Sitting of 7 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Gatwick Airport
    Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold a public inquiry into the British Airports Authority's application for a second terminal at Gatwick airport.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): Yes, Sir. The planning authorities have been told that this will be done.
    Mr. Johnson Smith: As this application, if it were successful, could result in a fourfold increase in passenger traffic at Gatwick airport, will the Secretary of State ensure that the terms of reference of the inquiry are not confined to the effects on the local environment but will take into account the effects on the region as a whole, if not the nation? Will the inquiry take into account the wider social and economic effects, including the current review of the strategy of airports for the South-East?
    Mr. Shore: I shall consider this matter carefully when I formally call it in, but there are certain procedures that have to be gone through before I shall be in a position to do that. As the hon. Gentleman knows—and I fully understand his interest in this question—it is my task to issue a rule 6 statement, and in that statement I shall identify the major matters of concern. It is open to the parties to discuss that rule 6 statement and to let me have their views on its circumference.
    Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of Etate ensure that the inquiry's outcome
    1228
    and his reaction to it are not delayed in a way which would limit the capacity of the London airports below what will be required in the years to come?
    Mr. Shore: I am, I think, proceeding with proper speed with this inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows, the inquiry into the fourth terminal at Heathrow is also proceeding, and obviously we must bear in mind the whole question of the timing of the provision of airport capacity against the growth in passenger need.
    Mr. Jessel: Why should the Government think in terms of a second terminal at Gatwick, or a fourth terminal at Heathrow, thus inflicting more suffering on all those living near those places, instead of going ahead now with the third London airport which the Government said in their White Paper is needed? Why wait until the 1990s?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of the third London airport is much more complicated. It has engaged the minds of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for a number of years. There is the question where a third London airport, if it were decided that it was a national necessity, should be located. That is not an easy matter to decide. I do not think that I can be drawn further on that today.

    Peak District National Park
    2. Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to enable the board of the Peak District national park to be democratically elected.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): We have no immediate plans to change the arrangements for the administration of the Peak District national park. Following the Sandford report, the Government accepted that there would be advantage in reviewing the administration and staffing of national parks generally in 1981.
    Mr. Knox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of my constituents who live in the Peak park feel that the board is insensitive to their wishes and tends to place the interests of visitors above theirs? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is a great deal of merit in allowing

    1229
    them to elect a board direct, which would then be answerable to them?
    Mr. Marks: The majority of the 33 members of the board—22 of them—are representative of councils in the national parks. The problem with the Peak park is that there are six county councils and nine district councils with areas within the park. When the Local Government Bill 1972 was being presented by the previous Government, strong representations were made by the district councils but were not accepted. My view is that the counties should give more consideration to representations by district councils.

    Community Land Act
    3. Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, to facilitate the building of new factories and the creation of new jobs, he will reconsider his decision not to allow local authorities to sell land freehold under the Community Land Act.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): No, Sir. The freehold interest should normally remain with the local authority. I have no evidence that this is a significant factor inhibiting industrial or commercial development.
    Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that certain large companies, particularly multinationals, will not buy factory sites unless they are freehold? Does he agree that it is disturbing when that means that jobs go to other countries in Europe? Would it not be sensible to sell these factory sites freehold where necessary and forget about political bigotry?
    Mr. Barnett: I am not aware of that. Some firms prefer the freehold, often for precisely the reasons why we believe it should remain in community ownership. Leasehold land has been customary in new towns and in many local authority areas, and it has never caused difficulty.
    Mr. Litterick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of ground rents and the sale value of land are significant factors in determining whether industrial and commercial premises are located in urban areas, or anywhere else? Since, under the Inner Urban Areas Act, large quantities of money are being poured into the urban areas, may we have an undertaking that the Department of the
    1230
    Environment will monitor the level of land prices and ground rents in the inner urban areas?
    Mr. Barnett: That strays a little far from the original question. This matter is under review. My hon. Friend is right to point out that a whole range of factors will determine decisions taken by industrialists when locating their firms.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State on this issue? I have had to intervene twice to secure the Secretary of State's permission for the sale of freehold, as opposed to leasehold, land. Do the Government understand that one reason why the Community Land Act has failed so signally and so little land has been resold is that industrialists wish to buy freehold and not leasehold land? Does he recognise that this is just one more irritant that is frustrating industrial development?
    Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member is wrong. The evidence does not bear out what he has said. Many firms prefer the freehold for the same reasons that local authorities wish to keep it. There is hardly any evidence to suggest that what the hon. Member says is true. Indeed, the evidence of the new towns, stretching back many years, proves the opposite to be the truth.

    Dangerous Substances (Emissions)
    Mr. Ron Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present regulations in regard to the emission of dangerous substances into the atmosphere; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to his question on 8 November 1978.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is considerable apprehension about the emission of dangerous substances into the atmosphere? May we have an assurance that departments of environmental health, such as that in Bristol, will be given sufficient resources to monitor and deal with this problem? May we have an assurance that the regulations governing chemical and other complexes are sufficiently comprehensive to regulate, control and monitor the emission of

    1231
    dangerous substances into the atmosphere?
    Mr. Howell: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that of his constituents. A great deal of activity has taken place following the unfortunate leaks. The Alkali Inspectorate investigated the matter. The firm agreed to install new equipment to prevent the leaks of hydrofluoric acid, and it has spent £⅓ million on the project. The Alkali Inspectorate served a notice following the last incident in November to the effect that the firm would have to close by December if there were no administrative changes in its control room.
    I am glad to say that no further incidents have been reported. There is an improvement in techniques which seems to be evident. A new technique for measuring hydrofluoric acid has been developed by the company, and both the company and the local authority are using it. I hope that this activity will help to reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents that everything possible is being done to preserve their safety.
    Mr. Sainsbury: In view of the concern about this subject, which was reflected in the length of the Minister's reply, would it not be a good idea if the Government took action on the recommendation in the fifth report of the Commission on environmental pollution, created a pollution inspectorate and brought the Alkali Inspectorate back where it belongs, in the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Howell: That is an interesting suggestion which would affect both sides of industry as well as the Government. The suggestion is being considered and pursued as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the tests to ascertain the level of lead in the blood which are to be carried out in my constituency and elsewhere between Easter and Whitsuntide? When will the results of those tests be known? Will they be made public? Does he agree that public discussion on the results is necessary to decide what action might be necessary?
    Mr. Howell: We always make the results of such tests public. We believe that it is vital that every possible piece of information is made known so that
    1232
    intelligent discussions can take place. I cannot give a date for the publication of the findings because most of the work is being done and co-ordinated for us by outside agencies, but obviously we want to publish the results as soon as we can.

    Local Authority Manual Workers
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state his policy towards the terms and conditions of employment for local authority manual workers.
    Mr. Shore: The Government recognised that it was right for the lower paid group of the local authority work force to receive more favourable treatment and for their longer-term position to be improved, by introducing a new and, we believe, fairer method of establishing pay, by means of an independent comparability study. These elements were embodied in the final offer made by the local authority employers on 22 February, and I am glad to say that a clear majority of the workers concerned have now accepted it.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on this side of the House recognise that local authority manual workers do a vital job and have been low paid for too long? Does he also accept that this settlement represents a significant step forward and that we hope that it will go some way towards narrowing the disparity between highly paid local authority chiefs and the relatively poorly paid indians? Does he accept that this is a step forward and that the Government are making a positive contribution to the elimination of low pay?
    Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the settlement. I believe that the comparability study—which I hope will be a permanent feature in the determination of the pay of local government manual workers and, indeed, of other groups—will not only bring more fairness in the determination of the reward to those who do most important jobs, but will give a greater sense of fairness where it has been lacking.
    Mr. Evelyn King: As the Secretary of State advocates a hierarchical system for wages and salaries, does one not arrive

    1233
    at the irrefutable conclusion that some people must be the lower paid? Who does he think they should be?
    Mr. Shore: That is a self-evident proposition. Unless one has a society in which everybody is paid exactly the same, some people must be lower paid than others. The essence of the argument has always involved the degrees of difference and disparity between people doing different jobs in the community.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend explain why he said recently that there was no more money in the kitty when, on the same day, the Prime Minister rightly said that a large grant was to be paid to the miners? If there is no more money in the kitty, how can the Secretary of State say that the comparability study will come forward with suggestions? Is not that either dishonest or not the full truth?
    Mr. Shore: We can express our meaning in different ways. My hon. Friend could have interpreted my remarks to mean that we felt that we had come to the proper limit of the concessions that we should make this year in relation to the lower paid. He would have been right to interpret my remarks in that way. I wanted to make that absolutely plain, because without that certain affirmation on my behalf I think that the negotiations might have dragged on longer.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council homes and council flats were sold by local authorities to sitting tenants during the first nine months of the current financial year; and what was the equivalent figure for the same period of each of the two previous financial years.
    Mr. Shore: It is estimated that, between April and December 1978, English local authorities sold 23,400 houses and 400 flats. During the equivalent periods in 1976 and 1977, when authorities did not differentiate in their returns between houses and flats, sales of 3,734 and 9,440 dwellings respectively were reported. Information on the proportion of dwellings sold to sitting tenants is not separately compiled, but the evidence that we have suggests that a
    1234
    majority of such disposals would have been to sitting tenants.
    Mr. Gow: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures which he has just announced confirm the view which he expressed in his speech on Monday, that increasing numbers of council tenants have been and are anxious to buy their own houses, and will he say what proposals he has to meet precisely that demand which he himself acknowledged on Monday?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman ought to look a little more carefully at the announcement which I made. What I was determined to do was to put a stop to what I consider to be abuses, and the abuses are the sale of empty properties and newly built properties on the open market to people who, in my judgment, could just as easily acquire accommodation themselves in the private housing market. The argument about selling council houses or council properties to sitting tenants, especially in areas where there is not a great pressure—although there are many areas where there is still great pressure of housing need—is, in my view, rather different. Provided that the two years' residence rule is accepted, authorities will be free to continue to sell.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend accept warmest congratulations on his three steps this week, which will go a long way to help those on the waiting lists for council dwellings? Secondly, if the evil of this municipal asset stripping continues, will my right hon. Friend go further and consider the Labour Party's policy of stopping all sales at below market price, which gives a discount to certain people and an unfair incentive to damage a social asset?
    Mr. Shore: In fact, most sales below market price, as my hon. Friend puts it, are of new properties, where the cost of building has been in excess of the actual sale price. I believe that the measure which I have announced will largely take care of that. Beyond that, there is the question of the discount, but against the discount has to be weighed the fact of pre-emption—the right to buy at the original sale price—which a council may be able to exercise in five years' time, and that is a matter which needs to be balanced very carefully.
    Mr. Rossi: Can the Secretary of State give his estimates of the number of sales which will be diminished as a result of his announcement on Monday?
    Mr. Shore: It is difficult to do that at the moment, because we shall have to compile—
    Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman has no idea?
    Mr. Shore: At the moment I literally do not have a full picture of the number of houses which are being kept empty by different councils in London and elsewhere in the hope of selling them. We know a good deal about the GLC figures because those have become available, but I do not yet have, at it were, a nationwide picture of the number of houses which are being kept empty.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the Secretary of State telling the House that he announces policies without knowing the consequences of those policies?
    Mr. Shore: That is an absurdity. The hon. Gentleman knows the position perfectly well. There are two aspects to the policy which I announced. The first is the number of houses which are empty at any given time. Secondly, there are the numbers which are about to be completed or are in the pipeline of construction and which, until I announced my change of policy, would have been sold. I cannot give an exact estimate of those figures, for obvious reasons.
    Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend say when the decision which he announced on Monday will come into force, since great damage is still now being done to housing in London by council house sales?
    Mr. Shore: I have kept the period of consultation pretty short, and I intend to bring the new directive into effect at the end of next week.

    Water Charges
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of his recent discussions with the National Water Council, he has yet reached any conclusion with regard to a possible amendment of section 30 of the Water Act 1973.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I have at present nothing to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 31 January.
    Mr. Hunt: Although the right hon. Gentleman was not, of course, responsible for the 1973 Act, he has been the responsible Minister for several years now. Does he realise that if the Act is not changed the shift from industry and commerce to the domestic consumer by 1981 could lead to increases of up to 50 per cent. in water charges for domestic consumers in Greater London and elsewhere? Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel, therefore, that he is sitting on a water bomb, and when will he do something about it?
    Mr. Howell: I entirely agree that this is yet one more consequence of the Water Act 1973, against which my hon. Friends and I voted at the time. It was piloted through the House by the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—
    Mr. Heseltine: Wrong.
    Mr. Howell: Well, since the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department, if he was not seeking to pilot the Bill through the House he was certainly not dissociating himself from it. The fact of the matter, as the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) says, is that in London in particular the switch of the weight of charges inherent in the Act will impose a considerable burden on domestic ratepayers in order to relieve commercial ratepayers. This is now being considered, but if it is to be put right and amending legislation introduced, we shall need the White Paper proposals. If the Opposition will give an undertaking that they will facilitate such proposals, we shall try to introduce them into the House at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why that was a bad measure was that it looked upon the supply and disposal of water virtually in a commercial sense alone, and will he confirm that after the Act was passed £100 million of rate support grant which would have gone to local authorities for sewerage works was removed by the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Howell: That is certainly true, but I believe that the organisational changes

    1237
    which were brought about—in particular, removing from municipal control large authorities which had previously been very successful—are something which the country is still rueing.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister consider with sympathy the need to amend the Act to allow water authorities not to have a completely uniform system of charging so that they may provide a rebate for pensioners and others on low incomes—a rebate similar to the rent or rate rebates which they would get through the local rates?
    Mr. Howell: I understand that consideration, but it is not the Government's view that the service industries such as gas, electricty, Post Office and water should proceed in the same way as local authority services.
    Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer which he has just given to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)? Is my right hon. Friend so out of touch with reality that he does not appreciate how vast has been the imposition of water rate increases as a result of their being taken off local domestic rates, so that pensioners and the low-paid are being hit very hard by the new charge? These people do not look at it in the way of gas and electricity services, as my right hon. Friend suggests. This is a charge which has been removed from an area in which they could get a rebate to one where they now cannot. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer?
    Mr. Howell: I shall not reconsider it because my hon. Friend is totally wrong. Water charges have never been subject to rate rebates, and there is therefore no change in this situation. I could understand my hon. Friend arguing that they ought to be, but the fact is that water charges were never included in ordinary local rate rebates.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister tell us the difference in the number of people employed in the water industry now compared with the number before the reorganisation brought about by the Act, and when he tells the House that there has been practically no increase in the number of staff, will he admit that the real reason why water rates have risen is, first, wage inflation over the past four
    1238
    years, and, secondly, the vast increase in interest charges on the capital investment of the industry?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of wages. It is a capital-intensive industry. I agree that one of the factors is interest charges. The recent increase of 9 per cent. on the basic rate of pay for workers in the industry will produce an increase in the water bill of less than 1 per cent. Wage increases in the water industry are not responsible for the considerable increase in prices.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of public sector pay settlements, he will consider further representations from those county councils who have suffered from his Department's redistribution of the rate support grant.
    Mr. Shore: No, Sir. Pay settlements affect all authorities and the distribution of the grant in the 1979–80 rate support grant settlement was designed to avoid excessive losses to authorities.
    Mr. Renton: May I revert to the relevant supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)? Is not it a fact that the Government first suggested a comparability study to NUPE officials at a meeting at which local authority representatives were not present and that local authorities were confronted with a fait accompli? Would it not be right for the Government to commit themselves to paying additional rate support grant to cover the cost of any differentials established by that comparability study or by others set up by the Government, such as the one on teachers' salaries?
    Mr. Shore: It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that local authority associations were faced with a fait accompli with the development of comparability studies. There were many discussions with the local authority associations and the trade unions before we agreed on the proposal for a comparability study. I have already made it plain that the rate support grant cash limit will be adjusted to take account of the increase that is due to lower-paid workers as a result of the settlement.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when I complained to the House about the shortcomings of Westminster city council both Tory and Liberal Members argued that the only remedy was to change the political composition of the council? Does he agree that if the electors were to return Labour majorities we might be persuaded that the counties are in favour of public expenditure? Is it not nauseating that the shire counties are in favour of increased public expenditure only if somebody else provides the money?
    Mr. Shore: The attitude of Conservative Members is extraordinarily insensitive to the needs of the country as a whole. Naturally, as we all do, they speak for their own areas, but the blindness that they exhibit to the needs of the cities and the great conurbations becomes apparent as each rate support grant order comes before the House.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the distribution of rate support grant? Is he aware that district councils such as Trafford have been clobbered for two years running in terms of their share of rate support grant? Although the Trafford council has effected as many economies as possible, Trafford ratepayers will be faced with an enormous burden this year. Is he aware that the general view is that squandermania councils seem to get the money and that councils that look after the interests of the ratepayers are those that get hammered?
    Mr. Shore: That is an extremely partial statement. It is not for me to comment on the rating decisions of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows that we try to find the best methods of estimating need and to pay rate support grant needs element on that basis. We do our utmost to be impartial.
    Mr. Alison: We are encouraged by the Secretary of State helpfully saying that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the latest settlement for public sector workers. As the settlement includes a £1 payment in anticipation of that which the comparability study finally yields, may we take it that cash limits will be adjusted to take account of the full and final settlement when comparability is established?
    Mr. Shore: Account will be taken of that. The hon. Gentleman is referring to what may emerge from the comparability study and payment from 1 August. We shall adjust the cash limit to take account of that. The local authorities impressed upon me that they would take aboard the £1 payment on account in the 22-week period between now and 1 August.

    Houses (Construction and Improvement)
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings have been built in the public and private sectors in the past five years: and how many dwelling have been improved in the same period.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): In the five years up to the end of 1978 1,479,900 dwellings were built in the public and private sectors. The figure for dwellings converted or improved with the aid of grant or subsidy from the beginning of 1974 up to the end of September 1978 is 1,037,300.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend for supplying those figures. Is he convinced that the mix is right? Is he sure that enough smaller dwellings are being built in the public and private sectors so that those who are getting on in years who wish to move out of large three-bedroom houses, whether they be council or owner-occupied properties, have a suitable house to which they may move? If they have smaller dwellings they will have properties with lower rateable values, which in turn means lower rates and smaller sewerage charges. Contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a short time ago, rebates cannot be obtained on sewerage charges. If we can get the mix of dwellings right, everybody will be helped.
    Mr. Freeson: I am not persuaded that enough smaller dwellings are being built in the public or private sectors. I have been doing my best in the past five years, as I did when not in my present office, to persuade local authorities and builders to switch over to providing many more smaller dwellings to take account not only of the needs of the retired, although I take strongly the point that my hon. Friend has made, but of the demographic revolution that has taken place. It must

    1241
    be borne in mind that 50 per cent. of households in Britain are now one and two-person households. Neither our existing housing stock nor the building programmes of the private or public sector meet the need that has been produced by demographic change throughout the country.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel pretty ashamed of the results of his efforts of the past five and a half years? If he had only kept the level of total house building at the 1973 level, another 1 million families would be living in either new or improved dwellings.
    Mr. Freeson: I am much in favour of doing more and more about housing, in whatever office I hold. I am not ashamed of what we have done against the background of the most major economic crisis that Britain has faced for 50 years. The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If we had pursued the 1973 level—there were fewer than 300,000 completions in that year—throughout the years that we have been in office, we would have achieved less than has been done.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to cause an investigation to be made into the manner in which the London borough of Ealing is maladministering the conversion of a sector of homes in the Hanwell district of my constituency, which is causing grave distress to the tenants?
    Mr. Freeson: If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall investigate the matter. His supplementary question gives me the opportunity to say that I hope that more local authorities will consider the procedures that they adopt in handling improvement grant applications. There is a great deal to be done to streamline the procedures that are used in many areas.
    Mr. Rossi: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most dramatic and disturbing reduction in house building has occurred in the private sector? That has resulted in about 250,000 employees being thrown out of work. Is he concerned about that dramatic reduction, and what steps is he actively taking to improve the situation?
    Mr. Freeson: Let us get our facts right. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. The figure for the year following the collapse of the boom in 1973 in the private sector was just over 100,000 housing starts. Starts have gradually risen—not as rapidly as I would have liked—to 157,000 in 1978 and a prospect of over 160,000 in 1979. There has been an increase and not a reduction following the collapse of the boom that was our inheritance from the Conservative Government. My most immediate concern, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will share, is to deal with the reduction of housing activity by many local authorities throughout the country. That applies across the board. However, the majority of local authorities that have reduced housing activity happen to be controlled by members of the hon. Gentleman's party. I trust that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will join me in asking and urging Tory and other councils to do more and to take up the resources that we are providing.

    Refuse
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities in the Greater London area on the co-ordination of measures to clear up the backlog of refuse which has accumulated in different boroughs, as a result of the re-fuse collectors' industrial action.
    Mr. Shore: We have kept in close touch with local authorities in the Greater London area. Particular authorities have had difficulties, but none has sought direct assistance from the Government. There has been a gradual improvement in refuse collection and disposal services in most London boroughs since the final offer was made by the local authority employers on 22 February. Now that union members have endorsed the pay settlement, that improvement should be greatly accelerated.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed reply. In view of the bad effect on morale in the London area, where there is still a great deal of rubbish lying around in different boroughs, does he think it would be right for the Government to go further and encourage local authorities to bring in private contractors to assist in clearing up

    1243
    the backlog and to make a RSG payment, which would not be very large, to help this exercise?
    Mr. Shore: I do not think that ad hoc machinery would now be appropriate. London's refuse collection is, in any case complex, given the different responsibilities for collection and disposal that exist. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about morale. It affects people's morale to find piles of litter accumulating over a long period of time. However, I think that the existing procedure is well established. This is not the first time that there have been refuse collection strikes. There are well established procedures for dealing with this problem. Where competent authorities decree that there is a fire hazard or a health risk which is sufficient to warrant urgent action, they have a duty to act and, if need be, to call in contractors and to use any other method to meet their statutory obligations.
    Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, following the recent agreement between the trade unions and the local authorities, the piles of rubbish, especially in South London, are already beginning to disappear, in spite of the fact that the agreement is only 36 hours old? It is a great credit to the local authorities, the associations and trade unions that this agreement has been reached.
    Mr. Shore: I am glad to hear that there is noticeable improvement in South London. However, there are some areas where the accumulations are large and where it is important that people make an early return to work.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: To avoid a repetition of this disgusting affair, will the Secretary of State encourage local authorities to consider refuse collection by private contractors? Is he aware that the district council in Essex which decided to go over to private contract did so with the full co-operation of the regions and that there has been no interruption of refuse collection? The work force is contented and there has been a huge saving in public money.
    Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The best way to prevent a repetition of this affair is to establish the kind of fairness in pay determination
    1244
    which I believe the comparability arrangements will achieve. One additional feature of this comparability agreement, to which I attach great importance, is the acceptance in advance by the unions and employers concerned of the findings of this independent body.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Before he considers the suggestion that has just been made may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that, if we exclude the past three months, the vast majority of strikes occurred in the private, not the public sector? Therefore, we may be storing up more trouble for ourselves if we transfer this public work to the private sector.
    Mr. Shore: I am not encouraging any such movement. The best way to ensure peace in sensitive parts of the public services is to have a method of pay determination which is fair, and is seen to be fair.
    Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State deal with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison)? Will he look again at the benefits that will accrue to the ratepayers of Maldon by using the private sector for the collection of refuse? Will he examine the benefits that have occurred and put forward the arguments fairly to the House so that Members of Parliament may make a judgment based not on mythology but on savings to ratepayers and benefits to union members involved?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous. He is obviously trying to stir things up in a totally unhelpful way. This is a matter for local authorities to decide. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about wishing to avoid a repetition of this wretched business he should welcome the progress that we have made to establish comparability.

    Planning Inquiries (Aid to Objectors)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in preparing legislation to enable persons appearing at a local planning inquiry to receive financial aid to engage professional advice.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: My right hon. Friend is considering this question in the light of the representations made to him.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that when his right hon. Friend agrees to a local inquiry, usually at the behest of the ordinary people of the area, and he appoints an inspector, the local authority has present its legal officers and chief planning officers, and that if a big organisation is involved it has its lawyers and planning experts there?
    Ordinary people have nothing comparable to that. They are disadvantaged from the beginning. Does the Minister agree that the time is ripe for him to consider each local public inquiry and decide whether the local people involved are entitled to some assistance so that they are at least on even terms with those to whom they are opposed?
    Mr. Barnett: I know that on occasion individuals and groups feel overawed by the advice which the large organisations have. However, this may often be exaggerated. It is not normally necessary for objecting parties who engage themselves in an inquiry voluntarily to incur an expensive outlay in presenting their case. It is the duty of the inspector—I underline this—and any assessors he may have to satisfy themselves on all the relevant issues.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my hon. Friend accept that the dice are heavily loaded against the objectors at any public inquiry? The planning officer recommends a scheme, which is approved by the town planning committee. Therefore, the residents in an area which will be totally disrupted as a consequence of any such scheme are heavily disadvantaged by the situation in which they find themselves. Does the Minister agree that there is no fundamental difficulty in sorting out the irrelevant objections from the serious objections in the way that cases put to the Legal Aid Committee are sorted out? Will he look into this matter more seriously?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are not being fair when they argue a case instead of asking a question.
    Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend recognises that there is a great deal of anxiety about this matter, especially where financial support may be necessary because of the technological research that might be needed to examine the case properly.
    1246
    The inspector in a normal public inquiry is expected to obtain information about all the relevant issues before he recommends his decision. It is on that basis that he proceeds. Therefore, someone who is not represented need not feel that his case is likely to go by default in a public inquiry.

    House Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the regional price limits fixed under the House Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978.
    Mr. Freeson: The illustrative limits we have published will be revised to take account of price movements. The limits which will apply when first home loan payments are made in 1980 will be set, by order, during that year.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that by fixing these regional price limits he is effectively excluding from the scheme thousands of young couples who live in areas of low income but high housing costs, such as in my constituency in Bournemouth? What plan does the Minister intend to draw up to help those young couples who have been discriminated against in this way?
    Mr. Freeson: I have answered that in part already by making it clear that the regional price limits that we have published so far are for guidance only. The price limits that we shall decide upon in 1980 will take account of price movements. However, in the meantime I assure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme, as we have designed it, and the limits that we set regionally, are aimed to provide cover for two-thirds of first-time house purchasers. During last year about two-thirds of first-time buyers in the South-West were buying at prices below £13,300, which is the present guide figure for the region.

    Building Materials (Inquiry)
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what benefits are expected to flow to the construction industry from the 1979 inquiry into purchases of building materials.
    Mr. Freeson: Manufacturers and contractors will benefit from the better understanding of the construction market which the inquiry will provide, and from the improved price and cost indices my Department will be able to produce.
    Mr. Tebbit: In view of the structure of the industry and the large number of very small firms on the building and construction side, does the Minister agree that it would have been much easier to get the same information out of an inquiry into sales of building materials rather than one into purchases of building materials?
    Mr. Freeson: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and in fact it was considered, but, without going into detail at Question Time, the position is that the interplay of buying and selling inside the industry led us to the conclusion that the best way of establishing information would be by going to the consumer, that is to say, the purchaser of materials. In designing the system we excluded large numbers of the small building firms. We have not included in the surveys any firm, for example, employing fewer than 20 people. Very large numbers have been excluded.
    Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have read the Labour Party report on the building materials industry. As a number of monopolies control the industry, has not the time come to move in and bring them under control in order to reduce the price of materials in the industry?
    Mr. Freeson: The only case to my knowledge which has been the subject of report in recent times concerns the cement producers. I am not aware of any others, but in any deliberations that we undertake in this direction I shall take account of any other information we receive.

    Association of County Councils
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the Association of County Councils.
    Mr. Shore: I have regular and frequent contact with representatives of the Association of County Councils.
    Mr. Spicer: When the Secretary of State next meets the representatives of the
    1248
    ACC, will he tell them—particularly in view of answers given today to the effect that the rates in most counties are likely to go up by about 30 per cent.—whether the Government have any plans to reform this increasingly unfair method of taxation?
    Mr. Shore: I do not accept that, and I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said to the House on previous occasions, but not today, that, following the change in the allocation of needs element between shire counties and shire districts, there is an exceptional and inevitable increase in county rates this time, just as we believe there will be a somewhat exceptional reduction in shire district rates as a consequence of that change.
    Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Association of County Councils that its reactions to his plans for organic change have been entirely predictable and very boring? Does he agree that by far and away the best form of local government that this country has seen is the county borough form of local government, which was largely controlled by the Labour Party? Does he look forward, with me, to the day when we shall have unitary authorities throughout the country and get rid of county councils and the Association of County Councils?
    Mr. Shore: I readily endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to the work of the county boroughs in the past, and I very much regret the way in which they were submerged in the reorganisation of 1972. May I encourage my hon. Friend now to look to the future? I understand that the proposals that we have put forward for organic change—for giving more powers to districts and taking some of the powers away from the remote counties—now have the agreement and endorsement, at least in principle, of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). That, after all, is a quite considerable conversion.
    Mr. Heseltine: When the Secretary of State meets the ACC, will he discuss with it its recent publication on the growth of central Government control over local authorities? Will he explore the values to the ratepayer and taxpayer which could emerge if there were a freeing of the discretions of local government and the benefits which could come as a result

    1249
    of the greater efficiency and the lower cost of far less detailed central scrutiny?
    Mr. Shore: I shall discuss that with the ACC. Indeed, I willingly joined the local authorities and encouraged them to set up precisely this study. I hope, however, that my discussions with the ACC will not be confined to those matters. I very much want to hear the results of the studies in which the ACC is engaged in the new working party set up by the hon. Gentleman to consider further the question of organic change.

    Post-war Houses (Damp)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the extent of damp in post-war houses; what research his Department is doing into its causes and effects; and what proposals he has to combat the problem.
    Mr. Freeson: There is no precise information on the extent of dampness. However, my Department and the Building Research Establishment have carried out much research into this, and advice notes for housing authorities and householders will shortly be issued.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister accept that thousands of houses are being built today without cavity wall insulation? Will he help to overcome this problem by slightly relaxing the permitted cost limit? For instance, this morning Salford council is asking for £90 extra on each house in the case of 570 new houses. That would overcome this disadvantage.
    Mr. Freeson: If Salford council has proposals to make to me, I shall be glad to consider them. They have not yet been received by me. Speaking more generally, it is not true to say that many thousands of dwellings are being built today with substandard insulation. No doubt arguments could be put in favour of better standards of insulation, especially in view of the need for energy conservation, but it is a subject which has to be looked at with very great care indeed, in both technical and economic terms. It should not be assumed that by increasing insulation standards and ignoring other factors we shall get better results. I am committed generally to this approach, but we have to take several factors into
    1250
    account before we come to a conclusion on the matter.
    Mr. Tebbit: Do not most of the complaints which most hon. Members of this House receive come from the tenants of post-war council houses? Do not many of the complaints concern condensation which is caused because the tenants cannot afford to run the excessively expensive heating systems which have been installed?
    Mr. Freeson: I believe that there is evidence of that. It is one of many pieces of evidence that we have. I have some cases in my own constituency in London. The installation of certain kinds of heating systems has contributed to costs and to inefficient heating standards. In a large number of cases, however, the installation of those heating systems, to reduce costs, occurred at a time when housing cost yardsticks were being held down and not reviewed sensitively in the light of changing costs. That was before my time, and not since. It was under the last Tory Government.

    Coastal Protection Schemes
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes introducing to alter the basis for eligibility for grant aid and loan sanction for local authorities to undertake coastal protection schemes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denis Howell: None at present. However, I intend, when resources permit, to review both the provisions of the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the way in which it is administered.
    Mr. Hicks: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, under the existing arrangements, there are certain inconsistencies and anomalies between grant-aid available for new schemes on the one hand, and renovations on the other, particularly where private households are involved and where these homes form the sea wall? Is not there an urgent need for a review of the arrangements, specifically bearing in mind what has happened in villages in Devon and Cornwall this winter?
    Mr. Howell: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is why I want to put such a survey in

    1251
    hand as soon as I can. The Act has been in force since 1949. It produces tremendous disparities, particularly in Government grants, which range widely from 24 per cent. to 79 per cent. I hope that we can make progress as soon as resources are available.

    Local Authority Houses (Back Boilers)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that under modernisation schemes every house owned by local authorities shall have a fireplace with a back boiler installed.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. It is for the local authority concerned to decide what sort of space and water heating should be installed in modernised dwellings in the light of local needs and circumstances.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that he is reneging on his duty and responsibility? Is he aware that in the Mexborough area houses are being modernised and gas fires are being installed without any back boilers? Is it not crazy that in these days when central heating is being installed we cannot even make funds available to the local authorities to instal back boilers?
    Mr. Freeson: That is not the position. The decision on particular heating systems lies with the local authorities and their professional advisers and designers. We do our best to review the housing cost yardstick, which affects these matters, on a quarterly basis. We do it regionally to take account of all local factors on price and costs. Against that background, I do not accept that it is for me to direct local authorities about their particular heating systems.

  PAY COMPARABILITY (COMMISSION)
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the establishment of a Standing Commission on pay comparability.
  In my speech to the House on 16 January I commented on the present method of fixing pay and conditions in some areas of the public services and expressed the Government's readiness to
  1252
  see a greater role for measuring their pay and conditions by making comparisons with pay for comparable work and effort in other occupations where both sides so requested.
  This suggestion was carried further in the recent joint Government-TUC statement as a means of averting strike action in areas which affect public health and safety, and we undertook to identify groups which might be covered by such agreements.
  The Government have a responsibility both to be fair to public service employees and to avoid arrangements which could in themselves prove inflationary. Comparability studies must therefore be made in a systematic and thorough manner, taking all relevant factors into account.
  A Standing Commission on pay comparability is accordingly being set up by the Government to examine the terms and conditions of employment of particular groups of workers referred to it by the Government, in agreement with the employers and unions concerned, and to report in each case on the possibility of establishing acceptable bases of comparison, including comparisons with terms and conditions for other comparable work, and of maintaining appropriate internal relativities. Any further role for the Commission in each case will be a matter for agreement between the Government and the parties.
  The chairman of the Commission will be Professior Hugh Clegg, and members will include Sir Leslie Williams, Sir William Ryland, Mr. Peter Gibson, Mr. Harry Urwin and Dr. Joan Mitchell. Other members will be announced in due course.
  During the recent negotiations on the pay of local authority manual workers, National Health Service ancillary workers, ambulance men and university manual workers, it was agreed as part of the proposed settlements that a study should be made of acceptable bases of comparisons for these groups. It has also been agreed that these groups should now be investigated by this new Standing Commission.
  In the case of these groups, it has been agreed that the Commission will make recommendations which the Government and the trade unions concerned have undertaken to accept. The Commission

  1253
  is being asked to report on these groups by 1 August 1979.
  The staging of implementation of these recommendations was also agreed as part of the pay negotiations. The Commission will start work on these assignments as soon as each settlement is reached. Other groups will be referred to the Commission from time to time by agreement.
  The TUC informs me that it fully associates itself with the establishment of the Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be responsible for these new arrangements, which should help us in future years to avoid the dislocation and hardship that the public have suffered in recent weeks.
  This is a difficult area in which to determine proper rates of pay, but I believe that these new arrangements will commend themselves to the public as a sensible way forward.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I do not find the statement wholly clear. Is the Prime Minister aware that there appears to be a fundamental contradiction on two matters? He said at the beginning of his statement that the main task of the Commission in relation to any group of workers that was referred to it would be to report in each case on the possibility of establishing acceptable bases of comparison. I understand that that is to be the Commission's main role.
  Towards the end of the statement, before a shred of evidence has been examined, the Prime Minister then assumes that there is a basis of comparability in relation to four particular groups. Apparently the Commission must assume that, and then go on to make recommendations presumably about pay levels. Is this Commission not to undertake the task of seeing whether there are possible bases for comparability in these cases but to go straight in and make recommendations? There is a fundamental contradiction. Is the "possibility" role to be carried out first? This has significance, because not only has the Prime Minister assumed that there are bases of comparison: he has even paid £1 on account. How does he reconcile those two factors?
  Secondly, the Prime Minister makes the point that the Government's job is
  1254
  to avoid arrangements that could prove inflationary in themselves. How does he intend to ensure that the recommendations of this body are within the cash limits that the Treasury has provided to meet these wage claims? In the private sector Labour Members are always urging industrialists not to pass on increasing pay claims in increasing prices. Does that obtain in the public sector as well? Is the Prime Minister urging public sector concerns not to pass on increasing pay bills in increased taxes, rates and borrowing?
  Thirdly, and finally, as there are a large number of other review bodies whose work must include comparability studies, will their work be subsumed in the Standing Commission, or will it continue?
  The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition says correctly that the work of the Commission, certainly in the first four cases, is divided into two parts. First, it must make an examination of the feasibility of these studies, and both parties must accept that such comparisons are feasible. When it has done that, it is agreed that it should then carry through the results of such an agreed feasibility study into recommendations which the Government and local authority employers have agreed to accept on this occasion for these four cases. I understand that this is a little difficult, but the role is quite clear and is understood by the trade unions which will take their cases to the Standing Commission. It is important to get the agreement of all those concerned.
  The Leader of the Opposition said that it was assumed that there was a basis for an increase because I had paid them an extra £1 a week already. She is wrong. That extra £1 was not part of the Government's agreement. That was the arrangement entered into by the local authority employers with the unions concerned when they were meeting together without the presence or assistance of the Secretary of State for the Environment. They reported this matter to him, and they must bear this increase on the rates. The right hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that I have undertaken to pay £1 on account. Presumably the local authorities have felt themselves covered by this matter, because it is for them and not

  1255
  something that the Government have proposed.
  The Leader of the Opposition also asked whether the payments would be within the cash limits. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a very carefully drafted statement on this matter in order to try to meet the points that the right hon. Lady has raised, and I have nothing further to add to it.
  On the question whether the arrangements for other groups will be subsumed in the work of the Commission—at present the answer is "No". However, if they express a desire to enter into the new arrangements—indeed, I hope that the Standing Commission will grow in authority—I should wish to see that possibility examined with care.
  Finally, perhaps I am naive to be a little surprised that the right hon. Lady did not express some appreciation of the fact that we are entering into a system that could avoid the dislocation of recent weeks.
  Mr. David Steel: It is obviously sensible to secure new machinery rather than a series of individual ad hoc inquiries of the sort that we have had, but may I ask the Prime Minister for clarification of the terms of reference of the Commission? Will it be able to avoid inflationary settlements by also examining the scope for productivity deals in assessing comparability, or will that be outside its terms of reference? What is the difference between the terms of reference of this body and those of the Prices and Incomes Board, which was abolished in 1970, and the Relativities Board, which was abolished in 1974? Is it not time to make an effort to establish a permanent pay body to adjudicate in these matters?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot answer the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question because I do not have the terms of reference of those bodies in front of me. It will be for the parties to argue in front of the Standing Commission and for the Commission to consider whether particular factors are relevant to the comparability exercise and what weighting to give to them. The Commission will consider the submissions and will weigh the individual points and considerations—whether on productivity, the value to attach to job security, index-linked pensions, or holiday or sickness
  1256
  arrangements. The parties will argue those matters in front of the Commission and the Commission will rule on them.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since the introduction of the Commission has arisen from increasing evidence that public sector pay has been falling behind that of the private sector, does not the establishment of the Commission presume that there must be a continuing incomes policy in the future, in order that the pay in the private sector should be brought roughly into line with the increase in real wealth in the economy?
  The Prime Minister: That depends on what period one takes. One cannot draw a general conclusion and say that pay in the public sector has fallen behind. It depends what years are taken for that purpose. We should try to avoid the leapfrogging that takes place when public servants—I take them as a hypothetical illustration—receive substantial increases that are supposed to bring them up to private sector increases and that the private sector then uses in order to build new claims. That is the merry-go-round—the circularity—that produces inflation.
  It is inherent in this arrangement that the circularity will not be allowed to persist. In the joint statement, the TUC said that it recognised that this could happen, and it does not intend to base its claims in that way. As for the question of a continuing incomes policy, I believe that more and more people are coming to the conclusion, certainly within the public sector, where free collective bargaining clearly does not apply, that an incomes policy is becoming more and more self-evident.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister examine what happened with the Services pay review body, which attempted to establish these comparability studies? It was a total failure. Are we to regurgitate all the failures of previous Governments? Surely that would delude the workers and guarantee inflation. I hope that the Prime Minister will withdraw this preposterous suggestion.
  The Prime Minister: It is easy to criticise the arrangements. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he thinks that the arrangements are not worth a trial and that he would rather the public put up with what they have over the recent

  1257
  weeks in the absence of such arrangements, he is entitled to his opinion. Very few people will share it. We must learn from the efforts of previous Governments, including the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman, and try to build upon them.
  There is a new disposition, as the Government and TUC agreement makes clear, because an important part of that agreement is concerned with this matter. Everybody understands the problems that we face. We must make a fresh effort to solve them. I hope that there will be some understanding that the unions are willing to join in this fresh attempt.
  Mr. Henderson: Does the Prime Minister see the body as a short-term "fire brigade" action or does he see it as a long-term form of arbitration which the Government have committed themselves to accepting? Does he accept that it is surprising that the nurses and the teachers have not been referred to in the series of inquiries? Does the statement indicate that the Government are announcing that they accept the findings of the Pay Research Unit in relation to the Civil Service?
  The Prime Minister: The body is certainly not short-term; that is why it is called a Standing Commission. For the workers and unions who accept the arrangement, its value is that it is not an ad hoc body which is set up, establishes a level of remuneration, and is then dispersed so that the groups of workers concerned feel, after the lapse of a few years, that they have to go through the process again. This body is a Standing Commission, and those who accept the arrangements will be entitled to regular reviews by the Commission.
  The nurses were not included for a specific reason. As I have said, there must be agreement by the parties concerned—in this case, the unions that represent the nurses as well as the Government. The Government have made clear to the representatives of the nurses that they are ready to submit the case to the Commission, subject to the nurses' agreement. The nurses have not accepted the proposals so far. It is a matter for them, and they are still negotiating. I should like to make clear that the body seems to me to be a valuable one for the
  1258
  nurses to refer their outstanding grievances to. It would be able to determine objectively the strength of their case. I do not prejudge their case.
  The teachers have their own separate negotiating machinery. I told the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition that we do not intend to compel anybody to go to the Commission. I believe that the body can grow in authority, and perhaps other bodies, in due course, will want to come under its umbrella.
  Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend indicate how the body will affect the construction workers among public workers? Is he aware that UCATT has made a claim based on comparability? By what method would such claims be dealt with? Will they go through the normal machinery, or can the union or the employers, either jointly or separately, appeal to go to the Commission to discuss the case? This is a serious question, and there is no propaganda in my remarks. I should like to know the answer.
  The Prime Minister: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would ask that question of the Secretary of State for Employment. I should not like to give a false answer on a group of workers about whose conditions I am not clear. If those workers claimed under this heading, both the union and the employers would have to agree to go to the Commission.
  Mr. David Price: Will the Prime Minister accept from one practised in this area and who is by no means unsympathetic to his announcement that there is no such thing as a purely scientific objective comparison between various wage rates? Will he further accept that if anything is done it is important that it should be acceptable to the people concerned? It is most likely to be acceptable at local level, where, when differentials are wrong, they cause most trouble. The lower down the line this can be done, the better. The higher it is done, the more likely it is to go wrong.
  The Prime Minister: I have also had experience in this area. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no scientific or objective basis for calculating pay rates. However, there must be some basis for settlement, and we must do the best that we can. It is a muddled subject, and we are trying to find our way through

  1259
  it. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about determinations at local level being more acceptable. I shall bear that in mind in future discussions that my right hon. Friend will have with the unions, in order to see whether and to what extent the Standing Commission could be used for this purpose.
  Mr. John Ellis: When the Commission has carried out its immediate work of comparison, will it be able to make comments on the efficacy of such matters as allowing workers in the public sector, particularly those who do not strike, to follow the normal wage drift, whatever it may be in any year? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the practice in the Civil Service and that it stood the country in good stead for many years? The Civil Service followed on behind other settlements and usually had its own settlements backdated. The system was abolished by Selwyn Lloyd, and has led to a great deal of trouble in the public sector. Would the Commission be able to consider such matters?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to study what my hon. Friend said. Broadly speaking, I take the view that the Commission will be free—it is an independent body—to comment on any aspect that it thinks is appropriate in these areas. I have indicated some of the areas in which I am sure that it will want to adjudicate, but it would be for the parties concerned to bring before the Commission matters that they regard as relevant and for the Commission to judge whether those factors are relevant in the determination of a case.
  Mr. Heseltine: Going back to the question of cash limits, which are crucial in the rate-fixing process that is under way, the Secretary of State for the Environment said during Question Time earlier that cash limits would be adjusted to take account of the comparability settlement. Can the Prime Minister confirm that if the comparability findings increase the level of local authority expenditure, that will be fully reflected in the Government's willingness to pay their share of the extra costs as laid down in the rate support grant calculations?
  The Prime Minister: Yes.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable
  1260
  satisfaction in the country at the prospect of avoiding the history of ad hoc settlements of large sums, followed by years when the workers concerned have felt let down? My right hon. Friend said that the first Commission report was expected by August. Will that cover both the feasibility study and any recommendations that may arise?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question. One of the aspects of the new arrangement that should appeal to various groups is that it is not an ad hoc arrangement. It will be a Standing Commission which will have the opportunity, if both sides concerned with a pay claim wish, to review conditions at regular intervals—yearly, two-yearly, or whatever is agreed.
  We may be able to escape from what my hon. Friend regards as a real grievance of an ad hoc group having been established, reporting and disappearing, leaving the group concerned feeling that it has fallen behind and needs another ad hoc inquiry and another large increase which will feed its way backwards into other settlements.
  On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we are setting the Commission a rather fast pace for the first few months. We have agreed—and we ask the Commission to live up to our agreement—that it should fulfil both its study of the feasibility of such a comparability exercise and produce recommendations by 1 August.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is embarking on a most difficult and dangerous exercise? Is he further aware that I spent many years dealing with the subject? Does he realise that it is difficult to fix salaries without regard to market forces and the supply and demand for the jobs concerned? For example, in comparisons between public and private sector jobs, it must be realised that there is an enormous risk to job security in the private sector but absolute security in the public sector. In regard to this new quango and these high-salaried jobs, why does the Prime Minister not ask personnel managers to do the job, since they do it for nothing?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that we are embarking on a difficult task. I

  1261
  have been aware of that all winter, but I do not know that it will be any more difficult than some of the experiences that we have lived through during the past few weeks. It is worth our while to try a new system, especially as we are embarking on it with the good will and assent of those principally concerned. There have been times when they would not have looked at such a proposition, and it is important that we should encourage steps in this direction.
  On the hon. Gentleman's second point, of course such matters as job security or performance measurement would have to be brought forward by one of the two sides, if it wished to do so, in the consideration of comparability. If a man is in a job in which he has permanent security and an index-linked pension, that is clearly a factor that the independent Commission would want to take into account when assessing the value of that job against a job in private enterprise that the man might lose. Those are obvious factors which must be taken into account.
  I thought that someone would have to get in a reference to a quango at some stage, but both bodies that will be servicing the Standing Commission—the Office of Manpower Economics and the Pay Research Unit—were set up by Conservative Governments, and all that will be involved is an extension of their work, which will largely be done by the people recruited by the Conservatives when they were in office. The hon. Gentleman should not devour his children with such relish.
  Mr. Walter Johnson: Is it intended that the Commission should take over the functions of the various arbitration boards available to nationalised industries? When the Commission completes its studies, will the recommendations be binding on the parties concerned?
  The Prime Minister: The taking over of the functions of bodies concerned with nationalised industries is not included in the new arrangement. It will be for those concerned to come forward with proposals. We are not shackling anyone to the new arrangement. It will be for the parties concerned to present their case and for the Government to consider whether it would be advantageous to alter existing arrangements.
  1262
  As to whether the settlements would be binding, the answer in relation to the first four cases that I have outlined is "Yes". That was part of the package negotiated on the pay settlement. With future cases, it will be a matter for agreement between the parties before they go to the Standing Commission whether an assessment, verdict or ruling by the Commission should be binding. The parties would have to agree that before going to the Commission.
  Mr. Sainsbury: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Commission will be able to make recommendations that are conditional upon the achievement of improvements in productivity, whether or not they involve a reduction in establishment? If it makes such recommendations, will the Commission or some other body be responsible for safeguarding the interests of the taxpayer and the ratepayer by monitoring the achievement of improvements in productivity?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that it would be for the Commission to decide what it wants to take into account. I cannot confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's question. It is an independent Commission, and it understands the general terms under which it will be working. It must decide what general factors it will take into account.
  I have not yet given consideration to the question how the interests of any group are to be safeguarded, whether it be those to whom an award is made or the taxpayers who may have to foot the bill. Those are arrangements that will have to follow on, but I am glad to be able to say that, with the ink scarcely dry on the TUC agreement, we have managed to carry it much further in the space of two or three weeks than has been possible in a matter of years.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is another view about the whole question of incomes policies—and it is known as the Labour Party policy view? Does he understand that this crowd of unaccountable moonlighters will not discover any financial device or instrument for transferring wages from one set of working people to another? Is he aware that in the real world, what really hapens is that the workers make the

