, it must be backed by sound and reliable financial resources and the political will to spearhead an economic improvement in the Province.
We look forward to the industrial development board's proposals in the new year. I hope that there will be a full opportunity to debate them before they become unalterable provisions of a statutory instrument. The Secretary of State has announced that he intends to call all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to an economic advisory forum soon. I sincerely hope that it will not be just another talking shop. I am sure that those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will concur when I say that they have made no secret of their views on the economic situation at home during our many debates in the House. I urge the Secretary of State to prepare a positive agenda for the meeting. The most sensible starting point would be to accept that Northern Ireland needs—indeed demands—a co-ordinated regional economic strategy, to discuss precisely what that strategy should be and how best to implement it.
I need hardly remind the Government that they have presided over a period of unemployment that is unprecedent in the history of Northern Ireland. From an unsatisfactory—it was always unsatisfactory to me—but stable rate of unemployment, at 11 per cent. in 1978–79, the rate now stands at 19 per cent. The underlying trend is upwards and all forecasts suggest a total unemployment rate of between 22 per cent. and 25 per cent. by the middle of next year. I thought that things were unsatisfactory when unemployment stood at 11 per cent. in 1978–79. However, the one thing that I can look back on with some pride is that at the end of that period more people were in employment in Northern Ireland than ever before.
More than 52,000 people have joined the unemployment register since May 1979. At least 67,000 workers have been affected by short-time working in that period. We should not forget that the official figures do not tell the entire story. A recent survey, carried out by Queen's university, suggested that about 20,000 recently employed women have not registered as unemployed because they do not qualify for any benefits. That thoroughly shameful record has been compounded by a lack of political will to do anything to solve the problem.
The Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order gives the clearest evidence of the Government's approach to unemployment. Almost £20 million of the £33 million that we are voting will pay for benefits for the sick, poor, elderly and unemployed. I do not begrudge the money. Indeed, far more money should be made available. There would have been more money if the Government had not
164
held back on increases to meet inflation. I marvel at the indifference. The sentence in the explanatory memorandum which was sent last week sums it up. It states:
"Most of the extra provision in this vote is for supplementary benefits for which an additional £14 million is required largely as a result of an increase in the unemployment register and the duration of unemployment".
That makes it sound as if the scale of unemployment is quite outside the Government's responsibility. It makes it sound as if it is a problem merely to be provided for, but not tackled. We need only look at the measures designed to cope with unemployment in Northern Ireland to see that the Government's philosophy is just that.
Last August, the Minister with responsibility for employment in the Province announced special measures to ease the problems of unemployment. One of those measures is a grant-aid scheme to help voluntary organisations to recruit unemployed people for voluntary work in the health and social services of Northern Ireland. There is no training or pay. Unemployed youngsters are simply required to work for nothing. At the same time there is a continuing lack of commitment to Enterprise Ulster, a well established direct labour organisation that is designed to provide a bridge between unemployment or school and employment. The Government have placed impossible cost per job restrictions on that body if it is to be considered favourably in the next financial round.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Which scheme is the right hon. Gentleman referring to that is aided by Government and for which people work without any pay or other recompense?
Mr. Concannon: The grant-aid scheme to help voluntary organisations was mentioned in our last Appropriation order debate. I think that I am right in what I have said, and no doubt the Minister will explain what has happened since that time.
Mr. Adam Butler: The right hon. Gentleman cannot lay this at the door of the Government. If people wish to work voluntarily, by definition that means that they do not wish to work for pay. This sensible sum of money was provided to help voluntary organisations in small ways—perhaps to meet administrative and other costs—and to allow volunteers to work voluntarily.
Mr. Concannon: So be it. I was trying to put this into the context of Northern Ireland as a whole and the Government's shabby treatment of some of the established forums of work for Northern Ireland's unemployed youth.
In addition, there has been the Government's disgraceful treatment of Enterprise Ulster. That is well established in Northern Ireland, but its slow strangulation has resulted in considerable redundancies, which is incomprehensible bearing in mind the type of community projects undertaken by Enterprise Ulster. We should also bear in mind that 25 per cent. of its work force is under the age of 19.
That is the kind of thing that I am trying to put into perspective. It seems that the Government are prepared to grant small sums of money while at the same time looking for odd jobs that people can do voluntarily. That makes it impossible for the Enterprise Ulster scheme to continue. I strongly urge the Government to look again at the role and contribution of Enterprise Ulster to see whether it can be expanded rather than undermined.
In my experience, Enterprise Ulster has played an important role in helping the unemployed. While help for

165
that organisation may be only a drop in the ocean, it would be welcomed much more than voluntary work or piecemeal experiments such as "Action for Community Employment".
I need hardly remind the Government that there is a direct connection between the economic situation and the political problems of Northern Ireland. While the political and security situation provides an unstable environment for new factories and job opportunities, lack of jobs and unemployment fuel political discontent and contribute towards violent behaviour.
The Secretary of State acknowledged that self-evident truth when he addressed the RUC Superintendents Association in September. He said that unemployment was one of the complex factors leading to violence, and added that he attached the highest importance to tackling it. He continued:
"Lack of work is not, of course, an excuse for criminal behaviour but we must all recognise the part it plays in creating an environment in which disorder can grow".
That is not bad for a pre-Scarman Tory view of the connection between unemployment and criminal activity.
Soon afterwards, at the Conservative Party conference,
the Secretary of State spoke on the same theme. He said:
"Peace and stability must be a pre-requisite for progress in any nation. In Northern Ireland above all, political advance and economic recovery must go hand in hand. Poverty, lack of work, a sense of despair borne out of setbacks and tiredness all combine to increase the bitterness to feed the prejudices".
I am sure that Ministers do not need me to tell them what one of their colleagues is saying. I quote from those speeches merely to pose a simple question. If they recognise the problem, as they clearly do, and if they see the connection between social deprivation, unemployment and political alienation, why are they not taking immediate and drastic action? Why is there no regional policy for Northern Ireland? Where is the will to reduce unemployment? What possible explanation can there be for such Government indifference?
There have been renewed calls in recent weeks for tougher security measures in Northern Ireland, but merely increasing the number of soldiers and cancelling police leave will never solve the underlying cause of violence in the Province. Real security primarily lies in political action and in the will of parties in the North to move towards a mutual trust. It also lies in jobs, housing and good social services.
If the Government continue to preside over the destruction of Northern Ireland's scant social fabric, they must be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of increased dissatisfaction with the instruments of direct rule.
Mr. John Patten: As the social and economic need of the Province is so great, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, as we do, that, despite what he said, public expenditure per head in the Province is far higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Concannon: I recognise that fact, but I also recognise the need for it. When I first went to Northern Ireland, it was like stepping back 30 years. I am the first to admit that I was shocked at the housing conditions, the road network and the state of industry. It was just like stepping backwards 30 years to my youth. I recognised straight away the difficult task that I faced.
Northern Ireland needs more Government finance. We should not be ashamed to admit that we are trying to bring
166
Northern Ireland up to the same standard as the rest of the United Kingdom. All I am saying is that the Northern Ireland people will respond to fair, direct-rule government if it is seen to be trying to provide policies to alleviate their economic problems.
The year 1977 is a fair example of how the people of Northern Ireland can reject extremism. The "Better Life for All Campaign" for jobs received far more support than the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had then. The economic situation is now far worse than at any time during our Administration. That is all the more reason why it is urgent for the Secretary of State to understand that Northern Ireland's economy is different and requires policies other than the policy of equal misery. It is no good trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. I suspect that the problem for the Secretary of State is that he has recognised that the stable collapsed some time ago.
I shall not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the order, because that would only pile on the misery. I trust that in their contributions to the debate they will refer to the damage done to the economy over the last two-and-a-half years and demand an end to the disastrous policies that have played right into the hands of political extremists on both sides.
5.17 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: One factor common to Classes I, II and X is the principle of parity—both of taxation and services—with the rest of the United Kingdom. That inevitably means that the United Kingdom Exchequer meets the cost of social services, security, measures to compensate for natural disadvantages and lack of natural resources. It is, therefore, true to say that the Exchequer subsidises Northern Ireland, just as it subsidises Scotland, Wales and regions of England.
This order, together with others debated earlier this year, makes it possible to illustrate the extent to which the Treasury is subsidising Northern Ireland, but there is no comparable procedure that enables Parliament or the press to identify the amount of subsidy for other parts of the United Kingdom.
It so happens that we have obtained from official sources figures that show that the differentials are nothing like as great as Northern Ireland critics would have us believe or as the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, tried to lead us to believe a few minutes ago.
In 1979–80, each Ulster citizen was subsidised to the tune of £1,637. In the same year, an Englishman was subsidised to the tune of £1,107, a Welshman by £1,302 and a Scotsman by £1,366. Presumably, the glib commentators want to get rid of Ulster on the ground that, for a temporary period at least, an Ulsterman is costing the Treasury £271 more than a Scotsman.
One could go further and assert that if the Treasury could get rid of England it could reduce public expenditure by over £50 billion. That would work wonders for the public sector borrowing requirement. The Minister might think it useful to convey that suggestion to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who this afternoon will be playing about with his matchsticks in preparation for his statement tomorrow.
The House is accustomed to special pleas but the reality is that agriculture in Northern Ireland has never attained parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Quigley interdepartmental report said of Northern Ireland agriculture:

167
"It is clear that since 1972/73 the stimulus to agricultural production in Northern Ireland has been much less than that in Great Britain, and as a result, the Northern Ireland industry has been unable to maintain as many people in viable employment on the farms and in the processing plants as would have been the case if spendable net income had grown at the same rate as in Great Britain. Unless special measures are taken, a further loss of jobs seems inevitable."
Some farmers exist on bank borrowing, which in 1980 increased to more than £38 million. Unless there is a speedy change in the profitability and prospects of agriculture, farmers will be forced to change from their present vigorous programme of operations to low investment, low risk, low output subsistence farming. That is not much like parity and does not sould like a special case.
Against that background we must view the disaster of the drop in net farm income from £53 million in 1973 to a mere £9 million in 1980. The consequence is that farming families are being maintained on money which should be set aside for investment.
Those who have large farms can make a living of sorts, but medium and small farms will go out of business. That will result in still further unemployment both in farming and the ancillary industries. If this were to happen, as seems likely, there could be real and permanent damage to the structure of agriculture and its enormous potential contribution to the economy would be forfeited.
There is always a veil of mystery over what part the EEC should play in coping with agriculture problems in Northern Ireland. Those who predicted that Britain's entry would be detrimental to agriculture, and Northern Ireland agriculture in particular, have unfortunately been proved correct. However, the damage inherent in membership is made much worse by the confusion, dithering and in some cases downright deceit which farmers and housewives alike have come to associate with the Common Market.
There is no shortage of pious platitudes from the Community. For example the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment considers
"that the special situation of Northern Ireland, and the particular difficulties with which the region has had to struggle throughout the years, justify special support and action by the community."
That is excellent stuff, but meaningless unless translated into action by the EEC, which is very short on action. That is one reason why United Kingdom citizens are turning away in their thousands from the EEC and questioning the so-called advantages of membership.
The Ulster Farmers Union was not hostile to British entry to the EEC but it now says:
"The EEC must be fully briefed on the unique problems in Northern Ireland and the need, therefore, for acceptance by the Community of special measures for Northern Ireland."
The union recognises that it has a responsibility to assist in that briefing. I hope that the Secretary of State and other members of the Government recognise that they have a duty to influence the Community in the right direction.
Ulster farmers, and the people of Northern Ireland generally, should ensure that the Province's three members of the European Assembly can represent them full-time. We should not expect our three representatives to dance attendance endlessly on enthusiasts for all-party functions, most of which have no relevance to the European Assembly.
In the EEC elections in 1979, it was understood and agreed that elected Members of the Assembly were
168
committing themselves to a task which would require their undivided attention. We, the people of Northern Ireland, would render them ineffective and completely destroy their influence if we unreasonably expected them to be in two places at once. As long as the EEC retains its stranglehold on the industrial and agricultural life of Ulster, we must strive to ensure that our money is returned to us and used to best advantage. We can do that only if we ensure that our Ulster representatives are breathing down the necks of the Brussels bureaucrats who make the decisions.
The Ulster Farmers Union sums up its case by stating:
"The immediate concern of the Union is that the Government recognises the desperate need to restore confidence to farmers and vigour to the industry, and makes a firm decision to alter its priorities in public spending so that agriculture may be given the opportunity to make its full contribution to the economy and employment which the Province so desperately needs."
My colleagues and I share that concern and support that plea to the Government.
On Class II of the order, the management and unions of Short Brothers have been pressing the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for commerce on the need for an early decision on the plans submitted several months ago. The company's SD360 airliner has a two-year start on rival designs. It would be a tragedy if that advantage were lost because of indecision by the Government. Indecision has been the company's experience on many occasions under successive Governments. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to act now to prevent that great asset to the national economy from slipping through their fingers.
The De Lorean project has come in for much unfair criticism in the House and outside. Whatever the initial reservations, my plea is that we should give every encouragement to the company, its management and work force. We should congratulate them on their achievements in raising production to its present level and on the provision of jobs at a critical time for Northern Ireland.
Some weeks ago, I visited the De Lorean factory, which is in my constituency, not in that of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I was agreeably surprised by the obvious determination of all to prove their critics to be wrong. There was a keenness and a willingness to get on with the job. I had the clear impression that relations in the factory were extremely good between management and the shop floor and between people of different backgrounds. That was particularly gratifying.
On the other side of Belfast is an equally successful but less criticised undertaking, the Lear Fan aircraft company. I am delighted that the Government are giving the necessary support. The company is well ahead of schedule in production and employment targets. I welcome its practice of phasing out American experts once local indigenous work people have been trained. Already it is expanding its activities to Aldergrove airport and it has absorbed many skilled workers made redundant by the closure of the 23 Royal Air Force maintenance unit by the previous Labour Government.
I have no reason to believe that the Lear Fan company stands in any need of special assistance, but I should like to be assured that that outstanding American company can count on the full co-operation of the Government should it encounter any obstacles against development or expansion either at Carnmoney, or, perhaps more likely, at Aldergrove.