  1263
  sacrifices and get hammered and the wealthy groups in our society, such as the speculators in gilts who made a killing recently, pick up all the money that is around arising out of all the efforts at incomes policies that have been arranged in the past 20 years?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend exercises his usual arrogance in assuming that he is the only one who knows what the Labour Party view is.
  Mr. Skinner: I know what mine is.
  The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is saying that it is his view, I would expect it to be as idiosyncratic as usual. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am tired of taking it from my hon. Friend every time he gets up. I really am sick and tired of it, and I am not going to bother with it.
  As for what happens in the real world, I do not know how far my hon. Friend is aware of where these arrangements apply, but where they do apply, as they do in a number of cases now, the last thing that the people who have them want is that they should be removed. That, surely, is a piece of evidence that he should take into account.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: There is another statement to follow. We have been half an hour on this one. I shall call three more hon. Members from each side of the House, as long as they ask brief questions.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You rightly said that we had been half an hour on the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. To my knowledge, and I think to your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, it has always been the custom that a statement is not usually allowed to be made by any Minister when the issue is not important or has already been answered, and/or when there are questions on the Order Paper about it. It has also been the custom that Ministers do not agree or disagree with press reports. All that we have had is half an hour for my right hon. Friend to confirm the leaks that were reported in the press on Sunday. This has taken half an hour, but my right hon. Friend has failed to give the salary of the
  1264
  people concerned and their tax-free expenses.
  Mr. Speaker: When the Prime Minister seeks to make a statement it is customary for the Speaker to agree.
  Mr. Higgins: The Prime Minister said that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had made a statement to the House on cash limits. Would it not be more accurate to say that he gave a written answer to a convenient question asked by a Labour Back Bencher the day before we rose for the recess, and that he still has not faced the House on this matter? How are we to know that the Commission will take a sufficiently broad view of the economy? Does the Prime Minister still not understand that if productivity increases in one sector of the economy result in higher wages, which are then reflected by comparability increases elsewhere, the effect is bound to be inflationary?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is the purpose of these arrangements—to avoid that.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the other bodies that review salaries? In particular, I am thinking of the Top Salaries Review Body. Will he accept that there is a great deal of resentment among ordinary working people when they see such people as judges, top civil servants and generals receiving significant increases, apparently without any effort? Would it not be worth while if, in addition to looking at the wages of, say, manual workers, the Commission had the task of comparing the worth in society of manual workers as against top civil servants?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the Standing Commission will develop, and I believe that it can in a number of these fields, but I do not want to proceed without agreement in this area. As my hon. Friend knows, there are areas in which people are very sensitive about these matters. We must proceed by discussion on them. I hope that in the course of time the Standing Commission will achieve such authority that other groups, which are at present dealt with by ad hoc bodies, will feel that this kind of machinery is more appropriate to their

  1265
  purpose. If that happens, I shall welcome it.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that so far this year it would appear that, on average, the public sector is receiving higher rises than are being given, or can be given, in the private sector? Will he make sure that the Commission takes this into account? Unless it does, it will not be up to date.
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that those factors will be argued completely in front of the Standing Commission. It is the Commission's responsibility to take all of them into account, as I said in answer to a question much earlier. It depends what year one starts as to whether the public sector is moving ahead faster than the private sector When we are arguing across the Chamber, we always conveniently take the years that suit our argument best. I hope that the Standing Commission will be able to sort out these matters and that it will try to ensure that those in the public sector who refer their cases to it are given fair, comparable conditions for comparable effort under arrangements comparable with those in the private sector. That is its task.
  Mr. English: My right hon. Friend will recall that he restored the Civil Service Pay Research Unit and created the Pay Research Board in response to a recommendation of the Expenditure Committee. What will be the relationship between that Board and the Commission? Clearly, it would be, to say the least, unfortunate if there were any difference between the principles adopted by the Pay Research Board for office workers in the Civil Service and those adopted by the Standing Commission for industrial workers in the Civil Service.
  The Prime Minister: The Commission is not necessarily related only to industrial workers. I hope that I have not given that impression. It happens that the first four groups referred to it will be what are called industrial workers, but it is not confined to them.
  As for the relationship with the Pay Research Board, at present there would be none. Perhaps there could be some overlapping membership in due time, but I repeat what I have said three or four
  1266
  times already—I am sure that I would raise a mountain of wrath if I said today "And, of course, we shall put everything under this Standing Commission". I can conceive of nothing that would get it off to a worse start.
  Let us see how the Commission goes and proceed by persuasion. I believe that we shall be able to make some progress in this area.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Prime Minister said earlier that, inherent in the new arrangements, circularity—by which he explained he meant leapfrogging—would not be allowed to continue. What did he mean by that?
  The Prime Minister: I shall try to explain it again. It means that if the public sector were found to be X per cent. behind the private sector, and therefore received X per cent., the private sector should not automatically use that fact, saying "Now we need X per cent. in order to get ahead again." [HON. MEMBERS: "How will the right hon. Gentleman stop it?"] I shall not stop it. That is the purpose of the independent Commission. It is for the Commission to consider these matters and see how far it needs to make adjustments for this purpose.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming the press leak that we all read over the weekend. As the professor in question was named, so was his salary, of between £10,000 and £15,000 a year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is £18,000."] What is the difference to such people? It means nothing. Is it not the case that they all have two or three fingers in the pie and already have such fabulous incomes that they receive tax-free expenses worth, to each one of them, as much as £100 a day? Are they the sort of people who should consider the pay of the low paid? Is it not another case of "jobs for the boys"?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's approach to this matter is not one that I think would be generally shared.
  As for the question of how the name of the chairman came to be in the press, it is obvious that if the Government are to ask for a chairman they need to consult various people, and those people can indicate to the press, if they wish to do so,

  1267
  what they think and who they think to be appropriate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because that is the modern way of doing things. It is not my way. But this is the way in which we all now proceed. Everybody feels that he is entirely tree to say anything he wants at any time about any suggestion put to him. [Interruption.] I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) takes this view. He always says that he reports the meetings of the national executive committee. That is another illustration.
  The salary will depend upon the amount of time that the chairman has to put in. There will be a pretty full amount of time put in during the hearing of the first four cases and the assembly of the information. The chairman will not receive this sum, but his salary will be based upon £18,510 for a full year, which is the usual level for a body of this type. How much he is paid will depend upon the number of days in the year that he works.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, I should like to make a statement concerning the meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) in Brussels on 5 and 6 March at which I represented the United Kingdom. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
  The main topic at this meeting was the future treatment of new monetary compensatory amounts—that is, increases in MCAs which might come about as a result of changes in central rates under the proposed European monetary system. The Commission made proposals for the semi-automatic reduction of these MCAs. In so far as they related to positive MCAs—that is, the MCAs of countries with prices above the common price level—these proposals presupposed increases in common prices, so as to avoid any reduction of prices in those countries in terms of their own currencies. This would have prejudiced our resolve to ensure that there are no increases in common prices until structural surpluses are eliminated.
  1268
  I therefore refused to agree to the proposals unless they were linked with a decision to freeze common prices. In the event, the eight other member countries agreed between themselves to behave as though the proposals were in force. This is a decision for those member States but it has no effect in Community law. It in no way affects our ability to get a sustained freeze of common prices, nor have we accepted the automatic reduction of our own MCAs.
  The outcome of this negotiation formed part of a series of agreements by the Council. In particular, the Council agreed in principle to the Commission's proposals for devaluations of various green currencies, including a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound, which I have supported as in line with the policies set out in the recent White Paper "Farming and the Nation". It was also agreed to introduce a franchise—or reduction—of one percentage point in new positive MCAs when these appeared. It remains to be decided when these various decisions will take effect.
  The Council also discussed the proposed co-responsibility levy on milk producers. I made it clear that we could not accept this proposal in its present form, which grossly discriminates against our own efficient dairy industry. I also pressed for an early decision on tariff reductions on imports of new potatoes from Cyprus, and I again urged the Commissioner for Agriculture to bring forward quickly proposals for measures to safeguard the welfare of farm animals in transit. He undertook to do so in the near future.
  Mr. Peyton: May I deal first with a matter on which I especially agree with the right hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that the Opposition strongly support his attitude towards the proposed co-responsibility levy? It appears that this would have had a very fierce effect upon our relatively efficient producers whilst being especially tender to the Germans, who have played a very large part in generating the surplus.
  The second matter that I should like to deal with concerns the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the other eight had decided to behave as though the rejected proposals for the MCAs had been accepted. What does he, or what do they,

  1269
  mean? Does this mean that the Commission will not be bound by their decision and that therefore MCAs will be paid as before? I should like the right hon. Gentleman especially to confirm that there is nothing of which the House is unaware behind all this.
  Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition are glad that he has supported the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound, as was heralded in that rather meaningless White Paper of his, "Farming and the Nation"? It was a very vapid affair. I am being as polite as I can. When is this decision to devalue the green pound likely to be implemented, because it is one of very great importance?
  Why did not the Minister insist on the right of member States to have control of such a matter, as used to be the case, and to do so as and when they please? Has there been some change of the rules, who has made it, when, and on what authority?
  Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the co-responsibility levy. The scale of exemptions, among a number of other disagreeable suggestions in the Commission's proposals, would have exempted, I reckoned, about one-tenth as many and possibly one-twentieth as many of our farmers as would have been exempted in Germany or France.
  As for the so-called gentleman's agreement of the Eight, Mr. Speaker, I think you pay your money and you take your choice. It means that there is an automatic procedure which they enter into optionally. In other words, assuming that the Commission is willing to put a proposal on the table, the Eight can agree—and they say that they have agreed—to reduce their own MCAs in line with the proposals which would have been accepted had this been agreed to by all Nine and put into a regulation. However, I make the point again that such an occasion can arise, according to the Commission's proposals, only if common prices are increased. But it seems to me to be my job to ensure that they are not increased as long as there are structural surpluses. So I hope that the position is totally academic.
  1270
  As for the 5 per cent. green pound devaluation, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman finds "Farming and the Nation" so disappointing. However, the point that it made was a very important one, namely, that we should preserve as much right as we could to increase our own production in this country and not to have the production dictated totally by surpluses in other countries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come with me at least that far, because it is a very important principle denied by many others.
  The 5 per cent. devaluation will come into effect when the regulation which will be prepared as a result of these meetings is passed by the Council. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to hazard a guess. My guess is that it might be resolved on about 26 March when we next meet. It could be resolved earlier. It could be a bit later.
  Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me since when the right of a country to devalue its own currency had been changed or challenged. The answer is simply that custom has always said, up to last year—the right hon. Gentleman may remember a little difference of opinion that we had about a 2½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound at the time and the reaction that it caused in Brussels—that any country which proposed a green currency devaluation would automatically have the Commission making a proposal to that effect. The Commissioner has since said that he did not intend to follow that procedure in future and intended only to introduce proposals for green currency changes at the time of the price fixing. We have at least changed that in this case.
  Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the middle part of his answer about the meaning of the agreement of the Eight to act as though the proposals had not been rejected is convincing in only one respect, and that is that he must be longing for an opportunity afforded by a debate in this House to explain exactly what the position is?
  Mr. Silkin: I must say that a common agricultural policy presupposes a common agricultural jargon. However, the point is clear. This could come into effect only if common prices were increased. But common prices will not be increased so

  1271
  long as there are structural surpluses. That remains the declared policy of this Government.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that there are two applications under Standing Order No. 9 to come. I shall call those hon. Members who have sought already to catch my eye, and then we must move on.
  Mr. Hooson: Does not the agreement between the Eight indicate that they have been successful in bypassing the Minister's objection? Could not they do exactly the same by agreement between themselves on the price fixing—that is, that there is to be no rise in Common Market prices? Does not it indicate that we are still in a state of being half in and half out of the Common Market? Does not this need for continued bargaining arise from our failure to have a satisfactory economic performance in other spheres?
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going over a wide range of questions. The relevant point is that it does not have any effect whatever. Secondly, it has no effect on the price fixing because there has to be unanimous agreement to move prices. Prices will remain stabilised in money terms, which means that in real terms, because of inflation even of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent., or whatever was the figure last year, in Germany—the lowest of the Western European countries—it must be a decline.
  Mr. Spearing: Many hon. Members will congratulate the Minister on having sustained the approach for automatic devaluation of the MCAs. Will he confirm that if this automatic devaluation had been imposed on this country, farm gate prices would have increased by at least 28 per cent. and perhaps up to 35 per cent. by the time that it was concluded? Can he assure the House that when he uses the words "structural surplus" he is referring not simply to that amount of food in store but to that amount of food which is habitually sold, with high subsidies from the EEC taxpayers, on world markets?
  Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I can confirm his definition of a structural surplus. About
  1272
  45 per cent. of the Community's farm budget is spent on export restitutions and 30 per cent. on storage and disposal. We are against both of these. With regard to his first point, it is a mechanism which I regard as unreal, for reasons I have given to the House, for new MCAs, not for existing ones.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the Minister say something about the effect of his meeting yesterday and the day before on the future of the European monetary system? Did the French and the Germans resolve their differences at this meeting? If not, what is the position?
  Mr. Silkin: Of the many duties, some agreeable and some disagreeable, of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the EMS is fortunately not one of them. I could refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what has appeared on the tape. I understand a communique has just been issued by President Giscard d'Estaing.
  Mr. Watt: Every dairy farmer will welcome his statement on the co-responsibility levy, but will the Minister say why he continues to set his face against a semiautomatic reduction in MCAs? Surely he recognises that a 5 per cent. devaluation this year will not in any way compensate Scottish farmers, who saw their income go down by 30 per cent. last year? This kind of devaluation will in no way excite them and get them to increase food from our own resources.
  Mr. Silkin: The point of the 5 per cent. green pound devaluation is that it will take effect before the price fixing. Neither I nor the hon. Gentleman can prophesy when that price fixing will come to an end. Others might object to a freezing of common prices that we are determined should take effect. Green pound devaluation, so far as the Government are concerned, will take place in the national interest alone. I was determined to ensure, without prejudice to any other arguments we may have about green pound devaluation, that it was not used as a blackmail weapon against us and it therefore had to take place before the price fixing.
  Mr. Torney: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his stand on keeping farm prices as they are, may I say that

  1273
  I find the part of the statement dealing with MCAs somewhat confusing? Will he explain what this will mean in real terms, particularly its effect on the bacon industry? Because of unfair competition from Denmark caused by the MCAs, this industry has faced a tough position in recent times. Considerable unemployment has been caused.
  Mr. Silkin: It will not make any difference to the bacon industry. My hon. Friend mentioned the bacon industry—which is really, I suppose, the Danish bacon industry. What it really means is that if there was a change in the spot value of the Danish kroner, the normal procedure would be for the MCAs also to go up to meet it. It was agreed that, if it went up, the increase in the positive MCAs would be dismantled over two stages at the beginning of the two successive marketing years, but not without an increase in common prices. That was why we had to stop it.
  Mr. Emery: A number of us understand the difficulties of the Minister. Some hon. Members want to see Britain in the European monetary system, so getting the benefits of the world reserves of Europe behind our own monetary structure. Will the Minister assure the House that if we entered the European monetary system it would not preclude him in his efforts in negotiations to do away with the structural surplus position, nor would it preclude a sensible continuation of the devaluation of the green pound or the application of MCAs?
  Will he accept the support of the West Country for his stand on the co-responsibility levy? Can he give milk farmers, who are obviously thinking of the future, any indication of how he sees the outcome of that problem?
  Mr. Silkin: With regard to the question of the EMS, I have frequently made the point in the Council—I think it eventually came to be accepted—that I saw no link between the two. I was dealing with an agricultural problem. From the start, I said that the United Kingdom disapproved of the reservation applied by the French in December because it stopped a lot of important discussions, such as those on the co-responsibility levy, and delayed the proposals. How do I see it in the
  1274
  future? I will not take this as it is. I can promise that to the hon. Gentleman and his farmers.
  Mr. Wm Ross: The differing values of the Irish and United Kingdom green pounds have caused serious difficulties in the past. Can the Minister say by what amount the Irish green pound will now be changed? Will he say what effect he thinks that will have on the problems that already exist? Will he speak to his right hon Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting beside him, to try to arrange a debate on "Farming and the Nation"?
  Mr. Silkin: We have asked for a 5 per cent. devaluation. At the time of our request and, therefore, when the Commission proposal was put on the table, there was a propsal equally for a Republic of Ireland devaluation of 4·3 per cent. I gather that there have been movements, as always, of the two pounds, and these figures, or at least the figure of 4·3 per cent., may not be all that accurate. But the proportion will be much the same. That is the basis. My right hon. Friend has no doubt heard what the hon. Gentleman said about a debate on "Farming and the Nation".
  Mr. Corbett: As well as pressing the Commissioner for Agriculture to introduce proposals to improve safeguards for farm animals in transfer, will my right hon. Friend make clear that the critical factor is enforceability and the willingness of the Community and individual nation States to enforce those regulations? Will he say that, unless that is done, he will unilaterally ban the export of live animals for slaughter from this country?
  Mr. Silkin: I agree that enforceability is an important point. There is also a time basis that needs to be considered. For various reasons, the distance between the point of production of the animal and the slaughterhouse in this country may be much further than the distance from one country to another on the Continent of Europe. We have to watch that point carefully. The difficulty about a unilateral ban on the export of live animals is that the Government who issued such a ban, as the matter stands at the moment, could be sued in the European Court of Justice. That might not be the most desirable thing to happen. Let us

  1275
  see whether we can achieve it by other means.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Since he is in charge of the agriculture industry, the Minister will I am sure appreciate that the devaluation asked for by the farmers' unions of Scotland and England was 15 per cent. Can he tell us what effect the proposed devaluation will have on the balance of two things which are central to agriculture, and deteriorating—first, the level of debt on each farm unit per acre; secondly, the level of price per product, be it a hundredweight of barley, a head of sheep or a score of pigs, compared to the equivalent price of the fertiliser, seeds or machinery required to produce it? This is a long-term matter and I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to give me an answer now, but will he keep it in mind?
  Mr. Silkin: I do not think that it is possible to give an answer now and I doubt whether it would be possible to give an answer which would not vary from day to day for a variety of reasons. Broadly speaking, of course, a 5 per cent. green pound devaluation would be equivalent, I suppose, to an increase of about 6 per cent. in support prices so far as the farmer is concerned, but that is an average figure and once one starts taking an average in farming one is taking the average of many disparate parts of the industry—for example, between the cereals producer and the livestock producer.
  Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the fact that he was once again in an eight-to-one negotiating position on a stance which no one in the House so far has yet seriously contested is further evidence that our difficulties in Brussels are caused not by any inherent British cussedness but by a fundamental conflict of interest between the Eight and ourselves? To what extent has his negotiating position been undermined by the knowledge that the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) are very anxious, as the other eight countries know, to have a further increase in food prices by a far more substantial devaluation of the green pound?
  Mr. Silkin: With great regret, I have to contradict my hon. Friend on those two points—at least on their implications.
  1276
  First, it was not eight-to-one against us. I have to pay tribute to the enormous help that we received from the Italian agriculture Minister, Mr. Marcora, who backed us all the way. What happened on this very small point was that he was prepared to go with the others because he has a slightly different view from ourselves about automatic dismantling and a somewhat different problem. On the second question, I should like to be able to say that the Opposition make a great deal of nuisance of themselves; but, frankly, no one talks about them in Brussels.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman return his thoughts to the White Paper on agriculture and bear in mind that, especially when compared with the last three White Papers, this is probably the most anaemic White Paper that British agriculture has ever had? Will he look at this again? It is very important that British agriculture should know what this Government want the British farmers to produce, and not enough guidance has been given about future requirements. Other White Papers have done that.
  Mr. Silkin: The basis of "Farming and the Nation" was best described by Mr. Richard Butler, the new president of the National Farmers' Union. In the first place, he thought that a marketing inquiry was a good idea. Secondly, he said, in effect, "This is very good if the Government keep to it." That is precisely what the Government are trying to do. They are insisting on it.
  On the hon. Gentleman's last question, which related to targets in previous White Papers, I would point out that they were never intended to be targets, as he knows: they were always taken as that, but it is not a good idea to have targets. Just occasionally, for example, there are two droughts in a row. The green pound can intervene, or inflation, and so on. One can say "This is what we believe the net product ought to be over a period." That is precisely what we have done.
  Mr. Wiggin: Do the British Government now intend to place on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers any matters dealing with food or agriculture?
  Mr. Silkin: There will be plenty of matters relating to food and agriculture

  1277
  on the agenda anyway. The next meeting is on 26 March. I cannot remember a Council for some time where there has not been something along these lines that we or other countries have felt to be urgently necessary at the time.
  Mr. Peyton: In view of his characteristically cheap response to his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott), will the Minister, first, confirm that the Opposition have always been careful not to embarrass him in the difficult negotiations that he has to carry out? Secondly, since he made the point very personal, is he aware that we would much rather not be spoken of as he is spoken of in Brussels?
  Mr. Silkin: The second point is a fair point of difference between us. The question is not how one is spoken of but what results one obtains. I know perfectly well what results I need to obtain, and they are extremely good. I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first point. I am not necessarily talking about the right hon. Gentleman now—I have always found him a courteous and agreeable opponent—but I wish that I had had all the help that he tells me I have had.

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
  Mr. Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
  " the threat to the freedom of the press and the loss of employment resulting from the continued closure by management of Times Newspapers Limited publications."
  A debate would enable the House to consider a number of crucial issues that have arisen since November, when the newspapers under the control of TNL ceased publication. Those issues would include the question of what value can be placed upon assurances given to the Monopolies Commission, the eligibility rules for unemployment benefit, the effectiveness of the Employment Protection Act, and the regulations concerning redundancy payments.
  On Friday, the final dismissal notices to the longest-serving employees of Times Newspapers Ltd. will take effect. That will mean that more than 3,000 employees will have been sacked by that company. That raises another crucial point, which could be considered in more detail in a debate, namely, whether it is correct for a foreign-owned company to own newspapers in this country, to use revenue obtained from North Sea oil exploration to create wholesale unemployment in this country in its newspapers and to try to tear up, as the management of TNL has done, all working agreements that existed before last November with all its employees.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter with sympathy. You were good enough, last November, to grant an emergency debate. In the intervening period there have been some initiatives aimed at securing negotiations to obtain a proper working relationship between the management and its employees. Obviously, the basis of any proper negotiations must be the complete reinstatement of all employees who have been dismissed, the workers offering guarantees for uninterrupted publication in return for guarantees from management about security of employment.
  It is imperative that the Government take a real initiative this week to try to

  1279
  secure proper negotiations between management and unions. There is general agreement that if Friday comes with no successful initiative being taken, we face a prolonged crisis of continued non-publication and a protracted dispute, which could escalate throughout the company and into other parts of the British newspaper industry.
  Therefore, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, most strongly to consider this matter sympathetically so that at the least Ministers will be enabled to explain to the House what they have done so far and what further efforts they are making to secure proper negotiations. I ask you that bearing in mind that, as has been shown to a great extent over the last week or 10 days, there is a new spirit aimed at securing a working agreement that will enable Times Newspapers once again to be published.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
  " the threat to the freedom of the press and the loss of employment resulting from the continued closure by management of Times Newspapers Limited publications."
  Before I rule on the matter I remind the hon. Member that I allowed him today to state his case just as widely as I allowed another hon. Member yesterday when exception was taken that a Standing Order No. 9 application had been allowed to go too wide.
  It is always difficult to know the exact point at which to interrupt an hon. Member who is seeking to establish his facts. I hope that the hon. Member for Sowerby feels that I did him justice, and that he was able to place his facts properly before the House today.
  I am mindful that I granted an emergency debate to discuss the threatened closure of The Times some months ago. I listened with great care to what the hon. Member said, and I have given careful consideration to his representations. However, I have to rule that they do not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES
  Mr. Newton: As I notified you this morning, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
  " the failure of Her Majesty's Government to meet their obligations for the repayment of their debts to citizens holding national savings certificates."
  In doing so, I refer to a letter that came into my possession this morning. It is a cyclostyled letter sent to a person who had applied for repayment of his national savings certificates and was signed by the director of savings at the savings certificate and SAYE office in Durham. Among other things, it says:
  " I am sorry to have to tell you that, because of industrial action which is affecting work procedures, our normal repayment services are subject to an indefinite delay."
  I need hardly argue that the matter is specific. Nor do I need to say much to underline its importance. National savings certificates are held by about 7 million people in this country, with an average holding that I calculate to be between £600 and £700. The total outstanding, including accrued interest, is over £5,000 million. The certificates are designed especially to be attractive to small savers, and they are sold on the basis of security, accessibility and, above all, trust in the British Government.
  The importance of the matter indicates its urgency. The sale of these certificates is part of the way in which the Government's borrowing requirement is funded. Anything that disturbs the confidence upon which that funding rests requires, I submit, urgent consideration.
  For many individual citizens, who may well see their certificates as a liquid asset comparable to deposits in a bank or building society, the failure to make repayments in accordance with expectation could be nearly as serious as institutions such as banks or building societies closing their doors.
  In those circumstances I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give this request your consideration, because it is of

  1281
  genuine urgency and importance to many people.
  Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) said, he gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
  " the failure of Her Majesty's Government to meet their obligations for the repayment of their debts to citizens holding national savings certificates."
  The hon. Member knows that, however important the subject is, it is not for me to say whether it should be debated, but merely whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow. I listened with great care to the representations that he made, but I have to rule that the matter does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 23 MARCH
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. J. W. Rooker

  Mr. Fred Silvester

  Mr. Ralph Howell

  Later—
  Mr. Speaker: I have to explain to the House that I made an error during the ballot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I deeply regret to have to say it was not the Clerk's fault; it was mine. An hon. Member put his name way back behind everyone else, and I therefore announce that, in place of Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg is the third name in the list.

  FAMILY VIOLENCE (SCOTLAND)
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. George Reid: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to protection from family violence, by providing for the making of orders excluding a person from the family home; by increasing the power of the court to grant interdicts; by removing the requirement of corroboration in relation to exclusions and interdicts against family violence and breaches of such interdicts; by making breaches of such orders and interdicts a criminal offence; and for purposes connected therewith.
  The Family Violence (Scotland) Bill provides a clear legal remedy for thousands of Scotswomen who find themselves trapped in a situation of appalling misery. Subjected to regular beatings, to assaults on their children, to molestation at home or at work, there is little they can do if the house is in their man's name—as it is in the vast majority of Scots cases. They are caught in a cycle of terror, never sure of what he will be like when he comes home, aware that the police can do little and that the law as it stands is slow and cumbersome. And if they quit the family home, they render themselves and their children homeless.
  The Bill follows a simple principle. It puts personal rights above property rights. It makes it clear that a woman—or, in a few cases, a man—should be able to live at home without the constant fear of violence.
  It is now nearly four years since the Select Committee on violence in marriage recommended that battered women in Scotland should have greater legal protection. The Scottish Law Commission has taken two years to produce a draft memorandum on the subject, and is still considering various views. It is quite wrong that Scotswomen should have to wait so much longer than women in England and Wales to be provided with adequate protection. As with so much reforming legislation, Scotland lags sadly behind.
  The Bill brings Scots law closer into line with the South, while benefiting from the experience of how the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act has worked in practice since 1976.
  Wife battering is a widespread problem affecting women in all social classes. It

  1283
  is a crime which takes place behind closed doors and is seldom witnessed, so accurate estimates of the true extent of the problem are admittedly difficult to make. However a research project conducted by Drs. Rebecca and Russell Dobash at Stirling university—covering 34,000 cases of assaults—shows that one-quarter of serious assaults in Scotland are wife assaults and suggests strongly that the reported cases are only the tip of the iceberg. This is not a working-class problem. Women's Aid has given advice and support to the wives of architects, solicitors, consultant psychiatrists, university professors and MPs. [HON. MEMBERS: "MPs?"] Yes, MPs.
  The Bill allows a court to make an exclusion order to remove the violent spouse from the family home, and it increases the power of the court to grant interdicts. Such orders and interdicts must be reported to the responsible chief constables. It removes the requirement of corroboration in relation to exclusion orders, interdicts against family violence and breaches of those interdicts. It is a criminal offence to break them, with no discretion on the part of the court. The potentially violent spouse has therefore to think seriously about his position and it is simultaneously much easier for the police to act.
  Lastly, in a country with a history of marriage by custom and repute, the Bill extends the same protection to cohabitees who have taken a clear decision to set up a joint home.
  Those are the general principles of the Bill. I shall now deal with specific aspects in greater, and more human, detail.
  The Bill gives the woman the right to obtain an exclusion order from the court removing her spouse or cohabitee from the home for a period of up to 12 months if it is necessary to protect herself or her children from violence. She would be able to get an interim order if she could show that immediate protection was needed. These provisions would help women such as Mrs. G from Dunfermline, who suffered serious assault for eight years and had to leave home. Because her children have grown up, she is not a housing priority and has to stay in a refuge. Under the Bill, she would have time to seek alternative accommodation or try to have the house transferred to her own name.
  1284
  The provisions would help Mrs. M from Glasgow, who was thrown on to the street with her baby at two o'clock in the morning, and Mrs. G from Edinburgh, married to a man with strong psychopathic tendencies. She had eventually to escape to London, whereas what she needed was both an exclusion order and an interdict prohibiting him from molesting her. They would help Mrs. L from Falkirk, married to a prosperous man but with no resources of her own. She was a good wife and mother but was so beaten that her hearing today is severely impaired. He gave her one month to get out. Under the Bill, she could have stayed in her home while divorce proceedings were carried out.
  The Bill gives further protection by excluding the violent spouse from any specified area. In addition to the home, this might be the stair or close, the street outside, the children's school, her place of work or the home of her relations.
  Clause 6 of the Bill allows a woman to obtain an exclusion order or an interdict or to charge her husband with breaching these without having to provide witnesses to his violence. This is a very important change for battered women since by its nature most domestic violence takes place within the home where there are no witnesses. This would help women such as Mrs. H from Clackmannanshire, whose husband regularly, but very quietly, threatened to set fire to the baby and herself with paraffin. It would help Mrs. A from Edinburgh, who got a short period of relief only when a police dog so savaged her boy friend that he had to go to hospital. It would help Mrs. Y from Edinburgh, who, despite the fact that she and her sister were violently assaulted when her man broke down the door, and the doctor who had been called had to escape through the back window, could not get the police to charge the husband.
  I appreciate that some Members have written to me about this clause, expressing concern. I say to them that under the present law a judge can be satisfied that a battered woman is telling the truth yet find himself prevented by the law on corroboration from acting accordingly. Because domestic violence takes place in private, this clause is a justified exception, in my view, to the normal view of Scottish criminal law. It has the support

  1285
  of the Scottish Council on Civil Liberties, and because a breach of order or interdict would become a criminal offence the standard of proof required would be raised from the "balance of probability" to "beyond all reasonable doubt". That, in my view, is a sufficient safeguard.
  The fact that breaches of interdict and exclusion orders are automatically criminal offences is of vital importance. The sheriff would have no discretion in the matter, and this approach would avoid the problems encountered in England and Wales, where the judges have often been very reluctant to attach the power of arrest to an injunction. Such powers would allow the police to arrest a woman's husband if they believed that he had breached the order or interdict. They provide for much better protection than the present procedure for enforcing interdicts, which is slow and very ineffectual and leaves many battered women to the conclusion that interdicts are worthless pieces of paper.
  Those powers would help Mrs. G from Edinburgh, whose husband tied her up and set her alight but who, despite interdicts, is still coming round mouthing obscenities and threats.
  The powers would help Mrs. B from Dunfermline, who, despite getting a flat and an interdict, finds her husband constantly pestering her and the police saying that they cannot help. They would help Mrs. J from Glasgow, who also has an interdict but whose husband climbs up the balconies and through the window and assaults her. Such women need effective protection now.
  The general principles of this Bill are clear. They concern personal rights and, above all, the right to protection from violence. That right should take precedence over property rights. The Bill is complete in every respect and has been
  1286
  professionally drafted by lawyers from Edinburgh university. I trust that hon. Members will look on it with favour, that it will have the support of the Scottish Office, and that the Secretary of State will put his weight behind it.
  Battered women in Scotland should not remain in an underprivileged position relative to women south of the border. That, of course, was part of the case for a Scottish Assembly, and with that great debate still going on, alongside other affairs of State, I think that it would be appropriate to conclude with six lines of Robert Burns, who said:
  " While Europe's eye is fixed on mighty things
  The fate of Empires and the fall of Kings While quacks of State must each produce a plan
  And even children lisp the Rights of Man
  Amid this mighty fuss, just let me mention
  The Rights of Women merit some attention ".
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Reid, Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Russell Johnston.

  FAMILY VIOLENCE (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. George Reid accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland relating to protection from family violence, by providing for the making of orders excluding a person from the family home; by increasing the power of the court to grant interdicts; by removing the requirement of corroboration in relation to exclusions and interdicts against family violence and breaches of such interdicts; by making breaches of such orders and interdicts a criminal offence; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 March and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
4.51 p.m.
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is narrow in scope and its subject matter is technical and difficult. But it is an important, and I would say essential, piece of legislation if we are to preserve the rights of owner-occupier leaseholders under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
The need for this Bill arises because a recent judicial decision in another place has shown that an ingenious landlord can effectively evade the main purpose of that Act. For that reason, the Government have moved quickly to introduce this Bill and they attach importance to its speedy passage. I need hardly remind the House that the Leasehold Reform Act is a complicated piece of legislation. On the whole, it has been very successful in achieving its main objective of enabling long leaseholders of houses to buy their freeholds. Many of them have since taken advantage of it.
The Act has not, however, rested entirely quietly on the statute book since it was enacted. As hon. Members will recall, it was necessary to amend it in the Housing Act 1969 so as to change the basis for assessing freeholders' compensation. The Act was further amended in the Housing Act 1974 to increase the rateable value limits which determine what property is within the scope of the Act.
We have also already announced a number of proposed amendments for inclusion in the forthcoming housing Bill which should remove certain anomalies and make the Act a little easier for leaseholders to use. But the loophole which has now been shown to exist in the provisions of the Act is so wide and significant that it clearly merits a separate and urgent legislative remedy.
The arrangement which has been used to exploit this loophole was both unusual and ingenious. I do not think, therefore, that anyone can be blamed for not foreseeing
1288
it. Indeed, it will tax my own ingenuity to explain it to the House with sufficient clarity. In order to do so, I must ask hon. Members to bear with me while I remind them of the principle underlying the Leasehold Reform Act and the basis of valuation which is provided in section 9 of that Act.
The principle—which was clearly stated in the White Paper announcing our original proposals in 1966—is that the land on which a house stands belongs in equity to the landowner who retains freehold and the house belongs in equity to the occupying leaseholder. The chief provision of the Act enables a long leaseholder of a house, who pays a ground rent, to buy his freehold on favourable terms. A long leaseholder also has a second option. He can extend his lease for an extra 50 years, during which time he will have to pay what is termed modern ground rent.
Of course there are a lot of ifs and buts—qualifying conditions and such like—and these are matters which we may well find ourselves discussing in the context of the housing Bill. But for today we need concern ourselves only with the basic principles—the right to have the freehold and the right to have an extension of the lease.
In order to reflect the principle that the land, but not the building, belongs to the landowner, the compensation payable to the landlord by a leaseholder buying his freehold represents the investment value of the land to the landlord at that time. This represents the value of the rent which the landlord is entitled to receive and the value of the landlord's reversion when the lease finally expires. I say "finally expires" because since the Act gives the leaseholder the right to extend his lease for 50 years it also provides that in calculating the price for the freehold it is to be assumed that he has extended his lease for 50 years.
Consequently the price to be paid by a leaseholder has three elements. The first is the present capital value of the existing ground rent for the remainder of the original term of the lease. The second is the present capital value of the new rent for the 50-year extension. The third element, which is not relevant to what we are considering today, is the

1289
present value of the landlord's reversion at the end of the 50-year extension.
So far I have talked only about a landlord and a leaseholder—the resident leaseholder. In many cases, however, there is also an intermediate landlord to be considered—there might even be more than one. This will be someone owning a lease under which he himself receives ground rent from the leaseholder immediately below him, and pays slightly less rent to the party above him. I repeat, he normally pays slightly less rent than he receives. This is a common and entirely legitimate practice, and the Act provides that the price to be paid by an enfranchising leaseholder is to be divided appropriately between all the superior interests—that is, the head landlord and any intermediate leaseholders.
Having thus refreshed—and, I hope, clarified—our minds on how the Act works, we can now look at the case of Jones v. Wentworth, which has given rise to the need for the present Bill. I shall try to put this, too, as simply as I can.
The landlord, Wentworth Securities Ltd., had granted a lease to the leaseholder in possession—a Mrs. Jones. Shortly before Mrs. Jones served notice that she wanted to buy the freehold, the landlord granted an intermediate lease to a connected company—Wrotham Park Estates Ltd.
This intermediate lease was on terms which were peculiar. Initially the intermediate landlord, Wrotham Park, was to pay a peppercorn rent, and he would of course receive the ground rent payable by Mrs. Jones. But if the intermediate landlord were to grant a new sublease of the house then under the terms of his lease, he would immediately have to pay to the head landlord—Wentworth Securities—a full occupational or rack rent.
In this case he would then be paying out a much greater rent than he would be receiving, and the House may well wonder what was the point of such an arrangement. But here it is important to recall that, in calculating the price payable on enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act, one of the ingredients is the present capitalised value of the rent payable for the extension lease.
1290
Section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act, which sets out the basis for determining the price payable, stipulates that if the tenancy has not in fact been extended for 50 years it is to be assumed that it has. It is this point which lies at the crux of this case. It was held in the judicial decision on appeal in another place that the notice which had been served by Mrs. Jones claiming to buy the freehold was sufficient to trigger off the assumption that a new tenancy, extending the original tenancy by 50 years, had been granted. This in turn triggered off the intermediate landlord's obligation to pay a full rack rent and the head landlord's right to receive it.
The result of this was that the price payable on enfranchisement had to reflect the landlord's entitlement to receive this full rack rent, instead of the ground rent currently payable. Compensation to the intermediate landlord was nil, but the price of enfranchisement to the leaseholder increased from £300 to £4,000—an enormous difference.
Therefore, as a result of the peculiar arrangement that I have described, the price is over 13 times what it should be. It is no exaggeration to say that this result largely defeats the intention of the Leasehold Reform Act. At no time during the preparation of that Act did anyone envisage that someone would be prepared to take on a lease under which in certain circumstances the financial obligation would be so much in excess of the financial benefits.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there any evidence that any other property companies, prior to this or as a result of this, set up similar arrangements, or is this a one-off case?
Mr. Freeson: We do not know firmly of any other specific arrangements. This situation has come to light because of the case which I have described. We cannot rely upon that and we judge that at least it is possible that there are a number of other cases. The object of the Bill is to provide for that. We know only of this specific case.
Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey): As this is such an unusual device—almost an ingenious device, as the Law Lords termed it—would we not be entitled to assume

1291
that, as this is the first time that the matter has troubled the courts, it is the first time that someone had the ingenuity to use this device? Surely that is a reasonably fair assumption.
Mr. Freeson: I am sure that such cases would have come to the attention of the Department, whatever Government were in power. But we must not assume that, because we have heard of only one case because of legal action, there are no other devices of similar nature being used in the country.
As the device has been established, we must ensure that it is not exploited either by the company in question or by others who would wish to follow suit. Had there not been trouble on The Times, in which court cases are reported in full, we might have heard of other cases because other companies might have been tempted to follow suit.
Mr. Anderson: Although the case was not reported in The Times, several of the property magazines were quick to point out the implications for other property companies.
Mr. Freeson: That is true. Perhaps I was making an over-general point. But when newspapers publish reports of cases, they are more widely read and therefore ideas are more quickly picked up.
I have said that we do not know specifically of other cases such as this, but I should make it clear that, although we do not know of other cases, we must act on the assumption that there might be others. We are talking of one particular case in an estate where the device has been applied.
If action is not taken, one of two things could happen. There would be other cases such as that involving Mrs. Jones when, for whatever reason, people would feel that they must pay the exorbitant charge, price or compensation. Alternatively, many people would be blocked from exercising their rights under the Act because they would not be able to pay the high price. Nobody foresaw that such a device would be established.
Without the connection between the two companies involved in this case, and without the effect which these arrangements had on the Leasehold Reform Act compensation, no such leases would have
1292
been created. But in this case they were. The House must now deal with the consequences.
There is a point here which I should make quite clear so as to avoid any misunderstanding or unjustified criticism of the Lands Tribunal. There was no dispute at any time in this case about the valuation as such. When the case first went to the Lands Tribunal in 1976, both parties, the landlord and the resident leaseholder, were agreed that the price should be either £300 or £4,000, depending on whether the creation of the intermediate lease on these particular terms worked or not. The Lands Tribunal took the view that it did work and determined a price of £4,000. The Court of Appeal subsequently took the view that it did not. The court's reason for this rested on the provisions of section 23 of the Act.
Section 23 renders void any agreement relating to a tenancy in so far as it purports to exclude or modify any right to acquire the freehold or an extended lease. However, their Lordships allowed the appeal by the landlord on the grounds that, while the arrangement in this case may have modified the terms upon which the tenant may acquire the freehold, it did not modify the right itself.
Hon. Members will now be in a position to appreciate the comments made by the Lord Diplock when giving his opinion in another place:
" It is not for your Lordships to speculate what fiscal or other advantages Wentworth and Wrotham hoped to derive from the course they have chosen to adopt. It is evident from the care and ingenuity with which the scheme has been devised that the two companies entered into it with their eyes open to what its financial consequences to them will be if it is held to be valid.
My Lords, it would seem most unlikely that either the draftsman of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, or those members of either House of Parliament by whose votes it was passed, had envisaged the possibility that any ground landlord would enter into an intermediate lease in the precise terms adopted by Wentworth and Wrotham or in any other terms which would have the same economic consequences as between ground landlord and intermediate tenant. If it had been envisaged it seems likely that the draftsman would have done something about it to prevent its having the effect of enhancing the price payable by the resident tenant for the freehold; but how he would set about achieving this and what words he would have used to do so is a matter of pure speculation."
I invite the House to put an end to such speculation and turn to the provisions

1293
in the Bill, which is designed to affirm the intention which everyone agrees lay behind the original Act. It is drafted slightly more widely than would be necessary to deal with the particular arrangement used in the Jones case to forestall the effects of any similar devices which may be used now or in the future. One must pay tribute to the ingenuity involved in creating transactions of this kind, but it would be wrong to allow their perpetrators to profit by them at the expense of ordinary home owners.
Put simply, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the price payable under the Leasehold Reform Act by a tenant claiming the freehold of his house is not artificially increased by transactions involving the creation, transfer or alteration in the terms of an intermediate lease. The Bill provides that any such transaction entered into since 18 February 1966 is to be disregarded if it would increase the price payable. The significance of the date 18 February 1966 is that it is the day on which the White Paper "Leasehold Reform in England and Wales" was issued, announcing the Government's intention to legislate on leasehold reform. Any transaction made since that date may be assumed to have taken place in the knowledge of that declared intention. Furthermore, the Bill will apply whether the creation of the intermediate interest took place before or after the resident leaseholder's own lease was granted.
The Bill will apply where a tenant gives notice in the future, and where he has already given notice, of his desire to have the freehold of his house, so long as the price has not already been determined before the date of the passing of the Bill. In other words, it will not reopen any agreements for the purchase of freeholds which have been concluded before the Bill comes into operation.
Mr. Rossi: There is a point to be clarified here in order to avoid confusion. Under the Bill, is it not possible for anyone who has had the price determined to withdraw the notice upon which the determination of price was fixed—whether by agreement or, as in the Jones case, by court decision—and, having withdrawn it, then to serve a fresh notice and start all over again, having the price fixed under the terms of the Bill?
Mr. Freeson: Yes, that would be the effect of clause 1(4) in the type of case with which we are for the moment concerned, the Jones type of case. It would not be of general application.
Mrs. Jones withdrew, of course, because she did not find the £4,000 acceptable, and there may be other such cases in the pipeline, for all we know. There may be those who, in the knowledge of what has transpired up till now and what will transpire as a result of the Bill, will now wish to come forward again after having withdrawn because they could not afford the price. Whereas under section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act they would normally face a five-year bar on reopening negotiations, they will now have that bar suspended. That will apply in that kind of case, but in the generality of matters it would not apply.
Mr. Rossi: If that is so, is not the effect of the Bill to set aside a decision of the House of Lords which has already determined a matter between parties? In other words, Parliament is entering upon a novel constitutional practice, acting as the final court of appeal in cases already determined at law and setting a judgment aside. I understand the Minister to say that Mrs. Jones can withdraw her notice and then serve it again, the effect of her re-service entitling her then to acquire the freehold as though the case had not been decided in the House of Lords.
Mr. Freeson: I do not think that it is quite like that. Let us remember that the decision of the House of Lords in the case in question was given about three months ago. Under section 9 of the principal Act it is open to somebody to withdraw, and he must withdraw within one month of the price being fixed. Mrs. Jones did so and the matter did not proceed. She is now in the position of any other person, though we speak of her case because it was the one which brought the matter to light. She is in the position of any of the other people on that estate, if I may so put it, who are living under this device.
So in that light—the more correct light, I suggest—one cannot say that one is overturning a judgment, since nothing proceeded. Mrs. Jones operated her right under the principal Act to withdraw. In my view, therefore, it is right to say that Mrs. Jones is in no different position under the Bill from that of the many other people affected on that estate or

1295
elsewhere where a device such as this may have been introduced.
The Bill will apply where a tenant gives notice in the future and where he has already given notice of his desire to have the freehold of his house, as I have said, so long as the price has not already been determined before the date of the passing of the Bill. I repeat that the Bill will not reopen any agreements for the purchase of freeholds which have been concluded before it comes into operation.
There is in the Bill further provision designed to help the tenant in these circumstances who has withdrawn his claim following an unfavourable determination. I have already said that he may, if he wishes, withdraw within one month of the determination of the price. Where a tenant withdraws or has withdrawn his claim and the price would have been lower if the Bill had applied, he will be enabled by the Bill to make a second claim without having to wait the five-year period under the principal Act before applying again.
Furthermore, where a tenant purchases his freehold as a result of serving a further notice within one year of the passing of the Bill, he will not be liable to pay the landlord compensation in respect of his previous withdrawal, so long as that withdrawal was in circumstances to which the provisions of this Bill would have applied if it had then been in force.
We have gone as far as we can in extending the benefits of this Bill to as many people as possible who may yet be, or may already have been, put at a disadvantage by arrangements of a kind similar to that in the Jones case. Where a price has been determined, however, and the tenant has not withdrawn or does not withdraw his claim in the one-month period which is allowed under the Act, he is, in effect, contractually bound to complete the purchase of his freehold at the determined price, and I do not think that it would be right for the law to intervene at that stage.
I think that it will be clear from what I have said that we are not trying to be retrospective in the sense about which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was rightly concerned. We are seeking merely to protect those who have exercised their full rights within the proper procedures under the present major Act
1296
and who, under the device with which we are concerned, are now blocked effectively from exercising their right as leaseholders to purchase freeholds.
I commend the Bill to the House. There are those who stand to be immediately affected by it, for we know that there are about another 100 leaseholders on the same estate as Mrs. Jones, and possibly others. With the law as it stands without the Bill, those leaseholders will be unable either to buy the freeholds of their houses at a reasonable price or to sell their leases at a proper market price. There may already be other leaseholders unknown to us who are in the same position.
As long as the loophole remains open, the temptation will exist for other companies and other landlords to use it. Every long leaseholder is open to potential exploitation. That is good enough reason for me to urge the House to prevent that by supporting the speedy passage of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Rossi: The Opposition entirely accept that Jones v. Went-worth Securities Ltd. has produced a result that was not envisaged by Parliament at the time of the passage of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. If the result had been envisaged, I am sure that parliamentary draftsmen would have been instructed to ensure that it could not arise. To that extent, we consider that it is right that Parliament should take an opportunity of putting right an anomaly that has arisen that Parliament did not intend.
I must confess that there are certain aspects of the Bill that cause the Opposition some concern. By no means have we been satisfied by the Minister's replies. The first issue is of relatively minor importance but of some importance in practical terms. If as well as the Bill the Government introduce further amendments to this area of the law in their long-awaited housing Bill, we shall have no fewer that five Acts dealing with a relatively narrow legal subject. We shall have the 1967 Act, the Housing Act 1969, which in one of its sections amends the price formula, section 118 of the 1974 Act, the Bill now before us and the long-

1297
awaited housing Bill that will deal with section 118.
We are creating an intolerable and impossible position for legal advisers who have to inform their clients of their rights. It is so easy to overlook an important provision when legislation is dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. As a consequence, laymen are sometimes badly or inaccurately advised and they may not pursue all the remedies that Parliament may intend for them. If the Government intend shortly to introduce further amendments to the 1967 Act or other legislation, I do not understand why they have not used this opportunity to bring all the amendments together. Having spent some years in the past in private practice, I cannot condemn too strongly piecemeal legislation.
The second matter that I wish to raise is of more fundamental importance. The Bill intends to plug not only an unintended loophole in the law—with that we have no quarrel—but to operate retrospectively and to seek to set aside a judicial decision of the House of Lords. I am with the Minister when he says that he does not want the loophole to be taken up by others as that would lead to the destruction of the whole purpose of the 1967 Act. However, other considerations of some constitutional importance apply. We must ask ourselves whether it is right that private citizens should be allowed to battle through the courts from the Lands Tribunal to the Court of Appeal and finally to the House of Lords, with all the agony of indecision and expense that that entails, and at the end of the day to deprive the successful party of his rights even though Parliament did not originally intend him to have those rights.
Mr. Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the property company which employed an ingenious device for getting around the 1967 Act and managed to put that scheme into operation in respect of one of its lease-holdings agonised over the decision and agonised over it as it went through the courts? Is he saying that it would suffer, having entered into the agreement with its eyes open?
Mr. Rossi: The leaseholders are not entirely without remedy. They are still
1298
entitled to extend their leases for 50 years under the Act without any further difficulty or penalty. I accept that in terms of the price of the purchase of a freehold their expectations have been dashed by the decision of the House of Lords. However, we should consider whether it is right to follow the axiom that litigation should have some certainty and finality. By adopting the position advocated by the Government, we are breaching that axiom.
Mr. Freeson: I seek some clarification of what the hon. Gentleman is after. Surely we want to work together. The hon. Gentleman is discussing the effect of clause 1(4). Its effect would be to allow Mrs. Jones to operate a right that would otherwise be suspended for five years. The essence of that provision is to put Mrs. Jones in the same position as the other 100 or so leaseholders living on her estate who have not yet been caught up in the process of adjudication that led us to introduce the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should not act to put her in that position, and that alone of the 100 or so she should not be able to exercise her rights if and when the Bill becomes law?
Mr. Rossi: I do not wish to go over the grounds that were argued in 1967. It was considered right that there should be an interval of five years when a notice is served and then withdrawn. That has been established law for 12 or 13 years, and that should remain. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the notice may now be withdrawn and that the compensation provisions in the 1967 Act should be annulled, which is what will happen if the Bill becomes law.
We understand and sympathise with the position of Mrs. Jones, but we must seek to act as fairly and equitably as we can between private citizens. I do not think that the Bill acts fairly and impartially between two separate classes of citizen. Parliament has make a mistake, and that has had unfortunate and unforeseen consequences, but that issue has been settled in the courts. We may draw a line and say that that will never happen again, and we may proceed from there, but to disadvantage the parties to the litigation is not conscionable. It may be that Labour Members will not agree. We must agree to differ on that outlook.