169
We may assume that the final words in Class II in the order, "certain administration expenses", provides for the structural changes that have been foreshadowed and announced by the Department of Commerce. The Minister touched on some of them in his speech. Last week the Secretary of State was reported to be toying with various forms of an economic forum. I regret that we have not been greatly impressed by those suggestions. I hope that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will find common cause with me on that matter.
I have already conveyed to the Secretary of State our view that there is no need for another economic forum. We already have the Northern Ireland Committee in the House in which economic policies and statements can be responsibly debated on the record. The Secretary of State and the Ministers will be conversant with the activities of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, chaired by Sir Charles Carter. That is an excellent body that does not labour under the handicap of being party political. It has produced a series of valuable reports contained in that collection. It is a shame and a scandal that the mechanisms provided by Parliament have not got around to making fuller use of that material and debating it at length. It covers practically every aspect of economic life in Northern Ireland. It is to that object that we should direct our attention.
There is a case for taking all that is contained in those volumes much more seriously. I hope that Ministers and their right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can be persuaded and assured that we will give our support to any moves to debate those matters in the Northern Ireland Committee. In that Committee Northern Ireland Members and hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom can play their part in advising and assisting the Secretary of State and his colleagues in what we hope will be a determined drive by the Government to bring prosperity to all the people of Ulster.
5.34 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: Naturally I very much regret that the House is not able to debate security within the confines of the Appropriation order. However, on the basis that that will be debated shortly, we must leave it for the moment.
I also deeply regret that the Appropriation order is so limited that I cannot raise the important question of the proposed hospital reorganisation in my constituency of Down, North. The proposal by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, if implemented, would further damage the medical facilities of Down, North. There will be a protest meeting in my constituency this evening. I hope to get to it.
I echo the remarks by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). The Appropriation order will make little impression on the grim industrial scene in Northern Ireland. The Government seem to be almost totally indifferent, despite their words, to the deterioration in the Ulster economy, and unaware of the feelings of the Ulster people.
Naturally I condemn the Government for their callous attitude towards the people of Northern Ireland. I watched the Under-Secretary who opened the debate exude smugness and complacency, yet the Government are presiding over policies that have encouraged an upsurge in the Provisional IRA campaign of violence. With bland confidence, the Northern Ireland Ministers are presiding
170
over policies that have brought about record unemployment and have quickened the decline of the major industrial enterprises in Northern Ireland.
I do not know whether Bertie Wooster could have done worse. I recollect from reading P. G. Wodehouse that he and his excellent colleagues belonged to a club called the Drones club. The Northern Ireland Ministers, with their superior and languid air, could equally be said to have created a Drones club at Stormont Castle with the English civil servants there. They seem to be totally supercilious and unable to come down to earth to the same level as the people of Northern [reland.
One of the difficulties is that the Ministers, no matter what they may say, have no real commitment to Ulster and its people. They do not live in Northern Ireland and have no conception of how the average man or woman lives in the Province. Often when I ask to see a Minister I am told by his civil servants who must look after him that he is in the Province for only a couple of days a week. Working in the warm security of an office in Whitehall or Westminster will not teach Ministers much about the lives and difficulties of the people whom they govern in Northern Ireland. No wonder the Government are contemplating another swingeing increase in Housing Executive rents. If the Ministers lived in the Province and had to pay ever-increasing rates and spiralling fuel and food bills, they would understand the complaints. The Government have the unenviable record of having brought unemployment to an unprecedented level of 19 per cent. after only two years in office. That is a record of which they should not be proud.
In the Minister's speech and the Appropriation order, I would have expected a remedy to be provided for the industrial crisis in the Province. All that we have is the modest statement that the Government have added £6·2 million to the general support of industry. That figure is the equivalent to unemployment benefit for 7,000 people for 30 weeks. Harland and Wolff employs that number of workers now. Those first-class workers will all be thrown on the dole in a few months' time unless the Government take immediate and positive steps to avoid such a calamity.
The Minister gave the impression that, bad as the situation in the Province is, it is not too bad. He gave no hint that the shipyard was in such dire straits. I warn him that the closure of the Belfast shipyard will have repercussions far beyond the island. The whole area of East Belfast and part of my constituency of Down, North are heavily dependent on the wages of those who work in that shipyard. Many small businesses are indirectly dependent on the shipyard. Against the need of that great enterprise, the Government's petty sums in the Appropriation order for industrial development are ludicrous. They completely ignore the parlous state of the yard.
Nowhere in the Class II Vote can I see any evidence that the Government have begun to understand what is required. I met the shipyard works committee yesterday. It is the first to acknowledge the vast amount of money that has been put into the yard over the years. However, similar sums have been put into other yards in England and Wales and into what is now British Shipbuilders.
The Belfast yard, in particular, is the victim of circumstances outside the control of the work force. It looks with envious eyes, for instance, at the £800 million worth of orders secured by British Shipbuilders, and

171
naturally wonders why the yard has not received some part of the Prime Minister's package that she successfully worked out with a South American country. Will the Minister tell us whether he will save the yard? I do not want to hear some carefully chosen meaningless words. Does he intend to save the yard? Will he obtain orders for it, because that is the only way in which it will be saved?
I recognise that defence spending has been reduced, but the order for the refitting and modernisation of fleet auxiliary ships must go somewhere. Only one ship, involving 21 days work, has been directed to the Belfast yard in the last few years. Surely, with the yard in such a state of crisis, the Northern Ireland Office should be hammering at the doors of the Ministry of Defence and ordering it to send some of the auxiliary fleet ships to be refurbished in the Belfast shipyard. I do not believe that the Government mind how many people become unemployed. They are just statistics in Ministers' minds. That is the feeling that I get from the lack of positive action by the Government. There will be serious unemployment consequences if the Government fail in directing work to the Belfast shipyard.
The works committee told me that an immediate order for a bulk carrier from British Steel of 170,000 tonnes is required. The yard has plans for such a carrier and its order would help the steel industry while providing the yard with work for about nine months and, unlike unemployment benefit for nine months, the country would have something to show for its money at the end of the day. Moreover, the expertise of the shipyard and its apprentice training scheme would be preserved to provide the necessary skills when the recession ends and the long awaited industrial upsurge occurs.
One other outstanding training centre for apprentices in Northern Ireland is Short Brothers. The Government have not yet accepted the crisis in that firm. They have completely underestimated the investment grants and credit facilities that must be made available to the aerospace industry in Belfast. Yesterday, I met trade union officials and shop stewards representing Short Brothers. It is clear from what they told me that the areas selected for extra funding by the Government under this order will have no effect whatever on the crisis in the aircraft industry. The position is compounded by different factors. There is unfair competition from American and other aircraft manufacturers, who have access to credit facilities that they can offer to potential customers. No such facilities are available to Short Brothers. I appeal to the Government to make sure that those facilties are available to the company so that it can sell the SD360 aircraft, in large numbers.
The Appropriation order provides £2·9 million to Lear Fan, which produces small aircraft. I congratulate the company on its success. I think that everyone is pleased with the way that it has been progressing. However, there is no financial recognition in the order of the greater financial investment that is immediately required by Short Brothers—approximately £20 million to enable the SD360 to go into profitable production. Firms such as Lear Fan have reaped the advantage of being able to recruit high grade technical staff, who received their initial training in the highly successful training school attached to Short Brothers. Sadly it has been reduced to an intake of 35 apprentices this year and 100 apprentices have been laid
172
off but are still attending technical colleges. It would be extremely short-sighted of the Government to allow that centre of high technology training, which provides for so many essential skills, to fall by the wayside. I want to hear a clear assurance from the Government today that they intend to provide the financial assistance that Short Brothers needs to compete with foreign firms and to maintain employment at this important factory in Belfast.
The Government can help in other ways. If the Ministry of Defence would direct a number of Canberra aircraft—rather than just one at a time—to Short Brothers for refurbishing that would ease some of the problems at present. The missile unit at Short Brothers is highly succesful and the Ministry of Defence should restore the original order that it placed with that firm each year.
There are two sides of the unemployment equation in the order. There is an additional £14 million for supplementary benefits, largely due to the increase in unemployment to 19 per cent.—or over 109,000 people out of work—in the Province. There is also the extra cost of measures to boost the Northen Ireland economy. The order provides for £150,000 to meet expenditure on developing beef cattle production. The local Northern Ireland abattoir in my constituency, which has never operated at anywhere near its full capacity, is now limping along at around 30 per cent. of capacity.
Farmers in Northern Ireland are not pleased with the actions taken by the Government to help them. The Ulster farmers are not receiving a fair deal and they are far less well off than their counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland. The Government should, therefore, provide proper assistance to make sure that they get a decent income. Of course, the £3·7 million subsidy will help in regard to the wholesale price for liquid milk, but the need is greater than that and, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield pointed out, it is less than should be provided and it is a very temporary measure.
I know many dairy farmers. They are hard-working men with families, whose return for a year's hard work is little more than the rate of unemployment benefit for a man and his wife—about £2,000 a year. I hope that the Government will now recognise the needs of the Ulster farmer and make sure that he has a decent income, because agriculture is essential to Northern Ireland.
Many business men in Northern Ireland have been saying for years that the medium sized and small businesses should receive greater financial assistance. It is galling for the small business man, hemmed in with restrictions, VAT, high income tax, high rates, planning restrictions, slow bureaucratic procedures and the petty pinpricks of officialdom, to see the enormous sums that are given to firms such as De Lorean. Industrial and development loans are given to small business men only after the most searching inquiry, numerous visits by officials and a great amount of correspondence, disappointments and delays. Is it any wonder that they read with astonishment of the vast amounts given to the great international corporations?
The order brings the total expenditure for the year to £2,344 million, which means that this year the total payment to Northern Ireland from central Government funds is around £1,300 million. In other words, more than half of Northern Ireland's budget comes from outside the Province. Faced with those facts, how can any person advocate political independence? It is beyond my

173
comprehension. Perhaps it is symptomatic of the sheer desperation that Ulster people feel as a result of having been left as sitting targets for Irish terrorists for 13 years.
How the Irish Republic could cope with an extra annual bill of £1,300 million is another unanswerable conundrum in the IRA's campaign to subjugate Ulster into an all-Ireland theocratic and confessional Republic. The truth is that there is no viable alternative for Ulster but union with Great Britain, except at the cost of a great downward shift in standards and Government services.
5.50 pm
Mr. Neville Sandelson: First, I thank the Minister for his kind reference to me when I entered the Chamber. I apologise to him for having missed his opening remarks. As he rightly observed, this is a rather special day for the Social Democratic Party, both at Westminster and in the country. On behalf of my party, I express its anger and sorrow at the wicked murder of Robert Bradford, which has resulted in a great loss to the House and to our debates.
As the economic and social problems in Northern Ireland grow apace with the increasing violence and the deteriorating political situation, the Government should be giving much more profound consideration to the long-term consequences if the crisis continues without the possibility of either abatement or solution. Normal investment has been undermined and business confidence demoralised.
The Government are entitled to claim some credit for their financial incentive schemes and the encouragement that they have given to small and new firms to set up in the Province. Any hope for the future can come only from a concentration of high growth and high technology sectors, which are obviously the most likely to create new jobs in the industrial wasteland that we have in Northern Ireland, and make possible a genuine return on the massive subsidies that are going into those sectors.
To that extent there is perhaps a glimmer of hope on an otherwise bleak landscape. Certainly there is a marginally improved sales outlook for some companies—those are really the major ones—with the recent depreciation of the exchange rate. The Government can take no credit for that. One wonders for how much longer the Government will continue their inflexible policy of maintaining an artificial pound to the continuing despair of British exporters and productive manufacturing industry throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman, if I heard aright, criticised the Government for maintaining an artificial rate. Is it the policy of his party, if it has one on the subject, that the exchange rate should find its own level without being influenced?
Mr. Sandelson: No, but we believe that the present high rate of the pound is acting as a major deterrent to British export performance both here and in the Province and that the Government are showing an inflexible disregard for the position in which British manufacturing industry and exporters are finding themselves.
Every week brings its increasing sorry toll of more and more good companies under excellent management going out of business under the grindstone of the Government's economic policies. The consequence for Northern Ireland
174
with its already decayed traditional industries is ever-increasing unemployment and dereliction, which no amount of Government-sponsored new enterprise can offset.
Let us consider the stark realities in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for restating them briefly. Unemployment is about 20 per cent. and rising. It is twice as high as the EEC average and the rural areas of the Province are the worst affected. Earnings for those with jobs are lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and welfare payments are correspondingly higher. High energy and transport costs add greatly to prices and produce, with the other factors, one of the lowest standards of living in Western Europe.
What could be more depressing than a recent survey that revealed that literally half the houses in Belfast, the main centre of population, were insanitary and that many of them were statutorily unfit for human habitation? Emigration figures have shown some reduction over the past five years but that is because of recession elsewhere in the world. Emigration still continues at a high level and every year Ulster loses thousands of young and skilled people.
We are dealing with what is virtually a vanishing economy. I received recently a letter from the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions in Belfast, which expressed eloquently the despair of its members. The Government seem to forget that companies such as Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff have been the hub of the economy and have provided skills and technology for other firms that have been prepared to start new enterprises in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will say what assistance the Government are prepared to give to Harland and Wolff to obtain new orders for its empty yards. The Government have shown a strange and cynical indifference to the fate of the yards over a long period.
The real cost of subsidies to the Province will be £1½ billion this year. That sum will inevitably increase year by year. About half of it goes in the enormous grant-in-aid to cover the gap between internal revenues and public service expenditure. Several hundred million pounds are spent on law and order and protective services but that expenditure does not include the huge cost of keeping troops in Ulster. The overall cost of trying to keep peace and maintaining law and order is about £6 a week for everyone living in the Province compared with less than £1 a week for each person in the rest of the United Kingdom. The parity payments increase annually as the unemployment queues lengthen and when those payments are taken into account we arrive at the stupendous subsidy of about £20 a week per head of the population in Ulster.
At a time of serious economic recession and crisis in the United Kingdom, with low growth and rising unemployment, and when our own infrastructure and public services are in need of massive injections of public expenditure we must not shirk asking ourselves whether this great burden is sustainable by Britain on its own and whether, before long, the burden will become unacceptable to the British people. We give firm support to the strategy that is implicit in the all-important London-Dublin bilateral talks, but a political settlement is still a distant prospect and would not in itself resolve the economic situation in Northern Ireland. Should we not be studying that issue more realistically for the future rather than