1299
Under clause 1(1) any transaction that has taken place since 18 February 1966 may be nullified as against a leaseholder in possession. That will alter the specific rights of the parties to the appeal in the House of Lords. The House of Lords unanimously decided that the legal rights were genuine and enforceable, and I take the view that they should not be set aside.
The other aspects of the Bill that I must say we view with great doubt are the provisions in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 1. From answers to interventions, it is clear that the only evidence that the Minister has of instances in which these subsections may operate is that of the parties to the Jones case or other tenants on that estate. There is no evidence that this device has been used in any other case. The Minister is unable to produce any evidence of that kind. Therefore, it is clear that only Wentworth Securities can be affected by these provisions, and nobody else.
If that be the case—as it seems to be, in the light of what the Minister said—there are two possible consequences that the House should have drawn to its attention. First, the Bill might be considered, on the face of it, to be an infringement of article 1 of the first protocol, 1952, to the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest. There can be no public interest where the rights of only one person are concerned. Therefore, I feel that to pass the Bill with its retrospective provisions unamended will serve as an invitation to have this House arraigned before the European Court of Justice. That is a matter we must consider.
In the second place—this is a procedural matter for the House, and in particular for the Chair—we must consider whether, as it affects private rights in particular, as well as dealing with public matters, the Bill should be more properly dealt with as a Hybrid Bill and the special procedures of Parliament related to it. If the Bill had had no retrospective provisions in it, it would be clearly a Public Bill, as there is no question that it is in the public interest to close this loophole, which Parliament clearly did not intend.
However, the moment there is this retrospective element, the question must be asked "Who will be affected retrospectively?"
1300
In this case, who served notices before the passing of the Bill? Who had the price determined before the passing of the Bill? Who have withdrawn their notices before the passing of the Bill? On the facts as known to us, it is only Mrs. Jones in all these circumstances, and possibly some of the other tenants on the same estate in some of the circumstances.
The only person who can be adversely affected by this retrospective legislation is the freeholder who discovered the loophole and fought it through the courts to the House of Lords to prove his point. Until then, it is reasonable to infer that no other freeholder would have known of this device or considered using it. The Minister appeared to concede that point when I raised the matter with him. It was not used by anyone else until the House of Lords pronounced judgment. Therefore, we must say that, as particular private interests are affected by the Bill, we must consider whether we should refer this to the Examiners or ask the Chair to have the Bill referred at some appropriate stage to Examiners to consider whether the hybrid procedure applies.
I specifically ask the Chair, if I may, to make note of the point and arguments I have raised. Indeed, I draw some support in this contention from the opinion of Lord Diplock in the case that we are discussing. At the end of the judgment, the learned Law Lord stated:
" The notion that…covenants in an intermediate lease in the precise terms of those in the lease by Wentworth to Wrotham should alone be ignored in assessing the price of the freehold is fanciful; and might indeed have converted the Bill into a hybrid Bill for which a special procedure must be followed in Parliament."
It would seem from the way in which the Minister addressed the House, and in particular from the way in which he answered interventions, that the Bill is directed, as to some of its clauses, specifically against the covenants contained in the Wentworth and Wrotham lease.
I therefore ask the Chair to consider at some appropriate stage whether the hybrid procedure should be applied and the Bill proceed in that way. I am not seeking, on behalf of the Opposition, to frustrate the Bill. I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Bill or vote against it today. It has merit inasmuch as it seeks to close this

1301
loophole that has suddenly appeared in the law.
However, we must reserve the right to move amendments in Committee to deal with the objectionable constitutional aspects of the matter. I leave it there at this stage.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister for my late arrival. I was engaged in a constituency case and therefore missed some of what the Minister said.
I welcome the Bill and recognise its specific purpose as an emergency measure to plug a specific gap which was made in the leasehold legislation by section 118 of the 1974 Act. However, a problem arises. Several thousand people are concerned about the application of leasehold reform legislation, and specifically in large numbers in South Wales. When they heard that a leasehold reform Bill was to be presented—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with this problem—they thought that a great trumpet blast of reform was again blowing and that there would be better facilities made available for the enfranchisement of those seeking their freeholds.
Regrettably, that is not the case on the basis of this Bill. Whatever else it does, and however commendable its specific purposes are, it is a squeak rather than a blast. As it is a Bill which, according to the Minister's press release of last November, was intended to correct the anomaly under section 118 of the Housing Act 1974 and to improve the working of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, I hope that an opportunity will arise in the consideration of the Bill to make it a real House of Commons Bill and to present amendments within the competence of the Minister and the legislation so that we may remove some of the difficulties experienced even now by people who seek to enfranchise themselves.
I am the first to recognise that the work accomplished as a result of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has been monumental and that many thousands of people are living more secure and happier lives as a consequence of the assistance available and the reform accomplished
1302
by that Act. However, there remain several difficulties and deficiencies which have become apparent in the operation of the Act. I think that this is an appropriate time to deal with them.
I am aware that there are proposals under the forthcoming housing Bill to deal with some of the difficulties experienced by people who wish to secure enfranchisement, but, on the basis of the information that I have been able to gather, even the provisions in that Bill could not yet be described as comprehensive and do not meet many of the objections and many of the problems experienced by people in South Wales.
I want to use this opportunity, within the general ambit of the Bill, to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the need for a more extensive measure of reform. I also hope, on the subsequent consideration of the Bill, to be able to table amendments to it which will go some way towards accomplishing that reform.
There is a need for a new price formula which will operate in favour of the leaseholder. There is a need to end the requirement of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 of a five-year ownership of a property before a person is able to take advantage of the Leasehold Reform Act or any other subsequent legislation. There is a need to ensure that leaseholders on extended leases qualify for any improved provision which will enable them to purchase their freeholds. There is a need to remove the requirement whereby a landlord can serve a dilapidation notice on persons requiring to enfranchise themselves.
There is also a need to ensure that rights to secure enfranchisement, or to notify a landlord of a desire to buy a freehold, are not lost for a period of five years if the initial application fails, for whatever reason. There is a need to ensure that both leaseholder and freeholder are responsible for bearing only their own costs in any proceedings. There is a need to ensure, most of all, and most specifically in my constituency, that landlords are not allowed to prevaricate or avoid their responsibilities under the Act, thereby delaying for infinity the prospect of persons being able to accomplish the enfranchisement that they desire.

1303
These are all substantial needs, and needs which are articulated by many respected bodies. These bodies include the Welsh Consumer Council, district groups such as the Cardiff Leasehold Reform Group, and groups of residents in my constituency such as the Pandy Road residents, who serve as an example of the kinds of difficulties experienced by people under the current legislation. This is a group of people in a street of about 160 houses, all of which were originally leasehold properties. These are all residents requiring to enfranchise themselves. Twelve years after the passage of the 1967 legislation, the secretary of that organisation, Mr. John Davies, is writing to me saying that there are still 16 householders seeking enfranchisement. He wrote to me to that effect a fortnight ago. That is after a campaign lasting 12 years
In those circumstances, a reforming Government, such as the one we have the good fortune to have at the moment, should be responsible enough to make legislative provision so that these anomalies and difficulties are removed. I he opportunity therefore exists for us to make those changes between the Front and Back Benches. I am sure that there is enough comprehension and care on the Front Bench to ensure that the amendments that I hope to table—if I am fortunate enough to be on the Committee—will receive proper consideration. I realise that there is a massive queue of earnest and active Members hoping to be on the Committee. I am simply trying to shove myself to the front of the queue.
Mr. Anderson: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has noticed the enthusiasm of the Welsh nationalists to get on to the Committee.
Mr. Kinnock: I am absolutely sure that the only thing that will exceed the enthusiasm of those phantom Members will be the audacity with which they will claim credit for this reform.
I should like to know why we have to wait for the proposed housing Bill before we can discover precisely what are the Government's proposals for the replacement of the Lands Tribunal by a system of valuation tribunals, or at least the introduction of a system of valuation tribunals as a first stage in the arbitration of any dispute between a leaseholder and a freeholder. I hope that my hon.
1304
Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with that in his reply.
It seems to me that the opportunity presented to include such provisions in a short Bill of this relatively uncontentious nature would be greater than the opportunity presented by a large Bill which would probably be the subject of rather more contention. I hope that there will be a reasonable response to this question, as this is one of the most desirable reforms in the present system and we wish to acknowledge the sensitivity of the Government to the demands made upon them. Given the rather stringent time scale in which we have to operate for the remainder of this Parliament, it might have been a good idea to include it in this brief Bill.
There is a need also for an administrative provision—although I recognise that it is not entirely the preserve of my right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment or the Welsh Office—for the effective extension of legal aid to persons requiring to seek legal assistance in pursuit of the purchase of a freehold.
I have a letter from a solicitor in my constituency. In his letter, Mr. Gareth Griffiths, of Wannen and Jenkins, who has been involved for 35 years in the campaign for leasehold reform, says:
" I have in mind that, so far as an extension of legal aid to the Lands Tribunal is concerned—"
this point would also apply to any valuation tribunal—
" nothing more than administrative (i.e. not legislative) action is required—and the whole legal profession led by the Law Society has been pressing year in and year out for this, certainly for the last eight years."
If that is the case, and if people are inhibited from securing enfranchisement, as indeed they are, by the prohibitive costs, surely there should be at least an administrative response in this respect.
With regard to the price formula, it would appear to me to be both more simple and more just to tear up the rather complicated formula of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and replace it with one which installed the simple multiple of a ground rent, took into account the number of years remaining on a lease, and ensured that a ceiling was fixed at no more than 10 per cent. of the market value of the property.

1305
This would deal with the problem that we find especially in Cardiff, and to a lesser extent in Swansea, where properly companies and pension trust funds are now asking persons who have lived in the same house for many years, who are approaching old age and are on very limited incomes, for between £3,000 and £5,000 as the price for enfranchisement. That is both unjust and ridiculously inflated in any market terms. I am sure that it must be within the capacity of the Government to introduce a formula to ensure that cases of that sort will not occur.
There are many other areas in which changes are necessary. The areas are specific and easily identified. They have been the subject of a great deal of assessment and research, notably by the Welsh Consumer Council, which has published an excellent booklet entitled "Whose home is it?" There is a great deal of interest in this matter. The Welsh Consumer Council has informed me that in the first three weeks after the publication of its booklet, no fewer than 700 copies were sold. To secure a sale of 700 copies of a book—even a book by the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—is something of an accomplishment. But to sell a pamphlet on leasehold reform, 12 years after we are supposed to have secured a great change in this direction, is also something of an accomplishment.
The five-year qualification period causes great difficulties in areas like mine, especially with the increased mobility of the working population. People are buying houses, particularly old houses, in greater numbers, and difficulties have been encountered. For example, one of my constituents had to change his job because of a pit closure and move to England for new employment. He could not sell his house because he could not sell it freehold, and no one could raise the mortgage on his leasehold property. That immobilised him. In this case the landlord, the National Coal Board, insisted on the stringent application of legal provisions. The Board could have used extra discretion, and I am glad to say that at the end of protracted negotiations it did so. It was relatively easy to deal with a major public corporation of that kind, certainly easier than dealing with
1306
some private landlords. There seems to be no justifiable basis for insisting upon the five-year qualification period, and any reforms should take account of that.
The injustice which could arise with any progressive changes in current leasehold provisions should not be extended to those who were obliged, mainly for economic reasons, to extend their leases instead of buying their freeholds. Although there is an element of retrospection in this—I take note of what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said earlier about the general undesirability of retrospection in law—the fact is that it would be most undesirable if people who, because of economic circumstances, were forced into extension rather than enfranchisement during the last 12 years were denied the opportunity of benefiting from changes in the law.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is of particular concern in my constituency. I believe that it could have been easily dealt with in this Bill. Under the 1967 Act and the consequent statutory instrument No. 1879 there were provisions to try to ensure that landlords responded with alacrity to the notification by leaseholders of the desire to purchase a freehold. However, there is no means of enforcing that requirement and there is no penalty imposed, and no penalty that can be imposed in law, on landlords who deliberately prevaricate or avoid their obligations.
In my constituency I have encountered a man whom I can most fairly describe as an eccentric—a Joseph Thomas Davies. He is a recluse, and a man who keeps his own counsel. To the embarrassment of his agent, and the great misery and frustration of his ground tenants over the last 12 years, he has set records in delay. In order to deal with people like Mr. Davies, we require some procedure which will ensure that penalties will be imposed on landlords who fail to reply or respond to their ground tenants within two months of a notification of a desire to purchase and who fail to conclude the transaction within six months.
Mr. Davies and others like him have developed to the finest art the various means of delay and dodge. They are assisted in this by the reluctance of legal representatives and ground tenants to go through the expensive, exhausting and risky procedures of the Lands Tribunal.

1307
This situation could be relieved by the proposals which we hear will be included in the forthcoming housing Bill. But it would have been clearer, simpler and speedier to have included the proposals for such a tribunal in this Bill.
Mr. Rossi: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Member's constituency problems. It is some time since I have looked at this aspect, but I wonder whether section 20 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 would help his constituents. This section provides a right, where there is a reluctant freeholder, to go straight to the county court, and legal aid applies to that. One can get a very quick answer from the county court compelling the freeholder to transfer the legal interest.
Mr. Kinnock: I understand what the hon. Member says. This has been attempted by solicitors and lawyers acting on behalf of my constituents and there have been occasions on which cases have been successfully fought. But I am sure the hon. Member will understand the inhibition that working-class people feel and the risk that they think they are taking in cases like this, especially when their financial resources are extremely limited.
I have a quotation here from a chartered surveyor who is particularly interested in this matter—Mr. Davies of Clark and Company, chartered surveyors, of Barry, in South Glamorgan. He says:
" As I am sure you are aware, when acting for tenants in Leasehold Reform Act cases, it is often difficult to obtain a good settlement because the amount outstanding does not warrant the risk of a Tribunal hearing, quite apart from the average person's reluctance to get involved in major Court proceedings."
The scrupulous and energetic application of section 20 of the 1967 Act would clear up the problems, but that does not take account of either the financial resources of the ground tenants and the fact that they are engaged in expense in the whole business of purchase, and are usually working on a limited cash basis, or the fact that they cannot be totally reassured that their cases will be successfully concluded. That is the difficulty, and that is why we need a more direct and risk-free route to securing enfranchisement, whether it is through the valuation tribunals, with appeal to the Lands Tribunal, or through the county
1308
court. The feeling of risk and reluctance exists on a wide scale.
Unless we get comprehensive treatment of these various areas of grievance in the next couple of months either through this Bill or through the new Housing Bill, we shall see over the next few years a continual dribble of minor legislation amending and adjusting the major 1967 Act. It is better to move as far and as fast as we can to meet these grievances now rather than go through this almost every year.
It is not just a matter of inconvenience to this House by the continual repetition of amending legislation. There is the much more serious fact of the insecurity which many ground tenants feel legitimately and the great misery that is caused to many of them, especially to those who are relatively poor or old and most especially to those who are both poor and old. This must be dealt with as quickly as possible.
The Government have very sensibly given themselves the opportunity to make extensive and important changes in the Leasehold Reform Act. These will be of direct benefit to many thousands of people. I only wish that they had taken this opportunity to go even further.
Mr. Ernest G. Perry: My hon. Friend's remarks have centred on a loophole in the Act, but he should remember that as a result of the 1967 Act—and I was a member of the Committee which considered that Bill—hundreds of thousands of leaseholders have been able to take advantage of its provisions and buy their freeholds. Will my hon. Friend note that, although there may be a few exceptions, in the main more than 90 per cent. of leaseholders have been able to obtain their freeholds?
Mr. Kinnock: Yes. My hon. Friend's intervention gives me the opportunity to repeat the words that I used at the beginning of my speech. As someone who is a product of a leasehold home, I warmly acknowledge that the Act brought great benefits to many people. Having read the reports of the Committee proceedings, I am also aware that, even during the course of those proceedings, some of the problems and deficiencies were anticipated. I am seeking, while thanking my

1309
hon. Friend for his efforts with his colleagues in 1966 and 1967, to supplement and strengthen the job that they tried to accomplish.
I hope that in Committee we shall see a willingness by Ministers, who understand the problems, to make the Bill more comprehensible. I hope that a co-operative attitude will develop between Front Bench and Back Bench Members and that favourable consideration will be given to the amendments that I hope to move.
6 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I adopt the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) in saying that we in Wales welcomed the passage of the 1967 Act, which came about largely in response to pressure from Welsh Members. However, as a result of the experience of the workings of the Act, defects have come to light and, after 12 years, they need to be remedied. I echo the view of my hon. Friend that the scope of the Bill should be extended to take account—even before the new housing Bill—of some of the defects.
It is good to return to the House after campaigning for a week on the same platform as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty.
Mr. Kinnock: For three and a half years.
Mr. Anderson: Indeed. For three and a half years we have been up a constitutional cul-de-sac and have been unable to discuss matters such as the Bill which are of more importance to the ordinary people of Wales, unlike the other matter which we discusssed for such a long time and with so little outcome.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) did not applaud the ingenious device that we are concerned about and that he said that he joins the Government in seeking to put an end to the loophole devised by the clever legal advisers behind the property company—in this case the Wrotham Park Estates Ltd. It is difficult for anyone to justify that device.
The hon. Member referred to the wrongness in principle of overriding a decision of the House of Lords after private citizens had "agonised" their way
1310
through the courts. I found that opinion hard to reconcile with the realities of the case where one private citizen, a Mrs. Jones—a person not, apparently, of great substance, judging by the value of the freehold of her property—was embattled against a property company. That company had, by the stroke of a pen, made a bogus arrangement with another interlocking company and thus managed to increase the value of its interest by the factor of 13 to 1—from £300 to £4,000.
That property company could have entered into a series of similar bogus arrangements as a result of which the value for it, and therefore the price that the unfortunate Mrs. Jones would have had to pay, could have increased by an even greater factor than 13 to 1. Presumably, other superior interests could have been created. Each interest could have increased the end price and it would have been put wholly out of reach of Mrs. Jones.
Mr. Rossi: We envisaged that point during the passage of the 1967 Act. It was suggested by the Tory Opposition that Parliament should insist upon a price being found for the total freehold interest and that the price should then be divided between the subsequent subsidiary interests. Parliament in its wisdom, following the guidance of the Government, decided that there should be a separate valuation for each of the subsidiary interests. That gave rise to the problem, as stated by one of the Law Lords in the House of Lords decision.
Mr. Anderson: I am surprised to hear that. I had been led to understand that the problem had not been envisaged during the pasasge of the 1967 Act. I see no objection to apportionment between the several interests, as long as the end price to the tenant is not thereby increased. That would appear to be a fair, normal and reasonable procedure. However, this case was a wholly artificial transaction. The hon. Member for Hornsey did not quite say that he worshipped the sacred rights of property, although he got close to it by appearing to shed tears for the property company—
Mr. Rossi: I am sorry to intervene again. However, I should not like my motivation to be misunderstood. What

1311
troubles me is the constitutional principle and the nature of retrospective legislation. Once the principle is established, we should consider where it takes us.
Finance Acts are passed every year. Time and again the courts have decided that a private citizen may arrange his affairs to get the best advantage for himself. Even though the citizen may find a device that Parliament did not intend, if that device is upheld by the court he is entitled to take advantage of it. Parliament can then close the loophole by a subsequent Finance Act but cannot—and never does—set aside the judgment of the court. We are casting doubt on that principle. That could have constitutional implications that we should not like to ensue.
Mr. Anderson: I ask the hon. Gentleman to think seriously about the road along which he is inviting us to travel. This subject is not on all fours with Revenue legislation, where, traditionally, the courts have said that the Government are fair game and that a private citizen can arrange his financial affairs to emerge with the best financial result. One can distinguish there between the private citizen—the taxpayer—and the Government.
We are talking about the relationship between one private citizen and another. In almost every conceivable case, that is likely to be a property company or someone financially more comfortable than the individual who is applying to purchase the freehold. That is the difference. As a matter of public policy, the courts and the Government should take into account the balance of strength of the parties. I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's speech that Parliament has made a mistake and that we should accept that the property company in its ingenuity should be allowed to get away with it, having expended its money to achieve that result.
I adopt the commentary on this case of Mr. John Parris, the legal correspondent of the Estates Times. He expressed astonishment that the artificial arrangement was sanctioned by the courts when it was clearly designed to frustrate the express will of Parliament. One cried out for the robust common sense of the Master of the Rolls.
I deprecate the narrow legalism which was adopted. That can only add substance
1312
to the claims of those who say that the courts are wholly out of touch with the needs of ordinary people. It was a narrow legalistic decision and I am sure that no hon. Member would seek to defend it. It is difficult to justify on any terms. The only parallel case that I can think of is that of Somma v. Hazelhurst, where the courts similarly accepted the driving of a coach and horses through the Rent Acts by a landlord who granted licences and reserved the right to use rooms for herself. That was an artificial arrangement sanctioned by the courts. I hope that we shall eventually put an end to it.
It is clear that the device with which the Bill seeks to deal is not widespread, but the Government have properly said that they must stop it in order to ensure that the original intentions of the 1967 Act are put into effect. By the passage of the Bill we shall plug only one small gap. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, we shall catch only a gnat, I wish that we had gone for the camel and taken advantage of the Bill to include a number of other matters that need to be dealt with.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the forthcoming housing Bill will take care of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty and myself, but we have not yet seen the Bill and we are towards the end of a Session in which there is considerable congestion in Committee. With the best will in the world, there is considerable doubt about whether a major housing Bill will see the light of day.
There is, therefore, even greater reason for including in this Bill non-contentious aspects of leasehold reform that have a reasonable chance of being accepted by the House. Many of my hon. Friends wish that we had included matters of importance to our constituents in earlier Sessions. We should have dealt with aspects of the tenants' charter, which we have been pressing for over many Sessions but for which there is no room because of the major constitutional issues that were put before the House. We should have spent that time dealing with matters that are of far greater importance and interest to our constituents.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said about missed opportunities. We like to think that it

1313
was largely pressure from Labour Members in South Wales which brought about the 1967 Act, a welcome measure which has reduced misery and brought considerable contentment to our people. The problems that remain are those of expense and delay.
We believe that there should be a specific formula on the basis of that in, say, the Rentcharges Act—though perhaps not a simple mutiplier—to ensure that the value of the freehold is no more than the fixed market price of a property. Otherwise, we could have the ridiculous position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty where the price demanded for a freehold is as much as several thousand pounds, even for smaller properties, in South Wales.
There should be limited costs for the leaseholder in purchasing his freehold and a means of ensuring that delaying devices of ground landlords are no longer available. We know about the possibilities for actions in the county courts but know also of the inhibitions of so many ordinary people in South Wales. Why cannot the Government proceed as speedily as possible with these more informal local valuation courts which would get away from some of the legalism and roguery and some of the expense and delay which bedevil so many of the attempts to purchase leaseholds?
We regret the absence of a Bill with wider scope. We understand some of the legislative reasons for that, the congestion in Committee, and so on, and we appreciate that the Government have chosen to deal immediately with what appears to be the most urgent matter, namely, closing the loophole exposed by one case. However, many other urgent matters affect our constituents and we hope that the Government will note them.
In 1967, a Labour Government began the process of leasehold enfranchisement and met a real demand in South Wales. We hope that, in the light of experience of the 1967 Act, it will be a Labour Government that will continue the process.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. Fred Evans: I welcome the Bill and accept the careful outline given by the Minister and his
1314
strictures, stated and implied, over the Jones case and anything that savours of similar practices.
However, I must say that, in terms of what we in South Wales are concerned about, the Bill is a mouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and I are members of the Cardiff Leasehold Reform Group, and I am glad that my hon. Friend put forward many of the views of that organisation. It was set up in Cardiff, but it has grown spontaneously in many parts of the Welsh valleys since 1969 because people found out early the weaknesses in the 1967 Act. I also recommend all hon. Members to read the excellent report of the Welsh Consumer Council under the able chairmanship of Mrs. Beata Lipman. Any television companies which wish to do a spot on the work of the council may be interested to know that she is also a television personality.
A crying sense of injustice remains in Wales because the cost of translating a freehold into a leasehold is still very high. There are still many cases that could be classified almost as extortion. Friends of mine who are reputable estate agents continually send me examples of such cases. That is the sort of thing that the 1967 Act was supposed to stop.
Many of us tried to influence hon. Members at that time and we said that it was no good telling people that they could acquire a freehold after five years as owner-occupiers if they were to be thrown back on to the open market in order to reach a price for the translation of a leasehold to a freehold.
There have been, and still are, some shocking cases, in spite of all the achievements. Where there were reasonable landlords, the 1967 Act achieved great things, but there are still large areas of weakness.
The pressures for the 1967 Act came very strongly from South Wales, because there we have the peculiar problem of the 99-year lease, which has not operated in most of England. It was our present Speaker who took that measure through the House.
The abuses of the system have been highlighted by the figures we have been given for the sales of the Welsh Consumer Council's pamphlet. People are concerned because the home is their first

1315
item of expenditure. Hon. Members may think that there are more important matters, but for the average person that is the first consideration.
Although I speak as one of the gang of six allegedly opposed to devolution, even as long ago as 1966 I could not see why every district council should not be made an agent of the Lands Tribunal and use its legal resources to handle matters on the spot for the people concerned. It could facilitate the passage of an appeal to the final decision by the tribunal. The legal expertise and facilities are available in the councils, and that would be an admirable thing.
When it was my privilege to pilot the Rentcharges Act 1977 through the House, careful attention was paid to this. It could be an almost over-the-counter matter for the local authorities concerned. All the information is lodged with them, and they could handle the cases.
There is also the question of doing something about the price system. Section 10 of my Act contained a simple arithmetical formula for the redemption of rentcharges. By law, one cannot play about with that. Yet in the matter of leasehold reform we find that people are being told that they have the residential entitlement and so on to acquire the freehold but are then thrown back on to the open market. Those two different attitudes do not add up in anyone's arithmetic.
We understand the reasons why we do not have a composite set of amendments such as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) suggested in his opening speech for the Opposition. Such amendments might have presented the Government with difficulties, and they have enough difficulties at present.
Joking aside, we are at the fag end of a Session and of a Parliament. Therefore, to attempt overall leasehold reform would be a losing battle, although we should have been able to say that this Parliament had made the attempt before it ended.
Similarly, the new housing Bill has little or no chance of reaching the statute book, because of the time element. Therefore, I join in the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that we should do in Committee whatever is
1316
possible on the Bill before us to carry out some of the reforms that we have said are desirable. Then, at least something will have been accomplished. Instead of the Bill's plugging a particular loophole and being a very specialised measure, perhaps ways and means can be found to make it much better in the sense of giving benefits to the people.
Mr. Rossi: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about extending the scope of leasehold reform. I deliberately refrained from making any remarks about that, because I thought from reading the long title that it would not be possible to introduce the kind of amendments that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have advocated. I do not believe that that would be possible in Committee. But if it were they would find that a number of Conservative Members would like to remove altogether the rateable value limits, because it it felt that if enfranchisement is an acceptable principle it should be available to all and not be restricted by an artificial level. We tried to do this in 1967. We were defeated by the Government, who threw out our amendment on Report, but the concept still remains.
6.27 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): In a brief reply to an interesting and important debate I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised.
I welcome the statement by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that he accepts the overall aim of the Bill, which is to close a loophole, and does not seek to frustrate the Government's intentions on that matter.
I well understand why three of my hon. Friends from Wales should have taken part in the debate. Their interest in the peculiar position in Wales and their pressure played a large part in the introduction of the 1967 Act. We have carefully noted their detailed points, but it would be wrong for me to go into them and to anticipate the contents of the housing Bill. I take it that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was volunteering to be a member of the Committees considering both Bills.
Mr. Kinnock: As long as I am paid double-time.
Mr. Armstrong: In spite of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), we intend to introduce the housing Bill, and it will be discussed in the House. I am surprised that he should feel that something will intervene to prevent its becoming an Act.
Mr. Fred Evans: I did not say that the Bill would not be brought before the House. I was referring to its chances of reaching the statute book.
Mr. Armstrong: I assure my hon. Friend that we have every intention of seeing the Bill through. I take the point that was made about the five Acts of Parliament. The truth is that the reason for the Bill is not that the Session is coming to an end but that we want to close a loophole. We want nothing to stand in the way of that.
I remind the House that what we are dealing with is a measure which is designed to make the state of the law what everyone seems agreed was the intention of Parliament that it should have been all along. With that in mind, I should like to read an extract from the judgment of Lord Salmon. He began his speech by making it clear that he agreed that the appeal must be allowed only "with some reluctance". After some factual observations, he went on to say:
"This somewhat odd, possibly unique and certainly ingenious transaction was not a sham; it was a reality. It was, however, admittedly a device to discourage the tenants from acquiring the freehold of their homes by exercising their rights under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967."
Lord Salmon concluded his short speech with the following words, which are relevant to the arguments we have heard today:
" I have no doubt that if it had ever occurred to the legislature that a transaction such as the present might have been devised and put into operation, clear words would have been introduced into the Act, which would preclude such a transaction from affecting the market price which the tenant would have to pay for the freehold of his home. As it is, no such words appear in the Act; and accordingly it contains a gap. It is well settled, however, that the courts have no power to fill in any gap in an Act, even if satisfied that, had the legislature been aware of the gap, it would have filled it in. Accordingly, there is nothing to be done by this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, other than to allow the appeal. It may, however, perhaps be worth consideration in other quarters as to whether the Act should be amended."
1318
The House will agree that Lord Salmon's speech demonstrates, first, a reluctance to allow the appeal, secondly, an acknowledgment that the transaction in question was a device for evading the Act, and, thirdly, the view that the law on this subject might need to be changed.
Those three points are important and relevant, I believe, in considering those aspects of this Bill which could be said to be retrospective. The provisions involved are those which enable leaseholders to reapply to have their freeholds, having already withdrawn one application. The detailed way in which they will operate is not a matter for Second Reading, but the principles involved are.
What we have here is not a Bill which seeks to impose retrospectively a new policy devised for some political reasons. Nor does it attempt, as my right hon. Friend made clear, to interfere with any transactions which have already been completed or require any sums of money to be repaid which have already been paid. All it says is that from the time of coming into operation of this Bill, transactions will take place on the basis on which it was always the intention that they should take place. We are allowing those who have withdrawn their applications because they have been frustrated by this device to make fresh ones, within the five years normally required in such cases, so as to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill.
It took more than five years from the time Mrs. Jones first applied to buy her freehold to the time when the judicial decision in another place finally brought the process of litigation to an end. I am sure that Mrs. Jones suffered a great deal of anxiety during that time, to say nothing of the expense. Therefore, I am sure that it will be agreed that the Government are acting properly in confining this Bill to this issue, because we want to close the loophole.
I hope that the hon. Member for Horney, who quite properly put forward his points of view, will recognise that any delay would put at risk the end of what has been a time of great uncertainty for Mrs. Jones and anyone else in a similar position. In the light of Mrs. Jones's case we decided to act, and we have brought forward this Bill

1319
quickly to remedy the defect in the law as it now exists. In the Government's view, it would be wrong to deprive Mrs. Jones and those in a similar position from the chance of taking advantage of these provisions.
I shall read carefully what the hon. Member for Hornsey said. However, perhaps I might make a quick reply to what he said about the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill will not deprive anyone of his possession. It will, of course, affect the compensation received for it.
With regard to hybridity, I do not know whether there are any other cases. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction was straight with the House about that. But, if there are, obviously the Bill will apply to them. The litigation giving rise to this Bill has gone on for some three years, reports of the judgment will have been seen by many people, and it is quite likely that others will have tried to create arrangements of a similar kind, although my Department has no details at present.
Those are the reasons why the Bill takes the form that it does. I do not believe that it makes any kind of unfortunate constitutional precedent to introduce a Bill of this kind to deal with the effect on the law of one decision in the courts or to make it apply to all transactions which have not been concluded by the date of enactment.
I conclude by commending this measure to the House as embodying a useful and timely reform.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)
6.36 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom Pendry): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.
This order will be made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and is the first of the 1979 cycle of orders which will make available the funds required for the services of Northern Ireland Departments.
The order serves to appropriate not only the published spring Supplementary Estimates for 1978–79 but also the sums required on account for 1979–80. These latter sums are intended to keep Northern Ireland Departments in funds until after the 1979–80 main Estimates have been published and Parliament has approved the appropriation of the balance of the funds required.
I should like to deal first with the spring Supplementary Estimates, in which a total additional provision of some £61 million is being sought. This sum, together with the main Estimates provision of £1,299 million, the summer Supplementary Estimates provision of £33 million and the autumn Supplementary Estimates provision of £129 million approved by the House during 1978, brings the total sought for 1978–79 to £1,522 million. The comparable figure for 1977–78 was £1,318 million. The cash limited element of the £1,522 million total is within the approved cash limit for voted expenditure by the Northern Ireland Departments. The sum being sought is also consistent with the approved public expenditure allocations.
The services for which the additional funds now being sought are required are set out in part I of the schedule to this order and more detailed information may be found in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume, copies of which are available to right hon. and hon. Members in the Library. I should, however, like to draw attention to some of the main items in the order.

1321
In class I, vote 3, some £2 million is required for the meat industry employment scheme. The total provision now sought reflects known variations in green exchange rates, fluctuations in the rates of payments and a greater throughput of animals.
Class II, vote 1, which provides for industrial support and regeneration, also shows an additional requirement of £2 million, of which more than half relates to capital expenditure by the local enterprise development unit. This additional sum has become necessary because of an increase in the volume of applications received and in the level of assistance offered. A further £3 million is being sought in class II, vote 5, to assist the functioning of the labour market. Of this, £2 million is required to provide for benefits under the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, and £1 million to cater for increased uptake of temporary employment subsidy.
An additional £6 million is being sought for the roads service to cover pay and price increases and an extension of the resurfacing programme for the main road network in Northern Ireland. It is expected that this will help maintain employment in the quarrying section of the construction industry and at the same time help to prolong the life of the roads in question.
A further £3 million will be needed in class IV, vote 2, for expenditure on transport services, mainly for the railway system. Additional track laying by Northern Ireland railways is being carried out as part of an employment package and this, together with increases in the cost of rolling stock, accounts for £2 million of the increased provision being sought on this Vote.
In class VI, vote 1, water and sewerage services, an increase of £3 million is being asked for. This arises primarily from pay and price increases throughout the vote, in particular on new construction for the water services and on the operation and maintenance of both the water and sewerage services.
There is an additional requirement of £8 million in class VIII, vote 4, for grants to the education and library boards. This arises mainly because of pay and price increases and the creation of more
1322
employment opportunities in the education and allied services following the Secretary of State's announcement in March 1978 of additional job creation measures in the public sector.
In class IX, vote 1, an additional provision of £23 million is being sought for expenditure on health and personal social services. This increase is required mainly to meet the pay awards and price increases experienced by the health and social services boards. There has also been some increase in the cost of the hospital building programme, pharmaceutical services, remuneration of medical and dental practitioners, and an increased demand for some services.
The major decreases in the present provision are in class IV, vote 2, where there has been some delay in the development programme for aerodrome undertakings—in class V, vote 1, where payments to housing associations have been less than expected; in class VI, vote 1, where there have been some land acquisition problems and design delays on the provision of sewerage services; and in class VIII, vote 4, where the transfer from the education and library boards to the Department of Education of responsibility for paying grants to voluntary grammar schools has resulted in a reduced requirement.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister has given the House some interesting and important details of underspending. As he is aware, these do not appear in the presented documents. As they are important, I wonder if he might find some way on future occasions, perhaps a day or two beforehand, of circulating the figures he intends to give to hon. Members interested in these matters. One would obviously wish to be aware of them in advance, as is the case with the figures in the Estimates and the order.
Mr. Pendry: I will look into that matter very closely.
I turn now to the sums required on account for 1979–80. As in previous years, these have been calculated on the same basis as that used for United Kingdom Departments—that is, they represent 45 per cent. of the total Estimates provision for the current financial year, except where the expected needs in 1979–80 differ substantially from 1978–79. The total sum sought on account is £663

1323
million and details are provided in part II of the schedule to the draft order.
Those are the principal features of the draft order to which I wish to draw the House's attention. I should, however, like to indicate to hon. Members where matters stand on the important question of energy. The internal review—involving Departments in London as well as Belfast—which the Government have been conducting has been completed. A document setting out the main considerations is now being prepared and will be ready before the Easter Recess. It will, of course, be made available to Members of Parliament as well as being distributed more generally and at that stage there will also be a Government statement in Parliament. The Government will be happy to co-operate in the making of appropriate arrangements for debate through the usual channels.
Although I have covered only the main points of the draft order, I shall, of course, try to answer any questions which right hon. and hon. Members may raise during the debate. If, for any reason, I am unable to do so, I shall note the points and write to the right hon. or hon. Member concerned. I commend this draft order to the House.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: We do not oppose this order. But we are asked to approve very large sums. The Under-Secretary will expect me to ask a number of questions. I support the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in his call for more details beforehand, particularly in cases of underspending. These matters are important to hon. Members concerned with the interests of Northern Ireland.
In the context of this order, I should like to refer briefly to the prospects for the Northern Ireland economy and go on to more detailed matters contained in the various classes. I begin with the report by the central economic service of the Department of Finance to invite a short discussion on the prospects for the Northern Ireland economy. In his foreword to the report, the Secretary of State says:
" While these initiatives—that is attracting American investment and the new job promotions—will have a beneficial impact, there remain serious underlying economic and social problems to which there are no easy solutions."
1324
Since we are approving very large sums, which we do not dispute, we must discuss the matter. I think the Minister will agree that the report itself contains little comfort for the Northern Ireland people. It points to 10·9 per cent. unemployment, to £30·40 supplementary benefit per head of the population and to lower average weekly earnings and labour activity rates than the rest of the United Kingdom.
The third section of the report, entitled "Looking ahead", refers to the forecasts for employment until the 1981 projection. One sees that the change in the construction industry will be a decline of 6,000 jobs, in manufacturing and mining a decline of 9,000 jobs, but an increase in services of 11,000 jobs. Public sector employment is expected to rise by that figure, partly reflecting, according to the report the financial reallocation announced early in 1978. I view this with some anxiety. It seems to show further dependence on the public sector. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on that point. It is of some relevance to what we are discussing.
More important, perhaps, is the fact that no economic strategy for Northern Ireland emerges from the report, nor has it done so during the last two or three years. We on this side and hon. Members in all parts of the House have continually asked what is the overall strategy for the Northern Ireland economy. The Government, in their introduction to this report, simply reaffirm their objectives of economic growth, higher employment, better employment and social progress. No one can dispute that those are worthy objectives. How will they be achieved by policies which have failed elsewhere in the United Kingdom? The Minister must say a little on this matter. The same weaknesses, although not as serious as in Northern Ireland, appear in the north-east of Great Britain. That is referred to in the report of the Central Economic Service.
The Northern Ireland Office is tied, I suppose, to an economic policy that has done little or nothing to increase economic growth in Great Britain, certainly not productivity. Unemployment in the last few years has not been improved by those policies. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), in an important

1325
speech in our last debate on appropriation on 11 December, said:
" Northern Ireland will have no future if the effort is concentrated on creating enterprises to take in each other's washing."—[Official Report, 11 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 126.]
I was very much impressed by those remarks. The right hon. Gentleman said that the need was to concentrate on new technologies. I would like to hear the reaction of the Government to those comments. We need a more wide-ranging debate on these matters. They are relevant to this order.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the De Lorean project. We in the Conservative Party have always made clear that special measures of support for industry are needed in Northern Ireland. However, we have always laid stress on the need to choose projects capable of a fair profit in return for United Kingdom taxpayers' contribution. Three weeks ago, I visited the site at Dunmurry of the De Lorean factory and spoke to the staff there. The potential importance to local employment in West Belfast of this scheme for producing high performance sports cars for the American market needs no emphasis from me, but I do not have sufficient knowledge on a number of points. For instance, why is the European market not being surveyed? It is a question I asked during my visit.
The fact that these questions are being asked does not mean that we are knocking the project. The site of the factory is being cleared—it is not reaching completion, as the Minister said in our last debate—and a building certainly has been erected where training is due to begin. Nevertheless, I felt that the executive who spoke to me was a little optimistic in stating that this sports car, designed and in production, would be launched with 1,000 units next year, 1980. That may be so, but the factory is not due to be completed until early 1980.
In our last debate, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), the Under-Secretary gave the figure of
" £28·5 million as grants towards the cost of factory construction, plant, machinery and equipment ".—[Official Report, 11 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 181.]
The total capital expenditure, including the company's contribution to the factory
1326
construction, is as yet unknown to me. I have been trying to obtain that information from the company.
There is obviously a good deal of information that the House should know. The Conservative Party has therefore invited Mr. De Lorean and his colleagues to a meeting so that we can discuss these matters and brief ourselves. I am glad to say that they have accepted. I am conscious of the employment and social problems of West Belfast, but we need to ask legitimate questions at this stage of the project.
I did not take part in the debate on energy on 11 December, and that is the next subject to which I should like to refer. The Under-Secretary referred to a Government review. When will there be a statement about energy policy, and what is the position with regard to the proposed gas pipeline which was thoroughly discussed on 11 December?
My own feeling is that one of the results of delaying a wider review of energy policy is that the gas industry will be left in a precarious position. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) made it clear in December what the position of the gas industry was. Is the Government's decision to support the Northern Ireland Electricity Service to the tune of £350 million part of their general energy policy? What exactly is that policy in Northern Ireland? We were told at the time that there was too much electricity capacity in the Province—2,025 megawatts—and that many more consumers are therefore required. How do the Government intend to deal with this problem of excess supply?
This could be complicated still further on completion of the remaining units of the Kilroot power station. I must declare an interest in Kilroot since a group of companies in Great Britain of which I am a director has a contract for part of its construction. Kilroot is due to come on stream some time in the early 1980s, I understand, but I should like to hear more about how the crucial question of electricity supply will be handled by the Government and what their total policy is.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council, as we were told in the last debate, wants to spread the load over United Kingdom consumers generally. Northern