175
pursuing immediate and expensive palliatives, with no long-term assessment apparent on the part of the Government? It is therefore my view that Britain—
Mr. John Patten: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that, if there is any part of the United Kingdom to which there is a net transfer of funds, from the richer to the poorer part, he would wish to reconsider the position of that part of the United Kingdom within the Kingdom.
Mr. Sandelson: It is certainly my view that Britain must, in all circumstances, accept a high share of responsibility in regard to the position in Northern Iraland. However, I will try to answer the question put to me by the Minister. Britain on her own is no longer in a position to bring about a solution to the political issues or the deteriorating economic problems of the Province. The United Kingdom and the Republic must have a continuing role to play in all these matters—political and possibly economic—in the future. We shall certainly have a major role to play in the Northern Ireland economy—
Mr. Molyneaux rose—
Mr. Sandelson: For a long time ahead, Britain will have to shoulder the primary burden. However, I believe that in both areas—the political and economic—we should introduce a wider international dimension.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) may not have had the benefit of hearing Mr. Speaker's ruling at the beginning of the debate. I submit that the hon. Member is now going far beyond the limits that were laid down by the Chair, and that that is unfair to other hon. Members who, if there were a debate on the subjects that the hon. Member is raising, would wish to participate.
Mr. Sandelson: I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is correct. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has, from time to time, got himself a little off the track, but he has brought himself back to it. Perhaps he will try to remain on course.
Mr. Sandelson: I am most obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am now back on course, I shall conclude with a statement of some importance concerning the enunciation of the basic principles of Britain's future relationship with the Province. Dealing with the industry and the economy of the area—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not what we are debating tonight.
Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Member realise that the figure of £20 that he has quoted tallies exactly with my estimate of the subsidy being paid by the Treasury to the average Englishman? If that is so, is he taking up my suggestion that the Treasury ought to get rid of England?
Mr. Sandelson: I shall not take up that point. It is a point of much wider debate and economic consideration. I shall stick to what I believe to be the important theme that I have tried to make in the debate. If I have
176
overstepped the appropriateness of the occasion, I apologise to the House. Nevertheless, it is important that I conclude my remarks by maintaining the theme that I have been putting forward. I shall omit further reference, on your direction Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the matters I spoke about earlier.
A matter that arose early in the debate concerned the European Community and its regional policy. We know that the Community is now engaged in a restructuring of its regional policy, giving a greater role to regional authorities in the drafting of Community regional policy and the selection of projects and programmes for Community fund assistance. Will the Minister tell us how this will work when it comes into being? In the absence of devolved government or any form of representative economic council presently in Ulster, there is an anomalous situation. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government propose to meet the new EEC regional plan and its requirements. For example, how is the proposed economic forum to be constituted? What will be its powers and the scope of its responsibilities?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now completely off course. He must relate his argument to the three matters under discussion.
Mr. Sandelson: Perhaps the debate has not been the appropriate occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the kind of statement I have made. However, I believe it to be an important statement, and perhaps nothing has been lost.
In conclusion, my contention is that Britain alone cannot resolve the problems that are the subject of tonight's debate, or the problems of the the wider area. Britain's duty to the Ulster people lies in creating a wider and more powerful international framework within which solutions may ultimately be achieved.
6.7 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I trust that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) will not be offended if I do not directly follow the line that he took. His remarks were as wide from the order being debated as they were from reality. That may be explained by a recent visit that he had, not to the SDP but to the SDLP, in Northern Ireland and he is now parroting some of its fallacies.
I shall concentrate on the part of the order that deals with industry in the Province, and particularly with the two main employers in Northern Ireland, which are both in my constituency—Short Brothers, a company which deals with aircraft, and Harland and Wolff, which builds ships. They have made an important contribution to the Northern Ireland economy. While we accept that there have been many difficulties in recent years, we must recognise that it would cost the taxpayer and the Government much more to try to close down such ventures than to try to continue their operations.
I was encouraged to hear from many parts of the House words of sympathy for the situation in which Shorts has found itself. There are roughly three sections within it. One deals with aircraft construction, another with aircraft components, and another with missiles. The aircraft construction section largely entails the Skyvan, the SD330 and the new SD360. There are great hopes and expectations in Short Brothers that its new venture will be

177
most successful and profitable. The SD360 is 18 months to two years ahead of its nearest rival, and the SD330 has already proved itself across the world.
I do not intend to place all the responsibiliies at the Government's feet, because the United States Government have caused some of Shorts difficulties. The borrowing rates are not conducive to airline companies embarking on extensions to their fleets. That has naturally caused considerable difficulties and redundancies. I know that 300 members of the staff are now redundant, although 150 redundancies were taken up by early retirement and a few by natural wastage.
The Minister must accept that there is some Government responsibility here, because the two industries that I have mentioned—aircraft and shipbuilding—are industries which in almost any part of the world are not considered real profit makers. Therefore, they rely heavily not on Government funding but on Government orders. I do not believe that the Minister or the Government can wash their hands of the matter.
In 1979, Short Brothers produced a corporate plan for a five-year period. That plan was endorsed by the Government in November 1980. They agreed a figure of £17·9 million to get the company through the period and also that there should be an annual review. Both management and work force at Short Brothers have considered how to get the firm back on a profitable basis and their plan was submitted to the Government about six months ago. It has been updated since then.
The trade unions at Short Brothers refer to their present existence as keeping going on a drip feed system. It is a hand-to-mouth operation. Employers of the size of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff cannot be expected to continue on that basis. We require urgent and immediate decisions from the Government on the corporate plan that is presently with them. The Minister will be aware that aircraft component companies rely entirely on the success of other aircraft engineering companies. We should be glad that Boeing has given work to Short Brothers, and that its success has been recognised by many other firms. Naturally, if Boeing, Rolls-Royce and other companies start to cut back at their ends, Short Brothers will suffer at this end.
It should also be pointed out to the Government that by holding back finance from Short Brothers, as is presently the case, that has an effect on other British companies such as the General Electric company, which does sub-contract work, as well as to those companies that supply equipment to Short Brothers. The Minister must give the matter urgent attention. I ask him to address himself to the subject today and perhaps cause some joy in Northern Ireland by stating that he is about to take an immediate decision on the matter.
The missile division has been the most profitable section of Short Brothers. The Minister will be aware that it requires orders from the Government. I believe that the orders have reduced considerably in number, and that orders originally intended to be taken over a one-year period have been extended to two years. That has an overall effect of reducing the orders by about 50 per cent. Can the Minister tell us what change there will be in the missile division, which is far in advance of any other firm, in not only the United Kingdom but perhaps the world, in technology and production?
As to Harland and Wolff, it has been recognised by the House for a long time that that firm, as British
178
Shipbuilders and shipbuilding firms throughout the world, is suffering from a general dearth of orders. At present it has an order from British Petroleum that is likely to keep the yard occupied until 1983, but the men who start the work—the steel workers—will soon be redundant unless new orders are received. Will the Minister tell the House what efforts he and the Government have made to ensure that there is some work to keep the yard occupied, especially Ministry of Defence work?
Finally, I move from the class that deals with industry and turn to Class X, especially to the decreases, amounting to £500,000, in respect of certain benefits, including attendance allowance and mobility allowance. The document that the Minister forwarded to hon. Members sets it out well. It states:
"These increases are offset by decreases amounting to £0·5m in respect of Old Persons Pensions, Attendance Allowances and Mobility Allowance, due to decreases in the number of beneficiaries."
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I have on many occasions raised the matter in the House. Indeed, it is apparent to us that to be successful in receiving the attendance allowance or some of the mobility allowances rigor mortis must have virtually set in. Unless the Minister is prepared to re-set the criteria for successful application, there will continue to be reductions in that section. Until there is a firm system of appeals for attendance allowances, many people will believe themselves badly done by. They will believe that their case merits the attendance allowances and the benefit thereof, but because there is no appeals procedure they do not receive that to which they are entitled.
6.15 pm
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I welcome the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) back to his usual position in the Chamber. When he speaks from the Government Benches he speaks much more sense than when he is up in the stratosphere of the Side Gallery. His case, when he is up there, is much less intelligent than that that he advances from the Government Benches. I disagree with very little of what he said today. The hon. Gentleman spoke, in remarks that he made to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), of the reality of the position in Northern Ireland.
I limit my remarks now to Vote 2. The reality is that the Government have been in power since 1979. When they took office the number of unemployed in Northern Ireland was 61,000. That number has nearly doubled to at least 120,000. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that there is a hidden figure, especially of married women who do not sign the unemployment register because they do not qualify for unemployment benefit. If we take that figure into consideration, 130,000 or 140,000 people are now unemployed, instead of 61,000 in May 1979. That is the reality about which we are talking, irrespective of all the promises that we have heard.
I have listened to the Minister this afternoon. Like his predecessors and the other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, the Minister who will reply to the debate will tell us how sorry he is about the tragedy of unemployment in Northern Ireland. However, he will say that Northern Ireland is receiving more in public expenditure, and that the Government are doing everything they can to attract industry into Northern

179
Ireland. They must bear responsibility for the economic policies that they have carried out in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom, which have led to spiralling unemployment.
I cannot forget the supplementary budget that was given in August 1980 in a parliamentary answer. At that time it was called a reallocation of funds. The sum of £10 million was taken away from the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. That led to unemployment of schoolteachers and those employed in school meal kitchens. It led to the unemployment of caretakers, doormen and cleaners. The sum of £10 million was also taken away from the Department of Health and Social Services. That led to redundancies in the medical profession in Northern Ireland. It was deliberate. The Government knew what the effects of those cutbacks would be.
The Minister wrote to me recently about a controversy that is still raging about staff at Purdysburn hospital. I have received letters from the trade union involved which I shall give the Minister later. The trade union contradicts the figures that he gave me. It claims that many more people have been made redundant in the hospital, including 33 nurses since July. There are no jobs for them. The Minister may refute that claim if he so wishes. The redundancies have happened because of Government policy.
Mr. John Patten: This is not the time to debate statistics. However, to the best of my knowledge we have been recruiting, not laying off, staff at that hospital during the past six months.
Mr. Fitt: I shall cross the Floor and give the Minister the letter from the trade union.
The Budget provided for a £24 million reduction in the money available to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. That Department controls the Housing Executive. The reduction led to massive redundancies in the construction industry, yet that industry is the one way to rejuvenate Northern Ireland and put life into the business community. It is a home-grown industry, organised and managed by people who know it well. It is labour intensive, with many thousands of labourers, skilled workers and workers in allied trades who could all be re-employed if the Government changed their policy on public expenditure.
The housing position in Belfast is terrible. The Government would be justified if they broke out of their self-imposed chains. There is a crying need for an injection of capital into the public sector, not only to create employment but to create the lasting capital asset of housing both in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. That would attack two social evils, the terrible scourge of unemployment and the terrible housing conditions that are probably the worst in Western Europe.
I ask the Minister whether it is beneficial to Northern Ireland to remain a member of the EEC?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must have heard my earlier ruling on that matter.
Mr. Fitt: I was deliberately restricting my remarks. However, we are discussing unemployment and housing, which come under the heading of commerce. Northern Ireland was told that it would receive £300 million or £400
180
million. The Minister will reply to the debate on behalf of the Department of Commerce, which is a close associate of the Department of the Environment. If we are to build houses and create employment, these points come within the ambit of the order. We were told last week that Northern Ireland would receive £26 million to help create employment and build houses in the centre of Belfast. We were then told that at a meeting in Brussels the Government said that they could not spend that £26 million. Either the Government decided not to give us that money, or they were told by some committee of the EEC that they could not have the money. Northern Ireland is the loser. The Government can say that they had intended to spend the money on building houses and creating jobs, but that they were prevented from doing so by some edict from the EEC.
Northern Ireland was told that it would receive hundreds of millions of pounds. That sum was reduced to £26 million, and now it will get nothing. That has created a great deal of despair and discontent among the people of Northern Ireland who had been led to believe that the Government would exert all their energy to get money from the EEC.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that Northern Ireland's three representatives at the EEC should be there at all times to request or demand from the EEC as much aid as possible. I think that he was really referring to only one Member. The other two Members are Members of the European Parliament only, but the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is also a Member of this House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, South was calling for his resignation from the House. That is not wholly surprising in view of what has been happening in Northern Ireland.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Antrim, North would be here today to add his voice to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the financial position of the Belfast shipyard. Many of the workers there gave up half a day on 23 November to support the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He should have been here today as some slight recompense for that.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Belfast, West made a disgraceful comment about my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He must know that my colleague is attending the funeral of Constable Coulter.
Mr. Fitt: I did not know that, but there have been occasions when similar debates have taken place in the House and the hon. Member for Antrim, North has been at funerals. I express my sympathy for the family of Constable Coulter. The hon. Member for Antrim, North should have been here to support the demand by the hon. Member for Belfast, East because of the frightening position at the shipyard. I do not exaggerate. Workers at the shipyard are frightened about redundancy. The Government have given the impression that they are not enamoured of the problems of the shipyard. Many Conservative Members regard it as a lame duck and would not be annoyed if there were some way to get shot of it.
The De Lorean project is not in my constituency, but on its borders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield deserves great credit for bringing that company to Northern Ireland. It has lived up to expectations and

181
now employs 2,500. We had expected it to employ only 2,000. Some Conservative Members are unfair in their attitude towards the company, for whatever reasons. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made an unwarranted attack on the De Lorean project. One can only hope that he never has the same unemployment problem in his constituency as we have in Northern Ireland. One would expect support from even his Government, with their Right-wing views, in seeking to create employment in Northern Ireland.
It has been said that this is a restrictive order. That is certainly so. We had hoped to debate the many problems affecting our constituents in Northern Ireland, and to endeavour to find a solution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said that Class X draws attention to the fact that an increase in public expenditure has been created in order to pay out unemployment benefit in Northern Ireland. That is the road to nowhere. It is not the way forward to economic recovery. It gives no hope to those who have been without jobs for so long.
The Minister should go back to his office and examine the statistics. He said that the order would affect people who had been unemployed for more than one year. That is the sort of terminology used when discussing unemployment in England, Scotland and Wales. The vast majority of the unemployed in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for more than two or three years. Some have been unemployed for five, 10, 15, 20, and even 25 years. The figure of one year has no relevance to the circumstances of the Province.
I tabled a series of questions to the appropriate Minister. It may even have been to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield who was the Minister at the time. The figures I received were astounding, astonishing and pitiful in the context of hundreds who have been unemployed in Northern Ireland for so long. That is an indictment of the present Government and of some of their predecessors.
When one considers the doubling, and near trebling, of unemployment since the Conservative Party came to power, it is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that the Government have done all they can. The reality is that this never ending spiral of unemployment is bringing with it all the untold tragedy that long-term unemployment brings. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to expect more from the Government.
6.34 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I should like, first, to add my tribute to the late Robert Bradford and to say how much one misses him and his wise words in a debate such as this. I take this opportunity of offering my sympathy to his widow. His death underlines the security background to this debate. Violence in Northern Ireland has created a difficult dimension at a time when Northern Ireland has enough problems on its plate with its economy, and in restructuring that economy to bring it up to date and able to compete in the world around it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his encouraging remarks and the robustness of his comments. I listened carefully to what he said and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree with him on the need for an enhanced industrial base for the Province. The whole House will have been cheered up by his remark that Northern Ireland has the best package of
182
investment incentives in the United Kingdom. Against that background we must wonder why Northern Ireland is not more successful in attracting investment.
I was also encouraged to hear that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just returned from another mission to create inward investment. I hope that in his winding-up speech he will tell us something about his trip and whether there are any prospects of new firms coming to Ulster. When one looks at the state of the two traditional industries in Northern Ireland, engineering and textiles, one is sometimes inclined to conclude that as rapidly as we find new investment for the Province so its traditional industries shrink and the net gain is very much less than any of us would have liked.
To know that engineering employment has fallen by about 20 per cent. in the past four years, that the work force in textiles has decreased by about 25 per cent., and that both figures are still growing is to make one realise how serious is the industrial plight of Northern Ireland. In those terms, the two traditional industries of shipbuilding and textiles seem to take on a greater importance than they would if one could see a range of new industries growing, flourishing and increasing their work forces. But at present, that is not so. Therefore, perhaps I may concentrate my comments on the existing traditional industries.
I shall say only this about textiles. The reputation that Northern Ireland Irish linen used to enjoy was world-wide. I sometimes wonder why the Province has not concentrated on producing the highest quality product that anyone in the world could buy and then marketing that product in the rich and expensive markets of, for instance, North America, in New York and in California, and of France and Western Europe, to a greater extent that seems to have been the case. There is a market for very high quality products. I cannot see why Northern Irish linen should be exempted, particularly with the reputation that it built up and so jealously guarded and which was admired for long.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the hon. Member would be interested to know that a textile firm in my constituency which specialises in exactly the way that he has been decribing has recently brought home, from the Middle East, an exceedingly large and valuable order exactly of a kind that he has in mind, which is a suggestion that what he is saying has not escaped the notice of those who are leading in the textile industry in Northern Ireland.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I ought to have guessed that the clever Northern Irish would have thought as I was thinking. I am grateful to know that my words at least have some practical reality. I am very glad to hear that, because I believe that sometimes, in the United Kingdom overall, we make extremely good products but often market them badly and, consequently, see markets which should be ours taken by foreigners with less acceptable goods.
The second of the industries is shipbuilding. My words are bound to be about Harland and Wolff. During this debate, Harland and Wolff has been on the lips of everyone who has spoken. That is reasonable enough, since it occupies an almost key position in the industrial structure of Northern Ireland and since, apart from those who work in the yard, it provides so much employment through subcontractors.