1327
Ireland, as we all agree, is part of the United Kingdom. The council wants to do this by the integration of the NIES with the CEGB. It would also like links re-established with the Republic, so that supplies from the Province can be accepted there.
The hon. Member for Armagh reminded the House of this in an interesting speech on 11 December. It would be valuable to know the Government's view of this suggestion about reviving an inter-connector system for electricity supply.
I am conscious of the acute difficulties facing the Government because of the competition among these various fuel interests, but I am sure that many of their problems are caused by the delay in presenting a general energy policy for Northern Ireland. We have been waiting for this for a long time. Some action has to be taken to reconcile those interests in a region where costs, especially of gas and electricity, hit the consumer far harder than they hit consumers in Great Britain.
As usual in these debates, I should like to refer to expenditure by the Department of Education and Science, which comes under class VIII. On 11 December, I said that the Government did not appear to realise the strength of parental feeling in the Province against some of their reorganisation schemes. Since then, I have read a speech by Lord Melchett in Londonderry on 2 March at the INTO conference. That speech seems to show a somewhat less intransigent attitude.
Dealing with the Government's aim of abolishing selection, the noble Lord said, according to the press release:
" The Government set out all the options we could think of in our consultative paper, but we have no fixed views and we have come to no firm decisions."
I was surprised at that after the long controversy on this matter. No doubt the noble Lord was trying indirectly to placate a union which wished to have comprehensive education introduced more rapidly than is being done at the moment, but he said nothing about the views of parents, what the children needed or even the views of teachers at the "chalkface." He referred only to the views of the union, as I understand it.
1328
Over the past few months, the Conservative Party has consulted many people connected with education in Northern Ireland. We find that there is no wish for total reorganisation. The great demand is to leave the good schools alone to prosper. That is our impression from talking to people at various levels in education, including parents and children.
The noble Lord also said that "the Government is committed" to secondary reorganisation. They may be, but the people of Northern Ireland are not; and there is no legislative basis on which it can be imposed on the Province. I repeat this, as I have repeated it several times from this Box. Therefore, the statements which are being made on behalf of the Government are simply bluff.
The Government want their working parties to come up with the right answer I do not know whether they will. The area boards referred to in class VIII have been instructed to produce plans for comprehensive reorganisation. I would therefore remind the House again, first that there is no legal obligation whatever upon the area boards to produce such proposals and, second, that if these proposals are produced they should be carefully costed and we should be fully informed of the results.
The South-Eastern area board has already said that it will not be producing plans for the total reorganisation of its area. Others may do the same. The return of a Conservative Government will put a stop to compulsory reorganisation by ministerial speeches and orations.
Mr. James Kilfedder: As the hon. Gentleman is dealing with assurances about what the next Conservative Government would do, will he assure the House that that Government will end religious segregation in education in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Neave: I will not go as far as that at this stage. I can deal only with compulsory reorganisation, I think. Segregation is a very complicated matter and I should not like to deal with that by giving assurances off the cuff. What I can say is that we shall not have compulsory reorganisation by ministerial statement rather than by legislative action. I hope that we shall create conditions in which

1329
schools will evolve to meet the needs of the children and the wishes of parents. We hope also that a variety of schools will emerge, some of them technical.
Finally, I wish to deal with expenditure on housing services, which comes under class V. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will also deal with housing services.
We welcome the plans of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to sell 54,000 houses to tenants. That seems to me to recognise the strong attachment of Northern Ireland people to home ownership. That is a point of view that we fully support. The housing council has called for an extension of the executive's present plans, and I hope that where there are no insuperable practical difficulties as many of the executive's tenants as possible will be given the opportunity to buy their own homes.
Many of the regional and district problems that we shall discuss tonight demonstrate the need to make better political progress. They demonstrate the need, too, for a political forum in. Northern Ireland. It is now very necessary for both communities to look afresh with their political representatives at their situations and to begin once again to search for new elected representative institutions. These should exercise powers over many of the areas which form the subject of our debate tonight.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has put forward some pertinent points about education. I wish to add only two questions to those that my hon. Friend posed to the Treasury Bench. They relate to the speech of Lord Melchett to the all-Ireland teachers union and to Lord Melchett's activities. Lord Melchett said that four reports from his working parties are with the printers and will be published
" certainly before the end of this month ".
I should like to know whether we shall have access to copies of these reports and, more important, whether the people of Northern Ireland will be able to comment upon them, and whether those comments will be heeded.
1330
The Education Bill, which covers England and Wales, is now in Committee. It has already been substantially amended, and no doubt further amendments will be made. What recognition does the Northern Ireland Office give to the Bill? Does the Under-Secretary consider that England and Wales legislation has any relevance to Northern Ireland, and is Lord Melchett fully informed of what is going on in England and Wales?
I wish to devote my main remarks to tourism and transport services. This debate takes place on the morrow of the unearthing of a bomb factory of terrible potential. I hope it is not beyond the rules of order for me to say how warmly we wish to congratulate the security forces on their achievement. Terrorism will not be vanquished in Northern Ireland unless loyalists and separatists alike are convinced of the impregnability of the Union which is the democratic will, while it remains the democratic will.
Our fellow subjects in the Province who have suffered so much, so bravely and for so long are naturally prone to fears and to feelings of isolation from the mainland of the kingdom. These feelings and fears mount with every increase in air fares and with every sign of deterioration in transport services between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Economic Council, presided over by Sir Charles Carter, has produced a document containing a statement of views on air passenger services. In the statement the council describes air travel as
" The essential artery of business travel ".
Of course, air travel is also fundamental to a reviving and hopeful tourist trade, which is covered by class 11(1) of the order.
I have raised at Question Time the subject of the high cost of travel between the mainland and Belfast and have had not very informative replies from the Department of Trade. Last month a petition was submitted by the Northern Ireland Council of the European Movement, in which the Rt. Hon. Roy Bradford, formerly the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce, takes much interest, to the committees on regional policy, regional planning and transport of the European Parliament—I prefer to call it the European Assembly. The petition recalled

1331
that a delegation from the committee visited the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in May 1974. The committee's chairman, Mr. James Hill, reported his concern at the regional problems of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was compared with Sardinia and Corsica, regions of Italy and France, respectively, where economic development is held back by geographical isolation.
The petition requests a specific subsidy on air fares in order to bring them down on the London-Belfast route. I would not agree with that, at least until I was satisfied that air services were being operated with the fullest efficiency. The Northern Ireland Economic Council, while finding no evidence that British Airways' fares discriminate against the Northern Ireland traveller, yet asserts that
" British Airways cost efficiency is lower, and therefore its fares are higher, than is desirable."
It is no secret that British Airways is overmanned. Moreover, the cowardly decision that air crews should not risk spending the night in a province to which their airline doubtless wishes to attract tourists is costly as well as contemptible, and I have seen mentioned the figure of £750,000 a year.
It is perhaps on the credit side that the airline now gives a number of concessions to particular categories of passenger. The corporation has learned a costly lesson in this, because in 1975–76 it removed fare concessions and in consequence traffic and income declined. As a result, fares were raised to stem the loss, and that meant that, in 1977 some 250,000 passengers were lost to the airline. This experience surely has a bearing on the threatened further increase of fares. So has the fact that the Heathrow-Aldergrove shuttle is now making money, as are British Airways services between Aldergrove and Manchester and Birmingham respectively. Losses are still being made on the services between Belfast and Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Bristol and Cardiff. But it is on the London-Belfast service that the Northern Ireland Council of the European Movement wants to bestow a subsidy. The case for that does not seem to me to be made out. It would be interesting, instructive and probably forceful to have the comments of Mr.
1332
Freddie Laker on the request for higher fares and for subsidies.
More competition would be beneficial. Those in this House who travel to and fro share with thousands of our fellow citizens a debt to British Midland Airways, which started to supply an urgent need in 1974. British Midland Airways security checks have been less tiresome than those of British Airways and have not proved less effective, and many of us have found higher standards of comfort and courtesy.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council notes
" with some surprise that a Northern Ireland controlled airline of some dimensions has not emerged in recent years. Certainly the Province would benefit from the expansion of locally based aviation activities. The interests of Northern Ireland would probably be advanced by some guarded degree of freedom and more competition in British civil aviation."
The statement of the Northern Ireland Economic Council and also the petition from the Northern Ireland Council of the European Movement declare that it is high time that there was a direct non-stop service to Europe. Air Anglia, a Norwich-based company, applied last December to the Civil Aviation Authority for an Amsterdam-Belfast service. Last week that application was rejected. However, there seems to be a good case for a day return service, operating morning and evening, which could be of particular benefit to business people. I am not making any comment on the merits of a particular application or a particular company—I am not competent to do that. That is the job of the Civil Aviation Authority.
I wonder how Ulster's voice is made audible to the Civil Aviation Authority? Who is entitled to be recognised as an objector? Who is entitled to appear, from the Northern Ireland standpoint, at public hearings of the Civil Aviation Authority? I am told that the only organisations entitled to attend as objectors are Northern Ireland Railways and the Northern Ireland Airports Authority. They are not exactly disinterested parties.
In this matter the Northern Ireland Economic Council says that it is prepared
" to offer its services as a proponent of the regional interest ".

1333
I wonder whether the Minister has any comment to make about that. The economic council also wants to enlarge the functions of the transport users' consultative committee for the ventilation of travellers' comments on air and related services. I know little or nothing about that committee and I should be glad to have particulars of it from the Under-Secretary of State. There is no mention of the transport users' consultative committee in the Ulster Yearbook.
Much of what I have put forward concerns the Department of Transport. Is there a close liaison between the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Transport? It is, however, for the Northern Ireland Office to answer to Parliament for aerodromes. I do not share in the general condemnation of Aldergrove. One gets a friendy welcome there, yet many who use Ulster's principal airport speak of overcrowding, insufficient amenities and the security searches. I would hesitate to complain about this last issue, but what exactly is intended for the development of Aldergrove?
I am glad to note that the Northern Ireland Economic Council wants improvements at Eglinton. Schemes are afoot for the development of St. Angelo, with consequences for the tourist trade, for Londonderry and for its hinterland in Donegal. There is surely scope for more fishing parties and others bound for Fermanagh to fly direct to Enniskillen. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) will forgive me for mentioning his constituency in his absence. I am sure that Ministers are considering all these ideas, and they will, I trust, be in the closest communication with their colleagues in the Department of Transport.
I make one last reference to tourism. Perhaps the largest single fillip the tourist industry could be given would be the selection of Belfast as the centre for the Commonwealth Games of 1986. According to a survey by the Northern Ireland Sports Council, it would cost £15 million to provide the necessary facilities. Has any estimate been made of the countervailing tourist revenue that the games would attract? Are the Government encouraging or discouraging an application from the Belfast city council? I
1334
understand that a decision must soon be made.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Minister's announcement of the early publication of the document on energy policy in Northern Ireland. We welcome even more his announcement that there will be a Government statement, presumably to coincide with the publication of that document. We hope that that Government statement will give a clear indication of the Government's view on the various aspects. I have no doubt that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will return to this point.
I confine my remarks to vote 4D. I shall examine the references in reverse order. We may assume that most of the provision in sub-head D is earmarked for Belfast airport, although the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has referred to two other airports in the west of the Province.
Obviously, an airport is an installation which would be of little use if it existed by itself. Its importance lies in its linkage with other airports. In order to ensure that the sum of approximately £3¼ million is put to the best possible use, we have to satisfy ourselves that the linkage is designed to exploit to the full the facilities proposed for Belfast airport.
We must look first at the influences which tend to restrict the growth of air traffic. It is a mistake to imagine that the volume cannot be increased. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest has said, undoubtedly the first inhibiting influence is the high cost of the fare from Belfast to London. It is a staggering burden for a passenger travelling at his own expense and not on a Government warrant or an expense account. It is no answer for British Airways to say that passengers can shop around and take advantage of standby and excursion fares. The reality is that the need usually coincides with the peak holiday periods. The advantage is consequently reduced because of long delays and hardship, which are increased by the security arrangements. One can be impounded for a whole day as a standby passenger. Once one has checked in, one cannot be released from bondage.

1335
By common consent, the £70 fare was excessive, but now we have the threat—I hope that it is only a threat—of an increase of a further £4. All this is in a year when British Airways is expected to make a profit of £2 million on the Belfast to London route. I am very glad that it is showing a profit; long may it continue. But, in fairness, should not some of the benefit be given back the customer?
The passenger on the Belfast route is entitled to a lower fare than his counterpart on the London-Glasgow or London-Edinburgh service. It would be foreign to my nature, and contrary to the policies of my party, if I were to advocate a subsidy, but it will perhaps encourage the hon. Member for Epping Forest to know that there is already a real and legitimate subsidy in the element of air freight.
I may be mistaken, but I have never yet observed air freight being loaded on a Glasgow or Edinburgh shuttle aircraft, whereas we have all seen air freight—not passenger baggage—being loaded on the Belfast aircraft. I have no doubt that such an air freight service benefits the people of Northern Ireland. I am glad that the capacity is used to the full. However, no one imagines that British Airways provides such a freight service out of the goodness of its heart. The airline ensures that it is well rewarded for that service. Surely passengers are entitled to a reduction in fare because of the delays which are occasioned by the operation of a combined passenger and freight service. Delays have been running at an average of 30 minutes for the past few months.
On a recent flight to Belfast, a frank and truthful captain apologised for the 35 minutes' delay and, for the first time in my hearing, said that the cause was that there had been "a lot of bulky freight to load." I suggest that passengers who are prepared to tolerate with fortitude such delays should be rewarded with a reduction rather than an increase in air fares.
I understand that British Midland Airways has applied for a licence to operate between Belfast and Heathrow. I believe that that application has not yet been granted. For understandable reasons, British Airways is not keen on that proposal. Its reasons might be understandable, but we do not endorse them. British Airways claims that it has won back
1336
passengers to the Heathrow route. It can have won them back only from Gatwick, because Gatwick is less convenient for domestic passengers. Security attitudes at Gatwick might also have an effect.
It is true that British Midland Airways is more flexible in its attitude to security, but the same cannot be said of the police authorities, whoever they might be. It is always difficult to find out who controls them. One has the impression that they regard everyone who sets a foot on or off an aircraft bound for Belfast as a potential terrorist. They do not take much trouble to conceal that attitude, and it should be discouraged.
The Home Secretary gave me an undertaking that this situation would be examined and that improvements would be made. I must be fair to the Home Secretary and Lord Shackleton. Improvements did take place, but there is room for further improvement. I hope that we shall see further improvements soon.
I return to the question of the application by British Midland Airways. British Airways estimates that passenger volume will increase by about 30,000 in the next year. Will those passengers be taken from the Gatwick route? I believe that that is unlikely. Why, then, does British Airways object to a rival on the same route to provide for an increase in the volume of traffic? I believe that that figure of 30,000 is an underestimate. A rival service on the Belfast-Heathrow route would not harm British Airways. But it would certainly benefit Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland should not be expected to remain vulnerable to the huffs and puffs and tantrums of a greatly inflated airways staff at Heathrow. In that respect, Northern Ireland is at a disadvantage compared with Glasgow, for example, where there is an alternative airline, a good road service and an inter-city rail link. Northern Ireland has none of these.
I am convinced that British Airways staff would derive much benefit and satisfaction from the increased efficiency which would result from healthy competition. The experience of my hon. Friends and myself is that things have improved markedly this week. Perhaps events are casting their shadows. I have never before seen the hand baggage being delivered before the passengers are

1337
screened for security and enter the building. It is not uncommon for hand baggage to disappear to a completely different terminal.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Today at Aldergrove airport the passengers were put on to the standby aircraft and the pilot was rushed over from the plane which had just come in so that there would be no delay.
Mr. Molyneaux: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman implies any criticism of the British Airways staff at Aldergrove, because they are responsible for making up the time lost at Heathrow by the speed that they can turn the Tridents round and put them back in the air. The bungling in the operations at Heathrow causes the trouble.
It is infuriating to hear the captain say, as one is over Birmingham, that there is a strong tail wind and that if traffic control is right one can expect to arrive 10 minutes early. Then, having arrived 10 minutes early, one is told that there is a delay because it is not possible to get the steps out to the aircraft. One then sees in the distance a group of British Airways staff—different grades, not to mention different races—holding an animated committee meeting to decide who will bring out the steps.
That does not happen at Aldergrove. When one lands at Aldergrove, all the service vehicles surround the aircraft before the engines are switched off. It might be a good idea if a back-up aircraft were to be filled with Heathrow staff and taken to Aldergrove so that they can see how their chums work there. They would learn much. I hope that this increased alertness and punctuality at Heathrow will be maintained. I hope that the level of efficiency of British Airways staff at Aldergrove will be reached at Heathrow.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest touched upon a delicate subject. I have a reputation for rushing in where angels fear to tread. I hope that we shall soon consider the possibility of establishing another link from Belfast to a convenient railhead in Great Britain. There would be no sense in suggesting a tthird rival to the Belfast-London service. But there is scope for getting people quickly and
1338
cheaply to the mainland where they can be linked with the inter-city rail network.
That is a subject which is dear to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It would be a great advantage for people from Northern Ireland to be able to travel to cities on the mainland in the same day. That would not compete with the existing service and in a short time there would be a rapid expansion in that traffic. I hope that this matter will be considered and that assistance will be given when the time comes.
We have a responsibility to examine the security aspect.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Member recall the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) at Banbridge about different forms of transport between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Will the right hon. Member for Down, South explain how the discussions with British Rail are proceeding?
Mr. Molyneaux: No, I do not propose to cover that, but I shall use what influence I have with my right hon. Friend and perhaps incite him to deal with the subject if he catches the eye of the Chair later.
I turn now to what might be called aspects of flight security as distinct from ground security. First, I must ask the Minister whether he can give any indication of how long it is proposed to perpetuate the hand baggage farce. At one point in discussions with various Ministers my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South and I felt that we were approaching a solution to the problem of the present system which discriminates against men. We had suggested that the measures could be relaxed to permit business men and others to take on board a document case as distinct from a briefcase, and I think that the sheer logic of our argument on those occasions was beginning to take effect. Unfortunately, however, some faceles security adviser or advisers slammed that door.
We then asked why a slim document case should be considered far more deadly than the bulky handbags carried by women passengers. The answer was startling. It was said that those concerned were not happy about handbags,

1339
but the Government could not have resisted what was called the social outcry which would have resulted from a ban on women's handbags. So there it is. Handbags, it is said, are a menace and defeat the whole object of the exercise, but we have to show that we mean business so we shall take it out on mere men—the hope presumably being that mere men would not object. I have to warn the experts that if they insist on this nonsense, the mere men will not tolerate it much longer and they will not willingly put up with what they now know to be a sham.
Any reasonable person will accept that it is intolerable that the business man should be deprived of documents on which he would otherwise be able to work during a flight, then be deprived of those documents while waiting during what may be a lengthy period on a delayed flight, and then be deprived in the same way at the other end when he seeks, sometimes in vain, to retrieve his belongings on arrival.
It is not clear from the reference to the grant towards security expenses whether that sum includes any of the cost of providing a Trident to fly the British Airways crews to Glasgow. This has already been touched on by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. That operation, I understand, takes place every night. I cannot believe that the British taxpayer, in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, would willingly foot the bill for about £800,000 a year to provide what can only be termed a "yellow taxi" to rescue crews from imaginary dangers and to take them to safe lodging elsewhere. It is really a monstrosity.
If British Airways is itself meeting the staggering expense, it has a duty and a responsibility to instil some degree of realism into the very few crews—it does not apply to all—who make such ridiculous demands. I feel that it is a reflection on British airmanship, whether military or civil, to insist that perhaps getting on for £1 million should be wasted on arrangements to ensure that aircrews are protected from the minor risks which are faced by all citizens of the United Kingdom, in all parts of the kingdom.
Under vote 4, sub-head D2, a sum is provided for security works. We have no means of telling what is the element of
1340
cost represented by Service men involved in precautions which, in our opinion, are far from sensible and which appear to be designed to inflict the maximum hardship and inconvenience on the public.
I can remember a former Minister repudiating an argument which I had put at a meeting in Belfast when he was surrounded by his advisers. He said "Tut, tut, you cannot have had that kind of delay. It is impossible. You could not have been delayed so long that you missed your flight. It is just not on." I managed to get over that evening and met the Minister in the corridor here the following day. He said "Jim, you were right yesterday. Three of my civil servants got stuck in the checkpoint and did not get here until this morning." I think that he was even more irritated because they had with them a brief with which he was to be equipped for a Committee meeting in the morning. I say at once that it was not the Home Secretary who inspired that comment. I hasten to point out that he was not the culprit.
I wish next to make clear that, quite apart from the inconvenience and hardship as well as all the delay and frustration which is caused, the cul-de-sac concept—for the uninitiated, I should explain that this is the idea of having one entry and exit point for the entire airport—has in my opinion been simply asking for trouble. Thank goodness, the terrorists have been very slow to spot the weakness, but spot it they did last week. They discovered that the entire airport could be sealed off for many hours with only a hoax bomb. No one needs TNT, dynamite or anything else; all that is needed is a cardboard box and a couple of bricks. That does the job.
On this occasion we were lucky, but I am afraid that only a super-optimist would imagine that the operation will not be repeated. In fact, there is another far more serious weakness in the system which, I am thankful to say, the terrorists have not yet spotted, and it is not my intention tonight to help them to identify that loophole.
I come now to what is in terms of air safety a serious aspect of last week's operation. Some time after the alarm was given, it was decided, apparently, to take the obvious step to relieve the traffic which had built up, with a queue some

1341
four or five miles long by then. We had three streams of traffic. There was that intending to enter the airport. There was quite a different stream going roughly from Craigavon to the north of the Province, and yet another stream going to the south of the Province, with containers to the port of Larne. They were all mixed up in a fearful state of chaos.
Someone decided that the situation could be relieved—I do not find fault with the decision—by opening up the blocked-off section of what is known as the Tully Road. This should have been a matter of turning a key in a lock and swinging a heavy barrier aside. But it did not work out that way. Some say that the key was lost. Others say that the key broke in the lock. Others claim that the lock itself was rusted. Whatever the cause, the fact is that a period of 65 minutes elapsed before the fire brigade men could be summoned to use their cutting apparatus to open a way through that security barrier.
Hon. Members ought to be made aware that that barrier and other similar barriers were placed around the airport on the insistence of the airline pilots themselves, apparently on the ground that if the roads were left open someone might be naughty enough to discharge a popgun in the path of an incoming aircraft. As I understand it, on the other hand, air safety regulations are such that aircraft are not permitted to use, and will not use, an airport where the safety coverage and emergency service are not considered to be fully adequate.
Through the Minister, I ask those crews who insisted that the airport should be boxed in whether they are aware that in the event of an accident they would have to take jolly good care to ensure that they crashed on the right side of the barrier—unless, of course, they were prepared to remain in their hot seats for up to 65 minutes until the rescue and fire services could reach them.
The Minister's colleague, the Minister of State who has had responsibility for these matters for some years, will remember that during a conference with the security advisers present I asked for, and received, an undertaking and assurance that in no circumstances would emergency
1342
services be delayed in the event of an accident at Aldergrove.
Very foolishly, I accepted that assurance. I ought to have known from experience that accidents become disasters, because everyone takes for granted the theory rather than the reality. In the face of what I now know, I cannot remain silent. I am duty bound to tell the authorities, the air crews, the airlines and, most of all, the passengers that lives are put at risk every day that we permit the existence of arrangements which were mistakenly thought to provide protection but which are in reality a far greater menace than the risk they were meant to remove.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Initially I wish to address myself to class VIII, vote 3, of the order. You might be tempted to wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the relationship between the discovery of arms this morning in Short Strand, Belfast, class VIII and a magazine produced in the Republic of Ireland. Before too long, I hope to establish that those three items are seriously interrelated.
Some time ago an article was produced in a magazine called "The Crane Bag" which is published in Dublin. It took the form of an interview with Seamus Twomey, who is described in the magazine as
" Army Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA."
The interview proceeds on a ludicrous basis. There is no attempt to put this murderer on the spot. There is no attempt to induce some kind of shame or remorse. Instead, an opportunity is given for him to ventilate his jaundiced views and perverse objectives. That is bad enough. But the startling fact about this magazine which carried that interview with Seamus Twomey is that it is financed by the Northern Ireland Arts Council.
We have a position when a murderer—a terrorist, a wanted man in part of the United Kingdom—is interviewed and his views are propagated throughout Ireland, North and South, at the expense of the British taxpayer. It is not too difficult to see the relationship between this lunacy and the discovery of arms in Short Strand this morning. What is the point in the

1343
Army and the RUC exercising surveillance over the terrorist bases in Northern Ireland—with notable success as we have heard—when, indirectly, the British Government allow British taxpayers' money to be used to engender support for the IRA and to replenish the resources of the Provisional IRA?
Nothing less than a demand for a surcharge to be levied on all the members of the Northern Ireland Arts Council will eradicate this nonsense to which our Province is exposed, along with the whole of the British nation. Nothing less than a surcharge levied on the members of the Arts Council will show that the British Government will no longer allow such contradictions. I ask the Under-Secretary to raise this matter immediately with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to seek to make the Northern Ireland Arts Council in some way responsible for the financing of that article. I also ask that the Arts Council should be severely censured for its action and that steps should be taken to make sure that never again is United Kingdom money spent in such a ludicrous way.
We believe that the work done by the Army and the RUC will be somewhat tarnished when the people of the Province discover that taxpayers' money is funding such action, with the indirect help of the Government. The Government have time to redeem themselves and they must do so if we are to take seriously their comments about eradicating terrorism and violence in the Province.
I turn now to class IX of the order. Almost everyone who is serious about employment and industry in the Province realises that there is going on there what is called "the double". In other words, people are claiming unemployment benefit although they are working. There is one industry in which this practice is more prevalent than any other. I refer to the construction industry. I ask the Under-Secretary to take seriously the complaints which have been channelled to him through Members of Parliament and interested bodies in the Province. I have conveyed to his noble Friend a number of names. This evening I shall give some further information, submitted by two construction companies in the Province. I shall not name them; that would be stupid. I ask the Minister to take seriously the comments which they
1344
make, and the detailed information contained in the documentation which I shall convey to him later this evening.
Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government intend to take in the near future to remedy this drain on resources? It is bad enough when law-abiding people have to pay debts, which they did not incur, by way of an addition to their electricity bills. It is scandalous that the Government should allow this practice whereby people who are working claim unemployment benefit. We do not believe that this is an isolated matter. We believe that it is far more prevalent than the Northern Ireland Office cares to admit. We ask the Minister to undertake a detailed examination of the problem with a view to eradicating it as quickly as possible.
I refer now to class II. The Minister who is responsible for industry in Northern Ireland is aware of the application by Aghadowey Clay Products for permission to undertake the production of a light aggregate block. Present legislation encourages the production of this type of block. Unfortunately, the people who want to produce this product are finding obstacles placed in their way. I shall not detain the House by rehearsing the details. The Under-Secretary of State will be able to obtain the details from the Department of Commerce.
The Minister assured me during an interview that the process and the project would not be lost to the Province. If that is to be so, one of two things must happen. We must proceed on the basis of the scheme submitted by Aghadowey Clay Products or the Northern Ireland Office must purchase the whole project, including the involved lands and raw materials, and develop the project. In spite of two years of consultation, nothing has happened to date. Again, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to get the Secretary of State to confirm that Aghadowey Clay Products will be allowed to proceed with the appropriate Government grants or that the Northern Ireland Office will purchase the project and develop it in its own way.
It is clear that somebody in the Department of Commerce wants to protect the ordinary brick industry. That is being done in the knowledge that the new building regulations are conducive to the production of the block and that the light

1345
aggregate block is conducive to the new regulations. I do not know why an attempt is being made to protect the brick industry if that is not for political reasons. It is certain that there could be more employment in the near future in an area where employment is not exactly at surfeit level. I know that people in the area, irrespective of their politics and creed, would benefit if the Government would finalise the administrative details of the application from Aghadowey Clay Products.
In Northern Ireland we have witnessed the emergence of an interesting phenomenon known as comprehensive redevelopment areas as distinct from normal or ordinary redevelopment areas. I am told by those who are familiar with the new entity that there are many unforeseen problems. I am concerned about the solution of unforeseen problems, but I am even more concerned about the problems that are obvious, clear and overt, namely, the dreadful conditions of old-age pensioners living in homes that are literally falling around their ears.
In discussion with the Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, it was discovered that in comprehensive redevelopment area 31, which is the Woodstock Road and Albertbridge Road area, at least three streets repose on an area of land vested by the Department but not owned by the Housing Executive or detailed for redevelopment by the executive.
As the executive acts as an agent for the Department of the Environment, there is no provision for the allocation of money for the short-term rehabilitation of the homes in the area that I have mentioned. We are told that it will be another four years before the streets are involved in any official demolition, although they are falling down of their own accord.
What are we to do for the old-age pensioners who cannot have their homes rehabilitated? The Housing Executive has said that it cannot help. I suggest that the Department purchases or builds mobile homes and moves the old folk in immediately. These folk cannot face two more winters of the sort that we have had this year. The likelihood is that they will have to face four winters before they
1346
are rehabilitated. It would be beyond their endurance to bear even two. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider the anomaly that exists in a comprehensive redevelopment area. It could emerge in other such areas.
The Housing Executive has said clearly that it has no provision for the supply of money for short-term rehabilitation. However, the area is not designated for housing in a future programme. The people concerned are caught between two stools. The only solution, as I have said, is for the Department to purchase mobile homes, to place them on land that it owns and to sort out what it will do with the area from which the people come. Let is not make the old people suffer because of unforeseen problems not anticipated by the Department and the executive.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: The order is a document of major significance to Northern Ireland. Within its folds are Estimates involving every aspect of life in Northern Ireland. Included withtin the Estimates are commerce, employment, unemployment, housing, finance. Every aspect of life in Northern Ireland is contained within the order. As we are not to be beaten by the clock, as Northern Ireland Members normally are by one and a half hour debates, surely more Northern Ireland Ministers should be in the Chamber to take part in the debate.
I recognise that it is asking too much for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to answer all the queries that will be raised by myself and other hon. Members. I know that he will tell us that he will give consideration to the matters that we raise and write to us. That is not a satisfactory way of managing debates on Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State should be present for the debate. I believe that all hon. Members from Northern Ireland are present except the abstentionist hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). We are all concerned about the mould of life in Northern Ireland and what is happening in our constituencies. The occupant of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), cannot say too much about attendances because there are only three

1347
Conservative Members in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim that the Opposition have a great deal of interest in what is happening in Northern Ireland. There are as many Labour Members present as Opposition Members if I am included in the Labour count. I do not know whether I should allow myself to be so included, in view of what has been happening over the past few weeks.
Included in the Estimates is the Ministry of Commerce. It is one of the major Ministries in Northern Ireland. It is responsible for attracting industry to Northern Ireland, the payment of grants and the payment of temporary employment subsidy. It is responsible for training, the regulating of trade practices, and the administration of miscellaneous services. It is responsible for the Department of Manpower Services. Each one of its functions is of paramount interest to all hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. The Ministry is charged with trying to attract industry to the Province and trying to provide the maximum employment that is possible in the circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland likes to be depicted by all and sundry as one who brought about the economic miracle in Northern Ireland. However, the fact is that since he took over as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland there has been an increase in the unemployment figures of about 12,000. There are 12,000 more unemployed people in Northern Ireland now that when the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland became the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There is nothing to crow about.
On Wednesday I put a series of questions to the Secretary of State. Many of my hon. Friends will not have been surprised by the answers. However, I am certain that many of tonight's absentees will be surprised when they read in Hansard that in North Belfast a man has been signing the unemployment register for 38 years. In my constituency of Belfast, West, a man has been signing the unemployment register for 28 years. In Londonderry a man has been signing it for 20 years. Another man in Strabane has been signing the unemployment register for 28 years. A man in Newry has been signing it for 21 years. Those figures,
1348
dramatic as they may be, do not tell the full extent of the story.
We may try to elicit information as to how many men have been unemployed for periods of between one and 38 years. Those figures will run into thousands. That is why I believe that the Minister of State should be present tonight and say how he intends to try to erase these appalling figures from the spectre of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
On Monday I was told in answer to a question that there were 2,713 people signing the unemployment register quarterly in Northern Ireland. They sign it four times a year. That is a sad commentary on the attitude of the Minister who is in charge of attracting employment or the Minister who is in charge of the Department of Health and Social Security which runs the unemployment offices.
How nerve-racking and soul-destroying it is if a man signs the unemployment register on 1 January and is told to return on 1 March and subsequently on 1 September as he is unemployed and unemployable. That does not happen because he does not want to work. It happens because there is no work available for him to do. That problem should not be cast aside. The disinterest shown tonight should not be tolerated.
To prove what I have just said, there are over 8,000 people in Northern Ireland who are in full-time employment but who are in receipt of family income supplement. They are working for less than they would receive if they were on the dole or in receipt of supplementary benefit. That gives the lie to the suggestion that people will not work because they can obtain more by way of benefits: 8,000 people are now working, and some of them are doing menial jobs for a wage which is less than they would receive if they were signing the unemployment register. I do not think that that is anything to be proud about.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here. I had discussions with him during the week about an industry in my constituency. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland will be aware of the financial difficulties in which the Peter Pan bakery finds itself. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) was called in for consultation with the Department of Commerce during the week in

1349
view of the threatened redundancies in North Belfast. This is a problem where the spectre of unemployment looms large in each of the 12 constituencies in Northern Ireland.
I referred to the discussions that I had with the Minister of State. I know that he must make a decision soon. I hope that the fact that 500 jobs are at stake in this bakery complex will enable him to realise the enormity of the problem that would be created by 500 more people being thrown on to the dole queues in Northern Ireland.
The Opposition have already referred to the De Lorean car project. From the publicity attaching to this undertaking, we might believe that the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland will be solved at a stroke. We are realistic. We all know that that is not true. If 2,000 people are employed in the De Lorean car project, the employers will not be able to take on the 500 people in the Peter Pan bakeries who are threatened with redundancy, as they will not possess the skills necessary to take up such employment. They will be faced with a future in which people will tot up the years when they will sign the unemployment register in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State will later move an order in relation to the Government's commitment to Short Brothers and the Harland and Wolff shipyard. For many years we have all known that there were periods when, had it not been for Government assistance, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers would have closed their doors. However, in view of the social consequences that would have resulted and the spin-off effect that closure of those firms would have on the economic situation and community relations throughout Northern Ireland, the Government found it necessary—I agree with the Government and will continue to support them—to give those industries financial assistance.
However, other industries are affected. I refer to Macrete in North Belfast and to the Peter Pan complex. Any industry faced with a volume of unemployment such as that which I mentioned is entitled to demand Government assistance, given the reality of unemployment and the social consequences which have emanated
1350
from high unemployment in Northern Ireland over these past years.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better to keep these people employed than to pay them large sums of redundancy money and the continued benefits that they must receive when they are unemployed? Would it not be better for the Government to invest money in their employment than in their unemployment?
Mr. Fitt: I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). There have been occasional closures in his own constituency.
I come to the redundancy money paid or promised. Some people will receive more than others. I refer to those who are reaching retirement age. They may think that the receipt of a few thousand pounds of redundancy pay is their only possible chance to have that amount of money in their hands. However, the trade unionists whom I consulted and the employers, who were in consultation with the Minister, myself, Paddy Devlin and the trade unionists, were enthusiastic. Rarely in my political life have I seen such enthusiasm and concern in their endeavours to try to keep this bakery going. If the Minister makes a wrong decision, if he finds that he cannot keep the bakery complex going, that will redound to his eternal discredit—especially as he is a Minister in a Labour Government.
I urge the Minister in charge of commerce in Northern Ireland to take account of the distress and despair that now exist as a result of unemployment. We heard the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) describe, from the Dispatch Box, the bleak employment prospects predicted for the years immediately ahead. It is election year, but I do not believe that the Labour Party will gain any votes in Northern Ireland on this issue. It is, however, a question of conscience and of morality, and I urge the Government not to allow any further increase in the tragic figures of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
I want now to refer to manpower services. This subject is also under the control of the Minister of State responsible for commerce, and there is a direct connection between his Department

1351
and the Fair Employment Agency. I may not on this issue get the support which has been forthcoming so far from Opposition Members, but I know that there are no Opposition Members from Northern Ireland who have any time at all for the Fair Employment Agency. I remember very well that every one of them on the Committee which considered the Fair Employment Bill voted against every line, every word and every sentiment contained in it.
I still believe that the Fair Employment Act was necessary in order to try to create an atmosphere in Northern Ireland in which people would be employed because of merit and not because of either religious or political influence, but I wonder whether that Act is as effective as it should be. Yesterday afternoon I received a report about a seminar which was attended this week by some very distinguished people—none more so than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The report mentions that 71 complaints have been made against local authorities in Northern Ireland but that the agency feels that it is not in the public interest to name the authorities against which allegations have been made. That makes no sense at all to me. If there are authorities against which allegations have been made, there is a duty on the agency to say whether those allegations are true or false. People would then be able to make up their own minds as to the effectiveness of the agency.
The report states that the agency has found that three local authorities in Northern Ireland were guilty of allowing discrimination on religious grounds to affect them in the making of appointments. In a rather strange way, Newry council and Mourne council have been found guilty of discrimination which arose because they wanted to prove how liberal they were and for that reason did not appoint the person most qualified for the job but appointed someone else instead.
Rev. Ian Paisley: What about Ballymena?
Mr. Fitt: What action has been taken by the Fair Employment Agency? What action can it take? What action will it threaten to take? I believe that the answer to these questions is "None". If such an agency is in being but is shown to have no teeth and exists only to carry
1352
out a public relations exercise, that should be made clear to everyone.
The report also states that allegations have been made against 46 private firms. I do not know the names of those firms or where they are in business. They may be in the Falls Road. They may be in the Shankill Road. They may be in Ballymena. In fact, I have no doubt that they are. They may be in some part of Down. The Minister, in an answer to me, said also that he did not think that it was in the public interest to name those firms. He could just as easily have told me that there were no allegations against any firms, or that there were allegations against only two firms, or against 23 firms. He could have made up any number he liked and I would have been none the wiser. The important point is that he will not tell me who the firms are or how serious are the allegations against them.
This agency, which is supported by the Minister of State, appears to be absolutely useless. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if this legislation is as worthless as it appears to be, it is up to him now to amend it and to make it more effective He told me in a recent answer that seven district councils have signed the fair employment declaration and that 10 councils have refused to sign it. What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take against those 10 district councils in Northern reland which have said that they will not sign a declaration stating that they will not engage in discrimination on religious or political grounds?
Mr. John Dunlop: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that when the measure was debated in Committee, all those on the Government side, numbering about eight Members, plus four Tory Members, voted not only to pass the measure but to give it the necessary teeth? In other words, there is the power to bring these companies before the courts. Surely that power is still inherent in the measure, and it is up to the people concerned to use it.
Mr. Fitt: I accept that part of the discussion in Committee was related to that. But I want to pose another question. As I was saying earlier, three councils in Northern Ireland have been found guilty of making appointments on the ground of religious or political favour.

1353
The persons who were appointed are still in the jobs, and there is no provision in the Act for those who were unfairly appointed to be dismissed. The council can be brought before the courts and action taken against it, but the person appointed still remains in the job. That is ridiculous. What happens if a council decides to dispense with that person's services? There would be recourse to all sorts of action in the courts for unfair dismissal. The Secretary of State must look at this part of the Act again.
Twenty private firms in Northern Ireland have refused to sign the fair employment declaration. Most hon. Members know what this declaration is about. It says:
" We hereby give an undertaking that we will not employ our staff on the grounds of religion or politics, and by the same token we will not debar people from our employment on the grounds of religion or politics."
I should have thought that that was the easiest thing in the world to sign. I cannot visualise anyone having a sleepless night over the "terrible" words in the declaration. Yet 20 firms have refused to sign it. That indicates that they are not in favour of the Fair Employment Agency or the Act and that they might want to continue to engage in discrimination—
Mr. Powell: No.
Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says "No", but I think that that is a possible interpretation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is there not a suggestion in the undertaking that in signing the declaration firms could be reflecting on their past record? No discrimination by these companies in the past has been proved, and they think that by signing the declaration they will condemn their past.
Mr. Fitt: If these companies are so sure that they have not engaged in discrimination in the past—I am not saying that all or any of them have done so—why should they not go public and declare it? Why are they afraid? The Fair Employment Agency could say that these 20 firms have refused to sign but they have done so because they find the declaration unnecessary because they have never engaged in discrimination.
1354
Then we would all know whether to believe their protestations.
Mr. Bradford: Is it not possible that the majority of these firms are not prepared to sign the declaration, not because of any qualms about offering work to a person irrespective of his religion or politics but because the Government have manifestly failed to deal with the vital issue of quotas? Although the Government have failed to face up to that question, the Act imposes dreadful and onerous problems of achieving quotas, which are not in the interests of viability or productivity. That is why they are not prepared to accommodate this nonsense.
Mr. Fitt: I understand the reservations—and share them to a certain extent—about a quota system. That is a very bad thing for future prospects in Northern Ireland. To say that a firm must employ so many Catholics and so many Protestants is a recipe for total disaster in the industrial field. I would not support it.
I refer to a matter on which there is some degree of unanimity—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is a unique housing authority in the United Kingdom—
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is a dinosaur.
Mr. Fitt: There is nowhere else in the United Kingdom where such a body exists. Councillors do not have any say in it or influence with it. Parliamentary representatives have very little influence with it. Time and time again I have tabled questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment asking him a number of questions about the Housing Executive, only to be told that this is a matter for the Housing Executive. I am not prepared to tolerate that kind of conduct. I am not prepared to accept that cavalier treatment from the Government.
Housing in Northern Ireland, and particularly in the city of Belfast, is a disaster. When the Housing Executive came into being it was a political decision. It did not result from the efficiency or inefficiency of the then existing local authorities in Northern Ireland which were in charge of housing; it resulted from discrimination in allocations. That

1355
is why the Housing Executive came into being and why I supported it. I now regret that decision.
The Housing Executive is a monster which has grown larger every day of every week. It treats political representatives acting in the interest of their electors with total and absolute contempt and provides us with no answers. The House has been asked to support the giving of many millions of pounds to the Housing Executive. But answers by Northern Ireland Ministers are to the effect that
" It is a matter for the Housing Executive."
If it is a matter for the Housing Executive, the executive should provide us with answers.
I have written on behalf of constituents who live in appalling housing conditions. Three months later, I get a reply saying that the Housing Executive is looking into the matter. I used to telephone, but that was even worse. I often waited half an hour to get through, only to be told that the person I wished to speak to was either on a day's leave, at a meeting or sick. Those were the three stock answers. The Housing Executive is always holding meetings. It holds meetings 25 hours out of every day. I do not know what decisions it arrives at, but they are not for the benefit of myself or my constituents.
I received a telephone call at home three or four weeks ago from a political correspondent. I shall not name him—I think that he is in the Press Gallery. He asked if I had heard that the Housing Executive had agreed to sell 54,000 houses. I replied that I had not heard that and asked for the source of his information. He said that he thought that I would have known about it. When I made telephone calls I discovered that no other hon. Members knew. However, a document was sent out by the Housing Executive, supported by the Minister, stating that 54,000 houses were being sold. I telephoned the Housing Executive and asked why I had not been informed and was told "Perhaps we have made a mistake. We will do better next time." That is not the way to treat elected representatives who are deeply concerned about the appalling housing conditions in Northern Ireland and particularly in Belfast.
I have reservations about the sale of those 54,000 houses. I am a Socialist and I do not believe that houses should be
1356
built at public expense and sold as quickly as possible. Before a decision is taken to sell public authority housing, safeguards should be built in to ensure that those who are unable to buy their houses will be entitled to local authority houses it necessary.
I speak with a particular knowledge of housing estates in West and North Belfast. I shall not mention those estates by name because it may spark off religious differences and confrontations, which is the last thing I want. I know people of a certain religion in some estates in North Belfast who, between 1971 and 1974, were intimidated and thus had to leave the estates. I know one woman who was intimidated at the point of a machine gun. She came to my home at two o'clock in the morning, having been intimidated in that way and evicted because of her religion. However, in Northern Ireland we are well aware that intimidation can operate on both sides.
On three or four of those estates the tenants will now have the opportunity to buy their houses. I queried why they have the opportunity and was told that a need was being met in North Belfast and other areas. I inquired how it was determined whether the need was being met. I found that the need of those of one particular religion was being met. A Socialist Government should not accept that.
The Government should be attempting to run their housing policy in Northern Ireland in the hope that this year, next year or some time in the future Catholics and Protestants will be able to live together once more anywhere in Northern Ireland, whether in the Falls, the Shankill, West or North Belfast. Once we start selling houses and saying that Catholics do not want to live in certain areas any more, it will be impossible to achieve that result. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) knows, as I know, of many Catholics who would be happy to go back to North Belfast if they had the opportunity. They had to leave at a time of very high tension. Once the Government decide that some areas are for Catholics and others are for Protestants, they are surrendering to the forces of despair and conceding that there will be Catholic and Protestant ghettos—a development which has led to the terrible position in which we find ourselves today.

1357
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland agreed in Committee—albeit with reluctance on the part of some hon. Members—to last year's rent order because we believed that some landlords were not getting enough rent from their properties to enable them to keep the houses in a decent state of repair. However, we see every day that landlords have been very quick to jump in and double, treble and even quadruple the rents of tenants who cannot afford to pay increases that are sometimes as dramatic as rises from £1 per week to £5 or £6 a week.
I have had numerous complaints. Tenants are told that they can appeal to a rent ribunal or a rent assessment panel. But these are old houses and old people live in them. Those old people do not have the time or the money to go through the whole business of rent tribunals and assessment panels.
A case was raised with me yesterday of an old person in the Old Park Road in North Belfast who had lived in his house for 35 years and who found that his rent was suddenly increased to £6 a week. He paid the increased rent for five or six weeks but found that he could not continue to do so. He told the agent and added that, anyway, the agent was not carrying out any repairs. All of a sudden, the agent found under his desk an agreement, signed 32 years earlier, providing that the tenant was responsible for repairs. Of course, if the tenant had carried on paying the £6 a week, the agent would not have remembered that he had a copy of that agreement. The rent order was not meant to bring hardship for old people living in such accommodation.
The Department of the Environment has some responsibilities in Northern Ireland, particularly in regard to the standard of lighting. Members of the Belfast city council have unanimously called for a meeting with the Secretary of State for the Environment about the terrible lighting problems throughout Belfast.
I have passed scores of letters to the Department and made scores of telephone calls to officials. The first 15 replies that I received acknowledged my letters and said that they would be dealt with as soon as possible. But what is meant by "as soon as possible"? Am I expected to wait until 1986? Every public representative
1358
in Northern Ireland has been getting such replies time and again.
At the end, one of my constituents sent me back all the replies that I had sent him over the years. They acknowledged his complaint about bad lighting and said "We shall do what we can as soon as possible." I sent them all to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, saying "Those are the replies I have sent to my constituent. Do what you can with them now". He told me that he had a problem because the matter did not affect only my constituent. He said "I cannot look at such a general complaint. The bad lighting affects everyone else". That is the sort of stone wall that one finds everywhere in Northern Ireland.
Yesterday morning, before I left to come here, I went to a new estate in Roden Street, which is a year to a year and a half old. I met the tenants' association, which had an agenda stating that there was only one light in Roden Street and that there was none in Distillery Street. It also said that the sewerage was bad. One would have thought that with their experience of sewerage in Turf Lodge, where a few months ago there was hysteria about a possible outbreak of dysentery—two children were taken to hospital—the Government would have taken steps to ensure that that did not happen on another estate.
There were other complaints on the agenda. We all know that on every new housing estate there are teething problems. I told the association that I would try to raise the matter with the Minister. In view of his answers to me yesterday, I think that he will tell me today that it is a matter for the Housing Executive. I repeat that it is not. It is a matter for the Minister. If he wants to continue with his cavalier attitude, he will find himself in serious trouble, not only in the House but on the streets of Northern Ireland. He will not be so well received when he goes around on his community relations exercises.
Who is responsible for lighting? There is another rumour circulating around Belfast that the fault is not of the Department of Environment but of the Army and the police, who say that the lights cannot go on because there may be a shooting incident and the security forces may be at stake. I do not know

1359
whether that is true. If it is, it would be understandable, though regrettable, if certain lights were put out in certain highly dangerous districts. However, I do not believe that it is true. I believe that it is the gross inefficiency of the Department of the Environment that has led to the present situation.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I have been listening intently to what my hon. Friend has been saying. What he has said so far about the Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment makes it seem to those of us on the Labour Benches who take an interest in Northern Ireland that the fault is the result of direct rule, of the move towards integration. Northern Ireland is being administered by people who, to judge from what my hon. Friend says—and there is no reason to doubt that he is telling the truth—do not understand the situation of the place. It would be far better if another form of governmental structure, such as devolution, were evolved for the Six Counties in place of the inefficient, ill-informed direct rule that exists now.
Mr. Fitt: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I did not agree with the old Stormont, but at least under Stormont we did not have to wait three or four weeks for an answer. There were Ministers there who would answer before that. I am not advocating a return of Stormont, which would suit Ulster Unionist Members. Far be it for me to advocate that. I am criticising the inefficiency of the Department of the Environment.
I turn to the question of the selling of the 54,000 houses. I hope that the Minister responsible enters the Chamber before I end this speech. When he met me in the corridors, he said "I believe that you do not like the selling of the 54,000 houses." I replied "That is quite right. I do not like it at all. I have many reservations." He replied" You do not know much about housing in Northern Ireland. "I can tell the House that I know a hell of a lot more about it than he does—in any part of Northern Ireland. Again, that type of arrogant attitude towards Northern Ireland Members will result in a response which he did not think he would get.
1360
Hon. Members will be aware of the great scare that there was recently in Turf Lodge. They may know that a firm of consultant architects was called in to look at the flats in Turf Lodge. The architects have reported that those flats should be demolished. They say that in the interests of the health of everyone in those flats and in the surrounding areas. I say now to my hon. Friend that those flats should be demolished. I also say that the flats lying vacant at the foot of Peter's Hill and at Ballysillan should also be demolished. They are an eyesore, and some of them should never have been built in the first place.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I must apologise to my hon. Friend for not being here for the beginning of his speech. Do I understand that neither my hon. Friend nor right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite knew about the sale of these 54,000 houses? I assure him that, because there is direct rule, we over here ought to know as well, but not one of us knew either. Therefore, literally no one knew except the Housing Executive. Is that the position?
Mr. Fitt: I shall repeat what the position is for the benefit of my hon. Friend. I received a telephone call from a journalist who asked me whether I had any comment to make on the proposal to sell 54,000 houses. I said that I had not heard about it. He said "We have heard about it through a statement issued by the Housing Executive." It is not right that such a cavalier attitude should be taken by the Housing Executive.
What is more, if my hon. Friend cares to go to the Vote Office he will be able to obtain copies of answers to questions of mine. I put down a series of questions to the Secretary of State asking how many houses the Housing Executive had sold, how many it intended to sell, what was the justification for selling them, and what was the highest bid for them. To each question the answer was that I should ask the Housing Executive. I do not think that any hon. Member will tolerate that sort of treatment from the Minister for very long. I will not ask the Housing Executive. This House votes millions of pounds every year to keep the Housing Executive in being. If I want to ask questions, I shall ask them on the Floor of this House.

1361
I ask my hon. Friend, therefore, whether he intends at the earliest possible opportunity to pull down the flats in Turf Lodge which have caused so much alarm, despondency, despair and ill health. I warn him that any attempt to hold them up will meet with the stiffest opposition from the people in that area.
Mr. Stallard: That is a matter for the Housing Executive.
Mr. Fitt: I have no doubt that that is what I shall be told.
I move on to class IX of the Estimates, which deals with health and social services. The House will remember that last year there was absolute unanimity, especially amongst Northern Ireland Members, when the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act went on to the statute book. However, I am not sure that that Act has been implemented fully as yet. We may be told that we have not the resources yet and that economic considerations will not allow us to implement what is contained in that Act. However, that Act spelt out clearly the absolute minimum that should be given to chronically sick and disabled persons in Northern Ireland, and no excuse will satisfy me or any other hon. Member from Northern Ireland that people in that category should be less well off than similar people in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Next I come to class XI, which concerns the Department of Finance. We have been told repeatedly from the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is a corpus of law building up in relation to Northern Ireland and that, to use the words of Jack Lynch in the Republic, there is not a scintilla of evidence that integration is coming about. I accept that. I therefore accept the fact that the Ministry of Finance is responsible for public relations documents issued from the Northern Ireland Office. I agree that publicity is needed from the Northern Ireland Office because I watched my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on "Panorama" a fortnight ago when he was asked a series of questions by two well-known journalists. He got through 55 minutes without mentioning Northern Ireland. It was as if Northern Ireland was away in the Moon, somewhere in the Sea of Tranquility.
1362
He did not even know where it was.
Mr. Flannery: He did not mention Socialism eilther.
Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I would like to refer to what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench about De Lorean. I received a telephone call from a journalist on the Belfast Telegraph who asked if I had seen a document called "Protecting Human Rights in Northern Ireland". I replied that I had not and asked what it was about. The journalist told me that I was quoted in it. If anyone wants to see how the English language can be abused, let him look at a paragraph in that document which speaks of special steps to protect the citizens and goes on to refer to the emergency powers legislation in Northern Ireland. If that legislation is designed to protect the citizen, I do not know what the English language means.
The document talks about the Fair Employment Agency. I have illustrated how ineffective that agency is. The document also states that the Incitement to Hatred Act 1970 imposed penalties for incitement to hatred and for the circulation of certain false statements and false reports. That is going out to British embassies all over the world to prove how good an operator my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is. What it does not say is that the Act was put on the Statute Book in 1970. One man was charged under it in 1971. It was found that the Act was absolutely useless.
The Act means nothing. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights represented that to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and asked him to repeal the Act. There was one prosecution and that person was acquitted because the Act was so loose. Nobody was prosecuted under it in the years from 1972 to 1979, but in 1979 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland sends out this document to embassies all over the world to prove how effective is legislation in the matter of protecting human rights in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State then goes on to talk about policing and how good and

1363
effective is the police authority in Northern Ireland. For different reasons, hon. Members on the other side of the House—
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a Stormont Act. Both the hon. Gentleman and myself took part in the debate on it.
Mr. Fitt: It was a Stormont Act of Parliament. I voted for it, but it did not work.
The Secretary of State also said that the police authority had been set up as if it was the greatest institution ever for maintaining law and order. Bat the police authority in Northern Ireland is absolutely useless. It has done nothing. Only two or three weeks ago, a well-known and respected local authority member, Councillor Jack Hassard, resigned from it because he had brought up a complaint two years before which the authority said that it would look into. Going to the police authority is like getting a reply from the Housing Executive.
Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State what he intends to do about the Bennett report, which has been on his desk for the past fortnight? That committee was set up to question the methods of RUC interrogation. The sooner that its report is published, the better. He is very good at publishing documents like the paper that I have been quoting.
The end of this document deals with unemployment and the bringing of De Lorean to West Belfast. Since that factory was announced, it has been talked of as though it was going to achieve everything. The document gives a good, big quote from what I said at a reception for the opening of De Lorean. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has rightly written to the Prime Minister to say "In no circumstances use quotes from some of the speeches that have been made." I agree that the kind of speeches that he makes on 12 July platforms and to masonic lodges could not be used to justify a document like that.
I carried this document around and showed it to people, including a member of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I do not need to tell
1364
the Minister something that he knows already, but the commission has already told the Secretary of State that its remit is useless and should be widened. The sooner the statute under which the commission acts is widened, the better.
Thus, when I was objecting to that document, so was the commission. It was interested not in the back page, which referred to me, but in the little bit that referred to its activities. Some of its members rang up the Northern Ireland Office and said "You are making a big mistake. You say that we are entitled to do things that we cannot do." The answer was "We are awfully sorry. We shall issue another document." I have the two documents here. But in the meantime the first document was away out to the British Embassy in Washington.
Mr. William Craig: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Members of Parliament have a human right, too? Should we not allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part in the debate? That is a crucial human right in the operation of democracy.
Mr. Fitt: This is an opportunity for a major debate on Northern Ireland, yet there is only one Minister here and I know that he will not find it offensive if I say that he is a very junior Minister. At the end of the debate, when he will not reply to me at all, he will say to everybody else "I will take note of that: I will send you a letter; I will look into that." That is not the way to conduct a debate such as this. The Ministers responsible for these agencies should be here. They should not treat Northern Ireland representatives with such contempt and disdain. I hope that the matters that I have raised will cause the Minister some concern when he studies the report of my speech.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: I shall do my best to contain my remarks, but there are certain important matters that I should like to highlight, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for turning again to the question of employment in Northern Ireland. I was glad that the subject was so forcefully highlighted by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave).

1365
It is no exaggeration to say that it all the temporary aids and props were removed from Northern Ireland, unemployment would approach 17 or 20 per cent. It is a difficult time for the promotion of economic development in any part of the United Kingdom, or, for that matter, the Western world, but it would be prudent to make the best use of the resources available. Those resources are not being deployed as one would like. Northern Ireland has many disadvantages and we have to ensure that we make it as attractive as we can. The infrastructure of the Province and communications to and from it are critical. I was glad that so many of my hon. Friends highlighted the deficiencies of the air services.
I am concerned about the infrastructure generally. There is a very good case to be made for cutting public expenditure, but public expenditure on improving the infrastructure is probably the most justifiable expenditure of all. I give credit to Northern Ireland Ministers for what they have tried to do to improve the appearance of the city of Belfast. However, that operation is only a facelift. There is no overall strategy to recreate Belfast as the magnet for industry in Northern Ireland. Yet it is an urban area with enormous potential.
I refer, for example, to the Belfast harbour estate. I can think of no other area in the United Kingdom with so much to offer industry for development as an industrial estate. There are deep water facilities, an airport and reasonable road communications, although there are deficiencies with the roads. I am not aware of any plans for the sensible development of that estate, however, and that is a sad omission, given that we must accept that the shipbuilding industry must play a reduced role in Belfast.
I hope that Ministers will coin a new slogan for Belfast, and I refer to the city in terms not just of the interests of the citizens of Belfast but of the citizens of the whole of Northern Ireland. The city should be told to do an about-turn and face the river, not put its back to it. The river has so much to offer, and the harbour estate is a good place to begin.
The airfield, which is of great importance to Short Brothers, is surely capable of playing a bigger role than merely servicing
1366
one industry. I should like that possibility to be examined urgently. There are few cities with an airport virtually in the middle.
I draw the Minister's attention to some needless deficiencies. There is dissatisfaction among the workers in the aircraft industry about road access and congestion. That may seem petty but I make my plea on a wider issue. It is ridiculous that with all the important facilities located at that end of the harbour estate there is only one major access road to it. I shall not dwell on the security aspect.
The representations that have been made have never brought any worthwhile response, and yet the Department of the Environment is building an outer ring road, which causes upset in a residential part of my constituency known as Hawthornden Road, which was once the Vanguard headquarters. That area is being disturbed by the building of this outer ring road. But there are no plans to link that road with the harbour estate which draws workers from all parts of Belfast and many parts of Northern Ireland. Yet there is a huge area of reclaimed land known as Kinnegar that would lend itself to a new road into that estate connecting it with the outer ring road.
Belfast, if it is given the infrastructure of a modern city, will be able to boost the economy not only of the city but of Northern Ireland as a whole. I urge the Government to put aside this bit and piece approach. One of the weaknesses is the centralisation of functions within the Northern Ireland Office without any effective channel of communication between that Office and the public. It is crazy that the Housing Executive is virtually an authoritarian body which decides where and how houses should be built. If one is planning an urban area, there should be an overall pattern. It is not for the Housing Executive alone to decide whether there is a housing need in a particular spot. It must take into consideration the employment opportunities and how they can assist the growth of an urban area.
The same is true of planning organisations. Planning is not simply a matter of telling citizens that they cannot do something. Planning should be the business of telling people where they can best do something and where public resources

1367
are being deployed to the advantage of the citizens. Planning should be a positive, not a negative, process. The planning service in Northern Ireland is deplorable. One wonders whether it is worth advising one's constituents to go through the appeal process. I do not envy the task of those who have to administer the planning set-up when no one really knows what should be done and how it should be done.
There is, therefore, a good case for the Government to re-think. To help them with that re-think, I suggest that they call in outside consultants. I suggest that they call in independent people who will take an honest, fresh look at the problems. Without disrespect, I sometimes think that when a departmental committee examines a problem it averts its eyes from those areas where it may not be so sure that it has done all that well. I should like to see a searchlight applied to the policies which have existed in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast, in recent years.
My views about the road system are well known. Roads are a valuable investment. I am a little alarmed at what seems to be penny-pinching. The roads are not being properly maintained. A valuable investment has been put at risk because of slack maintenance. Can the Minister give the cost of putting right the ravages of the severe winter? These ravages were unnecessarily severe because the roads were not maintained properly.
In addition to prejudicing a valuable investment, we must consider the safety factor. We hear much from Government Ministers and their minions about the terrible tragedies on our roads. I agree that something must be done, but I am a great believer in setting an example. The Government could do much more to make our roads safer by improved lighting.
With a little more effort from the Department of the Environment's drainage division, I should not need to possess a hybrid between a boat and a motor car. The amount of water lying on Northern Ireland roads is outrageous. Somebody is falling down on the job. Bad drainage is one of the conditions which has made the ravages of the winter more expensive than they should be.
The Government reorganised and centralised local government in Northern
1368
Ireland and the care of roads was given to one Department. The effective system operated by county councils which acted as agents for the Government in the trunk road system was destroyed. It is time that we put right the mistakes that were made, often because of expediency.
I wish to give the House an example of the arrogance displayed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Member talks about the arrogance of the hon. Member for Belfast. West (Mr. Fitt). I have listened carefully to the argument and it is clear that the hon. Member is making a strong case for the mother State intervening and using taxpayers' money to build up the infrastructure. He has argued that this should be done in certain technical ways. But he refuses to accept the Opposition Front Bench argument that we can roll back the State and allow the private sector to intervene.
The right hon. Member has not given the impression that he thinks that the private sector has much of a role to play, or that the market forces can be left to resolve the problems of infrastructure in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Craig: If I had more time, I could put the hon. Member's mind at rest. The private sector has an enormous role to play, just as the public sector has. But this evening we are dealing with the public sector and the cost of financing the infrastructure. That is why I have concentrated my remarks on that matter.
We have heard from many hon. Members of the irritation and the seeming arrogance of Departments at Stormont. I declare an interest. I keep a boat in Lough Erne. I was a solicitor for the Erne Chartered Boat Association and I defended it when summonses were instituted by the Northern Ireland Department. All this arose because the Minister's Department, as navigation authority for the waterway of Lough Erne, decided to introduce new regulations, introducing them in such a way as to alienate the entire membership of the hire boat association to such an extent that they ignored the new regulations and had to be prosecuted.
The prosecution failed because of lack of proof, and the lack of proof really

1369
arose out of the impossibility of the regulations. If the Department were to try to enforce those regulations, it would destroy a valuable tourist trade centring on the waterways because wardens would have to harass tourists who hire boats for holidays and bring them back to tender evidence.
The problem is that the Department in its wisdom, as navigation authority, decided that for the safe use of the waterway there must be two standards of navigation regulation—one for the boats which are privately owned, by people such as myself, with quite minimum requirements, and the other for boats used by people paying a rent, a sort of hire car operation. These latter boats must be subject to a totally different and very onerous set of regulations.
The Department attempts to justify these regulations by saying that, since a profit is being made out of the boats, it is right that there should be a higher standard. But there is no other waterway in the United Kingdom, with the possible exception of Lake Windermere—though I think that the Department's information is not all that accurate here—to which such regulations apply. For no other waterway in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in the Irish Republic, with its major waterway, the Shannon, have two sets of regulations been adopted.
As a result of this high-handed way of doing things, a decent body of men who are making a major contribution to the tourist trade of Northern Ireland now find themselves in defiance, just refusing to register their boats, although in fact all their boats are already up to the standards on which the Department insists.
I appeal to the Minister to re-examine this case. It was raised with his predecessor and very little satisfaction was given. I do not expect that I shall be involved with it much longer—I hope not—but I can tell the Minister that one of the most valuable sections of our tourist trade is in revolt and intends to continue to defy the regulations. This need never have happened. It was an example of arrogance.
There is a lot of money represented in these matters, and that money is capable of doing a lot of good. If it is to do the maximum good, it must enlist the co-operation
1370
of all the people and bring the involvement of all the people. It is not for a few experts sitting in plush seats round expensive tables to tell us how best we should run our country.
9.14 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) rightly said, this debate is important for the people of Northern Ireland and the affairs of our Province, and it is to be regretted that only a junior Minister is present to reply.
Of course, we could not have the Minister responsible for two of the most important Departments, the Department of Education and the Department of Health, because he sits in another place. Never once has a Member from Northern Ireland or, indeed, any other Member of the House had the opportunity of really probing what is happening in those two Departments, for the simple reason that the person responsible is not answerable in the House of Commons and someone else is briefed to answer. I recall an earlier occasion when the Minister of State answered and his answer was not even in accordance with the facts of the situation in the hospital service in Northern Ireland.
Here we have two important Departments which are to undergo changes and yet never once have we had the opportunity of receiving from a responsible Minister responsible answers to the questions agitating the public. That is a serious situation and it is growing more serious daily. I agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to ask whether it would be better if there were a form of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Of course it would be better. That is an aim to which I am dedicated. What we are discussing is the direct results of direct rule. They will continue, no matter how perfect we seek to make a system of direct rule.
The terrible spectre of unemployment concerns every Member representing a Northern Ireland seat. We have had our difficulties with terrorism. Here I join in the congratulations which have already been expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) concerning the effective surveillance of the IRA by

1371
the security forces which has resulted in the discovery of a large number of bombs. I am informed by the police that they were intended for a blitz on the dock areas of Belfast this weekend. I am delighted that the security forces have been able to prevent that terrible event.
In our city we have, in addition to the shadow of terrorism, the creeping shadow of unemployment, which is entering the homes of those living in the Province. Unemployment has a dreadful effect upon a man and upon his household. It is particularly bad when it reaches the stage outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast, West when a person has to sign on at the labour exchange and is told not to come back for three months, when the process is repeated. The only future that person has is four visits to the dole each year. We are greatly concerned about that.
The Government must be prepared to give more help to existing industry in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Government's policy appears to be to look further afield. New companies entering Northern Ireland are given liberal grants and loans. I am approached by employers who have been operating viable industry in Northern Ireland for years and who say "We have a cash flow difficulty. Why cannot we be treated in the same way as new companies coming here?" There is a terrible tendency to run down companies and eventually to close them so that when they are reopened fresh grants will be available.
This type of exercise is being carried out with the firm of Macrete. My information is that one part of that firm is viable and could be sold at a profit but everyone is holding off. People do not want to purchase until the business is no longer viable. Then it will be sold out cheaply and the new owners will get fresh Government grants for bringing in what will be a new industry.
I am informed by the Department that it is not able to say to the receiver "We are prepared to help you to keep the company viable until a purchaser arrives who will pay a proper price for the viability of the company." If the Department says that it is unable to help, is the company to be run down and sold for buttons? It could be that there are those in the company with an interest who would like to see that happen. It could
1372
be that at least one person in the company would like to see the company run down as that would be to his financial advantage. The Minister needs to consider the matter with all haste and seriousness.
Why should a viable company that has already received large Government grants be allowed to run down so that someone may buy it cheaply and obtain all the fresh grants that would be made available in restarting the company? I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will want to say something more about that.
I direct my remarks to unemployment and the gas industry. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will want to enlarge on the subject. My hon. Friend has stated that he feels from his information that Northern Ireland will not get the pipeline for natural gas. If that is so, we have an industry that is going further and further over the edge. Why could not a decision have been taken months ago? Why could not we have been told months ago? Why should we have a permanent creeping shadow? If we are to save jobs, let us save them. If it is felt that jobs cannot be saved, let us try to get employed in other companies those who will be made unemployed. The Government need to reconsider the whole situation.
I have asked the Prime Minister to call elected representatives of all shades from Northern Ireland around the table to let the people of Northern Ireland know that he is concerned about unemployment in the Province. We are dealing with something that is eating the vitals out of our community.
The days ahead will be dark and grave for employment in Northern Ireland. We all know what happens to the unemployed. There is demoralisation in the home and family and throughout manhood and womanhood. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to say that it would be far better for the Government to invest in the employed than the unemployed. It would be better to keep certain places of business in operation than to pay large redundancy payments and large social benefits.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I think that you will agree that Northern Ireland Members have argued for vast sums of public expenditure to be directed to the Northern Ireland infrastructure. You yourself have argued for considerable sums to be invested in industry that is already in Northern Ireland. Do you not think that if we are to do that with taxpayers' money there must be some public accountability? Do you not agree that the taxpayers should have at least part ownership of the industries and firms that are the beneficiaries of public expenditure, if only to stop the asset stripping to which you referred?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) kept referring to me, and I am completely innocent in the matter.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not wish to enter into any argument with the hon. Gentleman. If we can save asset stripping by the Government having part ownership of companies in receipt of public moneys, all well and good. I should have no opposition to that. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman—it may be that it is in his mind—that some public expenditure in Northern Ireland has been a sheer waste. Large sums have been spent on elaborate recreation centres in cities when smaller centres would have met the needs of the people. A vast local complex was built costing millions of pounds. The money spent on that complex should have been spent on creating employment.
The Government should look carefully at where they put their money in Northern Ireland. I do not care whether the expenditure is borne by the Belfast council. It still comes out of the public purse. When the Belfast council asks for money for this purpose, the Government should refuse. Instead, people should be employed. Employment should come first, and other projects afterwards.
Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, I believe more and more in conversion. He said that when he thought about the Housing Executive and his opposition to the local councils' control over housing, he had come to believe that it would be better if the local councils had held on to that control.
Mr. Fitt Mr. Fitt rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall give way later. I do not want to misrepresent what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that, looking at the record of the Housing Executive, he had come to think again about his attitude to the previous method of housing management under the local councils.
Mr. Fitt: That is a most important subject in Northern Ireland. I said that the Housing Executive was brought into being for political reasons as previously there had been allegations about wrong methods being used by local authorities throughout Northern Ireland. I agreed with the setting up of the Housing Executive. I now regret having done so. That is the most grossly inefficient organisation in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That makes the case stronger. I welcome that remark. I do not agree that the wild allegations of discrimination were ever justified. I debated the legislation with the hon. Gentleman in Stormont until the small hours. The hon. Gentleman thought that the legislation would be wonderful. I disagreed. Now he tells us at this late hour of his conversion that it is not wonderful. In that case we should not have wasted our time. We do not remedy such situations by legislation. We must produce remedies by going forward and getting people employed. If people are employed and well housed, they will be happy. Some of the events in Northern Ireland result from the fact that people have time on their hands, and inadequate employment and housing.
The Housing Executive is a dinosaur. It is the strangest animal that was ever inflicted upon the people of Northern Ireland. I was told by the director-general of the Housing Executive that I wrote far too many letters to him. Recently he said that in the first few months of the year he had received 600 letters from me. I said that he would receive another 600 as soon as I could write them. The process is that we must write letters.
Neither I nor any other Member of Parliament has any standing in the office of the Housing Executive. The only person to whom we may write is the director-general. I write to him pointing out different situations. A woman may find that a tile has come off the roof of her house. She may have complained 10

1375
times that rain was coming in. She may have asked for someone to come to put the tile on. Nothing is done. The people involved ask me whether I can do something. I write to the director-general. The director-general replies acknowledging the letter, saying that the matter will be looked into. In three or four weeks one receives a reply that the job has been done. Then, when that reply from the Housing Executive is sent to the person concerned, that person writes back to say that the people at the Housing Executive are liars and that no one has come to fix the new tile. That sort of thing has happened in my constituency over and over again, and it has happened many times in the experience of all hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
I will mention one other case showing the failure of the Housing Executive to do what it is supposed to do. In my constituency advice centre in Larne I met a mother who had recently given birth to a child. The hot water system in her house was not working. She complained to the Housing Executive about it. No one came to look at it. I wrote asking the Housing Executive to look at it. I was told that the matter would be attended to, and then later that everything necessary had been done. The person concerned then informed me that the work had not been done.
I shall not weary the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with any more of these items of practical experience, but what can one do when one is told by the executive that the work has been done when in fact this is not the case?
I now turn to the matter of house sales. When the Housing Executive is selling a house it puts a great value on it, but when it is demolishing a house it puts no value at all on it. There is a completely different scale applied. When the Housing Executive is selling one of its 54,000 houses, a very high valuation is put on it. The executive is asking £5,000 and £6,000 for houses in my constituency which were built for £100. That is indeed good business for the Housing Executive. But when the Housing Executive wishes to demolish a house it will offer the person concerned £50 for the site value.
That has happened in Harryville, a suburb of the etown of Ballymena, where
1376
there is to be a vast housing complex. The Housing Executive is seeking to demolish the houses there. In some cases it has not even negotiated with the people as to what they will get. But the people concerned, having had their houses vested in the executive, have then received a letter from the executive saying "You are now a tenant of the Housing Executive and will pay £3 a week." That is for the same house for which the executive offered £50 site value for demolition.
This is a public scandal in Northern Ireland, and the sooner the Minister wakes up and does something about it, the better. It is a matter that is very close to the heart of the people concerned.
Mr. Fitt: I feel compelled to rise again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have a case now about which I am in contact with the Housing Executive. A woman called Traynor lived in a house in Leeson Street, off the Falls Road. In 1971 she was told that the area was to be vested. Her property was a house and a small shop combined. She left it, having found another house. As she was the owner, she then let the house and small shop to another person for about £2 a week. The Housing Executive then vested that little shop and increased the rent to £5 a week, which it has been taking from 1971 up to the present day. Recently Mrs. Traynor received a letter from the Housing Executive saying "You have an interest in this property. We now offer you £26 in full settlement." That is the sort of confiscation that is going on in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member's remarks illustrate what I have been trying to say. I do not think it is the duty of the Member of Parliament to have to call a meeting of all the tenants and bring Housing Executive officials to that meeting to try to hammer out individual settlements. Members of Parliament have many duties to perform in Northern Ireland and it is not right that they should have to perform duties that are the responsibility of the Housing Executive and its officials.
I refer briefly to the Doury Road estate. It was a good estate, but it became a disgrace because of neglect by the Housing Executive. Good houses were

1377
wrecked and left vandalised. The people on the estate pleaded with the Housing Executive to take some action, but it allowed the estate to deteriorate. I have gone around that estate. I have called the officials and they have promised to do something, but they have never done anything. Fortunately, one of my councillors who belongs to the Democratic Unionist Party was elected to the Housing Executive through the Housing Council—the Rev. William McCrea, of Magherafelt. I got him to come down, and immediately I got action. The whole estate has been cleaned up. That was done because of one member of the Housing Executive right at the top. But it should not be up to the Member of Parliament to have to go to an individual on the Housing Executive and drag him from his work to look at an estate. That is what is happening.
The Housing Executive must be accountable in this House and the Minister must answer these questions. I often put down questions and I get the same answer as the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I am told time and again that this is a matter for the Housing Executive. I say that it is a matter for this House, which pays the Housing Executive. There must be some public accountability.
We are called Housing Executive bashers. I know that the executive has difficulties. It has a bad inheritance. In my area the houses that it inherited from the Moyle council, the Ballycastle council, the Ballymoney council, and the Ballymena rural district council were disgraceful. Some of these houses have been built for 50 years and have never had a coat of paint put on their doors. I know that, but I feel that in some way the Housing Executive should be able to give an account to the Members of Parliament. We have absolutely no standing. But if one belongs to the Housing Council one can walk into the executive's offices and demand certain things—and rightly so. When I proposed that all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland should be on the Housing Council, the executive just about pulled down the heavens. It said that it did not want Members interfering in its affairs.
Then, of course, we have arrogance in the local offices of the Housing Council
1378
where people go in and threaten to see their Member of Parliament if no action is taken by the executive. These local officers say that they do not care. I shall name one person in particular, a Miss Cousley, in Ballymoney. I have written to the Housing Executive about her and the way she treats people who threaten to go to their Member of Parliament. It is an absolute disgrace. In a court case this week we heard about the arrogant way in which people were treated by these local officers. The tenants of the Housing Executive are citizens of Northern Ireland and have a right to be respected. No arrogant official of the Housing Executive has any right to curse them, use bad language to them or take the name of their Member of Parliament in vain.
I hope that the Housing Executive will get the message loud and clear. We have had enough nonsense from it. It is time it did the job it is called upon to do. If it cannot, it should get out and let someone else do it.
The subject of transport has been well covered tonight. However, some of us are exasperated by the security checks at airports, especially at Heathrow. I was travelling recently from the House to a church service and carrying a copy of the scriptures. After going through the checkpoint at Heathrow, I went into the toilet and was followed by one of the top security men. He said "You have a Bible in your hand". I said "I have". He said "You will hand that over". I said "You will be a good fellow if you take that Bible from me". He said "You are not supposed to carry that on to the plane", but I said that I would be doing so. When I got outside, I saw scores of people carrying hard-back books. I approached the security man who had previously spoken to me and told him of this. He was not interested in carrying on the argument and told me to return to my seat. However, I said that I would carry the argument further and would mention it the next time that I spoke in the House.
In a previous debate I mentioned that one business man who brings much business to Northern Ireland was recently told that he could carry only one newspaper on to the aeroplane. He was told to hand over the other two newspapers that

1379
he had been carrying. They were put into a plastic bag and placed in the hold of the aeroplane. That is the kind of petty security check being operated.
Why should one not be allowed to carry on to the aeroplane a briefcase that has been searched over and again? If the searchers did their job properly, the security staff would not object to briefcases being carried on to aeroplanes. Yet ladies are allowed to carry their handbags on to aeroplanes. A visitor to Northern Ireland told me that he was travelling with a case that had a strap. At the airport he was told that he could not carry it on to the aeroplane. He said "I thought there was an Act against sex discrimination in this country. I claim my rights under that Act." He was told "If that is your attitude, then we shall have to let you on". If a case is searched, it should be allowed on to the aeroplane.
I am not as hopeful as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the travel services are pulling up their socks. I think that there is a need for a second service, regardless of the shuttle service. I am informed that British Airways will make a large profit on the London to Belfast route this year—even though aircraft are flown back to Glasgow at night. The time has come for the fares to be lowered. A one-way journey to the United States with two good meals can be obtained for the price of a return between London and Belfast. The facilities are not good either in Belfast or Heathrow. The facilities for collecting hand luggage are particularly bad, especially when there is a large crowd fighting to get their luggage.
I do not know why plastic bags are sometimes put on the luggage. Sometimes only a small scrap of plastic is put around cases. Perhaps there is an employee in the plastic bag racket and it suits him to have that type of security.
There is a need for improvement of the air link between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I hope that British Midland will get the licence to fly into Heathrow. The Underground now runs into Heathrow and everyone wants to fly into the airport because it provides a quick link to the centre of London and the communicating railway lines. Gatwick airport is good, but mainly for
1380
those taking flights from Gatwick to other parts of the world.
A jetfoil service should be initiated between Belfast, Carrickfergus or Bangor and London. I claim a constituency interest, but I believe that a cheap jetfoil service from any one of those places across to the mainland of the United Kingdom should be introduced. The Government have been giving money to industries in Northern Ireland. Strathearn Audio is an example. I said in our last debate that we had been told that a Japanese firm might be taking over that company. Will the Minister put the record straight? Has the Japanese firm declared that it is no longer interested?
Perhaps the Minister will also tell us how much the managing director of Strathearn Audio, Mr. Gordon Smith, received. He kept telling us what he proposed to do with the firm. He was often on television telling people that he would save the firm and that it would be receiving more money. Some security chiefs have told me that parts of Strathearn Audio were found in some of the detonators used in IRA bombs. It is time that we had the facts out in the light. Is the Japanese company still interested? If so, how much money will it receive to restart operations?
When we put money into creating employment, we must make sure that we will get employment and that the assistance will be worth while. I would rather see assistance given to save Hughes Bakeries, because that firm has been providing employment for many years, than see money going into a fly-by-night company. We have had too many such companies in Northern Ireland.
I am concerned about what happens when there are emergencies in Northern Ireland. When I returned to my constituency from the House recently, I learnt that oil had got into the water supply of Island Magee and Whitehead. What was running out of the taps looked like liquid TVO. I got in touch with Stormont and was told that there was nothing to worry about because water tankers had been sent to the area. I do not believe what Stormont tells me—the Government should be ashamed that I have to say that—and I got in my car and drove straight to Whitehead. I discovered that the only assistance that had been provided was

1381
a lorry carrying six old zinc water tanks. I ran my hand up the side of the tanks and discovered that they were covered with mud. When people turned on the taps, the stuff that came out was like porridge. That was supposed to be their supply of drinking water. They could not drink it.
When I contacted the duty officer, I was told that the Minister was out at a function and that it was not possible to get the chief engineer. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who was the Stormont Member for the area, will know about the situation at Island Magee. I waited with the people there and only after a very long time were we condescendingly treated to clean water. Yet I had been told much earlier that everything had been taken care of.
We have never heard how the oil got into the water. What steps have been taken to deal with it? Is the water now fit for human consumption? Were the main pipes contaminated? Have they been cleaned? That episode was an example of what happens under direct rule. A Stormont Member could have got in touch with the responsible Minister and have got action. Government was nearer to the people then.
I must bring two other matters to the attention of the House before I sit down to give my colleagues time to take part in the debate. The first concerns Rathlin Island. I am the only Northern Ireland Member with an inhabited island in his constituency. It is the only inhabited island in Northern Ireland.
Mr. James Kilfedder: No.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps it is not the only one, but it is the largest. It used to have 1,000 inhabitants, but now there are only a little over 100. I am concerned about them, because from time to time they are cut off by high seas. A little over a week ago the supply boat was collecting its supplies at Ballycastle. The harbour there is in a deplorable state. The freak waves that come across it are notable for their destruction. At the weekend a man and his daughter were swept off the road, and they were saved only by Providence.
1382
All the supplies for the island were swept into the tide and washed away. Boats were unable to make the island for a week. I telephoned the Department concerned and asked whether a helicopter could be sent to take the supplies to the island, and was told that certainly something would be done.
I was out of the country during the recess. When I returned the secretary of the island committee telephoned me and said that the islanders had no supplies. I got in touch with the Department, which told me that it could do nothing unless the Moyle district council made an official request.
Anyone who knows the politics of Northern Antrim knows that the Moyle council utterly detests the Rathlin islanders. Anything they have ever asked the council to do has been refused. Any representations they have made to the council have been thrown out. In fact, the day two councillors raised the matter of the supplies being swept overboard, the chairman of the council sat back in his chair and said "Isn't that a great laugh? They have lost their supplies". Yet those in the Moyle council are the people who say whether the island will have a helicopter.
I pointed that out to the Department, and after it had put pressure on the Moyle council the council consented—after the island had been cut off for a week—to request a helicopter to get supplies into the island. I ask the Minister to make it clear to the council that in the future he will not consult it when the island is cut off.
The island has an elected committee. I made a plea in the House that a councillor should be elected from Rathlin to represent the people on the Moyle council, but that plea was voted down because it was said that there were only a few islands. They have no representation on the council. They are not listened to when they make representations. But when they are cut off—
Mr. Wm. Ross: Is it not a fact, if my memory serves me correctly, that the island of Rathlin is a ward of the Moyle council?
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not a ward. It is part of a ward. But the people have no councillor of their own. I wanted

1383
them to have a councillor of their own to represent them, but that was not granted in the House.
I know that there are only 110 people on the island, but they are in a unique position. They are cut off many times. Hon. Members should go to Scotland and see how the islanders are treated there. They should even go to the Republic of Ireland and see how the islanders are treated.
Why should the Rathlin islanders have to wait until Fergus Wheeler, the chairman of the Moyle council, after he has his laugh, condescends to say "Yes, you can have supplies"? If the island is cut off, as the Member for the area I demand that the islanders have a helicopter for supplies to be flown in immediately.
I am not condemning the Department, because it had to work under that rule. I am glad that it put pressure on the Moyle council. I hope that the Minister will change the rule so that in future he can get supplies to the island immediately when it is cut off.
I am glad to end on a more happy note from the Minister's point of view. The Department has authorised boring in the famous village of Ahoghill, where the former Prime Minister, that tragic figure Terence O'Neill, used to live. I am glad that there has been some success with the boring. But perhaps the Minister will go a little further and tell us just how successful it is. I understand that hot springs have been encountered some 5,500 feet down. When I visited that drill hole, the water was bubbling up, and rumour has it that it could be a very valuable find.
I understand, too, that the Minister intends to authorise offshore drilling off North Antrim to search for natural gas and possibly oil. North Antrim may not be very well respected because of its Member of Parliament, but I am sure that we shall be courted well if gas, oil or coal is found in that area. I hope that the Minister will give us some sort of report about that very important exploration.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Before I call another hon. Member, may I remind the House that it is hoped that the winding-up speeches will begin in 40 minutes? I
1384
know that there are at least three hon. Members who are trying to catch my eye.
9.56 p.m.
Mr. Win. Ross: A very large part of this debate has been concerned with employment prospects in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) referred to the problems being encountered by a firm in his constituency which is trying to develop an unusual and perhaps unique clay deposit in Aghadowey. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke of the Peter Pan bakeries, in which I also have constituency interests. When the Minister replies to this debate, I shall be grateful if he can say whether the viability of the various components of the Peter Pan firm have been examined with a view to the possibility of selling off those parts of the firm which were viable before the present conglomerate came into existence.
Having said that, I should like to develop the theme of employment and unemployment in my constituency and put a few matters to the Minister in the hope that he will listen and try to meet the first desire of the people for employment and the second desire of the general populace for the decentralisation of Government bodies and functions throughout Northern Ireland and principally to the western and most sparsely populated parts of the Province.
The Government always express their pious faith in a policy of decentralisation. Although I am happy to hear their commitment to decentralisation, I should be much happier if I could see some action in that direction. Far too often I fear that they pay only lip service to decentralisation.
We have seen the movement towards the concept of removing the design team of the water service in Londonderry city. I deplore it and I have already protested about it to the Minister. However, I fear that it is going ahead despite my protests and those of many other people in the area. We have also seen changes in the structure of the Northern Ireland electricity service, which is building a headquarters in Campsie in my constituency. It has been the subject of many protests in this House already, and it is leading to a very much poorer service to

1385
consumers. Then we have the centralisation of road fund licensing in county hall, Coleraine. That, to say the least of it, has not been a success. It is most inconvenient for those who have to travel there.
In the light of all this, I should like to see some success brought about by the decentralisation of Government functions. An opportunity has now been presented by the proposed introduction of the 10-year driving licence which I believe has to be centralised. The Minister wrote to me some time ago indicating that this unit was to be situated in Belfast at the Department of Health and Social Services building in Corporation Street. Despite the decision which has apparently been made or is in the process of being made in favour of this building, many questions need to be answered. It is rumoured that the building was offered to a number of other Government Departments. One name mentioned to me is the Manpower Services Commission, which turned it down for one reason or another. It is also known that the union concerned, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, is against centralisation. The Minister's letter to me speaks of full consultation with the union.
Members of this House have experienced consultation. We know exactly what consultation means. People attend at a workplace, listen to what the union or local representatives say, then go away and do not change their minds at all. They do not even seem to take into account what was said to them. There was consultation over the centralisation of road fund licensing many years ago. I am told that the local officials who dealt with that aspect of life in Northern Ireland were much opposed to centralisation. However, the Stormont officials supported centralisation. Centralisation came about. It was a total failure.
The fact was that the early recommendation was for county hall, Coleraine, based on a number of reasons, among which was the great difficulty being experienced in getting senior DOE staff to move to the Belfast city area. Most of these people who own their own homes or who are in the process of buying them find great difficulty in moving and prefer to stay where they are. There is also the problem of the need of the provincial centres.
1386
This is recognised by the union as well as the councils concerned. All desire to see job opportunities in the Government service brought to the more remote parts of Northern Ireland. The security aspect of siting fairly complex machinery where it could easily be got at and damaged also had to be considered.
The Minister's letter indicates that the building which was available or apparently available in the town centre block in Craigavon was not what was needed. It also indicates that county hall, Coleraine was ruled out. I wonder why county hall was not considered suitable. Despite my earlier view that a considerable number of jobs were involved, I am now told that very few people are involved in handling driving licences in Northern Ireland. I am told by the Minister that the machinery cost £180,000. My experience of machines in this day and age is that £180,000 does not buy very much. Those Members of this House who attended a demonstration in which driving licences and suchlike documents were placed on film saw machines that were very small but did the job very effectively. I should like to know precisely what sort of machine is being bought, what it does and what space is needed to house it. The space cannot be very large. If County Hall is to be bypassed, there must be a far better argument than lack of space. What is the argument against county hall, Coleraine?
Also, the new road fund licence machines which have recently arrived at county hall will, after the necessary work is done in putting all the records on to the computer, mean a considerable reduction of staff. That, coupled with the proposal to abandon road tax, will make space available at county hall. Why cannot that space be used? County hall is the proper place for the central driving licence unit. It is secure and it has available staff and it is west of the Bann, in a high unemployment area. The only real objection is that it is said to be a security risk to have two lots of records in the same building. That is not good enough. It is much easier to protect one building properly than to give second-rate protection to two buildings.
Will the Minister take a long, hard look at the siting of this unit? Cannot something be moved out into the sticks

1387
for a change instead of taking everything possible into Belfast, away from the people, and thereby depriving the rural areas of jobs, opportunities and a payroll to which they are entitled?
I will not be quite as scathing about the Housing Executive as some hon. Members have been. I shall try to be constructive. The executive is not building
1388
enough homes for old-age pensioners. The system of providing housing for old people seems to be downgraded. As a result, many old people live in dwellings far too big for them, which could be made available for families if only more old people's homes were built. Why is the executive refusing to raise the percentage of such homes on new estates?
10.7 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to deal mainly with the information and press service of the Northern Ireland Office and to ask for some explanation of why it is falling down on the job of countering IRA propaganda in Great Britain and abroad. I am not asking that the Northern Ireland Office should pay for people to be employed on newspapers under bogus names. That is the sort of trick that one associates with the CIA and which we can well do without in the United Kingdom.
I can give an example along these lines. The Sunday News employs a columnist under a bogus name. He has a contract with the newspaper under which his name is not to be divulged to the readers. He happens to be a Unionist Party propagandist who uses his privileged position to attack opponents of his leaders, including myself. I refer to Mr. John Morrison, whose real name is Mr. Hugh Shearman.
I think that Mr. Hugh Shearman, who is widely blamed for the more mediocre of Mr. West's speeches, should not write under a bogus name. If he is writing as a party propagandist, and does not want to mislead his unsuspecting readers, he should be proud to state his party.
I wish to protest vehemently about the image of Belfast and of the Ulster people conveyed in last night's ITV play, "I'm All Right, Montreal". That was in the tradition of programmes such as the play broadcast a little while ago on BBC television, called "The Last Window Cleaner", which also purported to explain what was happening in Northern Ireland.
Anyone watching either play and similar programmes on all three channels which exploit the war in Northern Ireland—they seem to delight in dipping their hands into the blood of Ulster people which has been spilled by the terrorists over the years—would wrongly be led to believe that everyone in the Province is caught up in violence or hung up on hatred.
That is demonstrably not so, especially to anyone who has taken the trouble to visit the Province and meet the ordinary people there who are the best people in the world. That message, sadly, is not getting across. I blame the Government, just as I point the finger of accusation at
1390
their predecessors in office, for failing to make sure that people abroad realise the merits of the Ulster people.
An example of antagonism has already been given in tonight's debate of the policeman at Gatwick who looks upon all travellers to Northern Ireland as terrorists or suspected terrorists. That is the message that television programmes and press comments give to people in Britain. The message is that the people of Northern Ireland are second-class citizens who are not worth the moral support that we believe the United Kingdom should give them. I am not surprised that the people in Great Britain and in other countries who watch productions such as the two I have described, and others which give a brutal distortion of life in Northern Ireland and callously blacken the Ulster character, have less sympathy and understanding for the citizens of Northern Ireland than they should have.
The propaganda value of all this to the Provisional IRA must be enormous. It wishes to give the impression that violence is the only way of life in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA knows by now, after it has committed the most appalling and obscene atrocities, that it cannot bomb, shoot and mutilate the Ulster people into submission. It intends instead, therefore, to convince the people of Great Britain that they should abandon Northern Ireland and its people.
The time is long overdue when the Government, using particularly their information and press office in Northern Ireland, should counter this defamation of the Ulster people. For a start, the Government might remind the BBC and the ITV that the Ulster people, going through a hell not of their own creation, should be given every possible moral support and encouragement. Is it too much for the Ulster people to ask, since they have shown such remarkable restraint and forbearance over the last 10 years in the face of terrible acts of violence, that people throughout the rest of the United Kingdom should recognise their courage, tenacity and decency, and to ask that these qualities are broadcast in Great Britain and elsewhere in the world, particularly in the United States?
The picture of life in Northern Ireland as portrayed in the plays I have referred to—and there have been other programmes not unlike them—is false,

1391
bizarre and brutal. It is a cruel portrayal of people in a Province which has had to endure 10 years of terrorism. Might not the Northern Ireland information office be provided with more money so that the staff could show that all this violence can and does occur in other parts of the United Kingdom? It is worth recalling, when television wrongly and falsely castigates the Ulster people, the racialism which exists in London, the Midlands and elsewhere, where Fascist thugs are prepared to use the boot against Asians and other coloured immigrants.
It is worth recalling what happens in South London where it is unsafe for people to walk. Mugging takes place. It is a disgrace under what is supposed to be the British rule of law. Yet pompous people there can preach to the people in Northern Ireland, pretending that the Ulster folk are less than normal. I should prefer to be an Ulsterman any day than to be part and parcel of those who operate in certain other parts of the United Kingdom. There are people in Great Britain who preach hatred and violence and advocate a way of life which is reprehensible. That is why I am surprised that the Government, and their Conservative predecessors, have failed to show the Ulster people in their true light; they have failed to show that they are decent people who want a decent way of life for all Ulster citizens. They have failed to show that those people are industrious, God fearing and dedicated to improving the condition of all the people in the Province who wish to be good citizens of the United Kingdom.
It is sad that people are given the impression that life in Northern Ireland is far worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Yet I know from having practised at the London Bar and talking to friends that life is one terrible hell in parts of London and some parts of Great Britain. The United States, which proclaims its belief in human rights, castigates Russia for failing to fulfil its obligations under the human rights treaty that it has adopted. United States Congressmen have attacked Northern Ireland. A Mr. Biaggi came to Ulster. He is an Italian ex-policeman, who is a member of some political caucus in New York.
1392
Some members of Congress set up an ad hoc committee on human rights in Northern Ireland and one is entitled to ask whether they are so politically corrupt that they are blind to the harrowing examples of social deprivation, the poverty, the criminality and the racialism which exists in the United States of America. One reads of the terrible brutalities in their prisons. One hears of rape, of beatings up by warders, and attacks by fellow prisoners. Yet these people have the audacity to come to Northern Ireland and to say that there is brutality in the Maze prison and that the Maze prison is a disgrace even by the standards of some South American republic or Communist country.
Our prisons in Northern Ireland—one of them is pretty old—are far better than the prisons in the United States of America. I do not have all the facts about conditions in America on which I could form a value judgment about the lack of human rights. But to enable me to do this and to monitor the many violations which obviously occur there, together with breaches of the human rights agreement, I intend to follow the example of Mr. Biaggi and set up at Westminster a committee—I hope I shall have support from Members on both sides of the House—to take evidence from people who have been badly treated in the United States, for example from the American Indians, whose rights have been taken from them, and from people who have suffered at the hands of politicians and lawyers, or even at the hands of the law. In that way perhaps we can help the United States to be true to the declaration of Abraham Lincoln.
I understand that two civil servants went to the United States a short time ago to counter the Provisional IRA propaganda about H block in the Maze prison. I believe that they have not had much success because the Irish Republican Army has considerable power in the United States through Irish influence. Indeed, this ad hoc committee on human rights in Northern Ireland even treats with contempt the remarks of Mr. Lynch and other Ministers in the Irish Republic.
The Northern Ireland Office, as well as the people of Ulster, must turn not so much to the United States, from which we