183
It is not unreasonable to say that Harland and Wolff has brought itself many of the problems that it is facing. It has had chronic labour problems. It has been guilty of far too many late deliveries of ships that it was selling. It has suffered from unnecessary industrial disputes that have ruined a once-famous name, to a point at which some may wonder whether it is possible for it to recover its fame and fortune. I still believe that that possibility exists. But if Harland and Wolff is to have a future, that future must be thought out with the greatest care by those responsible for it and by the Government, who will have to provide its finance for some time to come.
No one believes that Harland and Wolff will again be a super-tanker yard. Those days have gone. The real question that arises is whether we are prepared to restructure it as a yard with a viable future. Are we prepared to produce the finance to make it a yard that can build ships in the 60,000-tonne to 100,000-tonne category? This is the new size of ship, I am told, that the merchant shipping fleets of the world will be wanting. If Harland and Wolff does not at present possess the attributes to be such a yard, the question arises of the price of the restructuring and whether we are prepared to foot the bill.
A clear sight of the future for Harland and Wolff will enable us to attract to the yard the sort of management that, up to now—that is unfair; I should perhaps say in the recent past—it has been denied. Top management will go where a company has a future. Top management will not go to an ailing industry that looks sicker as the days go by.
Another question to be asked concerning the future of the yard is whether those who work in it—I am referring not to senior management but to those on the shop floor—are aware that industrial disputes and the days of having 16 trade unions and 158 shop stewards in one yard are past. Unless the labour side of the yard is restructured and streamlined, the yard is likely to continue to be inefficient and unable to meet delivery dates that are so critical. In those circumstances, Harland and Wolff will not regain its reputation but will simply become a continuing loss-maker until the point is reached where someone says it is not worth putting more money into the yard.
It took some nerve, I thought, for the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) to suggest that the Government had starved the yard of funds. The hon. Gentleman is aware that this Government, like their predecessor, have put more than enough money into the yard. Anyone who suggests that present or former Ministers wanted to be rid of Harland and Wolff and were therefore killing it off by denying it funds should go and look up the records. They will not find that their statement is supported by the evidence.
There are many hard decisions ahead for those managing Harland and Wolff and for those Ministers who will have to reach decisions about finance. On the other hand, it is true, I think, that the yard can raise some of its badly needed capital itself. It has a 368-acre site on Queens Island, of which it is utilising only a small part. If that is true, there is clearly land available for sale and development. I should like to hear that such sales are in course of preparation.
It is also a matter of fact, I believe, that the yard may not be able to survive entirely on its own. If the
184
opportunity is to be denied the yard to link with British Shipbuilders, which I have been pressing for many years, the question arises whether we are prepared to look to some other country—perhaps North America or Holland—to see whether unity could be created between Harland and Wolff and a foreign manufacturer. This would enable Harland and Wolff to develop its expertise in engines for ships while its counterpart, wherever it might be found, could concentrate on the hulls and other equipment. A link with another shipmaker would provide Harland and Wolff with the badly needed finance it requires and also perhaps give it marketing opportunities in a worldwide shipping market. It would not be based simply in Belfast, starved of funds and in a rundown state. Instead it would be a company bringing its expertise to another company that might be able to provide it with the orders that it seeks.
I believe that Harland and Wolff has a future. It will, however, be a difficult future to discover. It is one that I do not believe the yard itself will be able to discover until we are prepared to recognise the continuing need for financial assistance. To those who say that this sounds a peculiar doctrine to be coming from the Conservative Benches at this time, my answer is that circumstances in Northern Ireland are so unusual that we have to recognise that money spent in strengthening and, perhaps, rebuilding Harland and Wolff is money that will in the end produce a net profit for our nation and increase the viability of the Northern Ireland economy.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to Short Brothers, as did the hon. Member for Belfast East (Mr. Robinson). I have worked for that company and had the good fortune to visit it last summer. I was impressed by what I saw on the aircraft side, the SD330 and the newer SD360 air liners. I congratulate the company on discovering what so far has been an untapped niche in the airliner market.
All those who visited the company were impressed by Sir Philip Foreman and his team. We were particularly impressed that Short Brothers has managed to survive all the vicissitudes that have visited themselves upon the aircraft industry in this country and still remains a viable and going concern. What upset me most, however, was to hear that Short Brothers has virtually only one contract left from the Ministry of Defence procurement executive for the rebuilding of Canberra aircraft, of which the company made many hundreds in the 1950s and the early 1960s. I pressed, during the last defence debate, that a remaining contract for five Canberras that were originally built at Shorts should go back to Shorts for rebuilding. I do not know whether the contract did go back to the company. It is surely the case, however, that Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers and Harland, being wholly owned by the Government, deserve to be considered for Ministry of Defence contracts as much as any other company in the United Kingdom.
To think that Short Brothers, which made the aircraft, might not be given the job of refurbishing them seems an extraordinary decision, if that was the decision, and the company has not won the contract. This is one way in which the Government can give direct help to two vital industries in Northern Ireland. I wonder, therefore, whether some Ministry of Defence work cannot go to Harland and Wolff and to Short Brothers to ensure that both companies get their fair share of what is available.

185
The De Lorean motor company has been mentioned during the debate. I have only one question. No one hopes more keenly than I that the £80 million that has gone into the company will produce jobs and profitable success for the company in Northern Ireland and a return to the British taxpayer. It was, therefore, with some disappointment that I read that 1,700 cars had had to be recalled to have some mechanical defect remedied. I hope the Minister will be able to say that the defect was of such a minor nature that the work could be done in North America. I would be sad if I were told that the car had to come back to Belfast, particularly at this crucial time in the inception of the car into the North American market. I look forward to any comment that my hon. Friend can give.
Mr. Adam Butler: This was a relatively minor fault. The House will be aware that cars are quite frequently called in by manufacturers. In this case, it was a nut to do with the front suspension. I understand that the work will be carried out in America by the distributors and that it will take 30 minutes, possibly 60 at the most, to be rectified in the case of each car.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am relieved to hear my hon. Friend's answer.
My next question relates to the Lear Fan project, which is very exciting and, if successful, could find a very large market. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would say whether the programme is on schedule. Is he able to tell us the total Government investment in it? When does he expect the aircraft to receive its certificate of airworthiness?
Lastly, I want to say a word about unemployment, which, as has been said so often in this debate, is about 19 per cent. overall in the Province. We all know that that figure hides a much larger figure in some towns, where I believe it can be as high as 40 per cent. The part of the unemployment total which worries me most is that of people who are under 25 years of age. I understand that, of the 112,224 people out of work in October, 45·1 per cent. were under 25. When will the Government bring forward a programme to do something to improve the marketability—that is not an inhumane word to use—of these young people?
I have searched the Library to see whether a consultation document has been published by the Government about youth opportunities in Northern Ireland, but so far I have found none. Yet, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, there are great problems in the construction industry in Northern Ireland. Any of us who visit Belfast can see the opportunities that exist for rebuilding large parts of the city. Surely a skill training programme is required. Surely we should not leave those young people unskilled and simply on the dole. Surely, more than just skill training, we should provide higher education, so that those young people can take advantage of the electronic revolution. Have the Government plans to provide those skills and that education?
As has been said so often in the past, unemployment is the breeding ground of crime and terrorism. Is it unreasonable to suggest that Northern Ireland, which, as I have already suggested, is unlike other parts of the United Kingdom in many tragic ways, might start a compulsory community youth service to run for at least a year? It could be open to those who have been unemployed
186
for more than three months and who are over 18 years of age. If they find a job, they can of course come out of the scheme. If young people in the Province know that for a year they have a job to do, they will have hope and the feeling that when the recession finally disappears from the Western economy they will not have completely wasted their early years. Also, with skill training and higher education, they will be better able to take those opportunities which, God willing, will come to Northern Ireland. Thus they will help to build its economy both in a job, when a job becomes available, and doing community service when no work is available.
6.53 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: I was impressed when the Minister introduced the Class II, Vote 2, support for industry and properly reminded us that the £6 million-odd that was being sought brought to £187 million the total budget for the Department of Commerce for this year. We in Northern Ireland do not want always to appear to be begging for more, although that theme tends to run through debates of this nature, but because of the circumstances that exist we always appear to come cap in hand looking for assistance. I do not like to do that unless I am convinced that we have properly and adequately used the money that has been made available to us.
After the Minister gave us that figure, he launched into an impressive sales pitch. If he had been selling me a secondhand car, I think that I would have bought it. He spoke with eloquence when he described the necessity of ensuring that everything possible was done to enhance our productive industries base, and said that the Government were indulging in a vigorous industrial development drive, that everything possible was being done at home and abroad, and that there was no hope unless the Government searched everywhere, because of the world recession and because of our damaging image abroad. He talked about our internal industrial vigour—I do not know what one does to encourage that—and he referred to the importance of the indigenous industrial manufacturing base in providing us with a springboard for success. Those are some of his comments that I managed to jot down.
Let us take the figure of £187 million and assume that roughly a similar amount was spent last year—perhaps slightly less. If we take an additional amount for the six months or so that take us back to the beginning of the two and a half years that this Government have been in office, we can assume that perhaps £350 million has been spent by the Government to achieve all those worthy objectives.
However, the Minister never told us what this is all about. Professor Black of Queen's university has told us. He says that since this Government came to office in 1979
"over 110 substantial manufacturing establishments have closed",
and he thinks that that might be an underestimate. The most worrying aspect, he says, is that the closure of many of these establishments means that the springboard is no longer there. It is not just that those establishments have gone into a slump or a recession, laid people off, but may well be able to take advantage of the upturn when it comes; they have closed. The springboard has been smashed. He said that the companies which had closed were the growth potential companies. He said that the technologically advanced companies that we attracted in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, such as ICI and Grundig, were closing, and that unfortunately—perhaps we should be

187
pleased—the older indigenous industries, though still contracting, were still there. But they do not provide the springboard that the Minister mentioned.
Professor Black reminded us that in the 1970s, Northern Ireland had a potential increase in the labour force of 99,000 people, and that during that period 24,000 of them managed to find employment in the Province. Thirty-five thousand of them went on the unemployment register, and 40,000 had to emigrate.
We have been told that in those two and a half years unemployment has increased to roughly 120,000 and is running at 20 per cent. For all the great sales spiel from the Minister, there is nothing to show that Government policies are working. I want to ensure that the money is being well spent. If we can spend £350 million or £400 million on industrial development in Northern Ireland and finish up with the situation in which we now find ourselves, should we not ask "Are we spending money wisely? Is this to be the continuing situation?" Professor Black assumes that there will be a 9,000 annual increase in the labour market into the 1980s. He reckons that unemployment during the whole of the 1980s will never fall below 20 per cent. in the Province. Having had 10 years of tragedy and violence, with the likelihood that much of that will continue, although I hope not at the same level, are we now to look forward to 10 years of 20 per cent. unemployment?
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) spoke about the link between violence and unemployment. I do not accept a direct correlation, but there is obviously some relationship between the two. Even if one accepts that in part, how can one view 20 per cent. unemployment for another 10 years and not be extremely concerned about its side effects?
I intervene simply to ask: are we doing the right thing? Are we spending money wisely? Surely I am entitled to ask those questions. I understand the concern about the Secretary of State's proposals to get something going in Northern Ireland that is separate and different from what we do in the House in order to see what is required and to come forward with ideas to advise and help the Government. Things have reached such a stage in Northern Ireland that perhaps we should use the brains of the whole community in a way that we have not yet done. I do not necessarily wish to take anything away from the House, but to get together people with different abilities and with expertise in different areas. I should be happy to play a part in that if the Government would give me some assurance that, having played a part and having got others involved, our reports will not end up ignored in a corner of the Library.
My advice to the Secretary of State is that we must learn to spend £500 million better than we have done in the past two and a half years. If we are to learn to do that and to use what Northern Ireland has to offer, the Government must give us some assurance that when we make recommendations, or try to help, our contributions will not be ignored.
7 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the debate approaches its end, it is right to recall something that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said at the beginning. He referred to the
188
peculiar, indeed unique, nature of the document under discussion. Perhaps we have become so used to seeing Appropriation orders for Northern Ireland three times a year, that it has ceased to surprise us that one part of the United Kingdom, comprising only 1·5 million inhabitants, has a completely separate system for accounting and for voting money.
That is not a mere technical point, still less a constitutional point. It is of very practical effect. In several of the speeches today—most crassly in the speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson)—it has been said that the Province is being hugely, uniquely, subsidised by the rest of the United Kingdom, and it has been asked whether we can continue to labour under such an Atlantean load. I guarantee that I could find in the United Kingdom a dozen blocks containing 1·5 million people, which—if accounts were kept for them separately, as they are kept for Northern Ireland, and if they faced Appropriation orders three times a year—would be described by those hon. Members who attended the debate as terrible burdens that the rest of us are carrying, burdens that raise the question whether we should labour under them any longer.
The figures disclosed by the Estimates and by the order are simply a statement of the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the economy, administration and financial system of the United Kingdom. In the phenomena which are a result of that, it does not differ in any way from many other parts of the United Kingdom. In such a debate as this, when some hon. Members are ready to misrepresent the situation, it is important to keep that in proportion.
I wish to make a bid to respond, in a fairly narrow field, to the challenge thrown down by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). In opening the debate the Minister said that the order was concerned with enhancing Northern Ireland's industrial base. My hon. Friends and I have always contended that in the balance of expenditure incurred in that attempt to enhance Northern Ireland's industrial base, the main weight should, wherever possible, be placed on what is commonly described as "infrastructure". We have always contended that the risks are greatest and the dangers of waste at their highest when one concentrates on specific projects, which sometimes prove to have been inadequately studied. We have always contended that the chances of success and of securing perhaps unanticipated benefits are at their greatest when expenditure is incurred on providing for those general requirements which the economy will have, whatever form it may take. The subject that I shall press on the Government concerns that infrastructure.
Communications between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom are clearly of crucial importance in economic as well as in other respects. A whole debate could be held about possible developments in air travel; but whatever the scope of air communications, economic values and requirements will turn overwhelmingly upon surface communications.
It is no new observation to say that Northern Ireland is dangerously under-provided in terms of surface communications with the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1979, the Northern Ireland Economic Council published a report on sea ferry services. I entirely agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh when he said that we should utilise all the thinking and experience that we can get hold