1393
shall obviously not get much support, but to Europe and to the Commonwealth. I emphasise the need to rely upn the Commonwealth. The Government seem to ignore the need to brief the Commonwealth Governments about Ulster, about the menace presented by the Provisional IRA and about the lies that it disseminates throughout the world.
The Northern Ireland Ministers have a splendid opportunity to give Northern Ireland a tremendous boost. The turn for hosting the Commonwealth games in 1986 has come to the United Kingdom. I understand that some cities in England are interested in being host for the games. The Commonwealth games have been held in England, Scotland and Wales, but they have never been held in Northern Ireland. I shall accuse this Government of discrimination against Northern Ireland if they do not force their will and ensure that the games come to Northern Ireland. I have already asked the Secretary of State about this. I have urged that the games be held in the Province. He rejected my plea out of hand. I repeat that plea, albeit that it is only to the Under-Secretary of State. I do not mean to be disrespectful to him.
It is an indictment of direct rule that the Secretary of State and other Ministers have not been present for the debate. That bolsters the arguments of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and of myself for an end to direct rule. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will convey my plea to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister. Let them proclaim that the Commonwealth games will be held in Northern Ireland in 1986. By making that decision the Government will show that they have faith in Northern Ireland. They will prove it to the world, to the Common Market and to the United States.
Such a decision would bring untold benefits to the Province, apart from the pleasure of acting as host to fellow members of the Commonwealth. Such a decision would induce more investment in Northern Ireland and help to begin the process of rejuvenation. That is what we want. I am told that the total cost of providing the sporting facilities is about £15 million at present day prices. More hotels are needed in the Province. The
1394
holding of the games would start that building process. There is good accommodation already for the athletes at Queen's university in hostel accommodation.
Northern Ireland needs a new stadium. A stadium which is built for the games would be of benefit to the Northern Ireland people for a long time. We need a stadium that will seat about 30,000 spectators. We also need a 40-metre swimming pool and a diving pool to meet international requirements. A cycle track could be upgraded. The existing sports halls could cater for many competitions.
I urge the Government to change their mind and to fight for the Commonwealth games to be held in Northern Ireland. If they fail to do that, I shall accuse them of betraying the Ulster people, who need this decision to restore their faith in Westminster. We have heard enough examples of the grievances caused by direct rule, which is distant, arrogant and pays no regard to the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, I am unable to speak about all the other matters that I wished to raise. Because of direct rule, a representative cannot articulate the needs, the problems and the anger of his constituents. I therefore say that the sooner we end direct rule, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and for its people.
I hope that we in Northern Ireland will be given a referendum such as the Prime Minister said that the people of Scotland and Wales were in justice entitled to. The people of Scotland and Wales have given their answer. Now let the Government show that they are interested in justice, fair play and equity by saying that the Ulster people will be given their opportunity, despite what some hon. Members from Northern Ireland may wish.
Let the Ulster people be given the opportunity of deciding in a referendum whether they want a Stormont Parliament. I assure the House that the overwhelming majority will vote for a devolved Parliament at Stormont.
Mr. John Dunlop Mr. John Dunlop (Mid-Ulster) rose—
Mr. John Carson Mr. John Carson(Belfast, North) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the hon. Members? If they will take five minutes each, I can give both of them the opportunity to speak.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. John Dunlop: I wish to refer to class IX in the Appropriation order dealing with health and social services and certain other services. The sum of about £23 million has been allocated to these services, and there is a note about an increase of £504,000. I think that I am right in saying that none of this increase is being allocated to more money for those engaged in the health and personal social services. I wish therefore to say something about members of the Royal College of Nursing in Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital, and the facts which I shall give apply equally to other hospitals in my constituency, notably the Tyrone county hospital in Omagh and the Mid-Ulster hospital in Magherafelt.
I shall give a few examples of the heavy responsibility which rests upon these people and the totally inadequate remuneration which they receive. I talked to a few of them last Monday. My first example is of a male nursing officer with 34 patients and 11 staff in the psychiatric department, this department having no secure units. He has a demanding and responsible job, and he takes home about £60 a week on which to keep his wife and family. This is disgraceful.
I take next a principal nursing officer—a man with a wife and five children—who has overall responsibility for 930 beds and 548 staff. He takes home a basic average weekly pay of £68·50. As I contrast pay of this kind with what is received by a leading hand in British Leyland who has equal responsibility, I am inclined to think that the man in British Leyland would not be content with that money as a bonus, never mind as basic pay.
Next, I take the example of a senior nursing officer responsible for education, for teaching nurses. He is responsible for 150 student nurses and seven staff. He has to give special training. He has to prepare his students for examinations which will qualify them to carry on in their chosen vocation, and the results of his work show. He must work well,
1396
because if he does not the results will be revealed in the performance of his students. This nursing officer himself undergoes a heavy training programme in order to qualify to do that work, yet he takes home on average about £80 a week, which compares poorly with what is received by teachers in other forms of education.
I emphasise the nature and quality of these Royal College of Nursing people and other hospital workers, and I have in mind the pressures now being applied here on the mainland to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I could mention many other matters, but time presses and I shall not weary the House with much more detail. I mention only a lady health visitor, a community worker with responsibility for about 700 families. She receives £67 a week, out of which she has to provide a car. She receives £169 per annum for the maintenance of the car. Anyone familiar with garage charges knows that that will not last long, allowing for a couple of breakdowns a year. These people are on call seven days a week, day and night and on public holidays. They are paid only 12 times a year—only on calendar months—with the result that they are diddled out of four weeks' salary a year.
Ministers ought to look at the recommendations made in the Halsbury committee report of 1974. It was said that nurses and health workers should not fall behind other workers. Because the nurses are responsible people they decided not to take strike action. They must be commended for this. To offer them £1 a week in return is an insult and nothing short of criminal. Living costs in Northern Ireland are higher than elsewhere while pay is lower. This is an important factor to be borne in mind.
To restore the incentive to young men and women to enter the nursing profession and to retain qualified staff already in the service it is necessary to do something drastic about their basic salary. Our country has a high unemployment rate. We must institute a campaign to retain those young nurses. They must be kept in this country, in our service. It does not make sense to let them leave, taking their skills elsewhere. It is worth looking at the salaries of nurses in the Republic

1397
of Ireland. I trust that the Minister will do so.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. John Carson: I refer briefly to class V of the order. I endorse what the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have said about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I do not doubt the real reason for the absence of the Minister. He knows that he would be facing a lot of awkward questions. These are important questions for the people of Northern Ireland.
Recently I tabled about 10 questions to the Department. I received an identical reply to each question. I was told that the point raised was a matter for the Housing Executive. On behalf of the people of Belfast, North I will not accept that from the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). He ought to give me an answer. I say that with great respect to every other Minister in the Department.
I do not criticise the Northern Ireland Office. I receive great help and am treated with the utmost courtesy by the Office. Frequently the Minister of State has arranged meetings and met deputations which I have led to see him at very short notice. The Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment is the most arrogant Minister who ever held office in Northern Ireland. He is responsible for the public money being spent by the Housing Executive.
District 4 office of the Housing Executive is in my constituency. The Minister answered a question about this last year but refused to answer the same question this year. This suggests that there is a cover-up for officials inside the executive. That district office was to be moved to new accommodation about 16 months ago. Recently I was told that £30,000 has been paid in rent for the accommodation of the district 4 office in Royal Avenue and for car parking spaces. Yet no one is ready to move into these offices. There is an office at Cookstown that was taken over by the executive two years ago. The key has not yet been turned in the door.
I have mentioned only two examples. There are many more, but time does not
1398
permit me to refer to them. The executive is squandering public money on office accommodation when the money would be much better spent on carrying out essential repairs on behalf of many elderly people in the Province.
There is an old lady of 78 years in my constituency who is a tenant of the Housing Executive. Four months ago her back door was removed in the course of repairs. A piece of hardboard was the replacement door. She had to face the winter without a back door. For four weeks she had to wait for a burst pipe to be repaired. That may bring a smirk to some hon. Members' faces but it is a serious matter. It seems that the executive may squander millions of pounds on luxury office accommodation—it is one of the largest employers in Northern Ireland—yet not be prepared to give a service to its tenants or to carry out maintenance work.
I was told last week that the maintenance officers were on strike. I said that it would not matter as they did not carry out any maintenance. We often hear about the thousands of maintenance reports. The Minister does not tell us that some of the repair reports have been recorded, 10, 12 and 30 times. That is what is happening.
Time does not permit me to enlarge on the tragedy that has happened to the people of Northern Ireland through the bad management of the Housing Executive. The Minister who is responsible is not prepared to take action. It seems that he is not prepared to accept responsibility and to give an account of his stewardship and of the public money that he is wasting.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The debates on the Northern Ireland Appropriation orders are always very much of a mosaic composed of pieces of differing sizes, shapes and colours; but rarely has the variety of the mosaic been as great as in this evening's debate.
Nevertheless, considering the debate as a whole, there are two pieces that seem to stand out of the pattern. One piece is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) added his contribution, all too briefly—namely, the dilemma, that will be insoluble as

1399
long as there is no elective local government, of the Housing Executive. Of course, it must have a certain internal responsibility for management, allocation and maintenance; but in the present framework it is entirely the creature of central Government, and Members in the House, being the only responsible representatives, are thus entitled to expect from central Government not merely general but precise replies, which they do not obtain.
The other piece that I have in mind in the pattern is that of transportation between Northern Ireland and the mainland. For Northern Ireland the transport link with Great Britain is literally life and death. It is a special disadvantage to Northern Ireland—in every respect, political, social and economic—to be so reliant upon the air link. There are two twin requirements that have not yet been fulfilled if we are to have the necessary communications with the mainland of Great Britain. Those requirements are competition and multiplicity.
Many of the criticisms made by hon. Members of the efficiency and cost of the service provided by British Airways would not exist if there were adequate competition. There should be not two but three systems competing to provide air transport between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is something in which the Northern Ireland Development Agency ought to be able to help; for surely there is a field here for enterprise which it could encourage and support. We also believe that British Midland requires the recognition of the initiative which it has shown and the service which it has rendered in more difficult times to the people of the Province.
Competition merely in air transport is not sufficient, however. There must be an adequate alternative, or rather a series of adequate alternatives, of surface transport. Good surface transport has been recognised as essential to the parliamentary union ever since the parliamentary union existed. One is ashamed, in looking back 100 years, to discover how efficient and frequent was surface transit then between the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain compared with the infrequency and slowness of the comparable transit today. There are two or three additional routes which, certainly
1400
for passenger cars and rail passengers, could and should be exploited.
When he spoke at the beginning of this debate, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) invited me to indicate whether progress had been made in stimulating the interest of British Rail. I think that it would probably be better if the Government were brought to reply upon that subject and if we found the way of devoting a special debate to it, where it could be thoroughly examined. But at least I can say from personal knowledge that I have good reason for thinking that British Rail, Sealink and indeed the Northern Ireland railways are not at all insensitive to the new opportunities which are now expanding for the exploitation of surface transport routes between Great Britain and the Province routes. Although they would necessarily be longer in time than the air transit, whenever the air transit is efficient, they would be a guaranteed, reliable and cheaper mode of transport which would certainly create the traffic to sustain it.
Finally on the subject of transport, there has to be an end to the present nonsense of so-called security checks on air travel between the Province and Great Britain. What we have at the moment is a rag-bag of a system which was cobbled together in 1972, added to in 1973, added to again in 1974, with bits stuck on later still in 1976 and 1977. Someone—it is the Government who have this duty—must now look at the whole matter in the context of 1979 and try to make sense of it. The Government would be well advised to take warning from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux); for if the risks which he delineated were ever to be realised, the Government would be very sorry for themselves if they had to justify neglecting his warnings and allowing those conditions to continue for so long when so many hon. Members have drawn attention to the dangers being created.
This is, after all, both a general and a financial debate, and it would be wrong if we concluded it without a reference to the work done for this House, and for Northern Ireland in particular, by those who exercise detailed surveillance of the Northern Ireland finances under the Comptroller and Auditor-General, from

1401
whom we have a report on the past financial year which is not quite 12 months out of date. It is gratifying to be greeted in the first paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report with the assertion that he believes that accounting and control is showing distinct improvement, and it is interesting to see that he adds that
" the operation of cash limits over a considerable field has in itself improved departmental control ".
I believe that that is true in the United Kingdom as a whole as well as in Northern Ireland.
But it would not be fair to allow that report to lie on the table without inviting the Government to respond in the House to a number of the salient points which the Comptroller and Auditor-General has made, of each of which I have given notice to the Minister who is to reply. I come straight to one which is concerned with cash limits, that is, the overspending of the education boards. What, broadly speaking, is happening is that the education boards are, I would say, deliberately overspending in the knowledge that they will not suffer a corresponding reduction in the following year's allocation but that a special supplementary approval will be given to their excesses. Certainly, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is justified in saying that this is an indefensible practice. He states that he is in correspondence with the Department
" as to the apparent erosion of the principles of cash limits ".
I ask the Minister, when he replies, to bring us up to date on that correspondence and to give an assurance to the House that we are well on the way to getting proper financial control applied through the Department of Education to the boards, as it is applied in the other Departments of Government through the Kingdom.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General devoted a considerable part of his report to the SD3-30 aircraft, manufactured by Short Brothers Limited, and it was not gratifying to be told that on the first six aircraft the sales showed a loss of
" 55 per cent. of their cost of manufacture ".
However, those figures are somewhat out of date, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General refered to a statement due at the
1402
end of 1978 which would show the sales of the next 10 aircraft and might "give a clearer picture". How are we going on? In the past we have suffered too often by not being kept in constant touch with the progress of these projects aided with substantial sums of public money. In this case we ought to be told what has been the further experience in 1978.
On the water service—a service which has been in trouble in certain parts of the Province this year—there is bad reading again in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report on the question of the depots. I will not read it to the House in full, but it is not a report upon the stewardship of public property which this House ought to be willing to accept. We are told by the Comptroller and Auditor-General that it is necessary, in order to correct these deficiencies, to have new and properly organised depots created. I ask the Minister to provide the House tonight with the latest statement to date on progress in creating a new depot system in the water service which will prevent these abuses from continuing.
Then there are two matters of rent. This is always a field in which vigilance is necessary if unfairness is not to be created, as well as public property misused. Here there are two Departments concerned. One is the Department of Education, which has been for a long time failing to find a proper system of assessing the rents paid by its employees who are resident on its premises. It promised the Comptroller and Auditor-General some time ago that
" as a matter of priority, it would be drawing up guidelines for new and re-let residences and would then review the pattern of rentals altogether ".
By now that ought to be completed, and the Minister ought tonight to be able to give the answer to that question.
There is a parallel situation in the Department of Health, where rents are still being charged at 1973 levels in the hospitals simply because it has been found impossible as yet to agree upon the proper system on which rents ought to be assessed. That situation existed at January 1979. The Government should be able to say tonight whether the matter has been cleared up so that there can be fairness and a rational

1403
system, for the taxpayer and those who occupy the property alike.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) referred to Arts Council grants. Let me say that there was no collusion between us, but I should like to refer to that subject also. The administrative costs of operating the Council in 1974–75 were 20 per cent. of the current expenditure. In 1975–76 that figure had increased to 30 per cent. and in 1976–77 it had increased to 36 per cent. Presumably, that year covered the articles on the interview with Seamus Twomey. The figure for 1977–78 has not been provided, but I assume, by a progression, that the figure would be about 40 per cent. I am relieved to see that the Minister is indicating dissent. However, it should be placed on record that the percentages are not merely not increasing but being reduced to a level which the Charity Commissioner would be prepared to tolerate if this was a charity and not the expenditure of public money upon the arts.
The last point that I should like to make is partly about financial control and partly about policy. In a written answer of 30 November 1978 the Under-Secretary of State wrote about a grant-making charitable trust. He said that the Government thought it a pity that Northern Ireland did not have within its boundaries a source of charitable funds such as exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. No hon. Member would disagree with that. The hon. Gentleman said that
" local groups should not be totally dependent on Government ".—[Official Report, 30 November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 282.]
I agree completely with that. He went on to say that the Government had decided that they should encourage the development of an independent and charitable trust—charitable in the full Christian sense of the word—and that they are prepared to give that trust £500,000 of public money before it gets off the ground, just to encourage it in case there is not sufficient initiative, charity or independence. They will also match pound for pound, to a maximum of £250,000, any funds that the trustees can raise from other sources.
There is no statute under which this could be done. It is dealt with by an entry at the bottom of page 70, at D 9. Class IX, Vote 1 "Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust,"
"Provision for payment of grant £500,000."
1404
I am aware that under Treasury rules that entry constitutes Parliamentary approval. However, it is not good enough. If this happened elsewhere in the United Kingdom a Minister would make a statement at the Dispatch Box and would be questioned about such a new departure in policy that involved substantial expenditure of public money outside statutory provision. The matter would have to be ventilated in the House and perhaps fully debated before it could be proceeded with.
This has been settled by the ipse dixit of a Minister, a written answer and an entry in the Estimates. However, my hon. Friends and I will see that the matter is debated. We desire to see voluntary effort and charitable funds independent of Government; but there cannot be independence of Government which starts with dependence upon public funds.
I estimate that the Minister will have had approximately 350 per cent. more questions addressed to him than he is able to answer in the 25 minutes which I hope that the Opposition spokesman will leave for him. All the questions that I have put to the Minister, and some others, were notified to him in writing and I am sure that he will answer those tonight. If our experience—brief as it is—is a good guide, he will answer all the others, as fully as he is able, for the hon. Members concerned.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gow: The Under-Secretary addressed the House for just six minutes in his opening speech. The size of the expenditure involved in the order merited a much longer speech. Even if one is looking at expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1980, which totals £663 million, the Minister was dealing with it at a rate of more than £100 million per minute.
Last year, we had four Northern Ireland Appropriation orders—one in March, two in July and one in December. This is the first such order this year, and I wish to make one suggestion about the future presentation of the orders. It would be for the convenience of the House and of the Minister if we had a greater breakdown on some of the items of expenditure in very large blocks. We have examples of more than £100 million in one block.

1405
We welcome, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the Under-Secretary's statement that the internal energy review for Northern Ireland is to be published before the Easter Recess and that there will be a Government statement on it. I do not wish to appear churlish, but the review is long overdue. In a debate on the gas industry in the Northern Ireland Committee on 6th July 1977, the Minister of State said:
" I recognise the need for urgency and I appreciate the parlous condition of a number of the gas undertakings…I intend that the decision-making process should be as swift as it possibly can be, so that the industry—and its customers—may be left in doubt no longer than is necessary about the Government's intentions. "—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 6 July 1977; c. 2.]
Just over a year later, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
" The Minister of State for Northern Ireland is about to put to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recommendations for gas which arise from discussions with the British Gas Corporation and others."—[Official Report, 24 July 1978; Vol. 954, c. 1276.]
The Government have certainly been a long time in producing the report and we look forward with impatience to seeing it.
Reference has been made to Lord Melchett's recent speech in Londonderry. I hope that the Under-Secretary can tell us to what extent, if any, the items in class VIII, sub-heads 1 and 4, relate to the reorganisation of secondary education in Northern Ireland. I imagine that the answer will be that no part of that expenditure relates to reorganisation, despite what the Minister of State said at the end of that speech:
" I believe the abolition of selection at 11-plus in Northern Ireland is now a certainty—"
I certainly disagree with that——
" but all of us who believe in ending the indefensible, divisive system of section must constantly reaffirm our determination to do just that."
I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that no part of the sums granted on account under class VIII relate to reorganisation and will also be able to give us the Government's estimate of the cost of bringing about the changes to which Lord Melchett referred.
I turn to part II, class V, concerning expenditure on housing. The first part of my remarks about housing relates to
1406
the more agreeable part. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was highly critical of the Housing Executive's decision to sell 54,000 houses. We on the Opposition Benches warmly welcome that decision, although I had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman when he complained about the way in which it was announced. After all, it was a major departure in Government policy, in marked contrast with the policy of the Government in Great Britain.
In answer to a question today, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that in the nine months April to December 1978 there was a sale of 23,400 council houses and 400 flats in Great Britain. In the same period in 1976 and 1977 the totals were 3,734 and 9,440 respectively. That marks the extent to which there has been a fundamental change in Government policy. It would have been much better if it had been announced from the Dispatch Box and not through a Housing Executive press release.
I also had considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman when he pointed out how difficult it was to get any response from the Government about the Housing Executive's policy. If ever a case was made for an increasing democratisation of local government in Northern Ireland, it was made in regard to the Housing Executive. It seems that there is no democratic body responsible, and nobody who can be questioned about the Housing Executive's activities.
From the more agreeable aspect, I tutrn to the much less agreeable aspect of the Housing Executive. On 16 February a question about the Housing Executive was asked by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. It was not until 16 February that the executive's accounts for the year ended 31 March 1977 were laid before the House. Nearly two years had elapsed from the end of the financial year to the date on which the accounts were laid before Parliament.
The accounts are deeply disturbing. They follow the announcement on 9 March last year of the setting up of an inquiry into the executive's affairs. As we are being invited to approve under class V the expenditure of more than £41 million—and this is only the first

1407
Appropriation order for this year—I hope that the Minister will address himself to some of the most disturbing aspects. I put only a few to him.
The report of the Local Government Auditor and the Comptroller and Auditor-General said that rent arrears in respect of houses and garages increased from £5½ million to £6½ million at 31 March 1977. It added:
" I must state…that in some of the less efficient District Offices arrears follow-up is not as positive as it should be and this has also contributed to the heavy arrears situation."
In the next paragraph, on page 22, we read:
" there has been a failure in several cases to deduct from these payments arrears of rent owing to the Executive for the occupation of such properties following acquisition."
The home loans section on page 23 states:
" The audit of this section by my staff and internal audit has disclosed many weaknesses in financial and administrative control."
The next paragraph states:
" Until the executive complies with the Department's directive it will not be possible to settle outstanding audit queries for this and previous financial years."
On district heating it is stated:
" At the 31 March 1977 the deficit…stood at £697,517 compared with an adjusted deficit balance of £341,182 at the commencement of the year under audit."
The report also states:
" Several outside bodies are receiving supplies from district heating centres but accounts for payment in respect of such supplies have not been rendered."
If the House is to be invited to approve payments of this kind, there is a duty on the Government to comment on this deeply disturbing report from which I make only one more quotation. On page 24, it says:
" I feel that the standard of efficiency in this Division "—
that is, the housing maintenance division—
" would have been improved if, in response to previous audit criticisms, immediate action had been taken by the staff responsible ".
The Minister has had many questions put to him. Although there are many more that I should like to put, it would be for the convenience of the House if we gave him the opportunity to make as long a reply as possible.
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Pendry: Perhaps for the first time I understand the meaning of the phrase "the man in the hot seat". To answer any criticism to the effect that my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends are not sitting with me on this Bench, I should like to point out that they are working hard in their own Departments. That should be stated at this stage.
The debate has ranged far and wide. I shall attempt to cover the many points put to me. I should also like to say, though probably not so well as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), that I shall endeavour to answer in correspondence those matters that I cannot cover in this speech. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) raised a number of points on the details of underspending. Decreases in the present provisions which it is proposed to apply as offsets to the additional expenditure are outlined in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume. We wish to ensure that funds appropriated by this House are spent as efficiently as possible.
On the question of the economic planning document, the Government are aware of the economic, social and environmental problems in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Abingdon indicated, the Government have recently published a document entitled "Economic and Social Progress in Northern Ireland: Review and Prospects." The document reviews and assesses recent developments in the economic, social and environmental fields in Northern Ireland and outlines the Government's views on possible ways to enhance economic and soical development in Northern Ireland over the next few years.
The document is intended to stimulate active public discussion of the economic and social problems facing Northern Ireland and possible ways of tackling these problems. The Government look forward particularly to receiving the views of the Economic Council, the political parties and other interested organisations and individuals. When these views have been examined, it is intended that the Northern Ireland general economic strategy will be fully debated, possibly in the Northern Ireland Committee.
I was happy to hear that the Opposition are to meet the De Lorean company and

1409
to put a number of questions to it. I believe that the Opposition will be impressed by the level of management at De Lorean and the progress being made. I am sure that the employment support De Lorean is giving in West Belfast will be welcomed.
The hon. Member also mentioned energy. As I said, we are at present preparing a document on energy, laying out the main considerations. This has been completed and will be published before the Easter Recess. There will be pressure from us for a full debate as soon as possible after the recess.
On educational reorganisation, the hon. Member referred to the speech of my noble Friend Lord Melchett to the Irish National Teachers Organisation in Londonderry, when he referred to the discussion document which has been distributed and said that no decision had been taken. That discussion document was about the transfer procedure for 1980 and not about secondary reorganisation. I should clear up that one before the hon. Gentleman starts believing that we have done an about-turn. The Government's decision that selection by perceived ability at 11-plus should be eliminated was announced in June 1977 and the Government remain firmly committed to that decision.
I believe that those remarks should also satisfy the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), but if not I shall come back to him. In the interests of time, I shall pass on to his other points.
Air services are strictly a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade. However, the adequacy of air services is obviously important to the economy of Northern Ireland, including the tourist industry. We are therefore concerned that full consideration should be given to Northern Ireland's special position and that the service should be provided as efficiently as possible. The Northern Ireland Economic Council has recently published its views on the air passenger services. Those views are currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Trade.
Urgently required work on the aircraft pavement at Aldergrove has recently been completed, as has already been said in the House. A new taxiway link to the
1410
main runway has been involved. A major contract has been let and the works involve the reconstruction and realignment of taxiways, a new electrical ring main, aviation ground lighting and navigational aids, new car parks and engineering facilities. The works will take about 14 months to complete, at a cost of about £6 million. It is hoped to start the second stage of the works early in 1980. That will be the first major step in improving passenger handling facilities at the airport. The estimated cost of that stage is £7·4 million.
Speaking personally, it is a matter of regret, but the Government's decision on the question of the Commonwealth games is firm. The proposal that Northern Ireland should host the 1986 games has been fully considered by the Government and rejected. Estimates of cost vary between £14 million and over £25 million. The priorities—housing, inner city decay, rehabilitation, restoration and general environmental improvement—are higher than a one-off event such as the games. Resources would be prevented from being used to meet the Province's other recreational and community projects if that proposal were to go through. Hotel accommodation and so on in the Belfast area is severely limited and would need to be augmented.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) also spoke about Alder-grove airport and gave many illustrations of the problems and frustrations that are being experienced there. We shall return to the detailed points in correspondence. He referred to the transfer links generally between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I shall ensure that his remarks on that score are brought to the Secretary of State's attention.
Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister give us all the assurance that he will do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked and ensure that the Government initiate a concentrated detailed study of the nonsensical security arrangements, or what passes for security arrangements, at Alder-grove and on the Heathrow—Belfast link generally?
Mr. Pendry: I have said that I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Secretary of State's attention, and I shall include that aspect.

1411
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) spoke about the Arts Council grant to finance the interview with Seam us Twomey. The publication referred to is regarded generally by the Arts Council and others as a magazine of high literary quality and serious content—[Laughter.] Although that causes some laughter, there are a number of reputable contributors to the magazine. I shall send a list to those hon. Members whom I detected laughing.
The Arts Council does not attempt to exercise detailed editorial control or take responsibility for the inclusion of particular items when it decides to assist publications of this kind. It would, however, discontinue its assistance if there was a serious deterioration in the general level of quality, and it would be concerned if a persistent line of subversive propaganda became apparent.
Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that in the course of the articles to which I referred Seamus Twomey was given the opportunity to boast that Ireland had the most effective guerrilla force in the world, and that it had nothing to learn from other terrorist forces? What great literary value lies in that kind of comment? Does he accept that the kind of questions asked poured honey on this murderous reprobate—points like "I did not expect you to be such a human, warm person "and" I really find you quite a vulnerable man"? What literary value is there in that sort of nonsense?
Mr. Pendry: In the interests of time, I must push on. I am sure that other hon. Members want answers to their questions. I can say only that this is a relatively independent body. The interview took place many years ago, and I am surprised that the issue has raised its head at this stage.
I shall pass on to another serious point which was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. He complained about people claiming unemployment benefit when working in another job—what is known as "the double". This matter is causing a good deal of concern. Only last week I chaired a meeting of the Northern Ireland Construction Industry Advisory Council when it was raised. The Department has a specialist branch with 24 specialist investigating officers whose duty is to carry out spot checks,
1412
unexpected interviews and a selective follow-up of certain types of claim where the risk of fraud is higher than usual. Considerable emphasis is placed on prevention, and the system is continually reviewed to prevent possible abuse. It is a matter of great concern, and hon. Members may rest assured that the Government are deeply concerned about this activity.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West made a moving speech in parts. He was in good form and I certainly did not take anything he said about me personally. He raised many points about the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Unemployment is not expected to increase or decrease substantially in the coming year. The rise expected in production—some 2 per cent—is not likely to be sufficient to enable employers to recruit more labour. Wages, which have been high, have tended to reduce employment.
There are some minor crumbs of comfort. School leaver unemployment is running at a considerably lower level than last year. In February 1979 it was 2,684 and in February 1978 it was 3,067. This improvement started in September last year. Seasonally adjusted unemployment, excluding school leavers, is currently still almost 1,000 below the summer peak of 1978. Much of the recent increase in unemployment is due to the exceptionally bad weather. I hope that when the weather improves the employment level will rise.
Much more interest has been shown in Northern Ireland as a place for investment, but it will take some time for unemployment to be affected.
Mr. Neave: I quoted from the departmental report which states that employment in the construction and manufacturing industries would experience heavy falls by 1981. What action are the Government taking?
Mr. Pendry: The construction industry levels are in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a matter for regret, but it is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. It is absolutely in line with the general trend in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about Peter Pan bakeries. The Minister of State is examining the matter and he will do his best to reach a final view by the end of this week.

1413
I do not think that there is anything that I can add.
Members spoke against the sale of council houses by the Housing Executive. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and other hon. Members did not express that view, but the hon. Member for Belfast, West felt that this was in some way an action which was out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom. I stress that the policy on the sale of council houses in Northern Ireland is in line with policy in Great Britain. Such houses will be sold only in areas where need has been met. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State feels strongly about this and he has resisted the sale of more council houses under this general policy. So, though it may be a matter for regret to some hon. Members, the fact is that it is within the established criteria laid down in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I shall bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the question of the Turf Lodge flats street lighting.
The Bennett report is expected to be available soon. I shall bring those issues which I have not covered in depth to the attention of the appropriate Minister.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East, (Mr. Craig) made a thoughtful and constructive speech and I regret that I cannot spend more time on it. It was a valuable contribution. Though I have not read the appropriate Hansard, I hope that he did not go into the Lobby in favour of public expenditure cuts.
Mr. Gow: The Minister said that the policies of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and of the Government were the same. In the press release of 29 January the Housing Executive stated:
" A number of vacant houses will be up for sale too ".
But the Secretary of State said this week:
" I shall stop the sales of empty houses and flats that become available for reletting."—[Official Report, 5 March 1979; Vol. 963 c. 934.]
Is there not a difference between what the Government are doing in Great Britain and what they are doing in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Pendry: I stand by what I have said, but I shall look into the questions that have been raised.
1414
The Minister of State will consider the remarks made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He will do what he can to help the company which the hon. Member mentioned if he thinks that the situation falls within the right criteria and that a viable industry can be created. I shall be pleased to supply the hon. Member with details; I shall correspond with him.
The hon. Member spoke about the problems of the Housing Executive and gave some interesting illustrations of what happens in his constituency. I shall pass those on. He also stressed the problems of Strathearn Audio. The Japanese firm is still interested in Strathearn Audio. I understand that there has been some progress and that the Japanese firm is considering the possibilities carefully. I shall keep the hon. Member up to date.
The hon. Member for Londonderry referred to the Peter Pan Bakeries. He made a specific point about component parts. I shall inform the Minister of State and he will reply to the hon. Member.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wanted to know the outcome of correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I understand that there has been no outcome. This is a complex issue, but we are alive to the need to keep financial control procedures under review to ensure that weaknesses are identified in an attempt to minimise the possibility of any future excesses.
The right hon. Member also referred to the Department of Education. He asked whether the guidelines on the rents of the new and relet residencies had been given. The Department will be issuing shortly guidelines for the rents for new or relet residencies.
The right hon. Member asked about paragraph 85 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General dealing with the Arts Council. He will be amazed to learn that the level of administrative costs is exactly the same as last year—36 per cent.
Mr. Powell: Is that acceptable?
Mr. Pendry: I have told the right hon. Member the figure. I find it acceptable and I should have thought that he would agree, in view of what he said. I am

1415
sure that the right hon. Member is expressing mock indignation. I have not time to develop the argument.
I have come to the end of my time. A number of matters are outstanding, but I was not left much time to reply. I shall reply to other points as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES)
11.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.
I have been known to move Northern Ireland orders with a very brief speech at this time of the evening, but on this occasion I apologise in advance for a rather longer introduction of the order because I do not believe that it would be for the good of the House if I did not go into matters in some depth, since these are two of the most important industries in Northern Ireland and what we are doing tonight is of considerable significance.
The purpose of the draft order is to establish an appropriate framework for the relationship between the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce and the two State-owned companies of Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers which respectively constitute the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Northern Ireland. The Department acquired the shares of Harland and Wolff Limited in 1975 under the Shipbuilding Industry (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, and it became the majority shareholder in Short Brothers Limited in 1976, with over 70 per cent. of the issued share capital, the balance being held by the Department of Industry.
In essence, the order is a recognition of the special need for close and continuous contact between the Government and these companies because of their publicly-owned status and their vital importance
1416
to the economic and industrial life of Northern Ireland. It does not represent any radical new departure in the Government's projected role. It is basically a formalisation of the closer relationships which are required and which have in fact been developing in recent years.
The immediate stimulus to new legislation comes from the fact that the Department's powers to provide financial assistance to Harland and Wolff under the No. 2 order of 1975 will expire on 31 March 1979. That order was conceived as an interim measure, with the main aim of enabling the company to complete its then order book by providing for assistance of up to £60 million from public funds.
It was hoped that Harland and Wolff would be able to operate on at least a break-even basis from 1979 onwards. As the House well knows, however, market conditions in shipbuilding have deteriorated very sharply since 1975, and the world shipbuilding industry has been going through a period of unprecedented crisis. Harland and Wolff is no exception, and it is clear that it will need Government financial assistance to survive in any form until conditions improve.
I could perhaps have sought the approval of the House to provide assistance simply by extending the time and money limits of the No. 2 order, or by dealing with Harland and Wolff under the general industries development legislation, as is currently done with Short Brothers. But I believe that it is right to take the opportunity to evolve a specific and more comprehensive framework for the Government's relationships with these two major publicly owned companies, tailored to their particular needs. This is consistent with the existence of legislation special to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Great Brtain.
I am glad that this order gives the House an opportunity to discuss the present position and prospects of these two companies. Indeed, the order itself recognises the importance of ensuring that the House is regularly informed of their progress by providing for presentation of the companies' annual reports and accounts. Funding of the companies will be through the normal route in annual Estimates. Thus, Appropriation debates will provide further opportunity for examination and comment, and the funds

1417
allocated to these two companies will be differentiated in the Estimates more clearly than at present from funds for other industrial assistance.
Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers play a vital role in the economy of Northern Ireland. Between them they directly provide almost 14,000 jobs in the Belfast area, where total employment is about 300,000 and unemployment among men currently stands at over 10 per cent. There is also indirect employment to suppliers and sub-contractors on a substantial scale.
Both companies make technically sophisticated products and are important in maintaining Northern Ireland's reservoir of skills and technological expertise. They are both major exporters, competing in very difficult international markets, and to some extent they are ambassadors of Northern Ireland industry throughout the world.
It is of the greatest importance that the companies continue to make these contributions to the economic life of the Province, and it is the aim of the draft order to create a structure within which a rational and informed approach to their futures can be developed. Such an approach will have to take account of many factors, including market conditions, the Government's international obligations concerning the level and character of aid to the industries, the constraints on the use of public funds and, perhaps most important of all, the competitive performance of the companies themselves. I believe that the procedures envisaged in the proposed order will provide the basis for the co-operation between the Government and the companies that will be needed to achieve such an approach.
I should like to look very briefly at each of the companies—first, Harland and Wolff. The greatest single problem hanging over any shipbuilding enterprise at present is the continuing severe depression in the industry. As a result of the world trade recession, the demand for shipping has declined seriously. Many vessels are laid up for lack of economic employment and freight rates have been very low for the last three or four years. Orders from shipowners for new vessels have, naturally, been scarce. On the other hand, world shipbuilding capacity,
1418
encouraged by the boom period in the early 1970s, has increased dramatically. Shipyards in the United Kingdom all have to contend with fierce competition and low prices. State intervention in favour of the shipbuilding industry has proved unavoidable, in one form or another, throughout Western Europe. It seems likely to continue for some years to come.
Harland and Wolff is as much affected by the market conditions as any other yard and thus, despite the very real improvements in its performance since 1975, it finds itself still in need of Government assistance. But in 1975, as I have said, assistance was provided to enable the yard to reorganise and to complete an existing order book which for various reasons had been delayed and could not be carried through without substantial losses. Now it is a question of providing assistance to secure any orders at all and to help the yard survive until trading conditions improve.
The improvements in Harland's performance have been significant. There has been better productivity, industrial relations have been excellent, with an almost complete absence of disruption, and the use of the £60 million approved in 1975 has been effective, to the extent that it has been possible to support some new orders from it as well as to complete the 1975 order book. Although the trade unions have not yet filled the places available to them on the company's board, there has been much progress on worker participation below board which has resulted in a generally improved climate between management and work force. In fact, we have not had what could be called a serious disruption in the shipyard since 1974.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: The whole House will be delighted to hear of the co-operation between the trade unions and management at Harland and Wolff. Has my right hon. Friend heard the very disturbing news from Northern Ireland tonight to the effect that the management of Grunwick has stated that the factory may close because of a fight between two of the main unions? Can he give the House an assurance that he will use all the resources of his Department to try to resolve this dispute?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern):Order. We are discussing Harland and Wolff.
Mr. Concannon: My short answer to my hon. Friend is that I will look at that matter first thing in the morning.
In short, the company has shown that it can surmount difficulties and has proved itself to be as worthy of support in today's conditions as its counterparts in Great Britain.
Nevertheless, further reductions in manpower seem inevitable at Harlands, as elsewhere. Already there has been a decline in employment to 7,700 as against 10,000 in 1974. Northern Ireland Members can recall the days when there were over 20,000 working in this shipyard.
The company is doing all it can to win new ship orders. It is also seeking suitable work outside the traditional shipbuilding field, and it has had some notable success. Diversification, however, cannot be expected in the short term to provide alternative employment for all surplus shipbuilding labour. Workers made redundant at Harlands will qualify for compensation under the special shipbuilding redundancy scheme on the same terms as workers in British Shipbuilders, and this will be of great assistance in accomplishing an orderly diminution of the work force. Nevertheless, the prospect of redundancies and uncertainty about the future inevitably has a dampening effect on morale. But, on the whole, the company remains in good heart and we must give it the chance to survive and strengthen itself for whatever opportunities the future may offer.
As hon. Members are aware, financial assistance in shipbuilding in member States is subject to the approval of the EEC Commission. The fourth directive of the EEC, introduced in April 1978, aims at preventing distortion in competition between member States as a result of national shipbuilding aids. The directive recognises that, while the crisis lasts, State aids are necessary to prevent the complete collapse of European shipbuilding.
The Government's detailed proposals for assistance to Harland and Wolff over the next two years are currently under discussion with the Commission and I have to report that the discussions are not proving easy. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any definitive statement about our proposals. The negotiations are continuing and we shall seek
1420
to ensure that the company is enabled to adapt to current conditions and that its capacity to respond to future improvement in the market is maintained.
Mr. James Molyneaux: While we appreciate all that this Government have done to maintain the level of activity in the shipyards of Belfast, may I ask whether the Minister of State feels that it is intolerable that the EEC, which claims to have the interests of the peripheral regions at heart, should be an inhibiting factor upon future Government assistance? If necessary, will he seek the support of this House in any future negotiations in which he may find himself in difficulty with the EEC?
Mr. Concannon: The EEC Commission takes the view that the European shipbuilding industry must contract to a level more in line with its current, and likely future, market share. The Commission wishes to be assured that assistance provided by member States to their shipbuilding industries is linked with plans to restructure those industries to meet the changed world market situation. The proposals for assistance to Harland and Wolff are examined by the Commission in the light of this principle, as are proposals by any member State for assistance to a shipyard. The Commission has been sympathetic towards proposals for aid to Harland and Wolff in the light of the peculiar regional and political difficulties affecting employment in Northern Ireland. The Commission is questioning the latest proposals which I have put to it. Things are proving a little bit difficult and if I run into difficulties I shall seek support from the House.
I turn now to Short Brothers Ltd. The company has had a difficult few years. Trading results have been disappointing, with losses of £2·4 million. £5·4 million and £4·6 million respectively in the three years from 1975. It is not expected that its 1978 results will show an improvement. There were two main reasons for that state of affairs. One is that the company's productivity was poor, largely because of shop floor dissatisfaction with wage levels and the absence of effective incentive schemes. I am pleased to say that the introduction of a self-financing productivity scheme under phase 3 has led to a very marked improvement in output levels. Further improvement will, however, be needed if the

1421
company is to meet its obligations to customers and exploit the potential of its products to the full.
The other major reason was that the company was going through a period of development of new products, with heavy initial outlay on design, research and development and marketing which is not recoverable until these products begin selling in numbers. It is encouraging to note that the new products are now showing signs of increasing success. The SD3-30 commuter aircraft, in particular, is now selling well after its introduction into service in 1976. To date, 38 aircraft have been sold and there is every sign that a substantial market exists. Missile sales continue to be healthy and the company's new man-portable missile Blowpipe, now in service with the British and Canadian armed forces, is attracting growing overseas interest. Short's has established itself as the major European manufacturer of jet engine pods and its prospects in this and other aerostructure work remain good. Overall, therefore, the company's longer-term position looks hopeful provided that it can produce the goods with the necessary efficiency and at competitive prices.
In the immediate future, however, the company will require Government assistance, partly to meet operating losses, partly to re-equip and partly to finance the continuing development of existing products and research into successors. Any failure to keep up with competitors in technology, or to meet the technical standards looked for by the giant aircraft corporations when they are sub-contracting or seeking partners in any venture, could lead rapidly to commercial extinction.
In my statement to the House on 7 December 1978 I announced the acceptance of the company's five-year corporate plan for the five-year period up to 31 August 1982. As hon. Members will recall, the plan sets out challenging targets in productivity, output, product quality and competitiveness, all of which will be vital to the future success of this important company. The Government are prepared to play their part in support of the company and it remains for management and work force to achieve the output and quality necessary in this sophisticated industry. I have now
1422
looked at both companies' importance to Northern Ireland, their recent performance and market experience and their likely future development.
As hon. Members will realise from my earlier remarks, the order needs to be in place by 1 April, to take effect when the financial assistance provisions of the Shipbuilding Industry (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 expire. I believe that the order is an important one, with its objective of regulating the Government's relations with these two key companies in Northern Ireland. It provides a framework which is intended to enable these relations to be harmonious, practical and effective, and I believe it strikes a proper balance between the interests of the companies and the wider concerns of the Government and Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
11.48 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: The Opposition agree with the Minister of State that this is an extremely important order in view of the anxious position of the principal companies to which reference is made. The companies constitute, as the explanatory document tells us, the two largest single manufacturing undertakings in Northern Ireland. We see no alternative to the continuation of financial assistance. However, I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that their competitive performance had to be taken into account in considering the working of the order.
Article 6 sets out the directions that the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce will be empowered to give. These are described as instructions of a general or specific character
" as to the conduct of a principal company of its undertaking ".
It would be better that such directions should be generally known at the time they are issued. Under article 6 of the order there will be no reason why the Department should make the directions public. I take the view that there could be circumstances in which the Department gives confidential instructions which emerge publicly only when they are being put into effect. These might limit informed discussion of the value of the need for these directions.
These are the principal companies in Northern Ireland. The amount of money

1423
that we agree may be put towards their assistance is considerable. Will the Minister consider the point that directions under article 6 should be made public? Under subsections (5) and (6) of section 2 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 the Secretary of State for Industry is required to lay an order before the House for approval by affirmative resolution when he wishes to prescribe activities to be undertaken by the British Aerospace corporation and British Shipbuilders. Should not some provision be made for public scrutiny of directions issued by the Government in Northern Ireland in this case? I hope that the Minister will consider that a reasonable point.
As to the cost of these directions, the Minister may know that the White Paper of March 1978 on the nationalised industries, Cmnd. 7137, suggested that extra costs incurred by nationalised industries as a result of Government direction should be shown separately in the accounts of each industry. It might be worth urging that consideration be given to adopting this principle in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will think that reasonable.
Apparently, the grants given specifically to Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers are in future to be included in the Appropriation orders for Northern Ireland. I think the Minister mentioned that. The House will wish to know the extent to which the grants are needed to carry out the directions from the Government. I think that the Minister agrees with that point.
On the question of Government subsidies generally, in Great Britain it is customary to publish the amount of the subsidies given when a new order is secured by the shipbuilding industry. The practice should be extended to Northern Ireland. I do not think that it applies at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will consider that.
The Minister referred to annual reports. There is an important point about annual reports in article 12. He mentioned the various documents set out in that article which will have to be produced for consideration. It might be a good idea to add to what is proposed in the order a provision that there should be a review
1424
of the company's performance—he mentioned the competitive performance of the companies as a matter to be taken into account—similar to those produced in Great Britain by British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace under section 5 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. That is done simply to bring the practice into line with what is being done in Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will consider that a reasonable point. There is no need to set it down specifically. However, a review of the company's performance would be valuable.
We shall want at some time a clear statement on the phased reduction of the work force at Harland and Wolff, which is now taking place, to establish how many jobs will be left when the rationalisation is complete, what size labour force is in view for the long term, and what will be the numbers after the shipbuilding redundancy scheme has taken effect.
The recently published discussion document on economic and social progress in Northern Ireland was referred to in the previous debate. It was prepared by the central economic service of the Department of Finance. It states that opportunities to diversify production into structural steel, motor cycle accessories and so forth are being sought. I have often questioned the Minister about diversification. Could he say whether this search is likely to yield any important results this year?
In 1978 the Minister announced an agreement between Harland and Wolff and a firm of mining engineers in Munich which saved 400 jobs. That was very welcome. Has the Minister any further projects of similar importance in hand that he could tell us about?
Finally, I refer to the question of naval orders, which I raised in the Appropriation debate on 11 December last. Has any progress been made there? The Minister said at that time in this House that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about that. It will be remembered that it was suggested that some naval work of refitting ships which had been built at Harland and Wolff could be turned over to that yard. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State for Defence has been able to help in that regard?
11.55 p.m.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Many people in the House, and in Northern Ireland and further afield, will be grateful that the Minister broke with his usual procedure and gave us a very full review of the performances of the two companies, which represent the first and third largest employers of labour in the Province and, therefore, as he has emphasised, are of major significance to the economy and the employment prospects of the Province.
Although one was looking for encouragement and was able to pick up some crumbs of encouragement from the report which the Minister has given us, one must nevertheless be realistic and to reflect sombrely on the fact that Harland and Wolff will still require subsidy to enable it even to compete still for orders, and will therefore be obtaining uneconomic orders in the foreseeable future. Short Brothers and Harland, despite the favourable reporting in the press of its success in selling a small commuter aircraft, will still be working at a loss for the foreseeable future. It certainly cannot be in the interest of the Province, in the interest of Belfast or in the interest of the employees of those two companies to be in that loss-making position for the foreseeable future.
The fact that the largest company in Northern Ireland is 100 per cent. publicly owned, and that the third largest company is 70 per cent. publicly owned, must give us all pause for thought.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has said that his party acknowledges that these two companies must be kept in being, and that public funds will be required for that purpose, but we have to ask how long we can go on doing this. How long will it be necessary? I hope that it will not be necessary.
As the Minister has indicated, when world markets change, if we can make ourselves sufficiently efficient and sufficiently competitive and meet the quality standards that he has indicated, the two companies eventually will be viable and profitable. That is where the future must lie. From what the Minister has said, the work forces in the two companies now seem to realise that. If those two companies are virtually 100 per cent. publicly
1426
controlled, it is quite proper that the Government should bring forward an order to establish a structure and a procedure for dealing with them.
If ever a case could be made for publishing proposals for a draft order before a draft order, that case was made with this draft order, because there are substantial improvements in the draft as compared with the proposals for the draft. For example, in article 6 of the proposals for the draft it was stated:
" The Department may give directions of a general or specific character as to the conduct by a principal company or its undertaking ".
That was virtually an open door for any interference which the Department of Commerce might have wanted in the affairs of the two companies. The aim is that those two companies are to become profitable and viable. The one sure way in which that would not be achieved would be if the Department of Commerce could interfere in every aspect of their working. I welcome the fact that article 6 now states that
" The Department may give directions of a general character ".
The word "specific" has been removed, and those directions of a general character are limited to directions
" in relation to matters which appear to the Department to affect the public interest."
I think that that is proper and correct and that it should prevent any of the abuses to which I have just referred.
There was good news this morning in the press about the order that BP has placed for six medium speed engines with the joint subsidiary, Harland-MAN. Article 6 of the order states:
" The Department may give directions of a general character…It shall be the duty of a principal company…to secure so far as appropriate, that each of its wholly owned subsidiaries also gives effect to any such directions ".
Does that mean that in relation to the joint company, which is not a wholly-owned subsidiary and which encompasses the engine works of Harland and Wolff, the Department of Commerce would give directions as to the percentage owned by Harland and Wolff and that the company would have to implement those directions while the engine works which are part of the other organisation would be exempt? I should be interested to know how the

1427
relationship will work in the context of the order.
Another substantial improvement is clear when the original proposed article 10 is compared with the new article 10. The proposed article 10, dealing with certain ancillary duties of the Department of Commerce, stated that the Department's function was to encourage the promotion of industrial democracy in the undertakings of the principal companies and their subsidiaries. The draft with which we are dealing encourages
" the principal companies to promote industrial democracy in their undertakings ".
That is a significant step forward. If there is to be greater participation in those companies and greater industrial democracy, it is better that the companies should have the duty of promoting industrial democracy and not, as was envisaged in the original proposal, that the Department of Commerce should take the lead.
I hope that no effort will be made to force the workers to participate in a scheme in which they are not interested. Certain attempts have been made to encourage the Harland and Wolff work force to participate in a scheme of industrial democracy. However, the work force have said that they do not wish to participate. I hope that it will continue in that way. When the work force wish to avail themselves of the opportunity, with a system and a structure which suits them, that will be the time to move. I hope that there will be no coercion.
The new order is more beneficial than the original order, in which the provision dealing with the relationship of the two Northern Ireland companies to British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders was too vague. It referred to the consultation and attempts being made to co-ordinate the activities of our two companies with the major corporations. We welcome the new draft which specifically lays down that it is the duty of the Department of Commerce
" to consult with appropriate United Kingdom Government Departments with regard to any measures necessary to co-ordinate the activities of "
Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers
" with those of British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders ".
We wished Harland and Wolff to be part of British Shipbuilders and Short Brothers to be part of British Aerospace.
1428
Our wish was not granted, but the order makes the relationship as close as possible.
When does the Minister hope to lay
" a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph (2) "
before the House? Does the Minister believe that, whatever we have one day in Northern Ireland, it will be anything like the Assembly mentioned in the order? How long will that myth be perpetuated? If we have to say something, can we not at least stop referring to a body which the Government know will never return? That is my only real criticism of the order, but I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the queries that I have raised.
12.5 a.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The one part of the Minister's speech that I welcomed was that which said that these two State-owned industries are to come under closer scrutiny of the House. However, I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that his promise that we shall we able to discuss the industries on Appropriation orders or the fact that we are to have the accounts before us will be sufficient. The House has the ultimate responsibility for the industries and we cannot be expected to put up with so little scrutiny of companies which are increasingly coming to the taxpayer to be allowed to continue in existence.
The Minister of State will know that the order applies to the two companies in terms of the financial assistance that they are to receive, ministerial control over them and the way that they account for their actions. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in the debate on the Appropriation order that the Comptroller and Auditor-General was already making useful contributions on certain industries in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman picked out particularly the SD3-30 aircraft project of Shorts. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is indeed producing a new form of scrutiny, but the scrutiny provided for in the order is not adequate for the House or for the taxpayer whose money always has to be taken to put into whatever companies are deemed worthy by Governments. Hon. Members, as representatives of the taxpayer, must insist

1429
that the Government bear the taxpayer more in mind.
The Minister of State will be aware that last year's White Paper on the nationalised industries agreed with the NEDO report that much more information must be made available to the Parliament and, thus, to the public if the lack of accountability between nationalised industries and Parliament were to be made good. If any hon. Member is interested, I suggest that he should read paragraph 29 on page 19 of the White Paper under the heading "Monitoring". I shall read only the first sentence which says:
" It is the responsibility of each board to monitor performance and efficiency within its industry but the Government agrees that it is also essential for the industries to account effectively to Parliament and to the public."
It is indeed important that Governments should report to Parliament and the public. That is the burden of my remarks.
I should declare an interest since I have worked for Short Brothers and Harland and have had a long association with the firm for many years. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, so I have had the opportunity to see nationalised companies from both sides.
Since 1976, Short's has been in the red and has needed financial assistance to keep it in existence. The Government have given it an investment programme of £60 million to cover the next three years and I hope that that sum will not only be adequate for the major capital re-equipment programme for which it is earmarked, but will cover the additional funds that I believe that the firm will need when its present product range becomes too old to continue to produce orders.
The Minister of State knows as well as I do that the SD3-30 is a derivative of the Skyvan, which has been around for quite a number of years. Two airframes will not carry Short Brothers and Harland very far into the future. More money will be required if it is to continue to be an aircraft manufacturer manufacturing its own aeroplanes.
By the same token, Seacat and Tigercat are missiles that belong to another generation. They, too, are coming to the end of their effective lives. Looking at Short Brothers' future, we see two ageing air-frames
1430
and only one new product—the Blowpipe missile—to carry it into the next decade. Although we know that the firm is one of the largest manufacturers of pods for aero-engines in the world, I wonder whether there will be enough work on pods for the present work force.
Therefore, the firm's future requires more than just a three-year investment grant to carry it forward. It needs deep and important forward thinking. The Government must share some of their thoughts about Short Brothers with Parliament.
The situation at Harland and Wolff is much more serious. Its financial position can be described only as parlous. The chairman of the company made no secret of the fact in the annual report, where he pointed out that
" in order to maintain production at a satisfactory level, new orders must be obtained. We cannot expect to obtain a sufficiency of such orders at prices other than which will result in losses and in these circumstances therefore, whether or not we obtain a satisfactory level of work, losses are likely to continue for a number of years to come ".
How many years to come? How different that statement is from the statement made by the the then Minister of State on 1 August 1975, in the debate on taking the company into State holding. I was present during the debate, when he said:
" I have spoken today and on previous occasions about the last chance, about there being no bottomless pit of public money and about the need for the company to demonstrate long before 1979 its ability to take on new work without loss—and I have said that if the company cannot do this it will be time for the Government to call a halt and to permit the rundown and even closure of the business ".—[Official Report, 1 August 1975; Vol. 896, c. 2480.]
I do not doubt that the Minister meant those words when he said them, but, by goodness, he has been wrong. If we want an example of the danger of Ministers and Departments trying to set themselves up as industrial prophets, it is surely in that statement.
I even thought that the Minister of State tonight was a little optimistic. Mr. Ronald Punt's own words to the work force in February were:
" Our performance during 1978 was bad compared with what we have done in the past—our productivity fell and our programme slipped badly…It is up to each one of us to do his best, and the first step is to come here for eight hours a day and to work effectively

1431
for those eight hours…We can meet our delivery dates and get more orders, but not easily. It needs all of us to do it. If we don't, maybe no outsider will close us—they won't need to; we'll be doing it for them."
That is straight talking, and it is rather different from what the Minister said. It is a managing director telling the members of his work force that the company's salvation is in their hands but that they are not grappling with the situation that faces them.
Mr. Concannon: I was in the Harland and Wolff shipyard yesterday with Mr. Ronnie Punt. I saw the film that he had put out, and I talked to all the shop stewards in that yard. I backed the comments that Mr. Punt had made. As I said earlier, since 1974 there has been no serious stoppage of any kind within the yard. Industrial relations are pretty good there. The members of the work force know what they have to do. They know that only they can save jobs in the yard. They are Harland and Wolff. That message has been put over to them, and they are responding. The shipyard is a different place from what it was five or six years ago.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I have no desire to argue or to contradict anything he said. What I really want to say refers rather to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) about accountability. I want to know how long we shall continue to treat the nationalised industries of Northern Ireland differently from the nationalised industries of Scotland, Wales or England.
I see no reason why Short's, Harland and Wolff, Ulster Omnibus or any other nationalised industry in Northern Ireland should not come under the scrutiny of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in this country. There is no special quality about those industries which sets them apart. But, at the moment, they come under no direct scrutiny from that Select Committee, set up by Parliament to look into the workings of the nationalised industries. Why should we expect to be able to interview British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, question them closely and carry out in-depth inquiries into the way they handle their businesses while Short's and Harland and Wolff are kept sacrosanct and free from that sort of scrutiny?
1432
I want to remind the Minister of State, if he does not already know, that to obtain the annual reports of those two State owned companies from the House of Commons Library is a very difficult task, as I have found in the last fortnight. Of the two, Harland and Wolff's report was the first to come. Short Brothers' report came this morning after a fortnight of requests from the House of Commons Library. I do not know what sort of world those companies think they are living in. I can only tell those who run them that, if they want the taxpayer to provide financial assistance, they should supply the information for the taxpayers' representatives to know how they are managing their affairs.
I hope that the Minister will make clear to those two companies that they have a responsibility, if not to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, then at least to the House of Commons, to ensure that their reports and accounts are placed in the Library.
I find a certain irony in the fact that as a member of that Select Committee I was taking part only this afternoon in our current inquiry into the relationship between Ministers, Parliament and nationalised industries about such matters as specific directions, accountability and the relationship of industries with Parliament. In this order, those companies are outside that scrutiny. In this order, there is no requirement and no need for those companies to put before this House the sort of information that we should be given. I am perhaps unfair. The order points out that the information is to be placed before the Assembly.
I have asked the House of Commons Library to check with the Northern Ireland Office. I am told that the obligation in article 12 of the order to lay accounts before the Assembly means that for the time being the companies are obliged to lay their accounts before the House of Commons. The Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland is for the time being a sub-section of the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answers questions on Short Brothers. It has been suggested in this debate that it is time to end this nonsense. Is it not time we stopped imagining that there is to be an Assembly? Is it not time that the report and accounts were placed before the

1433
House of Commons and we did away with all that palaver?
I cannot allow this debate to pass without asking the Government whether it would be better, before asking for large sums of money for these two industries, to use the affirmative resolution method to do so. Can the Government expect article 3 to be treated as a matter that only has to appear in the Appropriation debate? Can the House of Commons, Parliament and the taxpayer be expected to find millions of pounds for these companies without giving Parliament the chance to debate the amount of money, why it has to be spent and for what period it is intended to underwrite the future of these companies? Surely, if financial assistance is to be provided, Parliament should always have the chance to debate that assistance before it is given. After so many ill-starred projects, which Governments have so frequently supported over past decades, is there not a more pressing requirement to insist that there should be no financial assistance without Parliamentary scrutiny?
Sir Peter Parker recently told our committee that bringing British Rail's report and accounts to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was the equivalent of a shareholders' meeting for the chairman of a nationalised industry. All nationalised industries need those shareholders' meetings. Short's and Harland and Wolff are perhaps more in need of that sort of accountability than other industries I know.
I hope that the Minister will therefore take those comments from this debate and remind the relevant directors, managing directors and chairmen of what I have said.
I end with another comment from Mr. Punt. We should remember this because we are sometimes apt to think that we can make companies profitable, although those who run them cannot, and that we know what they should be doing when those who run them do not. In that address to the work force, he said:
" I can almost hear some of you saying, ' The Government must do something '. Yes, they can do something, and I think they want to and will do something, but they can only help us, they cannot solve our problems, only we can do that."
1434
He is right. We can provide the financial assistance. But let us be sure before we do it that we know what we are doing.
12.21 a.m.
Mr. William Craig: These two important firms are in my constituency, and I am greatly encouraged by the speeches so far. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I endorse substantially everything that he has said in one of the most realistic speeches that I have heard for a long time. It is easy to give way to pessimism in the situation that faces the shipbuilding world. I am glad that there is no sign of any hon. Member, and particularly the Government, doing so. Both these companies can survive and play a worthwhile role in the economy of Northern Ireland, provided that everyone concerned faces the fact.
I have no hang-ups about public ownership: I do not see it as a matter for doctrinaire politics. Public ownership has played and can play a useful part in any economy. But the one thing for which I have no time is the concept of public ownership that allows itself to be run by politicians, Government Departments and the like. Public ownership should ensure that the companies stand on their own feet—management and work force negotiating as they would in private enterprise.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) drew attention to the improvements which have been made in the order. I am not entirely satisfied with the order as it is, but at least I can support it with an easier conscience, because as originally proposed it smacked of the desire of Government Departments to interfere too much with the management of the firms. We are very appreciative of the fact that our views were considered and that there has been a considerable improvement.
I share my hon. Friend's views about articles 6 and 10. I am a great believer in industrial democracy, particularly if it will help us to get away from the adversarial feeling between management and work force. But this is something to be achieved by management and work force, not decided in a Government Department

1435
or even a Parliament. Each industry will work out what is best suited to its own needs.
It is unfortunate that the Government feel that they have to put a political point like this into a statutory obligation. I do not know how I am going to hold the Minister or his successors accountable in this respect or discover whether they are discharging their duties to encourage industrial democracy or what the order really means by industrial democracy. The important thing is that the order now recognises that it is for the company to promote the industrial democracy and for the Department to encourage it.
Article 10(b) is a considerable improvement. I can report from first-hand experience of the work force that there is considerable anxiety that there may not be effective co-operation and liaison with British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. I have no doubt that in assuming this obligation the Department will help to allay those fears. But I should have liked some indication of how the Department sees this co-ordination and liaison. I feel that it is not enough for the appropriate Government Departments to discuss the matter. There should be liaison at all levels. The directors in these companies should be talking with the directors of British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace. Further, the trade unions in these important firms should have a link with what is happening in the two corporations.
Every time I meet the workers I am questioned about how the undertaking that was given in an earlier debate will be fulfilled. I hope that the Minister of State will take the opportunity of spelling out how the co-ordination and liaison will occur.
I shall not dwell too much on article 12 and the Assembly. If anyone believes that the ill-fated power sharing Assembly will come back into being, he is living in cloud-cuckoo land. But I believe that there will be some sort of parliamentary Assembly in the very near future, and in that respect I hope that article 12 envisages a continuing development for a new type of democratic Assembly, rather than harking back to the past. But it is a constitutional necessity, and I should not dwell too much on the point.
1436
I was interested in the Minister's report on Harland and Wolff, particularly about industrial relations. I believe that things are improving, but I suspect that they are not improving fast enough. I suspect that there is probably a lack of confidence. Whether the Minister and his Department can do anything to provide that confidence I do not know. But I know that the protracted arbitration about the two bulk carriers seems to be proceeding far too slowly. This uncertainty must be removed as speedily as possible. Once that cloud is lifted from the yard there will be greater progress in securing more effective use of the manpower in the yard.
I am pleased that some progress has been made with diversification, but it is only tiny, and I suspect that events in the yard now are limiting the opportunities for diversification.
I welcome the improvement in the engine works, but associated with the engine works is the foundry. I understand that the foundry is in a delicate state. It might survive as a viable unit. The possession of a good modern foundry is an asset when one is seeking diversification. I hope that steps will be taken to assure those employed in the foundry that it is not the intention of the company or of the Government to see the yard without a foundry.
I am considerably heartened by the progress made at Short Brothers. The company is still in the red, but there is a new dynamic approach, both by management and by labour, that is sure to bring a reward in the near future. The hon. Member for Newbury made a valid point. The sum of £60 million for three years is not enough to enable management to plan far into the future and particularly to develop new products.
What people think are facts but which are not can sometimes be just as damaging as facts. I know that from time to time workers feel that management is hiding behind the Department and that certain things do not happen because the Department is standing in the way. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in that. Perhaps the Civil Service procedures are too slow and too cumbersome to take commercial decisions. I am thinking in particular of the Britten-Norman project which, if Short Brothers had been able to acquire it, would have been a useful

1437
base for widening the range of its products, and establishing contacts with a new range of customers.
Some people will say that because the Government took so long in assessing the prospects we missed the opportunity. I have been assured by the Minister that that is not the case. But he must be aware that no matter how often one repeats assurances the suspicion is still there that commercial decision-taking is affected because of the need to work so closely with the Department. I hope that there will be positive evidence that management is really free to manage and does not have to have commercial decisions rubber-stamped by the Department.
I was recently in Norway on a Western European Union visit and I was fortunate to meet Her Majesty's ambassador in Oslo. I was delighted to hear that the Minister and his Department have their eyes on prospects in Norway and I hope that he will keep up the pressure.
Harland and Wolff has had a long and happy history of good business and good relationships with Norway. I believe that Norway can provide us with opportunities for more than ships. I met one Norwegian admiral who spoke in glowing terms of Skyvan. He had, unfortunately, never heard of the SD3-30. I hope that when the Minister builds up this campaign and the contacts with Norway he will bear in mind that within that country there are three feeder airlines. I believe that this aircraft would suit them admirably.
Mr. Concannon: I am pleased to hear the remarks by the right hon. Gentleman about Norway. He understands that I was about to pay a visit there when unfortunately the industrial relations problems in Northern Ireland precluded that visit. That is the second visit which has had to be cancelled at short notice, but it is now back on my itinerary. Some of the problems in Northern Ireland act to prevent me from moving about on occasion.
Mr. Craig: I understand that, and I am not criticising the Minister. I may disagree with him on some issues, but I compliment him on his energy and drive in this matter. The whole of Northern Ireland admires the way he throws himself into his work.
1438
I spoke to the ambassador to the Court of St. James from South Korea. He is seriously thinking of visiting Northern Ireland in the near future. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that visit takes place and that the ambassador visits East Belfast, Harland and Wolff and Short Brothers. We have sold marine engines to South Korea and we should be able to sell aircraft engines. I am not suggesting that the Department takes over the sales and marketing responsibility of the companies, but it could open many doors.
The Minister knows of the serious disparity in wage levels between workers in Short's and in the rest of the British aerospace industry. I understand that the matter is to be investigated by an industrial court. It is an unhappy truth that the work force at Short's has suffered more severely from Government incomes policies than any other industry that I can think of. We have got over one hurdle and that has helped the firm considerably.
I hope that the present incomes policy will not stand in the way of correcting the serious unfairness. I cannot ask the Minister to make any pronouncements in advance of the findings of the industrial court, but if this is stowed up to much, stresses and strains will be imposed on the work force to its long-term disadvantage. We must keep the skills in the firm. I am anxious lest there is a drift away from the firm.
I have pleasure in supporting the order, in spite of its deficiencies. I hope that we shall make good progress.
12.37 a.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: We have tonight illustrated some of the iniquities of direct rule. At this early morning hour we are discussing two of Northern Ireland's greatest industries. More and more, Northern Ireland affairs are pushed as an appendix to the business of the House. I disagree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I hope that the business of Northern Ireland will soon be out of this House and that Northern Ireland men and women will be able to scrutinise their own affairs. I hope and pray that that day will come speedily.
I am not pessimistic as the hon. Member for Newbury is. He said that a

1439
Northern Ireland Parliament will never come, that we are doomed to being a semi-colonial State and that our business will be tacked on at the end of the day when the House is empty of all but those who have a constituency interest and those such as the hon. Member who have shown a continued interest in Northern Ireland.
I am happy that the Minister of State presented the order tonight. Some of his colleagues might not have had such a good reception in the House. We might at times disagree with the Minister of State but he has without doubt given of his time, talents and energy to bring industry and employment to Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland appreciate that. They see that he is at least doing his best in difficult circumstances to keep employment in Northern Ireland. Perhaps those words, coming from a severe critic of his Government, will give him some little solace in his task. I mean them, of course, not as a kiss of death. He is all right at this time.
There are some points to be underlined in the context of the order, and one of them has been seriously raised already. Many people in Northern Ireland have a suspicion that the reason why these two industries were not brought into the British family was that the British Government hoped that some day a Parliament in Northern Ireland would have to take the sad decision and announce the end of public financing of the companies, the idea being that that terrible act would be imputed not to this House but to a future Parliament in Northern Ireland.
That suspicion is held by many, and it is certainly in my mind, because many of us thought—I know that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) did not agree with us—that the answer lay in another direction. I say this in response to what was said by the hon. Member for Newbury. If these two industries had been in the British family, the scrutiny procedures of the House could have been brought into play and they would have been subject to all the tests to which the hon. Gentleman rightly says they should be subject. I am in full agreement with the view that where public money is put into any company Parliament should exercise its right to scrutinise, to question and to probe in
1440
order to satisfy itself as to the use made of that investment.
Mr. Craig: Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more precise? Is he saying that, in the event of the return to a parliamentary institution in Northern Ireland, these two important industries should not be under the supervision and direction of the Government of Northern Ireland?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying exactly the opposite, that if we have a Parliament in Northern Ireland and we take over the responsibility, that Parliament will have to shoulder it, but in shouldering the responsibility that Parliament would be in a position to do with these companies in the scrutiny of their operations what the Select Committee here is able to do in respect of the British nationalised industries at present.
That is an important matter. Indeed, the whole business of accountability of all Government projects in Northern Ireland is seriously deficient or in abeyance now, for the simple reason that no Member from Northern Ireland is on the Public Accounts Committee and there is no proper scrutiny of accounts from Northern Ireland. We have had scandals in the Housing Executive, and heaven knows how many other scandals have gone undiscovered because there has been no public accountability in this House and no probing by Northern Ireland Members who know something about what happens there. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Newbury stresses that matter, he is stressing something on which I am with him 100 per cent.
The Minister of State said that in Appropriation debates we should have an opportunity to discuss these matters, but we should have only such a discussion as we are having tonight, and it would be useless and fruitless. We could all make our speeches, for 15 minutes or so at a time, and after one and a half hours the Minister would say "I am sorry that I cannot answer all hon. Members now. They did not give me notice of all their questions. But I shall be writing to them."
My experience is that, even if we give the Minister time to answer, he never answers anyway, so one might as well save one's time, because he has to write.

1441
Sometimes, indeed, the notes which are passed to him are not accurate. We had an example of that in the previous debate, when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) caught the Minister out completely on one of the notes which had been sent to him.
These two industries are at the very heart of our economy. Although there were some crumbs of comfort in what the Minister said, and although I appreciate everything that he said, if these two industries are not able by their own efforts to withdraw from the precipice towards which they are heading, I can see darkness at the end of the tunnel. The workers in these two industries and the people of Northern Ireland in general should note that.
As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East said, the parity of the wages of workers in these industries with the wages of other workers is important. If workers in these industries are not paid the rate for the job, the best men will go to firms which pay the proper rate. Tonight we must face the fact that these two great industries which are essential to the economic wellbeing of our community are in jeopardy and that what is happening tonight is a mere holding operation. The Government hope that there will be an upturn in the world economy and that in some way these two industries will become viable.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked the important question as to how long this process would continue. In a previous debate the Minister said that there was not a bottomless purse. There is thus incontrovertible evidence that an effort must be made to bring business to these important companies. The sad thing about Harland and Wolff is the court cases which are pending. These should be resolved as quickly as possible.
May I stress once again that the fact that we have only one and a half hours in which to debate an important matter concerning the entire welfare of Northern Ireland is one of the iniquities of direct rule. Northern Ireland Members are of the firm opinion that we should have ample time to discuss these matters. I am glad that the Minister took the time tonight to set out important facts about these industries. I hope that it will be possible to find a better way of discussing
1442
the financing of these two important industries than on an order such as this. We do not want to hinder Harland and Wolff. We want to help the company and to enable it to continue to enjoy our admiration.
Let it be remembered, above all, that these industries are working under the stress of present economic circumstances and under the stress of terrorism. The work force and management of those businesses which have kept going in the face of terrorism should be congratulated. However, they must proceed to achieve viability and stand on their legs and not be propped up by the Government.
12.50 a.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I regret to say that I am participating in what can only be described as a political and parliamentary charade. In the early hours of the morning I have been told that I have two minutes in which to deal with two of the most important industries in Northern Ireland, the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. It is a disgrace that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are expected to deal with such important topics in this way. These industries are vital to so many people, particularly in Belfast. We are debating this subject in an almost empty House, with six hon. Members representing Northern Ireland present and a few others to make up weight, one of them waiting to take part in the Adjournment debate.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) took up the remark of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that there would never be an Assembly in Northern Ireland. I have heard such talk often enough from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his colleagues. They take every opportunity to block the chance to re-create a Stormont Parliament. I believe that we shall have a Stormont Parliament. If I did not so believe I do not think that I could stay much longer in this House. The Ulster people want and need a Stormont Parliament.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his activities in trying to bring industry to Northern Ireland. I have often castigated him in the past and it is right that I should pay tribute to him now. What

1443
we need is a Stormont Cabinet actively concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland, trying to reduce unemployment. I also pay tribute to the shipyard and aircraft workers in Belfast. During the past few years they have striven gallantly to keep these two firms alive and viable. This is in stark contrast to the sordid episode involving Mr. Hoppe, who managed, with the consent of the former Stormont and the then Conservative Government, to secure a cast-iron contract. This enabled him to have his salary paid tax-free to a Swiss bank account. He was also able to claim compensation which has made him richer by about £200,000—paid into a Swiss bank account. Yet the workers, doing a good job and using their skills, have to fight for increases at a time of inflation.
The Minister is looking at me. He is waiting to reply to the debate. In the name of the Ulster people I protest at this restriction on the rights of Ulster representatives to probe and question the Government of the day. The same thing happened to me on the debate on the Appropriation order earlier. My remarks were cut short because the debate had to end at a fixed time. I would not like the Minister or the House to think that, because I have said only a few words, I am not critical of the present direct rule position. I know that the Minister understands this. I would like the House to understand that I am making way for the Minister but I do so under protest.
12.55 a.m.
Mr. Concannon: I accept the protest. I am more worried about the words that have been used about me personally. I do not know whether it is a backhanded way of getting rid of me. I am thinking that I may be short of a job tomorrow if the news gets about.
I shall answer some of the general issues that have been raised in the short time that remains. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not refer to hon. Members and identify their constituencies.
As I said in my opening remarks, I could have done what I wished to do for Harland and Wolff merely by extending the order. However, we have taken on board some of the complaints made by hon. Members about scrutiny. By introducing the order we have ensured that there will be more detailed scrutiny. I
1444
envisage that we shall have a debate at least once a year on the two companies that have been the subject of the debate. I support that approach.
Mr. Kilfedder: The debates will be how long?
Mr. Concannon: I think that Northern Ireland Members had a fair run on the Appropriation order. There was almost a full day's debate. Some of speeches were extensive even for Northern Ireland Members.
We must remember that the annual reports and accounts of the two companies carry a report from the chairmen. I emphasise that they are joint stock companies. They are subject to the Companies Acts. They are not nationalised corporations in the sense of that term. They are single companies and not conglomerates. They are more the equivalent of Cable and Wireless Ltd. than of nationalised industries. The intention was to bring them under greater scrutiny. It was also the intention to bring them as far as possible within the parent Act as it applies within the rest of the United Kingdom.
I do not want to mention the size of the work force that we require at Harland and Wolff or to talk about phased rundowns. I told the representatives of the work force of Harland and Wolff yesterday that the workers will determine the size of the work force by giving the Secretary of State or myself the scope to seek orders for the yard. The more work that we can get for the yard, the larger the work force that we shall keep employed. I do not envisage a target number of employees. Certainly that will not be the approach at Short Brothers. The idea is to increase the size of the work force as Short Brothers. Much depends on what the Government, the management and the work force can achieve for the yard.
Industrial democracy is sought by the Harland and Wolff work force. It has decided which way it wants to go. There is one stage that has not yet been accepted. I discussed these matters with representatives of the company some time ago as I thought that there might be ways in which help could be given at Government level. I was told by the trade union movement that that was not so and that

1445
I had done all that it had asked of me. I was told that it would pick up the remaining stages of industrial democracy when it was ready.
It is not my intention to go to Short Brothers and to say that this, that and the other must be done on the industrial relations front. That would be wrong. These issues cannot be forced. Movement on industrial democracy must come from the work force and the board. The Government do not intend to try to run the companies.
Some hon. Members have referred to liaison with British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace and the rumours that are being spread. The House should remember that if the order is agreed to there will be an extra £60 million going to Short Brothers over a five-year plan, not a three-year plan. That will be a rolling programme for Short Brothers. The company will be returning to the Government and we shall be reconsidering our approach. On that basis it is clear that liaison with British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace is taking place at all levels. That applies at governmental, departmental, trade union and management levels. Bearing in mind the state of the order book and what I have been able to say today, that approach is working in our favour.
All major parties in Northern Ireland still regard a form of devolution for the Province as a major plank. I am seeking to protect the statute book of Northern Ireland for the future when the people of Northern Ireland will decide what to do with the two firms. We all agree that they form a major part of industry in the Province. I am sure that Northern Ireland Members want the statute book protected. If some form of devolved government came along, I am sure that they would not want people on this side of the water to be running the companies or deciding what they should do. That power would be better placed in the hands of the Northern Ireland people and the Executive of Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have covered most of the general issues. If I have not, I am sorry. I shall write to hon. Members as soon as possible to take up the matters that I have omitted in replying to the debate.
1446
The order is beneficial not only to the shipyard but—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.

BODMIN CROWN COURT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]
1 a.m.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I am grateful to the Minister for being here at 1 o'clock in the morning to answer on this important local issue, especially in view of his unfortunate family circumstances.
It is an inescapable fact that Bodmin is located at the geographical centre of Cornwall. That is the logical place for a Crown court to be situated if it is to serve the county efficiently and fairly. Indeed, it was for this reason that Cornwall successfully petitioned Parliament for Bodmin to be established as the centre for the Crown court, so that in 1836 Parliament acknowledged this need and passed an Act for the building of the shire hall—that is, the Bodmin courthouse—and the shire house, which is the judges' lodgings.
I think it relevant to point out that it was the county of Cornwall, and not the town of Bodmin alone, that petitioned Parliament for the court to be established in Bodmin as the most appropriate location for justice to be brought to the people, rather than their having to seek justice elsewhere. This situation has persisted to the present day. All concerned, whether they be judges, barristers, solicitors, witnesses, or jurymen, as well as administrators, have found this arrangement totally satisfactory. This did not, however, prevent the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions from recommending that the location of the first tier centre of justice in Cornwall should be moved from Bodmin to Truro.

1447
The reasons for this recommendation are, in my view, both thin and dubious.
The Lord Chancellor, in his letter to me dated 30 November 1978, gave seven reasons to justify his support of the recommendation. I wish to deal with each of these in turn. I hope to convince the House that the arguments that the Lord Chancellor outlined on that occasion are not substantive.
The first reason the Lord Chancellor gave was that the greater weight of the population to be served by the court lies to the south and west of Truro. I contend that this reason is not founded on fact. According to the county council's financial statistics, the three westernmost district authorities within Cornwall have a larger population than the three eastern districts, but by only 3,000. The point, surely, is that the population of the eastern half of the county, namely, the district councils covered by Restormel, North Cornwall and Caradon, are growing at a faster rate than the western half. By the mid-1980s, when this new court house is intended to be constructed, the balance of population could have swung the other way.
The second reason given was that the great majority of the work of the Crown court originated from the area south and west of Bodmin. This is debatable. There is the fear, which I think is shared by all the people of Cornwall irrespective of their views on this issue, that to move the court to Truro could well result in a greater part of the work for the eastern half of Cornwall being taken at Plymouth or Exeter, thus moving justice away from the people of Cornwall.
The third reason given was the fact that
" Truro lies on the main railway line to Penzance and Falmouth ".
I do not see what relevance this has, because people living in Cornwall who have to attend the courts in any capacity have to travel by car rather than by train, because there is virtually no local train service anyway. For those judges and counsel who travel by train from London or Bristol, or perhaps Exeter, Truro would involve an additional 45 to 60 minutes travelling time each way.
The fourth reason given is that
1448
" Truro is situated at the junction of several main roads which give ready access to the other parts of Cornwall and to the A30 trunk road ".
That may or may not be so, except, of course, that Truro is situated some distance from the A30 trunk road, but it does not alter the fact that Bodmin is situated at the geographical centre of the county. Anyone who knows the county—I mean no disrespect here to the Lord Chancellor, but I sensed that there was a lack of knowledge of the local geography—knows that Bodmin is located at the junction of the A30 and A38 trunk roads. I should not have thought it possible to get a better road communication network than that if one tried.
The fifth reason given was that
" Truro is the seat of the county council and the centre of other main services serving the county."
Again, I am not quite sure what relevance this has to the location of the Crown court. The fact that the county council is in Truro and that there is a new district general hospital there is accepted, but I thought we lived in an age of decentralisation, and I certainly would not accept the argument that devolution in relation to Cornwall ends at Truro.
The sixth reason given was that the court buildings at Bodmin were built in the 1830s and that to bring them up to necessary standard would involve considerable cost. I intend to return to the aspect of cost in a moment.
The seventh reason stated was that
" The District Registry of the High Court is situated in Truro."
I have been informed, by people who are concerned and involved locally, that the existing combined Crown court centre at Bodmin has been a success and operates efficiently, giving satisfaction to the legal profession.
I now turn to the crucial and decisive aspect of the financial cost. The Solicitor-General, in a written answer to me, stated that
" The cost of building a new court centre at Truro is estimated at approximately £2·5 million at current prices."—[Official Report, 12 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 95.]
That figure in itself seems to me to be high and totally unjustified. What also worries me is that at the present time six Crown courts are at present under

1449
construction in other parts of the country and that the cost span there extends from over £3 million to £26·8 million. I accept that Liverpool, at £26·8 million, may be a special case, but a lot of money is involved. When it is admitted that any new court at Truro is not likely to be built until the 1980s, I should have thought that the Solicitor-General's estimate of £2½ million is likely to be exceeded fairly substantially. It is difficult to justify this at a time of economic crisis for our nation, and at a time when there is an undisputed need for financial restraint. I do not believe that the case has been made for this vast expenditure of public money. If the Lord Chancellor's Department has that surplus amount of money available the Public Accounts Committee should be interested to know about it. Most Cornish people would prefer that the money should be spent on primary schools or some urgent need, but not on a new grandiose court house at Truro.
Furthermore, the figure does not take into account the provision of new judges' lodgings or a suitable alternative. I suspect that the whole scheme has not been thoroughly costed. In answer to my parliamentary question in December 1978 the Solicitor-General admitted to me that it was too soon to forecast the operating costs of a court at Truro. Yet there is already an adequate court house at Bodmin which it well lit, ventilated and heated, with a superb judges' lodging house.
If the Lord Chancellor's Department feels that the existing facilities at Bodmin are unsatisfactory, improvements could be carried out at a fraction of the capital cost that it would take to build the Truro complex. If the court is located at Truro, the cost of transporting defendants will also increase, since the distances from Exeter and Pucklechurch are greater. Presumably, that will involve longer hours for the escorts—at greater cost.
On the grounds of the cost involved, and because the case for a transfer to Truro from Bodmin has not been made out, I believe that the Lord Chancellor should be prepared to reconsider his earlier decision. I am supported in that view by four of the five hon. Members who represent the Duchy of Cornwall.
1450
Four of six district councils in Cornwall are also of that opinion. One of the two remaining councils takes a neutral view.
The policy committee of the county council has asked its chief executive officer to prepare a report. The Cornish Gorsedd and Federation of Old Cornwall Societies are opposed to the transfer, as are Mebyom Kernow, the British Legal Association and numerous local parish councils and private individuals who have either written to the Bodmin town council or myself expressing their views.
We believe that the evidence collected almost 10 years ago by the Royal Commission could well be outdated, and that inadequate consultation took place in 1972. At that time, the circuit administrator for the Western circuit was given the task of sounding out the views of local authorities, interested organisations and public opinion. If the transfer were implemented the problem would remain of the utilisation of the existing courthouse at Bodmin and the shire house. It would be uneconomic to retain them for the use of the county and the magistrates' courts alone.
There is an additional dimension of confusion because land has already been earmarked in Bodmin for a new magistrates' court. There is the further irony that recently a combined Crown court and administrative centre has been built at Bodmin, designed expressly to serve the county. Presumably, that would be wasted if the Crown court was moved to Truro.
There has been a lack of co-ordination of finances and planning in reaching this decision. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Lord Chancellor to review his earlier decision and meet a delegation from Bodmin before any final decision is made.
1.14 a.m.
Mr. David Penhaligon: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) for allowing me a few moments of his time, especially as I am to enter the alternative case.
Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, Truro is the economic and commercial centre of the great county of Cornwall. It has the hospitals, the county hall and the registrar buildings. It has virtually all the commercial centres of the county. It has a railway station in the

1451
city and even British Rail could not take a whole hour to get from Bodmin station, which is some distance from Bodmin, to Truro station, which is slap in the middle of that great city.
Most people live west of Truro. Certainly far more live west of Truro than live east of Bodmin—if that is the crux of the argument in this case. The number of people within 30 miles of the court would be substantially increased if it were moved to Truro.
The court at Bodmin is old and out of date. The hon. Member for Bodmin mentioned when it was built and that is an indication of the facilities that are available. Clearly a new court will be required some time and any sane person, given the choice, would decide to build it in Truro. I ask the Minister not to take too blandly the offerings of the hon. Member for Bodmin. There is a good case for the court to be moved to Truro and what we really want to know from the debate is when that will take place.
1.16 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) for setting out the case for retaining the High Court and Crown court centre in Cornwall at Bodmin and for his interesting historical description of the birth of this respected court. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will have some sympathy for my position. A stranger crosses the Tamar—if I have not pronounced that right, I am in trouble—with some diffidence and he enters into a row among Cornishmen with considerable caution.
The Lord Chancellor is aware of the strong feelings expressed recently in favour of the retention of the court centre at Bodmin. The hon. Member for Bodmin has raised it more than once. He has written to the Lord Chancellor, put down questions and pursued his case vigorously. My noble and learned Friend is not unsympathetic towards local opinion, but I must make clear that it is his view—as it was the view of his predecessor Lord Hailsham—that if Cornwall is to continue to have the court facilities that it deserves, it is essential that a new complex is built in the foreseeable future. The
1452
hon. Member for Truro will be delighted to know that the Lord Chancellor is convinced that the weight of argument is in favour of building that complex in Truro.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bodmin will accept that this is not a clandestine, surreptitious or furtive proposal. It has not exactly been sprung by the Government on those affected by it. As long ago as 1969, the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions made recommendations for court centres in South-West England—as it did for other parts of the country. The Royal Commission's proposal was that High Court judges should sit in both the High Court and the Crown court at Exeter and that, for the time being, High Court judges should continue to visit Bodmin to sit in the Crown court but not the High Court.
The Royal Commission thought that, in the longer term, Bodmin should be closed and replaced by a Crown court centre, still to be visited by High Court judges, at Truro. These recommendations were not implemented as such. Bodmin has retained the High Court as well as the Crown court during the seven years which have passed since the Courts Act 1971 came into force.
Nevertheless, in 1972, the then Lord Chancellor—the noble Lord Lord Hailsham—decided that interested parties in Cornwall should be consulted on the recommendation that, in the long run, Truro should become the High Court and Crown court centre for the county. Extensive consultation was carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Approaches were made to the judiciary, the leader of the Western circuit, law societies in Cornwall and Devon, the chairmen of the appropriate benches of magistrates, the county council and the councils of Bodmin, Truro and Penzance, the high sheriff and under-sheriff, the appropriate officials of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, the prison department of the Home Office and the Cornwall branch of the Magistrates' Association. The result was that the overwhelming majority of replies received were in favour of the move to Truro. However, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I must concede that the most substantial objector was the then Bodmin

1453
corporation, which argued, not unexpectedly, for the retention of the present arrangements.
However, the Lord Chancellor's decision had to be taken in the light of the opinion of the county as a whole, and in October 1972 he accepted that the centre should be transferred to Truro when suitable accommodation could be built. This decision was announced in answer to a question in another place on 16 November 1972. In view of the subsequent lack of protest or comment in Cornwall, it was assumed that the decision was broadly acceptable. It is a little surprising to find that, when the Government take the first moves to implement the decision some six years later, there is a significant body of opinion against the move.
It is the Government's intention that High Court judges should continue to visit Cornwall to sit in both the High Court and the Crown court. It is the Government's duty to provide the right facilities for this purpose, as well as for county courts. The alternative is for judges, barristers and solicitors, witnesses and jurors, prisoners, prison officers and the staff of the courts themselves to soldier on in outdated buildings which are often subject to unsatisfactory sharing arrangements. In due course, if no new accommodation is provided, arrears of work will build up to unacceptable levels or the alternative solution of transferring work elsewhere will have to be adopted.
The Government cannot plan the future arrangements for the High Court, Crown court and county courts on a short-term, hand-to-mouth basis. Indeed, the reform of the courts brought about by the Courts Act 1971 was largely designed to enable Governments to think ahead and plan properly.
The hon. Member for Bodmin has suggested that either no such modernisation is required or, if it is, it could be achieved by adapation of the existing building at Bodmin at a cost far fess than the estimated £2·5 million which is earmarked for the proposed building at Truro. With great respect to the hon. Member and to the strongly and sincerely held views of his constituents, I am afraid that new accommodation will be required in the foreseeable future and that it is not possible, within the bounds of reasonable
1454
expenditure, to achieve this by adaptation of the existing courthouse. I should like to explain the position in rather more detail.
It has been said that the existing two courtrooms at Bodmin are not fully used. This is true at the present time, there being some spare capacity. Nevertheless, it would be dangerous indeed to plan on the basis that this fairly minimal spare capacity will continue to exist. The statistical projections for the work load of the Crown court over the next 10 years suggest that, by perhaps 1987–88, the work load at Bodmin overall—that is, High Court, Crown court and county court—will be beyond the capacity of the two courtrooms.
It would be unwise not to plan some extension, but in any event courtroom capacity itself is not the main problem at present. The accommodation at Bodmin as a whole is very unsatisfactory by comparison with what is regarded as acceptable in modern terms. This is not to say that a fine building has not honourably served its purpose for a long time. The hon. Gentleman made clear that Bodmin is very proud of its court, and rightly so, but it is 150 years old and is deficient in a number of important ways. There is only one small consultation room, so that parties, counsel and solicitors have to manage as best they can in the public areas of the courthouse. There is little proper accommodation for judges sitting in the Crown court or for jurors or witnesses. Equally, the cell accommodation is poor, and complaints have been dealt with only by assurances that proper facilities for prison staff as well as for prisoners will be provided in the proposed new building. Finally—and this is an important point—the court offices are in a separate building some distance away. These are not proper facilities in this day and age.
I understand the hon. Member's desire that, if money is to be spent, it should be directed to extension of the existing building, but it is simply not true that the building at Bodmin could be adapted economically to provide an additional courtroom and the fairly extensive facilities for offices and court users that are clearly needed. The Property Services Agency has re-examined the position very recently. It has reached the conclusion that the courthouse at Bodmin would be

1455
very difficult to extend or adapt. It is built of granite and is on an island site. There would appear to be little hope, therefore, of extending the building outwards.
Furthermore, the courthouse is a scheduled building. Experience shows that it is very difficult to predict, and even more difficult to contain, expenditure on major adaptations of historic buildings.
Consequently, any extension at Bodmin would have to be made more or less within the framework of the existing building. To provide the space that is required, and is planned at Truro, would mean adding two floors. The experts from the PSA see no practicable way in which this could be done. In addition, were Bodmin to be adapted, the Crown would have to acquire it in the first place—it belongs to the county council at the moment—at a cost which cannot be estimated at present and alternative accommodation would have to be found for a considerable period of time while building work was in operation. Although a precise estimate of cost is not possible, the Property Services Agency takes the view that overall expenditure would be comparable to that proposed for Truro.
The position is, therefore, that Cornwall cannot soldier on indefinitely with the existing facilities if arrears of work are not to get out of hand. Furthermore, what is needed cannot be achieved by adaptation of the courthouse at Bodmin. If a new court complex is to be provided, a decision must be taken—difficult though it is—as to where it should be. It would be idle to pretend that the Government, in taking a decision of this kind, can satisfy all interested parties. That has been amply demonstrated this evening. Nevertheless, it is the Government's view that the arguments weigh in favour of a move to Truro—a one-minute speech as opposed to a 15-minute speech—and that, all-in-all, Truro is better placed to serve the whole county in this respect.
Of course, the views of those who live in northern and eastern Cornwall must be respected as must the opinion of those who feel that the historic connection with Bodmin should be maintained. However, the majority of the work of the Crown court in Cornwall does originate from well to the south of Bodmin and, generally, from the parts of the county adjacent to Truro or south of it.
1456
I am assured, although I am not an expert on the area, that the greater weight of the population is in that area. I see that the hon. Member for Truro nods. Opinion about accessibility of particular towns is necessarily very subjective, but Truro I am informed would seem to be more accessible to a greater proportion of the population of Cornwall than Bodmin. I do not want to go over the arguments—which the hon. Gentleman did not find convincing—in my noble Friend's letter, about the fact that Truro lies on the main railway line to Penzance. Nor do I think any good would be served by rehearsing the other six points. A balance has to be struck. In 1972, it was struck in favour of Truro after extensive local consultation and my noble Friend does not believe that the position has changed since then.
There is one final problem of some importance which concerns the organisation of the courts in Cornwall and which would be solved by a new building at Truro. Just as the facilities at Bodmin are inadequate and must be replaced, so the existing facilities for the county court at Truro, which is a good deal busier than the county court at Bodmin, are unsatisfactory. The court has to sit in the magistrates' court and its offices are some distance away from the courthouse. This is a serious inconvenience though the sharing arrangements with the magistrates are very amicable. The new court complex would combine all the facilities needed for the High Court, Crown court and Truro county court, including the district registry of the High Court which, again very inconveniently, currently has to serve the sittings of the High Court at Bodmin. The courthouse at Bodmin would continue to be used by the Bodmin county court and would, though I do not know if this would be necessary, be available for magistrates' sittings. Thus, the result would be that Cornwall would get good modern facilities to replace arrangements which are clearly unsatisfactory at present for both Bodmin and Truro.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend would be pleased to meet him and a delegation he wished to take, but it would be wrong and misleading to imply that my noble Friend would, of necessity, change his mind. The Government

1457
hold to their decision that to move the High Court and Crown court centre from Bodmin to Truro is correct and in the long-term interests of better administration of justice in Cornwall. The complex
1458
there should serve the whole county effectively for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock.