189
of in the Province and knock it together: the Northern Ireland Economic Council is an example of an attempt to do that. After careful study it reached—among others—this conclusion:
"For reasons of consumer convenience, and to some extent for strategic advantage, we would urge the early introduction of a passenger ferry service with roll-on/roll off vehicle facilities from Warrenpoint to Holyhead."
That is part of the picture that the Northern Ireland Economic Council drew of the Province's insistent need for not two, but three major routes connecting it with the mainland. The council re-emphasised that point in the annual report that it published in 1980, which said:
"we continue to press for the establishment of a roll-on/roll-off service to make use of the facilities at Warrenpoint and provide a shorter route to the Midlands and South of England"—
though the council deplored the fact that,
"with the recession in economic activity, the introduction of new air and sea services is likely to be delayed."
This perception of the importance of the third link has not been restricted to the economic council. No less a person than the Prime Minister said at the beginning of 1978—almost four years ago—that the proposal for the Warrenpoint link was "interesting and important" and I was fascinated and much encouraged to notice that the new Secretary of State—taking his first view of the scene—said:
"These are commercial matters. From all that I have seen in a short time, the roll-on/roll-off operation from Warrenpoint would be very important."—[Official Report, 11 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 538.]
The Estimates include finance for commercial studies that are necessary to establish a potential market. At the request of the Department, Warrenpoint harbour authority carried out last summer just such a detailed study of the potential demand for roll-on/roll-off ferry services to Warrenpoint. Having seen that study, as the Minister also has, I am prepared to say that it is a more than convincing demonstration of the ample traffic that will be available if such a new link is created. The link has the advantage of the short sea run to Holyhead. It has the advantage of an almost complete dual carriageway connection with Belfast. It taps the centre of the island, both the south of Ulster and the north of the Republic. It offers vehicular transit within the day from any part of England to any part of Ulster.
That being so, the question might well be asked "After all this, and with those opportunities and attractions, what are we waiting for?". By way of answering that question, I should like to read a letter. I shall not identify the firm from which it came, but it was a firm that took a close interest in the practicability of this new link. It wrote this letter to the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority as recently as August this year. It states:
"We are investigating the possibility of starting a roll-on/ roll—off ferry service from a United Kingdom port to Ulster, and our research has shown that the most suitable for the Ulster port would be Warrenpoint with its position midway between Belfast and Dublin and its proximity to the border at Newry for cross-border traffic".
Splendid. That is the first paragraph. We then come to these observations:
"However, for the type of service we would propose it would be absolutely essential to run a daily TIMETABLE service uninterrupted by tidal influences. At the present time we understand that you have a channel which is dredged to 13½ ft at low water. Experience tells us that a minimum depth at low water spring tides required would be 16 ft. This depth would also be required at Watson's Rock and also at the Carlingford Lough bar".
190
That is a correct appreciation. If this is to be a viable link, it is essential that it should provide a timetable service that can be delivered on time at all states of the tide; and it is the fact that Carlingford Lough and the access to Warrenpoint at present do not offer, by a margin of about 4 ft at spring tide, the assurance of a timetabled regular service. So again I ask: "What are we waiting for?". We are waiting for two things. First, the deepening of the access channel that will make sense of Warrenpoint harbour, which is largely a creation of public capital, and of the abundant facilities provided there. Second, but as a preliminary to that, we require the geological survey that would enable such a work to be estimated, planned and costed.
It is a happy chance that the Minister in charge of the Department of Commerce is to reply to the debate; for he, and indeed the Government, have before them for decision the question of ordering the survey that is the necessary preliminary and condition to rendering this third link practicable.
I do not expect the Minister to give me the answer across the Dispatch Box in half-an-hour's time, but I do say to him that the time for decision has now come; for we have assembled all the materials on which the decision needs to be taken. It has to be taken now in a much more urgent environment than that which existed when I first troubled the right hon. Member for Mansfield and some of his colleagues with the same question five or six years ago. The interruption of the Belfast-Liverpool link has been a shock and a salutary warning to the Province as a whole. So it should be to the Government. It has been a reminder of the soundness of the assertion of the Economic Council that Ulster could not safely depend indefinitely upon the short link at the north, and the middle link between Belfast and Liverpool.
Like the right hon. Member for Mansfield, I hope that the Minister will have more to say about the future of the Belfast-Liverpool link. Incidentally, Liverpool—at any rate, in the earlier stages—would he an acceptable terminus for a Warrenpoint service, certainly until the full road development to Holyhead is complete, as it will be within the next few years.
The experience that we have had, and are still having, is a salutary lesson that ought to be learnt and carried into practice. The Government have now been warned that one of the economic essentials to
"enhance the industrial base of the Province"
is to provide it with the third surface link that has for so long been perceived to be essential. It is now known that it is commercially viable. It requires only the technical and exploratory work, upon which the decision lies with the Minister.
It might be thought that I have troubled the House with a constituency matter. During a debate on a Northern Ireland Appropriation Order one need not grovel to apologise for that offence. Yet I disavow it. This is only marginally the interest of any particular part of the Province. It is an interest of the Province as a whole. I go further: in these days, when references to economic cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic are in fashion, I do not mind saying that it is also an interest of a considerable portion of the adjacent Irish Republic. I hope that before long the Government will put that requirement of Northern Ireland's industrial base into position.
7.18 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: Like other hon. Members, I begin by expressing my regret at the untimely and unnecessary death of the Reverend Robert Bradford. As if we needed it, it is another reminder of the futility of believing that political problems can be solved by paramilitary killings.
Secondly, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the Minister for their kind welcome. I shall not claim that I do not have any illusions about the difficulties and depth of the economic problems facing Northern Ireland, because one of the first things I learnt about illusions is that one does not know one has them until they have been shattered.
I have sat through a number of these Appropriation order debates, and I have always been struck by the way Conservative Members, particularly Ministers, suddenly develop a sort of schizophrenia about economic policy. We had it from the Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). All of them want to see, either explicitly or implicitly, a greater degree of public involvement in the economy.
I think back to May 1979 and to that great election campaign that was fought on the belief that by cutting tax rates to those on high incomes the money thus released would help to regenerate the sinking base of the British economy. That was the theory before we had 3 million unemployed, inflation remaining higher than it was in May 1979 and tax rates that are even higher than in May 1979. That theory failed and the problem is that it has failed even more desperately in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, the problem for any hon. Member on the Conservative Benches is somehow or other to make the case for greater economic involvement by the public sector in Northen Ireland and at the same time to justify the political philosophy on which they were elected.
Mr. John Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman attributing all the problems of Northern Ireland to the policies of this Government over the last two and a half years? Does he not recognise that in any economy there is such a phenomenon as structural change?
Mr. Soley: I certainly recognise structural change as being a particular problem for Northern Ireland and I do not attribute all the problems of Northern Ireland to the Government. I did not say that, nor did I imply it. We all know that a great deal of the recession has been of an overseas nature. Recession is not unique to us but it has been grossly aggravated by the Government. We had an interesting statement from the hon. Member for Newbury, who justified greater intervention on the ground that "circumstances in Northern Ireland are so unusual". I am not sure that with 3 million unemployed and riots in the streets circumstances are all that usual here, either.
The problem is not as simple as it seems. When the Minister says that we need to do more and implies that he would like to do more he is saying that there should be more public involvement in the Northern Ireland economy. That raises the immediate question why we have such a paltry piece of paper with so little in it?
One of the first things that occurs to me, as it does to every other hon. Member, is the problem of unemployment. Yet there is no mention of housing and increased expenditure on housing. I regret that. We all know that one
192
of the ways to soak up the unskilled unemployed is by increasing the house building sector of the economy, which easily absorbs unskilled labour. The modernisation and maintenance of homes has been curtailed and new homes have not been built. The Housing Executive cannot even plan ahead and is not helped by cuts and moratoria. The same restrictions have been applied to housing associations and councils in this country. The problems of Northern Ireland are aggravated not only by the bad housing but above all by unemployment. Those factors do not in themselves cause crime and political violence but they provide a marvellous recruiting ground for both.
I am puzzled by the way that the Minister—and, I suspect, all the Northern Ireland Ministers—does not share the optimism of the Prime Minister and her closer colleagues in the Cabinet on the economy. They appear to believe that we have reached the trough of the depression and they are turning every little bounce along the bottom of the depression into a recovery. However, it is noticeable that the Northern Ireland Ministers do not seem to believe that. It may well be because they are aware that the Government's policy is not working and they see it not working in a far worse and deeper way in Northern Ireland, for all the obvious reasons. The Under-Secretary of State is aware of some of them and has just commented on that of the structural change.
If there is structural change at a time of rapid technological change the last thing to do is to cut some of the basic aid, whether it is to further education, higher education, high technology industries or loans and grants. Yet we have here a paltry sum in terms of loans and grants. The Minister and the Government could do better than that.
I was fascinated by the contribution today from the spokesman for the Social Democratic Party, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). The main thrust of his comments on the economy appears to be that the Government are creating a vanishing economy. On this day, of all days, the SDP could not afford to be upstaged so they immediately went one better and brought in the now famous SDP non-appearing policy. That policy seemed to be "we shall get rid of Northern Ireland because we cannot afford it but, on second thoughts, perhaps we shall not, because we cannot cope with that on our own". The policy seems to be that it is expensive to keep troops in Northern Ireland. At first I thought that that meant that it was cheaper to keep them somewhere else, but we might have been listening to another SDP policy to upstage the Labour Party, involving unilateral conventional disarmament.
I was reminded of James Joyce's headmaster in "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" who, when confronted with the political problem of Ireland, gave up in exasperation and said:
"It would appear that history is to blame."
That is probably why the SDP spokesman has made his contribution and has left the House.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was in favour of more public expenditure. I welcome that, but I recognise that one cannot pour out public money without thought to where it goes and without limit. On the other hand, the Government's policy of cutting public expenditure of all types, except to finance unemployment, which they cannot control, is doing devastating damage. I cannot get over the hypocrisy of the Government when they say that local authorities are spending too much and

193
yet cannot bring their own public expenditure under control. Given that local authorities are spending less than they used to spend, one cannot but conclude that this is a case of the Government saying "Do not do as we do; do as we tell you."
There is an alternative economic strategy. That alternative strategy could benefit such places as Northern Ireland. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others said, one can identify any part of the United Kingdom and say that it has specific economic problems. Our argument is that without sensible, planned public expenditure we shall not come out of the recession until the world economy recovers and pulls us up with it—and that seems to be many years away. We cannot afford to wait that long, not least because of the problems in Northern Ireland; not least because of the 20 per cent. unemployment rate, which is still rising. We cannot afford to wait because of the high inflation and high taxation rates. Expenditure for many people has increased, particularly on energy. That does devastating damage to certain areas of the United Kingdom and provides a breeding ground for crime and political terror.
I should like to think that the Government will reverse some of their more insane policies and give up their idea of selling off the British National Oil Corporation. I should like them to use some of that money to fund Northern Ireland projects. That could be done. This country is wealthy in energy. That is unique in the Western industrialised world at a time of recession. We should be using that wealth and not throwing it away. We should use it to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland. One must accept that the political problems there have deep roots that are not only in the political nature of the border but in the structure of the economy.
7.28 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I add my tribute to the late Robert Bradford. He contributed to our debates in the House on Northern Ireland matters always in an excellent way. He gave evidence of the manner in which he looked after the interests of his constituents by the fact that he, poor man, was murdered as he was undertaking that task.
I welcome the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). I suspect from what he said today that my hon. Friends and I will not always agree with him. Possibly we shall never agree with him, but he certainly spoke in a pleasant manner. I can assure him that we shall always carefully listen to what he has to say, even if we dispute every word of it.
It is traditional to say that a debate has been wide-ranging. This one certainly has been. The main theme underlying everything that has been said has been the general anxiety of hon. Members about the appallingly high levels of unemployment in the Province. However one looks at it, 109,000 people out of work in a part of the United Kingdom with a population of 1½ million is a shocking figure. Hon. Members were right to draw the attention of the House to the grave economic situation in the Province, one that contributes to unemployment. The deep and anxious concern is rightly there.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is not here to hear me say that the only remark that I resented in the whole debate was his suggestion that Her Majesty's Ministers take a callous attitude to unemployment, to the men and women who are out of
194
work and the consequences for them and their families. That is an unworthy charge that I reject. There is no monopoly of concern anywhere in this Chamber.
I agreed with those who said that there is a strong and positive relationship between unemployment and violence. It is not just the violence associated with terrorism that we have regretfully seen increase and burst out on the streets from time to time. Normal crime—if one can call it normal—has also increased in the Province. That is equally to be regretted. That is why the Government attach the highest priority to strengthening the economy of Northern Ireland. That is why we are maintaining high industrial development expenditure in the Province.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to the Vote 2 figure of £187 million. If we were to multiply that figure in the usual way on a population basis, on my calculations that would be the equivalent of £7½ billion in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that sets the figure in perspective. Even now we seek the approval of the House for some additional sums of money.
No one, certainly not those who have had the responsibility that I now have in Northern Ireland, underestimates the economic difficulties that we face. There must be restructuring. Many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members referred to the textile industry, which has been one to suffer most. However, there are exceptions, and even now companies are doing well, taking on labour and expanding. Nevertheless, that overdependence in the past has brought about its own special casualties.
However, it is not possible to separate entirely the problems of Northern Ireland from those in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom as a whole has been suffering from world wide recession. As the United Kingdom recovers from that recession and benefits from the policies of Her Majesty's Government, the Province stands to gain because the Northern Ireland economy is tied to the British economy, and when that moves, so will the Northern Ireland economy.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) charged Ministers with a number of things. With all respect, however, I do not believe that he felt that everything that he was saying was correct. When he said that what we needed was a co-ordinated regional economic development policy and at the same time waved in the air the booklet "A Framework for Action", I wondered whether he had read it because contained in that document is a description of exactly what we are about in industrial development policy.
I am not a great one for documents because documents of themselves do not produce jobs. However, in that document we outlined in what I believe was a clear, cohesive and realistic manner the way in which industrial development institutions will carry out their jobs and the many positive initiatives that the Government are taking in industrial development. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that we were tackling things in a piecemeal way, but we believe that it is important that not only the House but the Province and those who provide the money—the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—should know what we are doing with that money and how our policy runs.
First, there is the general Government aid and financial support for new investment undertaken by existing industry under the industrial development programme, to

195
which my hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks. So far this year the industrial development institutions in Northern Ireland—the Department of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Development Agency and the local enterprise development unit—have between them promoted over 3,200 jobs in local industry and an additional 6,200 jobs have been maintained under the Department of Commerce selective financial assistance scheme.
Those figures do not include jobs maintained in Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers. If one considers that the public are supporting Harland and Wolff by paying more than the wages of every man, one can see that there is assistance in that area too. I mentioned the figures for job promotion, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers in passing reference to show the Government's continuing positive commitment to the indigenous industry in the Province.
Secondly, we are continuing our efforts to attract new industry to Northern Ireland. That is a difficult task, made no easier by the statements and actions of some hon. Members. It is made no better by the violence on the streets or the terrorist activity, from whatever source. It is made no better by any apparent threat to civic order in the Province. We must look at those factors responsibly. If we are concerned, as I believe all those who are involved are, with trying to overcome the tragic social problem of unemployment, in everything that we say and do, we must have regard to that matter.
I have been travelling round, as has been said. I now speak with knowledge from a recent visit to the United States. I have had meetings with various industrialists from overseas. I know that the perception of the Province is the biggest single factor that works against inward investment.
In addition there are the effects of the international recession, particularly in America. However, our biggest problem is the impression that news reports give. They ignore the fact that we have a large pool of skilled labour, a good industrial relations record, and the productivity record and reputation for hard work that the Northern Ireland worker has rightly earned himself. Those things do not get across to the media. Therefore, we believe that we need to strengthen representations in that area so that the message can be put across face to face to would-be investors.
Mr. McCusker: If we cannot convince mainland British investors to go to Northern Ireland—I believe that most of them are investing their money in the Republic—how does he hope to convince people from North America to go there?
Mr. Butler: We have convinced those in North America to a greater extent than those on the mainland of the United Kingdom. I shall return to that in a minute. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a great deal more investment should come from the mainland.
We believe that one of the important ways of putting over the Province as an investment location is to talk face to face with people on their home ground and to get them to come to the Province and see the facts for themselves. They are doing that. I mention, as one example, a recent mission of industrialists from the Frankfurt area who visited the Province in October and were much impressed
196
with what they saw and heard. We shall also seek to concentrate our overseas efforts in areas where success is likely to be achieved. My hon. Friend mentioned high growth and high technology. Those are areas in which the Province is lacking, and we cannot ignore them if we are to get a secure economic base for the future.
Much of that is encouraging, but we still have a great deal to do if we are to compete with other countries in attracting new investment. As the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, we need to do more in Great Britain, and we are already stepping up our efforts in that regard. We have increased our advertising and promotional activity. As the decisions are taken by a relatively small number of people, particularly with regard to big business, I have personally made contact with many of the major and influential companies, and I am also meeting groups of different industrialists and trying to persuade them of the advantages of coming to Northern Ireland and the benefits that are available to them.
Apart from attracting overseas investment—I have touched on only some of the increased and expanded activity in which we are involved—we shall continue our efforts to promote the development of small firms. We have spoken strongly again and again about the importance that the Government attach to small firms. The local enterprise development unit in Northern Ireland is continuing successfully in its work, and it can be commended. We are deliberately leaving it outside the new integrated industrial development institution so that it can operate independently in the market. I am glad to say that after some small, initial technical difficulties we have finally and fully launched the small firms loan guarantee scheme to which I attach special importance.
I have listed—I make no excuse for going through them in detail—the positive steps that the Government are taking to reduce unemployment in the Province. I referred to the integrated industrial development organisation. That organisation, like the document "A Framework for Action" cannot in itself create a job, but it will ensure that the resources available to it in manpower and finance are used as effectively as possible.
It is not just the Government who must make a contribution. I have been greatly encouraged by members of the local business community and the district councils, all of whom have been making a special effort to ensure—in the case of the councils—that their areas can offer what is best to would-be investors and to set out their plate as attractively as possible.
Much work has also been carried out by the local chambers of commerce, particularly the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce. I mentioned the Engineering Industries Association, which, under its theme of "Make it 82", brought to the attention of the Province a wide range of goods—over £10 million worth—that could be made in the Province and which were at that time being bought in. That sort of initiative in the private sector, in support of what the Government are doing, can help to overcome our problems.
The most important industry in the Province is still agriculture, and fanning concerns have been worse hit in the Province than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was in recognition of the catastrophic decline in incomes that the Secretary of State decided that money had to be injected into the crucial sectors of beef, milk and intensive livestock. That £10 million gross—my hon. Friend

197
explained why we are dealing with £7 million or so—was injected as a result of my right hon. Friend's decision on agriculture.
I was asked about the future. I have been accused of making the aid temporary. The House—certainly those hon. Members who take an interest in these matters—will be aware of the inter-departmental review that has been carried out on Northern Irland's agriculture. That review is complete. The report is with me, and I shall shortly be discussing it with the Ulster Farmers Union. There was a need previously for the injection of additional money, and that need still remains.
Two or three companies were mentioned, including as always Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers, which feature so largely in the economy. They have roughly 7,000 employees each—14,000 between them out of a manufacturing labour force of 115,000. Over 10 per cent. of the working population in manufacturing industry' is employed in those companies, so, understandably, we pay attention to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made a positive speech, stemming from his special knowledge, and if he wishes I shall have a word with him about the many suggestions that he made.
Only one thing matters at present for Harland and Wolff—orders. Unless an order is found in the next few weeks, those on the steel works side will be short of work and there will be a hiatus in production. I am told by the company that a number of orders are possible. I felt it right to draw to the attention of the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, for example, the urgency of a decision. It would be wrong—and I am not prepared to do so—to tell a company such as BSC where it should place its business. That is a matter for commercial negotiation between the customer and the supplier. If a decision is to be made, it should be made quickly, and that is what I have said to the chairman of BSC. Otherwise, the Government are continuing to support Harland and Wolff.
Mr. Concannon: With regard to orders for Harland and Wolff, I find the Minister's argument intriguing. Obviously we have different views. I am amazed that the Government are not prepared to lean a little on the British Steel Corporation to come to the aid of another nationalised industry, even though it may be "Ulsterised". Harland and Wolff is likely to close down just for the want of a quick decision. I am sure that if I were a member of the Government I would lean heavily on BSC to make sure that the order was forthcoming.
Mr. Butler: That may be an area in which the right hon. Gentleman and I fall out. If "leaning" means making the corporation take an uncommercial decision, that will merely transfer Harland and Wolff's problem to the corporation. That has happened far too often in the past. The Government have made it clear that intervention fund assistance and standard credit arrangements are available for orders if the company can get them. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury when he said that perhaps the super tanker market is a thing of the past. Harland and Wolff is looking for bulkers, ships in the range to which my hon. Friend referred and certainly above 60,000 tonnes. That is much in line with the company's thinking.
Short Brothers is in a different category from that of Harland and Wolff. That is because Shorts has the
198
potential of making a profit. I should like to think that shipbuilding in the United Kingdom had that potential, but it would be much harder for it to make a profit. Shorts is in a modern high technology industry and it must make money. Although the company has made some striking improvements in productivity, for example, and has increased its sales, it is still not making money. It has shown that it does not depend on the Government for its orders. It is selling overseas the same type of missiles that it sold to the MOD. It is doing first-class work in supplying the American aircraft industry. It is selling the SD330 and the Skyvan world-wide and it is hoped that likewise it will sell the SD360 in future. It is not dependent on the Government. Indeed, it has Queen's awards for exports.
The plan is before us and I hope that we shall be able to say something about it to the company. I appreciate the urgency that lies behind it. The plan contains various options and looks forward to 1984–85. It is only right that the Government should be satisfied that the sums involved are likely to be correct.
There are two facets to the De Lorean saga. In my view, there is no question but that the company has done a first-class job on the industrial and marketing side. In a relatively short time it has produced a car and demonstrated to the world that Northern Ireland is capable of producing cars. It has a long order book in North America and it should be congratulated on that success.
The other side of the picture is public funding. It is a proper procedure for hon. Members to query the use of public funds. I implore them to ensure that in so doing they do not damn the product and the company's marketing effort. Let them distinguish one from the other and Ministers will be happy to defend what has been done publicly to fund the company.
Lear Fan has an exciting development. It is an early stage to forecast what the future holds, but development work is progressing well. The first flight was on schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury asked me about the airworthiness certificate. The company recently informed my Department that there will be some delay in applying for the certificate but that should not cause the House to be gravely concerned. It is very much an advanced technology product, and there are two or three peculiarities in its construction. Progress has been promising and we hope for no further delays. I cannot add to what has been said about the funding arrangements for the company.
There was one remarkable contribution to the debate to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North referred. It was made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for saying what I am about to say in his absence. As he has been absent for three-quarters or seven-eighths of the debate, it has proved difficult for me to comment on his speech in his presence. I hope that his contribution will not he typical of that which we shall have in Northern Ireland debates from the new and exciting party. I hope also that it will not be typical of what we have in other directions.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was mainly out of order. When it was not out of order it seemed to be based on complete ignorance of the facts. That includes his accusation that the Government are starving Harland and Wolff of funds. As he knew personally that his party would not be able to cope with the problem he said, in effect, "Bring in the United Nations. It must be sorted out in an

199
international framework." Let us hope that he takes my words and other criticisms to heart. We want every positive and constructive contribution that we can get as we try to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland. I shall not resent them whenever they come and from wherever they come.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, in his first speech on Northern Ireland from the Opposition Dispatch Box, made some general reference to the approach that is adopted by Ministers in Northern Ireland compared with the approach of Ministers in Great Britain. He tried to suggest that in Great Britain Ministers are conservative and monetarist and that in Northern Ireland Ministers become profligate spenders of other people's money in the Socialist manner.
We are conscious that there are regions of the United Kingdom to which national funds should properly flow. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and some of his colleagues drew attention to the way in which the affairs of Northern Ireland are distinguishable from others. He said that, when one considers the flows of money into other regions, the differential between those and the flow into Northern Ireland is not so great. Of the total flow about 30 per cent. more per capita goes into Northern Ireland compared with the flows into other regions of the United Kingdom. Certainly the flow to Northern Ireland is greater than to Scotland or Wales, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Northern Ireland is the most deserving of the regions and, therefore, it does not conflict with Conservative policy to say that public money should flow into the region.
Mr. Soley: I am interested in the use of "deserving". Is the Minister using that word in a charitable sense or is he saying, as I suspect that he is trying to say, that public investment and the use of public money can help to regenerate the economy? If he is saying that, will he have a word with the Prime Minister and one or two of his colleagues?
Mr. Butler: I was not using the word in an undeserving charitable sense. The fact is that nearly one person in five is out of work in the Province. There are problems in housing and in many other areas. It is only proper that a disproportionate amount of the resources that are available to the United Kingdom should be spent on trying to redress the balance and on investing for the future. That is why we put such a heavy emphasis on investment in industrial activity so that dependence on the United Kingdom for funding can be removed over time.
The Government differ from the right hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North in realising that the expenditure of public money involves the use of other people's money. Every pound that is spent is at the expense of increased personal taxation or at the expense of funds that otherwise would be available to the private sector at lower rates of inflation. The expenditure of public money can be at the expense of other people's jobs.
In his opening speech the right hon. Member for Mansfield conformed to his old habit of saying "Spend your way out of trouble. The Government should not
200
hesitate to spend." The right hon. Gentleman will not have regard to the consequences of so doing either for inflation or for other people's jobs. We are not prepared to adopt that approach.
Although I have not covered all the points that I should have, I hope I have been fairly comprehensive and that the House will acknowledge that. The priority that the Government attach to tackling inflation and controlling public expenditure, in the interests of a more competitive industry and a stronger United Kingdom economy, will be in Northern Ireland's interests in the long run. Moreover, the array of initiatives that I have outlined today, and the references made again and again to the substantial public expenditure, cannot be described as anything other than a full commitment by the British Government to resolving the economic problems of the Province. Taken together, they give the lie to the accusation that the British Government are engaged in a deliberate economic withdrawal from the Province. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Government are doing all they can to secure the existing industrial base in the Province and to draw its potential to the attention of overseas industrialists. The Government will continue to do that. The moneys for which we are seeking approval in the Appropriation order before the House tonight are important if we are to ensure that the Province has the funding which will enable those measures to be continued. I trust that the House will find the order acceptable and approve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the questions on the four remaining motions to approve Statutory Instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee and Coffee Mixtures) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits and Vegetables) (Amendment) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Grain and Farinaceous Products) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
That the Local Government (Supplementary Grants for Transport Purposes Specified Descriptions) (Wales) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
Question agreed to.

Buckinghamshire Structure Plan
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr David Hunt.]
Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am grateful for the opportunity of initiating this debate and for the Minister's presence tonight, not least because this is the second time within hours that he has had the privilege of appearing at the Dispatch Box.
The Minister knows that we are discussing an issue of the greatest concern to my constituency, which is disturbing all those who wish to prevent further unnecessary damage to the environment and the quality of life in south Buckinghamshire, apart from the massive waste of public resources. He knows that the concern arises from the proposals that the figures in the Buckinghamshire structure plan should be increased to provide for additional population and housing growth in the south of the county.
The county council has been directed to submit plans before 31 December to accommodate 7,500 more people, which means 2,700 more houses than were allowed for in the original plan.
The proposal seems to be the brainchild of officials in the Department of the Environment. In my fairly long experience of Whitehall, it is one of the most extraordinary phenomena that I have come across. It has survived against changes of Government, changes in the Secretary of State for the Environment, and seemingly against all the odds. When Mr. Lloyd Jones and his colleagues made a study of the matter in 1979 and made the proposals on which the present directive is based in 1978, the case they made then was considered by many—I think with great justification—to be thin and unconvincing. I find it difficult to understand why the gentlemen concerned were moved to recommend such a major change in a plan which had been thoroughly considered by all the local authorities, and with a great deal of public participation over many years.
However, it happened, and the present Secretary of State was persuaded to accept their increased figure. It is of considerable significance to note that when he accepted the recommendation to alter the projected population figures, his finding was that he would not alter the figures for the districts concerned in south Buckinghamshire. The Minister knows that I have written to him and supported representations to the Department on many occasions over the past two years. When the Minister wrote to me on 7 May this year, he referred to the Secretary of State's failure to adopt this part of the recommendation of the examining panel because the Secretary of State
"lacked sufficient information to enable him to do so."
I am not in the least surprised, because such information was clearly not available to the Secretary of State when he made his decision in December 1979. Even more clearly, that information is not available today. The case which was so unconvincing when put again in 1977, re-run in 1978 and again in 1979, is today totally without validity. That is because it rests on two propositions. The first is that there would be a significant growth in the population in south Buckinghamshire over the period being considered—up to 1991. The second is that employers would continue to demand more and more workers in the area. That was the employment situation fundamentally in the Wycombe and Slough districts and at Heathrow.
202
Considering the two general propositions, I am convinced that we shall quickly see—the Minister will find it difficult to disagree with this—that the proposition falls to the ground. In considering population, we must consider the south of Buckinghamshire. I am particularly concerned with the population projections of the Wycombe district. The population projections of Buckinghamshire as a whole are significantly affected by the prospects for Milton Keynes. It is neither profitable nor relevant to consider in the debate what may or may not happen in Milton Keynes. It is relevant to consider what will happen in south Buckinghamshire as a whole.
The review panel assumed that the figures would show, over the period being discussed, an increase in the south Buckinghamshire population. The latest figures available show many things which falsify the assumptions and projections of the review panel. There have been clear signs and indications that the population decline in south Buckinghamshire will continue. For example, I refer the Minister to the birth rate figures which are available from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Using an index of 100 per cent. for 1971 it can be seen—referring to the three southern districts of the county: Wycombe, South Buckinghamshire and Chiltern—that for the rest of the decade there was a dip from 93 per cent. in 1972 to 72 per cent. in 1976. In 1977 it was 73 per cent. of the 1971 birth rate. I apologise to the House because, in my fairly brief remarks, I shall need to inflict a number of figures on hon. Members. The nature of the subject I seek to deal with makes that inevitable.
The bitter irony is that in the year when the review panel was reaching its conclusions about the remorseless growth of population in south Buckinghamshire, the people of south Buckinghamshire were not meeting their stak-hanovite norms and producing the children that the planners wanted them to produce. They were producing only about 73 per cent. of the birth rate that had obtained in the previous decade. Therefore, the prospect is that over the coming years the population of the south Buckinghamshire district will decline, and the other two districts, Wycombe and Chiltern, will have virtually a stable population.
The structure plan suggested that in 1981 the population of the Wycombe district would be between 159,000 and 166,000. The present population is 156,000–10,000 fewer than the optimum forecast in the plan a few years ago. The suggested figure for 1986 was between 163,000 and 171,000 people in the Wycombe district. According to the latest figures, there are likely to be between 150,000 and 154,000 people. Therefore, the whole case, inasmuch as it is based on population growth, has exploded already.
I turn to the other plank on which this very shaky edifice has been built—the employment prospects not only in Wycombe but in Slough and Heathrow. I say at once that I would not support for one moment anything which remotely threatened the economic prosperity of Wycombe or south Buckinghamshire, or of any part of the region. I would modestly claim that in the three and a half years in which I have had the privilege of representing the Wycombe district, I have come to know the industries there very well. I am confident that what the county council and the local authorities supporting it propose in the structure plan will not put artifical restraints on the industries of Wycome district; on the contrary, it will greatly strengthen them.

203
What worries me is that if, by any awful chance, the proposals as they now stand in their revised form were to go through, the increased burdens which would be placed on the district—and which would inevitably show in the rates—would, far from increasing employment, greatly decrease employment in the area.
When the review panel conducted its studies there was in the Wycombe area pressure from the various manufacturers' associations for additional housing. The fundamental position has now changed, and that will come as no surprise to any hon. Member.
In November 1979, there was 2·1 per cent. unemployment in the Wycombe district. In September of this year there was 6·6 per cent. unemployment. In Slough—which is meant to be the feeder area for the additional growth proposed in Wycombe or in south Buckinghamshire generally—there was 1·9 per cent. unemployment in November 1979. In September of this year it was 7·1 per cent. There is, therefore, a great deal of slack to be taken up in that regard.
I would be the last to sugest that employment prospects will not improve but, knowing the resilience and enterprise of the local industries, my view is that they will be moving very much up-market towards the higher value added area. If they show the same sort of enterprise as they have shown over the last 20 or 25 years, they will change their products and techniques in significant ways. It is clear, therefore, that we shall not be able to look to them for really large increases in the labour force. That in a sense matches what I said earlier about the population projections.
The third part of the employment section of the package put together by the review panel concerned Heathrow. I could weary the House with quotations about employment prospects, but the general theme in the assessment was that Heathrow would continue to increase its labour force. As we now know so well, that simply is not the case. British Airways have set in hand a redundancy programme which may affect about 9,000 people. Pan-Am and other airlines are going through the same process.
I have here a letter from the British Airports Authority, dated 2 November 1981, which confirms that the figure of 52,000 people employed at Heathrow is being reduced because of the policies of various companies. The gentleman who signs the letter, Mr. Duncan, says:
"I cannot foresee any real change in the present level of staff at the airport."
I have had a number of conversations with those involved at very senior levels at Heathrow in British Airways and other airlines. It is clear that the peak employment figure was reached somewhere around 1980, and that, whatever happens about a fifth terminal at Heathrow, the best expectation in terms of employment is that by 1990–91 the figure might be back at that of 1980.
Many of the people at present working at Heathrow reside in the south Buckinghamshire area, so many of them are my constituents. Here, too, there is potential slack in the employment market. I am confident that it will be taken up, but it is a significant degree of slack. The population figures in the structure plan, as I have said, are highly questionable. When we consider also what has happened to employment prospects, it is clear that there is no case for the additional growth that has been proposed.
In the structure plan as worked out by the local authorities, with the appropriate public consultation, some
204
growth is already envisaged. There is no question of a freeze or standstill. We referred to the three southern districts of Buckinghamshire. At present the Chiltern district has 34,000 houses and the county proposes an increase of 1,800. In the south Buckinghamshire district there are 23,000 houses and the county proposes an increase of 1,200 houses. In Wycombe district there are at present 55,000 houses with an increase proposed by the county of 3,700, which is about 7 per cent.
If one adds to the points that I have already made the other factors that will take effect during the years, clearly the case will continue, as the snowball on the stove to melt away. We should consider the effects of the Rent Act 1974, which the Government had the wisdom to introduce and also their policy on council house sales. Those measures will mean that more and more accommodation will become available within existing buildings.
Another development is what has happened in the Aylesbury district, where about 2,000 more houses than provided for in the structure plan have already been built. The development in Berkshire, which is relevant to employment in Slough and Heathrow, must be considered in its relevance to the housing requirements of south Buckinghamshire.
The final point deals with Milton Keynes, which is a subject on which I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that everyone in Buckinghamshire feels strongly. They contributed so much of their rates to the development of Slough and then lost Slough to Berkshire. Now in Buckinghamshire we seem to bear a heavy burden for the development of Milton Keynes. Some residents resent that more strongly than others, but there is a strong feeling that it is a massive investment—the last available Government figure was about £600 million—intended for new industries. It is not a question whether an additional workshop can be created in Wycombe. We are talking about significant industrial growth in Milton Keynes, which is in the centre of Britain and meant to be well supplied with communication facilities. Many miles of north Buckinghamshire, which I knew well as a boy, will be carved out to become the new industrial city.
I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with the reduced projections for Milton Keynes. He may or may not regret that reduction, but it calls into question the enormous infrastructure that has been created already and the vast sums that have been spent. Surely the very last thing that we should do is anything that would increase the reduction in the prospects and growth rate of Milton Keynes.
My hon. Friend the Minister will accept that, by now, the snowball has disappeared, but somehow in the bureaucratic way it lingers on in the form of a proposition that would involve—infilling in High Wycombe is a matter of considerable debate—extremely serious erosion of one of the most beautiful areas of Britain—the Chilterns. It is officially listed as an area of outstanding natural beauty and is in the green belt. The proposal would mean that the character of High Wycombe and the surrounding townships and villages would be changed even more than it is now. We should be faced with yet another urban sprawl. If the planning process at the Department of the Environment has any responsibility, it must be to prevent further damage to our environment in that way.
More than the damage to the environment, what concerns me, my constituents and many people in

205
Buckinghamshire is the incredible expenditure of public resources that would be at stake should the proposition continue. Building houses entails many different sorts of work, such as the whole infrastructure of new roads, water provision and sewers. Expenditure on that would be the sort of waste to which I referred earlier in my speech. It would inevitably, as well as destroying what is left of the attraction of that part of the Chilterns, rob Britain of some high grade agricultural land.
I have no expectation that my hon. Friend, wise and percipient man though he is, will, when I sit down, shout
"Eureka, I accept all that you say."
However, I move from my belief in his wisdom and percipience to the conclusion that, having heard the case, he will return to the Department of the Environment and re-examine the files. I recognise that we are at a difficult stage in the planning process, but it has been forced on the people of Buckinghamshire by the Department. What has been forced by the Department can be removed by it. I do not believe that bureaucratic juggernauts can never be stopped. I know that it is difficult and requires courage and Ministers who are prepared to consider all the facts, I have every confidence that my hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are the sort of people who will do precisely that.
8.28 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on the vigour and cogency with which he presented his case about the vexed problems of the adjustment to be made to the Buckinghamshire structure plan. I find it difficult to reply with the generosity and accuracy that I would wish. We are discussing a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be called upon to consider in his quasi-judicial capacity, and I must neither prejudice that consideration nor appear to do so.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it remiss of me if I seek to show that there are counter-arguments to those which he advanced. It is, therefore, appropriate that all the matters should be considered under the formal statutory procedures. I believe that he is aware that the Buckinghamshire county council intends shortly to submit its proposals for alteration to the structure plan.
My hon. Friend has put forward strong arguments about the birth rate, the changes in the unemployment position, the growth at Heathrow, housing developments and the question of Milton Keynes—all of which, in his view, add up to a different package under which the review of housing capacity in his part of Buckinghamshire should be undertaken. My hon. Friend would be the first to accept that structure plans inevitably mean dealing with a fairly long projection, during which there would be a number of short-term fluctuations in fairly important indicators. In arriving at a judgment we must, at any given point, use the best possible information and statistical base. Eventually the decision whether an absolute given number of houses should be allocated to certain areas must be made by planning authorities. Whether such decisions result in houses being built is another matter. That may be substantially influenced by the current market and the projections given by house builders. We are discussing a long-term context in which various other planning mechanisms will change. My hon. Friend will not expect
206
me to be entirely persuaded that short-term changes in some indices necessarily invalidate the procedure that must be followed.
When the Secretary of State approved the county structure plan in December 1979 he had the benefit of the report by the panel which, under an independent chairman, had conducted an examination of the plan in public. The panel recommended, among other things, that there should be increased provision for housing in the southern part of the county—that is, in the districts of Wycombe, Chiltern and south Buckinghamshire—to meet essentially local requirements.
My right hon. Friend accepted that recommendation, but did not modify the plan because he did not have sufficient information to enable him to apportion the increase appropriately among the districts concerned. For that reason he directed the county council to prepare proposals for alteration of the plan for submission to him not later than the end of this year. The Government expect the council to meet the deadline.
The direction requires the county council to provide for the accommodation of 7,500 more people in south Buckinghamshire in the period up to 1991—that is, 7,500 in addition to those already provided for in the approved plan.
The broad strategy of the plan is still to restrain development in the southern part of the county, which includes an important part of the Metropolitan green belt and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. Urban growth is in general to be steered to selected areas elsewhere in the county. That strategy was accepted, and still stands. There was general agreement that the green belt should be maintained and the area of outstanding natural beauty protected. But those desirable restraint policies have their effect on the provision of housing in the area.
The plan stated that land available for building development in south Buckinghamshire would be insufficient to meet all local needs, even if building took place at higher densities than in the recent past. The plan envisaged that the shortfall would be made good in the growth area to the north of the county—that is, Milton Keynes—and in strategic plan for the south east area No. 8, that is, in the Reading, Wokingham, Aldershot and Basingstoke area. Local industrial, commercial and house building interests, as well as the Berkshire county council and Slough borough council, argued that the county council should make provision in south Buckinghamshire for more of its own needs. Local industry was especially concerned about the shortage of houses for key workers.
The panel which conducted the examination in public, under the independent chairman, was sympathetic to these arguments and linked the provision of housing with the strength of the local economy and the efficiency of public services. It thought it wrong to look at employment in south Buckinghamshire in isolation from that at the Slough trading estate and Heathrow airport. Information before the panel showed that many workers travelled from their homes in south Buckinghamshire to jobs at Slough and Heathrow. Thus, it would be right to have regard to these factors in looking at local requirements.
The panel accepted that, given the constraints of the green belt and the Chilterns AONB, it would not be possible to meet all the needs of south Buckinghamshire within that area; but it felt that a greater proportion of the need should be met. At the examination in public, the

207
county council had given details of a survey carried out in 1977 which showed that in south Buckinghamshire there was land available for some 16,700 dwellings—11,000 on land already having planning permission or positively identified as suitable for housing, and the rest on land which, in light of previous experience, might be expected to become available. The housing provision in the plan as approved was, taking the mid point of the range, some 13,200 houses in the period 1976 to 1991.
There was, therefore, scope for provision of additional dwellings on land which the county council thought would be available. On the basis of the occupancy rate employed in the plan, the figure of 7,500 people, as my hon. Friend says, would require about 2,700 dwellings. This means that the total additional provision in south Buckinghamshire for the period 1976 to 1991 would amount to about 16,000 dwellings, of which, I understand, 7,400 have already been completed. Thus there would be a provision for the next 10 years of about 8,600 dwellings.
So the aim of the direction was to ensure that a larger proportion of the housing need in south Buckinghamshire, for people working there or in neighbouring areas, should be met within the area itself; and if housing demand generated by local industry proved to be less than was envisaged, then more houses would be available for workers at Slough and Heathrow.
I readily admit—my hon. Friend has been eloquent about this—that there have been some changes since the direction was issued in December 1979. It is true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that official population projections for the South-East outside Greater London have been revised downwards to take account of evidence of a reducing outflow of people from Greater London, but the scale and direction of migration in the region is subject to considerable uncertainty. In particular, the way in which south Buckinghamshire fits into the wider regional picture is far from clear. The Registrar General's mid-year estimates suggest that the area has been losing population by net outward migration during the past decade. It seemed that the outflow continued while the inflow was decreasing. However, the preliminary results of the census raise doubts on this view. I understand that they suggest that the Registrar General's mid-year estimates for Chiltern and Wycombe districts may have been too low.
The point that I made initially about these indices is that it is notoriously difficult to estimate the future population of an area with any certainty in the short term when there are constant fluctuations in the trends. In addition, and very importantly, as my hon. Friend will know, population forecasts for relatively small areas such as districts are difficult, and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys does not produce forecasts below county level. It would, therefore, be misleading to make confident statements about demographic trends in south Buckinghamshire—or anywhere else, for that matter—until detailed results of this year's census have been published. Publication of the analysis at local level is, I understand, to begin next autumn.
The southern part of the county, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been affected by the recession. My hon. Friend gave the unemployment rates. These are extremely high in relation to historic levels in areas such as Wycombe or Slough but are clearly not rates comparable with those in many of the substantially
208
depressed areas of the country as a whole. Unemployment rates remain well below the national average and the economy of the area is relatively buoyant.
The area looks set to play a valuable role in the recovery. There is evidence that firms are retaining their most skilled workers and as the recovery gets under way shortage of skilled labour is likely to become a problem once again. If that is so, the increased provision of houses envisaged in the direction will be welcomed by employers in the area. As I have indicated, there is also the demand for housing for employees at Heathrow but that was not a primary reason for the direction, although it was a consideration.
Mr. Whitney: On the question of housing for industry, the deputy director of the South Bucks and East Berks. chamber of commerce and industry whose area covers Slough and Wycombe, writing on 22 October, said that
"it would be virtually impossible for any firm to predict, in the current climate, what their workforce levels will be next year, let alone in 1991".
There is so much slack in the general work force figures, allowing for the original growth projected, that it will easily encompass what is needed by industry.
Mr. Shaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. A statement such as that made by the chamber of commerce must be taken as important evidence. My hon. Friend will agree, I think, that the changes in the unemployment position have come about in a relatively short period. I think he will also agree that the scale of industries established within the area to which south Buckinghamshire has always given domestic provision are likely to be affected over a short time either for better or worse. I understand that no company would willingly put its hand on its heart and project its requirements with accuracy.
Trends of this nature that clearly have reflected the national economic recession are not of such a scale in terms of breadth of change that they may not be equally corrected over a relatively short term. Our intention is to seek to provide a context over a decade or so of planning provision. In the context of 10 years or more, we may be dealing with a different order of projections than that reflecting the latest information on the results of the current deep recession.
Heathrow featured in my hon. Friend's remarks. The airport is now operating close to its existing capacity for handling 30 million passengers a year. As my hon. Friend knows, the fourth terminal that is under construction will provide additional capacity and ease the constraint on traffic growth by about 1985. It is not possible to be precise about the future increase in employment. I accept that the planning inquiry into the fourth terminal was held several years ago. The inspector at the inquiry thought that employment might rise from the figure of 54,000 to between 58,700 and 65,000 by 1987. This will obviously involve a number of factors such as improvements in productivity and reduction in staffing levels planned by British Airways, the main employer, but those were the figures used at the time in relation to the potential increase in employment that the planning development might bring.
I am prepared to say to my hon. Friend that the figures issued then may be revised substantially today. We shall have to take into account the consequential use of the

209
fourth terminal and the number of people likely to be employed within the complex as a whole when the terminal becomes operational.
It is important to bear in mind, as I said before, the fact that we are trying to devise policies for 10 to 15 years ahead. In the case of the Buckinghamshire plan, we are concerned with the period up to 1991. Our plans have to be prepared in the light of the most reliable information about trends, not necessarily about information which deals with short-term changes.
This is not a matter on which we wish to prejudge the issues here tonight, but I do not believe that the weight of evidence so far adduced would justify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in withdrawing the direction. Our debate this evening suggests that there are matters concerning the future of south Buckinghamshire which need to be looked at carefully. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that what he has said tonight, and the trends and figures that he has given, as well as the issues which I have illustrated such as the position of Heathrow and the trends of employment there, will all be carefully weighed as and when the decision-making process moves on. The formal procedures will be gone through once the county council has submitted its proposals for alterations to the plan.
Under the town and country planning legislation, the county planning authority will advertise its submission. Following the advertisement, there will be a period of six
210
weeks during which objections and representations may be made to the Secretary of State. All concerned will then have the opportunity to express their views either for or against the proposals. From what my hon. Friend has said, it is clear which side he is on. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully whether to have an examination in public on the issue. However, whether or not there is to be an examination in public, we shall consider all the proposals fully and objectively, together with all the representations that we receive, before arriving at a decision on the plan.
I fully understand the reasons which led my hon. Friend to raise this matter on the Adjournment. We shall soon be at the next phase of the statutory consultation process, which allows others to lodge their objections to these proposals. All that my hon. Friend said will be added to the evidence we have, and then we shall reach our final decision. We are concerned about the long-term establishment of those policies which are consistent with the structure plan's remit and which result in a context which is appropriate for housing and industrial development and for the preservation of those portions of south Buckinghamshire to which my hon. Friend referred.
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised this issue, and I am grateful to him for the manner in which he did so. I assure him that everything that he said will be fully taken into account in our further discussions.

Adjournment Debates (Applications)
8.49 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Under-Secretary of State courteously sat through almost our entire debate on the report of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday. He will recollect that at considerable length—perhaps at too great length, in the view of some hon. Members who wished to speak—I raised the issues of the use of public money and the proposed sale of a tractor line at Bathgate.
In the past 24 hours another calamity has hit Bathgate, with the announced closure today of the Plessey factory, which I have been told about by Mr. Jim Quinn and Mrs. Ina Love. It means that a further 350 jobs will be lost in a town that is beset by the problems of the motor industry.
I understand that parliamentary time is a valuable commodity. I also recollect that on one of the last occasions that an hon. Member tried to get a second Adjournment debate I was the subject of Mr. Speaker's comment to the effect that notice had to be given. There was such an attempt admittedly at one minute past 8 o'clock this evening when it was clear that the Irish business would collapse. I cannot blame the business managers, because no one can tell what Irish Members will do. I have been in the House when Irish Members have complained bitterly that they have not had sufficient time. When they are given a whole parliamentary day, for some reason or other they do not make use of it. I do not blame either the Opposition or Government business managers, but my contention is that parliamentary time is a very valuable commodity. I think that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), who is chairman of many Committees, assents to that proposition. When we have something of a windfall, on those rare occasions when time is forthcoming at the end of a debate, surely we are entitled to ask briefly and courteously—I am not asking Ministers for an answer off the top of their heads—particular questions.
I raised with the Scottish Office and with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the possibility of a Scottish Minister being in the Chamber. I wanted to ask him a very simple question—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not start a debate. I take it that he is raising a point of order.
Mr. Dalyell: I was explaining my efforts to get a Treasury or Industry Minister to attend the House. I understand that they have other commitments. I had hoped, in particular, to get a Scottish Minister who could tell the House when Scottish Office Ministers first knew of the British Leyland decision—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case. My job is to protect the House and to ensure that its rules and procedures are observed. The hon. Gentleman knows that Mr. Speaker has ruled on previous occasions that, when a right hon. or hon. Member wishes to raise with a Minister a matter on a second Adjournment, notification must be made before 8 pm. Mr. Speaker's reasons for that will be well known to the hon. Gentleman, since he was the hon. Member who was then concerned.
212
That is the rule and until the House changes it I have no power or authority to accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Dalyell: May I take that as an absolute ruling as such, because normally I am absolutely obeisant to the Chair? I hope that the Chair will recognise that in 19 years it has had virtually no trouble with me—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Speaker on that occasion said that any application after 8 pm—he gave the reasons, which I need not reiterate tonight—was unreasonable for the House: hon. Members would not know what was being raised; Ministers would have no chance of receiving proper advice, and so on. Mr. Speaker said that he would stick to that rule until the House decided otherwise. The House has not decided otherwise, and so I must rule—I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels—that the hon. Gentleman cannot raise that matter on this occasion.
Mr. Dalyell: Normally I would not be unreasonable, but I am talking about what Ryder only two years ago called the jewel in Leyland's crown—the Bathgate factory—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are many matters which hon. Members consider to be most important and which are most important, but as the hon. Gentleman knows we are bound by the rules of the House. It is a matter of precedents and so on. Mr. Speaker has given a ruling. It is there and he says that it must be observed until the House decides otherwise.
Mr. Dalyell: There are other hon. Members who wish to speak. This matter is not only important, but desperately urgent. My reason for testing the patience of my colleagues and of the House is that this matter is urgent and Parliament may be the only source of redress. When thousands of jobs are at stake, even if it means infringing or trying to make parliamentary rules as elastic as possible, one ought to make an attempt to do so. I think that I see the Leader of the House. I certainly see my right hon. Friend the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. I do not quite understand whether there is a ruling, or a recommendation. If there is a hard ruling, I shall test the patience of the House no longer. However, if it is a recommendation I am prepared to risk the Chair's wrath—although I do not take the Chair's wrath lightly—to argue the case of British Leyland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall repeat what Mr. Speaker said to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), when he raised a similar issue in November 1979. He said:
"Like my predecessor, I have followed the rule that if the application is made after 8 pm it is an unreasonable application … In the last Parliament, I declined to accept applications after 8 pm, as I have in this Parliament. Until the House resolves otherwise, I intend to continue to pursue that policy."—[Official Report, 16 November 1979; Vol. 973 c. 1661–2.]
That is my ruling. I am sorry, but that issue cannot be pursued further.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the submission of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is that he made the application early this evening in—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might understand that, but it is not my understanding. The

213
application was made after 8 pm as far as the Speaker's Department is concerned. I have given my ruling and we cannot pursue it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several years ago I raised an Adjournment debate in the Minister's absence. The then Speaker, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, made it clear that an Adjournment debate could take place—whether or not the Minister agreed—on the basis that Mr. Speaker would deprecate such an Adjournment debate, but could not prevent it from taking place. In those circumstances I had a very brief Adjournment debate and I recognised the difficulties involved in providing a Minister. However, the then Speaker did not attempt—nor did he say that he would attempt—to prevent an Adjournment debate taking place in such circumstances.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. However, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who originally raised a point of order because he wanted a second Adjournment debate, says that he does not wish to be unfair, or awkward. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the convention is that, although, technically, it is sometimes possible to discuss all matters on an Adjournment debate, subjects are chosen. Therefore, we are discussing an abuse of the conventions of the House, not of the rules. The ruling that I have given on applying for a second Adjournment debate after 8 pm was made by Mr. Speaker. He indicated fairly to the House that, until it decided otherwise, that was the rule. I am merely expressing Mr. Speaker's ruling.
Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point borders on the fringe of the point of order that has been raised. I am anxious that the voice of a Conservative Member should be heard briefly in support of the principle that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) set out. I refer to his observation that parliamentary time is very precious and that when we get a bonus or windfall of perhaps an hour it is unfortunate that we should have Mr. Speaker's ruling—to which we bow—when the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has referred to an apparently contrary ruling from a former Speaker, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. It would be unsuitable and unseemly to go into the details, but it is important that our procedure on the question of bonus time should be reexamined swiftly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a legitimate point, but it is not a matter for me to deal with now. I have stated the ruling that Mr. Speaker gave in 1979. We cannot debate the procedures of the House tonight.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should hate to embarrass you in any way, but is it possible to refer this situation to Mr. Speaker? He may have a public engagement tonight, but there is some confusion between rulings and conventions. I candidly admit that, in returning to the question of Bathgate and the uses of public money, I am perhaps infringing the conventions. May wrath fall on my head for doing so, but this is rather different from the question of rulings referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and other hon. Members. Things have moved on from yesterday. It is wholly to the credit of the authorities concerned that Mr. Gordon Downey—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman wants to argue his case. I know how keenly he feels and how serious the situation is, but I must protect the House and its procedures, as laid down. Mr. Speaker's ruling is quite clear. Application for a second Adjournment debate after 8 pm is unreasonable, and he is not prepared to accept it. I have made my ruling, and I ought now to put the Question.
Mr. Cryer: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which concerns the protection of the House with which you are rightly concerned. Last night, I attended a meeting on the economy, and a questioner asked "What good is Parliament? Nothing can be done by Parliament". I wonder what your answer would be to the ordinary citizen who sees the protection of the House resulting in the exclusion of debate when thousands of jobs are being lost. That is the subject that my hon. Friend wishes to raise—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have grasped the hon. Gentleman's point. He knows that almost every day important questions are raised under Standing Order No. 9. I am talking about the procedures of the House. The matters that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise are important. I should like to discuss them, but I have given the ruling about Adjournment debates. I must therefore put the Question.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, relating to Standing Order No. 9. When I learnt about these redundancies at Plessey, I consulted Opposition Front Bench colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), about whether to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. My right hon. Friend's answer was simple. He said "This is happening to all of us. We are all experiencing closures. My advice is that in the case of Plessey, Bathgate, though it is desperately important and concerns the future of our technological industries, you should not raise it because it will be seen as an abuse of the House." I did not raise the matter at prime time.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say that the House must be protected, but Parliament is here to be used for the protection of industries and jobs. Therefore, at the risk of testing your patience, I submit that there are only certain forums where key questions can be asked, of which this House is one. I have no other opportunity formally to put my views on record, and I should like to know when Industry Ministers and Scottish Office Ministers first knew that there were to be changes involving the tractor line at Leyland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is once again arguing his case. We are talking about rules and procedure. My job is to carry out the procedures and rules that have been laid down in the House over many years. It is time that I put the Question.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I in no way wish to seek to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in pursuance of Mr. Speaker's former ruling. Before you draw the proceedings to a close, I should like to support what the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) said earlier. When hon. Members are faced with lobbies of unemployed people day after day and wish to raise the unprecedented problems facing our country, it is harsh to see two hours 29 minutes of parliamentary time—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing about the procedures of the House. It is for the House to change its procedures, and the Chair will then be bound by its decisions. It has been made clear by Mr. Speaker, and I have read what he said to the House. He said that an application for a second Adjournment debate after 8 pm is unreasonable and that he is unwilling to accept it. That rule will continue until the House has decided otherwise.
The situation could not be any clearer and I cannot allow what is becoming a debate on whether the procedures of the House allow hon. Members to raise all the questions that they want to raise. If the hon. Gentleman is proceeding with that debate he is abusing the conventions and the rules of the House.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: I do not wish to do that and I shall finish briefly. I simply hope that Mr. Speaker will take note of the comments made tonight and that some flexibility can be introduced at the margin so that, when two hours and twenty-nine minutes are going by the board, that is regarded as being rather different from an hour or twenty minutes. I hope that that will be recognised.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House needs that assurance, I can assure it that tonight's proceedings will not only be read by Mr. Speaker in Hansard, but will be discussed.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you saying that Mr. Speaker has said that no Adjournment debate can take place? As I said earlier, I have a very strong—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have heard the first time. I have said that the second Adjournment application was made by the hon. Gentleman after 8 pm. That was the ruling to which Mr. Speaker referred.
I replied to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the conventions of the House. I agreed that everybody would deprecate—as Mr. Speaker would—hon. Members who, on an Adjournment on a structure plan in Buckinghamshire, raised what was happening in other parts of the kingdom. That would have no relation to the original Adjournment debate and would be deprecated both by the House and Mr. Speaker. That is all that I have said.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to explain. In 1974, or 1975, I was speaking on a second Adjournment debate but no Minister could be obtained. It was not a case of having another Adjournment debate. Mr. Speaker then made it clear to me that if I proceeded he would deprecate that, in the absence of the Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have repeated the ruling given by Mr. Speaker in November 1979. His concluding remarks were that that ruling would stand and would be sustained until the House decided otherwise. I am bound to follow that ruling.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to move that the Adjournment motion be taken and that the House vote on it, because if that is Mr. Speaker's ruling—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must put the Question.
Question put: That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided:Ayes 72, Noes 32.

Division No. 13]

[9.8 pm

AYES

Alexander,Richard

Mather,Carol

Ancram,Michael

Mawby, Ray

Beaumont-Dark,Anthony

Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin

Benyon,W(Buckingham)

Monro,SirHector

Blackburn,John

Montgomery,Fergus

Boscawen,HonRobert

Morgan,Geraint

Bright,Graham

Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)

Brinton,Tim

Myles, David

Buchanan-Smith,Rt.Hon.A.

Nelson,Anthony

Budgen,Nick

Neubert,Michael

Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)

Normanton,Tom

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Clegg,SirWalter

RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

Cockeram,Eric

Roberts, M. (CardiffNW)

Dean, Paul(NorthSomerset)

Sainsbury,HonTimothy

Dorrell,Stephen

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Dover,Denshore

Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)

Dunn,Robert(Dartford)

Sims,Roger

Fairgrieve,SirRussell

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fenner, MrsPeggy

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Forman,Nigel

Stevens,Martin

Fox,Marcus

Thompson,Donald

Goodhew,Victor

Thome,Neil(IlfordSouth)

Goodlad,Alastair

Thornton,Malcolm

Gower,SirRaymond

Townend,John(Bridlington)

Greenway,Harry

Waddington,David

Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)

Waldegrave,HonWilliam

Hayhoe,Barney

Watson,John

Heddle,John

Wells,Bowen

Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

Wheeler,John

Kilfedder,JamesA.

Whitney,Raymond

Kimball,SirMarcus

Wickenden,Keith

King, RtHonTom

Wiggin,Jerry

Lawrence,Ivan

Lee,John

Tellers for the Ayes:

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Mr. David Hunt and Mr. John Cope.

Major,John

NOES

Barnett,Guy(Greenwich)

Maxton,John

Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&P)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Miller,Hal(B'grove)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Mitchell,R.C.(Soton Itchen)

Dalyell,Tam

Powell,Raymond(Ogmore)

Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

Rooker, J. W.

Dixon,Donald

Sandelson,Neville

Evans, John (Newton)

Spriggs,Leslie

Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

Tinn,James

Ford,Ben

Wainwright,R.(ColneV)

George,Bruce

Wells,John(Maidstone)

Ginsburg,David

White, FrankR.

Golding,John

Wilson,Gordon (DundeeE)

Harrison,RtHonWalter

Wrigglesworth,Ian

Haynes, Frank

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Tellers for the Noes:

McNamara,Kevin

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Christopher Price.

McWilliam,John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Nine o' clock.