  LAND HOLDINGS (REGISTER)
  LAND HOLDINGS (REGISTER)
  DIVORCED PERSONS (SETTLEMENTS)
  DIVORCED PERSONS (SETTLEMENTS)
  " INSIDE STORY "
  " INSIDE STORY "
  EMPLOYMENT
    Unfair Dismissals
    Unfair Dismissals
    Striking Workers
    Striking Workers
    Isocyanates
    Isocyanates
    Ethylene Dichloride and Ethylene Dibromide
    Ethylene Dichloride and Ethylene Dibromide
    School Meals Provision (International Comparisons)
    School Meals Provision (International Comparisons)
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
    Foreign Languages (O- and A- level Successes)
    Foreign Languages (O- and A- level Successes)
    Museum of Modern Arts
    Museum of Modern Arts
    School Meals
    School Meals
    Museums
    Museums
    Nursery Schools (West Midlands)
    Nursery Schools (West Midlands)
    School Milk
    School Milk
    Student Grants (Parents' Contributions)
    Student Grants (Parents' Contributions)
    " Industrial Innovation "
    " Industrial Innovation "
    Kent County Council (Community Projects)
    Kent County Council (Community Projects)
    Scientific Research and Development
    Scientific Research and Development
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
    Aided Countries (Discriminatory Policies)
    Aided Countries (Discriminatory Policies)
  ENERGY
    Heating Oil
    Heating Oil
    People's Republic of China
    People's Republic of China
  TRADE
    Non-Domiciled Seamen (Earnings)
    Non-Domiciled Seamen (Earnings)
    British Airways
    British Airways
    Seafarers (Wages and Conditions of Service)
    Seafarers (Wages and Conditions of Service)
    European Trade Mark Office
    European Trade Mark Office
    Stock Exchange Listing (European Community Directive)
    Stock Exchange Listing (European Community Directive)
  INDUSTRY
    Small Firms Service
    Small Firms Service
    Industrial Innovation
    Industrial Innovation
    British Shipbuilders
    British Shipbuilders
    Business Statistics
    Business Statistics
  ENVIRONMENT
    Wild Birds (Protection)
    Wild Birds (Protection)
    Cesspits and Septic Tanks
    Cesspits and Septic Tanks
    Rent Acts (Review)
    Rent Acts (Review)
    Rate Equalisation Scheme (London Boroughs)
    Rate Equalisation Scheme (London Boroughs)
    Rate Support and Supplementary Grants (London)
    Rate Support and Supplementary Grants (London)
    Building Societies Association
    Building Societies Association
    Local Authority Members (Remuneration)
    Local Authority Members (Remuneration)
    Liverpool (Inner Ring Road)
    Liverpool (Inner Ring Road)
    British Waterways Board
    British Waterways Board
    Private House Building
    Private House Building
    Local Government Trade Unions
    Local Government Trade Unions
    Football Grounds
    Football Grounds
    Telford New Town
    Telford New Town
    Local Authorities (Expenditure)
    Local Authorities (Expenditure)
    Unidentified Noise
    Unidentified Noise
    Local Authority Manual Workers
    Local Authority Manual Workers
    Local Government Organisation
    Local Government Organisation
    Footpaths and Bridleways (Ordnance Survey Markings)
    Footpaths and Bridleways (Ordnance Survey Markings)
    Gatwick Airport
    Gatwick Airport
    Nuclear Fuels and Fissile Materials
    Nuclear Fuels and Fissile Materials
    Aerosol Sprays
    Aerosol Sprays
    Urban Renewal (West Midlands)
    Urban Renewal (West Midlands)
    Cologne Sports Institute
    Cologne Sports Institute
    National Sports Teams
    National Sports Teams
    European Community (Committee for the Development of Sport)
    European Community (Committee for the Development of Sport)
    Sport and School Sports Associations
    Sport and School Sports Associations
    Council Houses (Derbyshire)
    Council Houses (Derbyshire)
    Clorius Heat Measurement Meters
    Clorius Heat Measurement Meters
    Lead Pollution
    Lead Pollution
    Canals (West Midlands)
    Canals (West Midlands)
    Community Land Act
    Community Land Act
    Sports Council
    Sports Council
    PETROL (LEAD CONTENT)
    PETROL (LEAD CONTENT)
    SECURITY
    SECURITY
    WASS MEMORANDUM
    WASS MEMORANDUM
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Farmers (Loan Facilities)
    Farmers (Loan Facilities)
    Farming Community (Interest Rates)
    Farming Community (Interest Rates)
    Horse Sales
    Horse Sales
    Lamb, Wool and Potatoes (Prices)
    Lamb, Wool and Potatoes (Prices)
    European Community (Agriculture Ministers' Meeting)
    European Community (Agriculture Ministers' Meeting)
  DEFENCE
    Ford Motor Company
    Ford Motor Company
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Mr. R. Hempsall
    Mr. R. Hempsall
    Mr. Nasri Bouaziz
    Mr. Nasri Bouaziz
    Metropolitan Police
    Metropolitan Police
    Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
    Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    Retirement Pensioners (Unearned Income)
    Retirement Pensioners (Unearned Income)
    Customs Duties
    Customs Duties
    Value Added Tax
    Value Added Tax
    Taxpayers (Revenue Investigations)
    Taxpayers (Revenue Investigations)
    Budget Policy
    Budget Policy
    European Export Board
    European Export Board
    Trusts (Capital Transfer Tax)
    Trusts (Capital Transfer Tax)
    Balance of Payments (Invisible Earnings)
    Balance of Payments (Invisible Earnings)
  SCOTLAND
    Agricultural Grant
    Agricultural Grant
    Primary Schools (Organisation and Staffing Survey)
    Primary Schools (Organisation and Staffing Survey)
    Clerks of Court (Industrial Action)
    Clerks of Court (Industrial Action)
  PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
    Firework Injuries (Statistics)
    Firework Injuries (Statistics)
  SOCIAL SERVICES
    Hospital Development (Goole)
    Hospital Development (Goole)
    Premature Blindness
    Premature Blindness
    National Health Service (Administrative Costs)
    National Health Service (Administrative Costs)
    Family Incomes
    Family Incomes
    Area Health Authorities
    Area Health Authorities
    Leucotomies (Birmingham)
    Leucotomies (Birmingham)
    Hospital Patients (Suicides)
    Hospital Patients (Suicides)
    South-East Thames Regional Health Authority (Financial Allocation)
    South-East Thames Regional Health Authority (Financial Allocation)
    Invalid Care Allowances
    Invalid Care Allowances
    Bolton General Hospital
    Bolton General Hospital
    Lead Pollution
    Lead Pollution
    Elderly Persons (Medical Advice)
    Elderly Persons (Medical Advice)
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    British Phosphate Commission
    British Phosphate Commission
    Banabans
    Banabans
    United Nations
    United Nations
    Mr. Humphry Berkeley
    Mr. Humphry Berkeley
    Shah of Iran
    Shah of Iran
    Rhodesia
    Rhodesia
    Secretary of State (Visit to Bonn)
    Secretary of State (Visit to Bonn)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
    European Commission (Webster v. United Kingdom)
    European Commission (Webster v. United Kingdom)
    European Parliament (Members' Salaries)
    European Parliament (Members' Salaries)
    European Assembly Elections
    European Assembly Elections
  NORTHERN IRELAND
    Non-Contributory Invalidity Benefit
    Non-Contributory Invalidity Benefit
    Heating Allowances
    Heating Allowances
    Disabled Persons (Telephones)
    Disabled Persons (Telephones)
    Telephones
    Telephones
    Unemployment Benefit
    Unemployment Benefit
    Educational Maintenance Allowances
    Educational Maintenance Allowances

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

LORD RICHARDSON
Sir John Samuel Richardson, Baronet, MVO, having been created Baron Richardson, of Lee in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Zuckerman and the Lord Hunt of Fawley.

EEC COMMISSION PROPOSALS: ARREARS
2.47 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that, as at 1st January 1979, there were 278 proposals from the EEC Commission, upon which the European Parliament had been requested and had given its Opinion, which still awaited a decision by the Council of the EEC; and whether they will state what action they propose to take within the EEC Council progressively to reduce the grossly excessive arrears.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, some of these proposals originated many years ago and are no longer under active consideration. Decisions in the Council broadly keep pace with the flow of new proposals, but at any given time a considerable number of proposals are undergoing the normal process of consideration and revision in the Council machinery.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is
176
aware that the 278 outstanding matters go as far back as 1968 and that no fewer than 103 of them relate to 1978 and 53 to 1977, with the rest spread back over the eight years? Is he aware that the 278 matters which are referred to in the Question are after the exclusion by the Commission of those matters that are considered no longer to be relevant? Is he further aware that it might be considered to be for the better expedition of public business in the EEC if the proceedings of the Council were held in public, so the people of Europe could know what is happening instead of being treated at the hands of the various parties to a series of leaked reports that are regularly issued in Brussels after each Council meeting?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in reply to the first point made by my noble friend, as the Council receives some 650 proposals in a year, and I understand disposes of about the same number, it is normal that at any particular time there should be 100 or 200 under consideration, and, given that some are no longer under active consideration, the number of proposals outstanding would not seem to be unduly high. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and others have urged, and continue to urge, that these procedures should be constantly looked at with a view to speeding them up, and my noble friend has a point. As to the question of making Council meetings public—that is, meetings of Ministers—that is another question which would need to be looked at quite separately.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of these proposals have been stuck with the Committee of Permanent Representatives and never been considered by the Council at all?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, as the noble Lord is of course aware, looks at all these proposals and is empowered to extract those of less than major importance, which they then propose should be dealt with, as it were, outside the procedure. That saves a good deal of time, but even before these, if I may call them such, less than major questions are considered, our own Ministers have to approve. The procedure

177
the noble Lords suggests is in fact current. It is for inquiry to see whether that can be made even more effective, but I grant him the point that this is a very valuable way of saving time while at the same time not infringing on the necessary right of veto on questions of major national concern.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Talking about leaks, my Lords, though spelt perhaps in a slightly different way from those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, may I ask the Minister to convey without the smallest disrespect to the Commission or disloyalty to the Community that, like all bureaucracies, the Commission sometimes tends to make itself ridiculous?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would be a very bold and experienced parliamentarian who for one moment would hazard the opinion that no commission or committee has not at some time or other contrived to make itself look a little ridiculous, and I have no doubt that the European institutions have a sufficient sense of normality as well as of humour to agree with that. As to the noble and learned Lord's reference to leaks, I am in the happy position of knowing everything about Welsh leaks and nothing at all about the other type!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in his original Answer he used the very familiar phrase that these matters were constantly under review? Is he further aware that for a very long time that has been the familiar kind of reply from Ministers of the Crown in the United Kingdom Parliament? Are clichés of that character all that we are to get from the EEC?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I very much hope not, my Lords. I would hope that any parliamentary assembly, present and prospective, would constantly keep under review matters of national and international importance.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would it not be better for the standing of the EEC in this country if we could have a holiday from what I would term minor irritations which are put
178
forward, which interfere with our usual forms of national life, such as those involving the delivery of milk, or the abolition of duty-free shops? These matters are of comparatively minor importance, but they do the EEC's reputation no good at all in this country.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I note very carefully and appreciatively what the noble Lord has said. There is indeed a body of opinion in this and in other countries in the Community which would agree with him. The Community is developing a thoughtful aggregation of institutions, constantly keeping under review matters such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye.

GATWICK: RADAR SYSTEM INSTALLATION
2.56 p.m.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the long delay expected in the building of a second runway at Gatwick airport, whether they would consider installing ground control radar at Gatwick, as at Heathrow airport.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the White Paper on Airport Policy does not envisage a second runway at Gatwick airport. The Civil Aviation Authority have decided on the eventual installation of ground control radar. The time-scale depends on other developments; in particular, the building of a new elevated control room in the terminal area complex. They are satisfied that the existing facilities are suitable for the present usage of the airport.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I say that considerable delay may occur before installation takes place. It does not need me to remind your Lordships that not very long ago—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was a very serious accident not long ago on a runway in the Canary Islands? I am sure that we do not want a repetition of such an accident at Gatwick airport.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, ground control radar is additional monitoring equipment installed in large, congested airports, in particular those which have a complex of taxiways and parking spaces. There are 12 in existence, and one of them is at Heathrow. In the judgment of the Civil Aviation Authority the volume of traffic and dimensions of the airport will not justify the installation at Gatwick until the mid-1980s. Furthermore, such equipment has to be very carefully located. In the development which is at present being planned there is to be a new elevated control room with the equipment on the roof. I have no doubt that we shall get better results by waiting for that.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, are the Government aware that there is only one runway at Tenerife?
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two brief questions which arise from the absence of a second runway? Does he not agree that it is impossible to arrive at an average number of flights if one uses the summer peak and the winter low as component parts? Secondly, is he aware that those of us who are interested in these matters do not believe that the summer peak at Gatwick can be augmented in the intervening years without a second runway?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, I am advised by the Civil Aviation Authority that, in making their estimates, they have taken into account the summer peak. So far as a second runway is concerned, I would remind the House that on 22nd February—only two sitting days ago—I made a detailed Statement on why there should not be a second runway at Gatwick. I invite my noble friend to read what I had to say on that occasion.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: I disagree, my Lords.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, arising from the noble Lord's Statement to which he has referred his noble friend, may I ask whether he can tell the House how the British Airports Authority are getting on with their recently announced proposal to widen the taxiway at Gatwick so as to enable it to be used in an emergency as a second runway? Will the Government insist upon a public inquiry, or are they going to get on with the job?
Lord JACQUES: That is not at present known, my Lords. At this stage the Civil Aviation Authority are in contact with the airlines and have not yet made their decision as to whether they will make planning application. Therefore, the matter which the noble Lord has raised does not yet arise.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have of course read with great interest his speech to which he referred, but that I venture to disagree with what he said?
Lord JACQUES: I have no doubt about that, my Lords, but I am putting forward the Government's point of view, and I am prepared to defend it. If the noble Baroness cares to table an Unstarred Question, I shall defend it.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, on the grounds of maximum safety, have not the Government received representations from the British Airline Pilots' Association that GCA should be installed at the earliest possible moment?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I took the liberty of acquainting myself with this question as well as I possibly could, and I can advise the noble Lord that I know nothing of the issue which he has raised.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, almost always wins in the end?
Lord JACQUES: I can only say that i am not yet defeated, my Lords.

HOSPITAL CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES
3 p.m..
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the existing restraints that inhibit hospital authorities from contracting out their cleaning and maintenance services to private firms.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, health authorities have discretion, within the financial resources available to them, to put this work out to contract.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say what are the restraints that have prevented any of the hospital authorities from doing so hitherto? I speak subject to correction. Since the present situation has resulted in the closure of operating theatres and the depletion of blood banks, could not the hospital authorities be allowed the widest possible latitude in matters concerning the life and death of patients?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware that the hospitals are under any constraint at all in this particular matter. It so happens that at the present moment about 30 hospitals employ private contractors for cleaning purposes.
On the question of cost as between employing a private contractor and having the work done by hospital staff employed to do it, there is hardly any difference at all in cost, but there is one overriding factor. That is that, in the case of a contract, it is necessary to have it set out very clearly in the contract what is going to be done, and you cannot depart from that at a moment's notice. That can be done only by negotiation with the contracting firm; and, in a hospital, it is often necessary to change routines and methods at very short notice. But, as I say, there are 30 hospitals at present employing private contractors.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, arising out of that reply, would my noble friend not agree that some recognition should be made of the marvellous work done by hundreds of young nurses who have literally kept the hospitals going by undertaking the heavy extra burdens imposed on them by the action of able-bodied people in the National Health Service who have decided to go slow?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that that question is, if I may say so, wide of the original Question asked, I think I have said in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion how indebted we are to the people who are rallying round at this particular time.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, if these constraints upon the administration are very small, would the Government actively consider reviewing the situation so far as concerns the many hospitals which have been obliged to close their operating theatres and hence lengthen the lists of patients?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if we may get back to it, the original Question asked what restraints were inhibiting hospital authorities from contracting out. What I am saying, and what I have said, is that I am not aware that there are any such restraints. It is entirely up to the hospitals themselves to decide which of the two methods they are going to use.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that, to the extent that hospital authorities do not contract out cleaning and maintenance services to the lowest bidder, the only satisfactory way of absorbing pay increases of the amounts now in contemplation is to insist on improvements in productivity, through which a given amount of work would be done by a reduced number of employees?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware of the way in which the noble Lord is using the word "maintenance"; but if he means maintenance in respect of building and engineering, I can say that between 25 and 30 per cent. of building and engineering maintenance in the National Health Service is in fact undertaken by private firms, amounting

183
to something like £40 million a year in cost. There are some very good reasons for using direct labour which have nothing to do with any political view. Much of the work on health buildings requires to be done immediately and there are special things that have to be done, and by employing people who are on the spot all the time it can very often be done more cheaply and more quickly.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend the Minister, who is at present in Westminster Hospital, our very great sympathy with him, critical as we may be of him in a political sense? We wish him a speedy recovery; and we deplore the discriminatory action taken against him.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, and I shall see that that is done.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, while warmly endorsing the remarks just made by the noble and learned Lord opposite, may I ask my noble friend whether he can say what active steps the Government are prepared to take to acquaint the hospital authorities with the facilities which are available to them, and to see that far wider use is made of them as soon as possible?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think I can say to your Lordships that it is not necessary to do that. The hospitals are well aware of the authority they have, they are well aware of the authority that the Department has, and they are well aware of the fact that they are entirely responsible for running the hospitals in their particular area.

WATERLOO STATION RAPE CASE
3.8 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take with
184
the British Railways Board and the Post Office Corporation with regard to the recent case of public rape at Waterloo Station.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, while the Government deplore this whole incident, I am assured that the British Railways Board take all reasonable precautions to safeguard passengers. Waterloo and other main-line stations are permanently manned and patrolled by British Transport Police. Noble Lords will know that the offender in question was arrested and convicted. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the Railways Board to consider whether any additional safeguarding measures can be taken.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and am very glad to hear that the Government have asked the Railways Board to consider additional measures. Is the noble Baroness aware that widespread reports in respectable newspapers said that a number of British Railways workers and a number of Post Office workers watched the rape until complained to by a passenger, whereupon they locked the door and sent for the police, while the lady in question was being raped and was screaming? Would she therefore join with me in condemning this callous and cowardly attitude, and in saying that public servants have a duty, public as well as moral, to come to the aid of passengers and citizens in distress, such as this lady was, and ought not simply to ignore it and send for the police? Would she also agree that such an attitude and such an action at a great railway terminus in London is a disgrace to the country and to the many decent people who are employed in the public service and who condemn this attitude?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am in somewhat of a difficulty in giving a very full answer to the noble Lord's supplementary questions on this, because there is a possibility of some action being taken by the men's union with the Press Council, or through other means. The report in the papers has been denied by the Post Office workers involved. We

185
have also been unable to find any railwaymen who were there at the time of the incident. There are also problems in so far as the inspector of the British Transport Police says that he was misquoted by the newspapers in question in the comments which he made about the action of the crew. I think that perhaps it might be best not to go further than that this afternoon, because I understand that the NUR and the Post Office Workers' Union are taking legal advice as to what they can do about the Press reports which have appeared.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, is it not curious that no denial was issued until this Question was asked in this House?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am not aware of whether any denial has been issued or not. I only know that the men in question have taken exception, with the support of their unions, to the statements made that were in two newspapers and action is now being considered.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence or the apparently moronic behaviour (as reported in the newspapers) of the bystanders, is the noble Baroness aware that it was claimed in mitigation that railway carriages in Victoria Station are frequently used as doss houses by vagrants? Are the Government happy with the situation where our rolling stock provides a form of public doss house?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, we are not happy. We have problems with vagrants, in particular at Waterloo Station. We have them to a greater or lesser degree in other main railway stations; but at Waterloo with, I gather, something like 14 ways to get into the station, it is difficult to lock off any of the entrances at any periods of the day. There is the problem of supervision. We have 20 British Transport police attached to the police station on Waterloo Station who are continually patrolling the station throughout the day and night, and they patrol those trains where they are aware there are likely to be incidents and the problems with vagrants which British Rail are trying to overcome; and here British Transport police seem to
186
spend most of their time trying to eject from one entrance vagrants who then find their way into another. Until we can find some satisfactory way of sealing off the 14 entrances—with all the difficulties that go with that, with passengers and the control of mail and parcels on the station—we are going to have problems. Unfortunately, the incidence of vagrancy at Waterloo Station is now such as to become the background to all that goes on there. Regrettably, in this particular instance it was not recognised for the offence that it was.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that it is not uncommon for published reports in newspapers of incidents to bear very little relation to what happened?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; I think that is the point at issue which the men's unions are looking at now.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness publish the results of the inquiry?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there is no inquiry as such. It is the unions acting on behalf of their members who will give them advice whether they take action either against the newspapers concerned or through the Press Council. It is not a matter for the Government or British Rail or the Post Office Board. It is the men's unions.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness telling me that the Government have no intention of finding out more about this appalling situation and of doing more to police the station at Waterloo?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as I have already said, we have asked the British Railways Board to carry out a review as to what other safeguards can be instituted at places such as Waterloo. In due course, they will come back and tell us whether, within their resources, they are able to do any more, or what other resources they need. If that information is forthcoming I will pass it on, but it is not an inquiry in the Government sense following which a report will be published.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, should we not be careful about letting our indignation run away with us? These people are homeless. Should we not be as angry about that as we are about what we are discussing today?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a point. We are all concerned with the problem of the homeless people in London, and have expressed this concern on both sides of the House on many occasions. Some of these are the people who frequent Waterloo Station and other stations.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on pay comparability.
He will then repeat a Statement on the Council of Ministers' Agricultural Meeting held on 5th and 6th March.

ENERGY AND PRICES AND INCOMES PROGRAMMES
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY rose to draw attention to the need for revising the current provisions of the energy programme and the prices and incomes control programmes in the light of recent events in Iran; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House this afternoon, I am mindful that it is the first occasion on which I have been privileged to do so since debating the Motion of my noble friend Lord Somers on the need for making shorter speeches. While it is not in mortals to command success, I shall endeavour to practise what I then preached. I shall not try to deliver an introductory chapter to a textbook on the subject but be content to act as compère to the distinguished list of speakers who have put their names down to speak this afternoon, and to highlight one or two topics which they may then clothe with garments of their own choosing in the course of the debate.
The crisis in Iran has its background and its foreground. Doubtless when the information is of no use to anybody, the historians will be able to fill in the details for the benefit of students. Here I can only refer to the foreground and treat it as coterminous with this Session of Parliament, since it was on 1st November that we here listened to the gracious Speech from the Throne, while in Iran the workers in the oilfields declared a general strike of a political character. Since then the crisis in Iran has deepened to the point where the Shah has been dethroned and we still do not know whether the situation will develop to a crisis level in this country or not.
It is characteristic of what some sociologists call "explosive degeneration" in human relations—and we have watched it sometimes in our own industrial relations at home—and it naturally raises the 64,000-dollar question: Where and when is the next explosion going to take place and what next will blow up in our faces? It also raises, to my mind, the most uncomfortable question: What about the treasure trove of small arms, light tanks and the apparatus of civil war generally which has now got into the hand of factional mobs? Where will it turn up next as the Middle East equivalent of Chileans available for the purposes of the world's arch-trouble maker, the Communist Party, the servant of Russian Imperialism? I cannot pursue these questions, though it may be for others to do so.
I want to turn to the immediate prospects. Iran produced approximately 10 per cent. of the world's supply of crude oil. When I say "the world's" I mean the WOCA countries—the world outside the Communist area as it is usually abbreviated. The actual estimates for this year were 52 million barrels for WOCA of which 5·4 million were from Iran, which is close to 10 per cent. Of that estimated production for the 12 months (let us say) from 1st November to 31st October this year, four months' production has been irretrievably lost. That is one-third of 10 per cent. which is 3·3 per cent. We must not suppose that during the remaining eight months the Iranian oilfields will be running at 100 per cent. of their rated capacity. If it is at 75 per cent. for eight months, that would add another

189
1·7 per cent. to the world's loss which will bring the figure up to 5 per cent. overall. Something like this, give or take a few percentage points and give or take any alteration in stock levels, seems to have been the basis for the IEA request that all its members should try to achieve a 5 per cent. economy.
Nearly all equipment can be driven about 15 per cent. above its rated capacity if the will to do it is there. But if you are a world primary producer, 15 per cent. above rated capacity means a raid on your oil reserves. It means depleting your reserves in order to maintain Iran's. This raises the whole question of whether the other Middle East oil producers are going to be willing to do so. They are becoming increasingly sensitive to the implications of running down their reserves—for many good reasons as it appears to them. Some of the reasons for the utilisation of oil that appear good to us appear trivial in the light of their rather more austere Koranic-based faith; and it is understandable that they would not wish to run down their reserves for purposes of ours which seem to them frivolous.
That we must take into account in our reckoning. It is not necessary to go far off Araby to consider the implications of running down local reserves, for our reserves are local to us. North Sea oil and North Sea gas will not be there for ever, and I am much concerned about what I call the "squandermaniacal" depletion of our reserves of North Sea gas due to extremely unwise drawing of the contracts with the oil companies in years gone by. That is another topic and I shall not explore it in depth this afternoon.
Conservation, economy and the use of alternatives: it is a good opportunity to practice all of them. It seems to be very topical that British Aerospace is holding an exhibition of all these technologies upstairs on the Committee Room floor this afternoon, and I hope that as many of your Lordships as can find the time will go and see the very interesting exhibits that they have collected there.
I seem to have recruited some massive heavy artillery in the debate this afternoon, many of whom are specialists in their own subjects. The only casualty I am
190
sorry to say—and I am sure your Lordships wish him well on his sickbed—is my noble friend Lord Hinton of Bankside, who unfortunately is laid up with influenza. I wish he was here this afternoon to take us all to account for our errors of omission and commission in the field of fast reactor installation and the initiation of inquiries into the safety of fast reactors. I am not going to wander too far from my own field by going into that in detail.
It is high time for the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Government to stop playing hide and seek over this inquiry and get down to brass tacks. I know exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is answering for the Government, will tell me, because he has said it to me before in answer to questions. He will say that when the CEGB say they want a power station and a fast reactor for that power station, then the Government will initiate an inquiry. That is his standard answer on this point. I must tell him now quite frankly on the Floor of the House that I do not think that is good enough. We ought to anticipate the need by launching the inquiry into fast reactor safety now, and we ought so far as possible to spike the guns of the conservationists by making it quite clear that the prototype commercial fast reactor will go down at Dounreay where the local inhabitants want it and the environmentalists can make the least amount of trouble. If we do not do that this whole project is liable to compete in historical interest with the abortive expedition to Walcheren, which your Lordships will remember from your school days was lampooned as follows:
"Lord Chatham with his sword drawn,
Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan.
Sir Richard longing to be at'em,
Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham".
With a divided command there was nothing left but to go home, and that is what they did. I would produce an up-to-date version of this if I could find anything to rhyme with "CEGB". If there is a poet in the House—and I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham of Saint Marylebone, is not in his place—perhaps he would get his pencil out and give me some help.
Then we come to the immediate problem that we have to worry about, which is prices and incomes. We cannot pre-

191
tend that we are beginners in this game. We are not even drowning men coming up for the third time. This is our fifth appearance. It started with the Suez war, and then there was the Six Day war, the Yom Kippur war, the 1973–74 OPEC raid on oil prices and now the dethronement of the Shah. We cannot suppose that North Sea oil will escape this same rise. We are not free to treat North Sea oil as the exception to the world's price structure for the very simple reason that a great deal of our North Sea oil is traded off abroad to pay for imports because it is of a higher quality than we need for our domestic requirements in this country. We can buy oil abroad at world prices cheaper than North Sea oil and sell North Sea oil at a premium; ton for ton, barrel for barrel, we gain on the exchange. But it must take place at world prices.
It is perfectly true that oil itself is only 3 per cent. of the world's gross national product. I suppose I ought to call it gross terrestrial product or something like that. Gold is very much less. But think what a rise in the price of gold does, my Lords—and oil is sometimes called "black gold". It enters into the price of everything; it helps to control the price structure. It is part of the servo-mechanism that drives the economy along. If we allow that to get out of control, we are going to be in for another bout of leapfrog inflation on top of the leapfrog inflation that we have not yet damped out of the system.
This is why I have to ask myself: what actually happens to an economy that faces this kind of alteration in its terms of trade? I imagine for purposes of simplification that I have a trading economy which is in a state of internal and external equilibrium. By that I mean that, internally, net income balances the output of consumer goods at full employment, investment balances the output of capital goods at full employment and exports equal imports. What then happens if there is a rise in the price of imported raw materials? Any of three basically different things can happen. First of all, you can borrow the difference, but you cannot keep that up unless you can find foreign investors who will transform short-term trade indebtedness
192
into long-term investment. If you can, well and good, you can borrow the difference. The alternative is that more of the standard products of the economy are exported to pay for the increased drain on resources represented by the same volume of imports at a higher price, thus leaving a smaller amount of consumption goods available for consumption in this country, thereby reducing the standard of living. You find prices going up and you do not ask for more wages to pay for them, you just buy less.
The third remedy is that you can work harder or longer or, much more important, more productively, to turn out an increased proportion of goods to pay for the increased monetary volume of the imports. The one thing you cannot do is to say: "I do not want my personal standard of living to be reduced, so I shall pick my neighbour's pocket. It is true that not being a professional pickpocket, I lack the legerdemain to do this in the literal sense of the word. It is much easier for me to do it by beating him to a price rise." My Lords, this is not a viable way of coping with an alteration in the terms of trade. It only generates the leapfrog inflation from which we are already suffering. If you want a picture of what happens under these conditions, my Lords, just look around you in this winter of our discontent and consider the morale of the nation just at this point in time.
Can we in any sense of the word equate barring the road of the Good Samaritan with a picket line for the sake of more money with loving one's neighbour as oneself? What starts as theft ends as a deterioration in the entire morale and morality of the nation. Trying to beat inflation in this way is like trying to step on your own shadow. It cannot be done. It is quite true that in a Christmas pantomime Peter Pan did something rather like it; but Peter Pan was just a little boy who would not grow up. He is not a model for national leadership, political leadership or union leadership.
I am not one of those who think that the unions are big bad wolves. If I wanted a Disneyesque comparison I would much sooner choose Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice—the little fellow who switches on more power than he knows how to switch off. If I seem to be laying about me and selecting the unions for the

193
rough edge of my tongue, that is only because in a debate on a restricted subject they happen to be the most relevant. If I really wanted to get rough, I should get rough with everybody including myself for all the sins of omission and commission for which the Legislature has been responsible during the 30 post-war years.
It comes down to this, as I see it: we do not have to be cold, hungry and unemployed before we come to our senses in facing situations that we have faced before and have no excuse for not recognising. But, if that is the way we insist on having it, that is the way it will have to be. With your Lordships' permission, I can describe that situation and what we have to face with a very slight paraphrase of a couple of quatrains by Rudyard Kipling:
"This was none of the Lord's good pleasure
For the Spirit God set in man was free.
But what comes after is measure for measure
And not some fate that afflicteth thee.
As was the sowing, so the reaping is now and evermore shall be.
We are delivered to our own keeping:
not oil but ourselves have our fate in fee".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Earl was indeed drawn very wide and, although he called it "a restricted debate", in a speech full of evocative and impressive analogies the noble Earl has acted as a very genial compère and bas ranged very far. In particular, he has addressed himself to some financial implications. I wish to try to be selective and intend therefore to concentrate on the immediate problem of the shortfall of oil exports from Iran, which I do not believe justifies one part of the noble Earl's Motion where he talks about:
"… the need for revising the current provisions of the energy programme …".
I think what has happened is a timely reminder that we should not forget the lessons of 1973. At that time I said in one debate in this House that OPEC had done us a favour by pointing up the dangers of profligate waste— "squandermania" was the noble Earl's word—of the world's valuable resources and the implications of this for us nationally. I take very small comfort from the fact that if we have not learned the lessons, it appears that the
194
United States have learned them even less well and they are now more dependent on imported oil and continue to use one-third of the world's output of oil; so the energy gap is widening.
There is no doubt that recent events in Iran present a problem. I do not think they present us with a crisis unless we lose our heads and panic ourselves into a crisis; but we are in a state of what might be called "yellow alert". I am sure that the noble Lord will give us more authoritative figures, but the figures I have been able to obtain might put the thing in context, as indeed did the noble Earl. The total world demand for oil is of the order of 60 million barrels a day, or 3,000 million tons a year, of which about 42 million barrels a day is internationally traded. Of that Iran used to produce about 5 million barrels a day. Since that oil was cut off Saudi Arabia has been producing an extra million barrels a day and the North Sea and other sources have been producing another million barrels a day, leaving us with a net shortfall of the order of 3 million barrels a day, which is about 5 per cent. of international consumption. Of course, this does not operate the International Energy Agency's 7 per cent. trigger, but the participants in the International Energy Agency have agreed to a 5 per cent. cut-back, and I think we have agreed, under the nondiscrimination agreement, that this Government will honour their obligations under the IEA. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord will be able to confirm that this is indeed the Government's position.
Having said that, can the noble Lord tell us what ideas the Government themselves may have about implementing a 5 per cent. cut? The Government themselves use something like 30 per cent. of the energy of this country—that is, the Government and Government-controlled agencies—so they can have a very considerable direct influence on this situation if they wish. It has been suggested, for instance, that more coal should be burned in power stations, but my understanding is that something like seven-eighths of the energy used by the CEGB is already coal; so there would not appear to be any great scope for increasing the utilisation, unless it be by reactivating some of the older and relatively uneconomic power stations which were coal burning—

195
in which case, who is going to pay the CEGB for the extra costs they incur?
It seems to me that the International Energy Agency has proved its worth in these difficult circumstances by producing authoritative figures in an area where reliable information is notoriously hard to come by. I think the fact that they have been able to do this gives one added confidence for dealing with the situation and to be sure that the mechanisms exist for coping with the situation if it gets more difficult.
Both the oil companies and the Government have been mutually satisfied that emergency responses are not yet called for. I hope this does not imply that they have been either complacent or irresponsible. My understanding is that the Petroleum Industry Advisory Council gave this advice to the Government and they therefore said there was no need to summon the oil industry's emergency committee, because that very act in itself might have caused precisely the panic reactions that one would wish to avoid if everybody goes out and wishes to stock up, that is the best way of creating an immediate problem of shortages.
The basic message I am getting is that to make a 5 per cent. economy in our use of fuel need cause no great pain but calls for good housekeeping and careful thought in the interests of everybody. This brings another question that I should like to put to the noble Lord. I rather believe that the British National Oil Corporation—and incidentally may I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that "BNOC" could conceivably be made to rhyme with "CEGB", but I still have not got any further that that—was set up to have some control over crude supply, among other things. Does the noble Lord believe they are capable of exercising any degree of control, and do they have the supplies to make good any shortfalls?
Having said all this, it is quite clear that in a month or two it may be necessary to reconsider where the energy supply situation has arrived, if by that time we have neither achieved a cutback in use nor a revival in production from the Iranian oilfields up to the order of, say, 3 million barrels a day—or at least a prospect of that happening. This problem is something
196
which would necessarily show itself in a serious manner only in the autumn, when the industry's normal practice is to build up stocks through the summer for use during the winter months. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether he can give us authoritative figures.
My understanding is that stocks have come down from something like 70 days to about 60 days, which has to be compared with what I believe is our IEA obligation to maintain 90 days. Also, one has to bear in mind that the companies say that they need something like 50 days' stocks to avoid running into technical problems of local shortfalls. Here, again, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government are now satisfied that we have reached a rational, sensible basis of comparing what stocks really are? It sounds a very simple matter, but I am told that it is exceedingly complicated to allow, for example, for the oil which is on its way here, the oil which cannot be pumped out of a tanker and that kind of marginal consideration.
I believe it is right to say that the real problems have arisen from oil supplied by the so-called small independents who operate the spot market in Rotterdam. This comprises some 8 to 10 operators sharing, perhaps, 5 per cent, of the market. In the ordinary way, they perform a valuable service at a profit to themselves by living dangerously on the margins of the oil market, and, personally, I do not see that they have any cause to complain when the market conditions turn against them, as they inevitably do, about every five years or so. But one should understand how difficult the price factor has become, and I am told that it has become particularly acute in what are known as the light distillates, which I believe include jet fuel. For example, in October, 1978, the price of jet fuel was 162 dollars a ton on the spot market. In February, 1979, it was 320 dollars a ton, which is very nearly double. The United Kingdom price is 220 dollars, which means that you cannot go out on to the spot market to make up any temporary shortages.
This, in turn, points up another problem, which is the dangerous rigidity that price control mechanisms can impose upon this very highly organised and complicated market, because the only recourse that spot market operators would have would

197
be to buy their oil expensively and to sell their oil expensively, rather than say that they cannot supply at all. I suspect it is this which is the background to the reports in the newspapers about what one might call the Walsall school syndrome, where schools have actually had to be closed because of shortage of fuel supplies.
I know nothing about this, but what I suspect has happened is that, in a laudable attempt to keep down the prices, these consumers bought from the small operators at a price below that which they had to pay to the majors. Then the small operators were unable to supply and, of course, when they went back to the majors, they were unable to help, because the majors were saying: "We can lust get by if we continue to supply our longstanding customers, which we believe we shall he able to do with careful management and by resort to such devices as monitoring what they had last year, as compared with what they are ordering now to make sure that they are not trying to take advantage of a shortage situation." This may be a harsh lesson in economics, but it seems to me to be the real world and not necessarily a wholly bad one, from which we, again, should learn the salutary lesson of the precarious balance within which the energy industries operate; and we should pay particular attention to the need for careful husbandry.
This brings me full circle back to something which we have said so often in this House, that I hope that this experience, assuming that it does not get any worse, will emphasise for us the need for systematic energy saving in both the short-term and the long-term, and I can assure the noble Lord that we on this side will give the Government all possible support in any really sensible schemes which they are able to bring forward. I draw comfort from the situation when we find that the IEA has demonstrated its usefulness, despite, incidentally, the apparent anomaly of having its head office in Paris when the French themselves are not members of the IEA. Nevertheless, it has proved its usefulness and its credibility. I also draw the conclusion, along with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that we in this country have to recognise that we cannot isolate ourselves from the world, even although we are faced with the uniquely happy prospect among the industrial nations of the world of an
198
approaching energy balance. If the world is short of energy, we shall feel it here.
Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he can tell the House approximately how many of the power stations in this country are run by oil? My information is that they produce about 10 per cent. of the energy which the Central Electricity Generating Board generates. Some of these stations have been constructed for dual firing, and could there not be some saving if the dual firing ones were turned over to coal?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think that I really ought to leave an answer to that question to the Government, when the noble Lord replies. However, I shall say two things which I believe to be correct, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will correct me if I am wrong. First, I do not believe that any of the dual firing stations have used oil for a very long time. Secondly, the figure which I produced was that something like seven-eighths, which I suppose is something of the order of 85 per cent., of the fuel used by the CEGB is coal rather than oil. There might be some correction factor to be brought in, if the noble Lord is talking about the amount of power produced, for the relative efficiencies of the older and the newer stations.
3.48 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, in gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for introducing this Motion to your Lordships' House, I should like to offer him the poem for which he asked:
"The Chairman of the UKAEA
offered to start the CFR today.
The Government said Let us wait and see.
This also goes for the CEGB'."
We must indeed be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to this most important matter, that of the need to look at the energy programme in the light of recent events in Iran. We should also congratulate him on the felicitous timing of the debate coming, as it does, like a douche of cold water the day after the publication of Energy Paper No. 33. Although we congratulate the Government and the sensible people

199
of this country on having achieved a saving of 6 per cent. in energy consumption, we must at the same time recognise that we have lost 6·6 per cent. of our total energy supply temporarily, and there is no guarantee that we shall get it back or even a sizeable proportion of it.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, does us a service in asking us to consider our energy programme in a worldwide context. Too often we are inclined to think in narrow, national terms, forgetting how quickly and severely we can be affected by international events. It is true that at this moment we are very nearly energy self-sufficient, but this has not always been so and we know full well that this happy state cannot last. We also have to be aware that, though we have ample reserves of coal, oil and natural gas, this is not true of many of our partners in the EEC. Nor do I believe that it is true of Europe as a whole.
Certainly if we turn our eyes outward to the wide world we should be able to see that if the just demands for an improvement in the standard of living, to even a fraction of that which the West enjoys, are to be met, it does not appear that there is enough energy capacity in the whole world to achieve it. This makes me wonder what proportion of the erstwhile Iranian oil production will ever find its way back to Western markets. Do you remember Argentinian beef, my Lords? Before the war it was the staple source of the "Roast Beef of Old England". Now we hardly see it, except as tinned corned beef. The reason is not a fall-off in demand in this country; it is the result of an increase in demand in South America itself.
What the events in Iran should make us realise is that the days when we in this country, or in Europe, or in the West could look for unlimited supplies of reasonably priced imported energy are over. Energy, from now on, is always going to become scarcer and more expensive. It follows, therefore, that more and more power will reside in the hands of those countries which possess large energy resources, power which may not always be exercised benevolently towards us in the West.
200
So if we want to preserve our standards of life or, indeed, if we want to preserve our freedom and independence of action, we must see whether it is possible to supply our energy needs largely independently of overseas resources. I think that it will be possible to do this, and I am comforted by the thought that North Sea oil will give us time to make our strategic dispositions. But I am frightened by the very real danger that we may sit around for too long trying to make up our minds about our chosen strategy. The only thing I can think of for which to thank the Ayatollah Khoumeini is that his coup has made us once again concentrate upon the real problems in hand.
I think that up to now I may well have carried my colleagues on these Benches along with me, but I fear that it is at this point that I may be parting with some of them in thought. Certainly I agree that conservation of energy is very important, but recent events have shown that, with the best will in the world, it can contribute only slightly to the solutions to our problems. I applaud the success so far, and I should like to encourage the continuance of the programme. But the ultimate saving of 40 million tons of coal equivalent is less than the built-in energy gap of 50 million tons of coal equivalent which is built into the Green Paper calculations.
I do not, however, share the views contained in the publication A Low Energy Strategy for the United Kingdom, quoted in the recent debate on energy in your Lordships' House, nor do I share the starry-eyed optimism of those who hope to find solutions in alternative energy sources. As more work is done on these, it becomes ever clearer that not only will they be unable to produce the volume of energy needed to fill the energy gap but also that such energy as they may be capable of supplying will be immensely expensive.
There really are only four main sources of energy available to us out of which to fashion an energy strategy to take us into the next century. These are oil, gas, coal and atomic energy. Oil and gas are the energy sources of today and the next decade, but after ten years it is pretty certain that our supplies of them will be

201
declining. It is important, too, to remember that oil and gas are important chemical raw materials and should not be burned up with profligacy. Coal is an energy resource of today and tomorrow and, indeed, for a long time ahead; but we must remember that coal also is an important raw material, and as oil and gas are used up coal may well be needed as a source of chemicals or even to be turned into oil and gas. There are also practical limits to the development of coalfields which may place certain constraints upon us.
Atomic power is the one source of energy capable of meeting our needs, both in volume and in price. Of this I am absolutely and clearly convinced. This, I fear, is where I part company with a number of my colleagues. In my own view, this country cannot afford any longer to hold back from a considerable and progressive investment in atomic power. I repeat that it is the only source available to us which will meet our needs in time, in volume and in price. If we hesitate much longer, it will not be in time, although it still might manage the volume and the price. The gap in timing, however, might well then have to be expensively bought.
Let me substantiate my claims. I said "in time", but there is only just time if we proceed at once with both thermal reactors and the fast reactor programme to achieve a balance of energy by the year A.D. 2020. If we do so proceed, we can look forward to ending uranium imports after about A.D. 2040 and our children and our grandchildren would then be able to enjoy our reserves of degraded uranium which would be equal to our total present coal reserves, if used in fast reactors.
I said "in volume". This is incontrovertible. I do not claim, though, that atomic power would solve absolutely all of our energy needs. Portable energy may well have to be provided still by forms of spirit or gas which could be distilled from coal electrolysed from water and so on. We shall look forward to hearing later in this debate from noble Lords with much greater scientific knowledge than I possess who I am sure will give us chemists' and other scientific views of these possibilities. It is, though, incontrovertible that atomic power is the
202
only source of energy actually available to us now in this country and in the EEC which can be expanded enough to meet our future needs. In it we led, and perhaps in certain areas we still lead, the world. We have the know-how and the resources to develop it.
I said "in price". Here, if we take today's prices, it can be shown that electricity produced from coal costs 1·23p per unit, from oil 1·42p per unit and from nuclear energy 0·76p per unit. There is no doubt that at today's prices atomic power is much cheaper than power from other sources: almost half the cost of power from oil, rather less in the case of coal, provided one is assuming the use of low grade coals in power stations. "Ah, but", you may say, "do we not have to import uranium?" Yes, this is true, for a short time—for a start and for a start only. If we go for thermal reactors, with a fast reactor series ordered in the mid-1990s, then the cost of imported uranium would peak at between £400 million and £800 million per annum.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I have listened with interest and have been stimulated, but in all these analyses of costs is the noble Viscount taking into account the cost of making safe all the effluents from this excess radioactivity?
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I believe this to be so, because I am using Government figures. I do not think that the cost of making safe the effluents is great and in fact personal knowledge which I have of these matters, in which I have an interest—as noble Lords who read the Sunday Telegraph will be aware—leads me to believe that it could be a very easy thing to do. But as I have said, the cost of imported uranium would peak at between £400 million and £800 million per annum and would fall away steadily to nought by about the year 2055 AD.
We are like a human body which has suffered a series of warnings by heart attacks of an inherent circulatory disorder: the Suez crisis was our first heart attack, the coup in Iran was the latest. Like a person who ignores a heart attack we ignore these warnings at our peril. Now is not too soon to take the decisions which will avoid another, and possibly much more serious, attack.
4.1 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I will resist the temptation to follow the noble Viscount in his argument, not because I fundamentally argue that we have not only to consider nuclear energy, or any other kind of energy, but to consider every kind of energy if we are aiming for consistency in our programmes. I am exercising a very strong self-denying ordinance because I happen to believe in wave energy, I happen to believe in solar energy, and incidentally I happen to believe in thermal fusion energy and not so much now in the plutonium economy—but nevertheless, I shall confine myself to the need to find alternative sources of energy, and within that to one alternative, namely, oil from coal. I do that because we have made ourselves hostages to liquid fuel in the internal combustion age. I can think—and we can all think—of all kinds of ways, including marvellous expeditions into the ultimate hydrogen age, but we are still stuck with the fact of machines for which we still have to find liquid fuel.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I should like to ask your Lordships' indulgence in quoting something which I wrote 45 years ago in my first book, The Birth of the Future. I do it without any basic apology because—well, just listen:
"The need for a national plan is obvious. It must include the mines in the corporate industries. A far-seeing Government would set up carbonisation plants (for smokeless fuel) in the depressed areas which would convert the coal at the pithead. It would set up oil-from-coal distilleries, erect factories which would form the basis of the bakelite industry,"—
and I want to explain there that in those days "bakelite" was used as the generic term for what we now call "plastics," and was nothing to do with the trade name—
"and gas grids in order to commercialise the rich surplus gas. Another method (apart from the conversion of coal tar) of producing oil and motor spirits from coal is by pulverising the coal and hydrogenating it; that is pumping in hydrogen at high pressure and at high temperature. Experiments on a large scale and now capable of commercial output, have been carried out by the Imperial Chemical Industries. In five years the estimated cost of producing petrol from coal has been reduced from 2s. 6d. per gallon to 7d. a gallon".
I am talking now about 1934, and I leave your Lordships to do all the conversions from the old currency and indeed in terms of inflated prices today. I continue:
204
"The Imperial Chemical Industries, with Government assurances of an adequate tax on imported petrol, is going ahead with a plant capable of producing 100,000 tons of petrol a year—that is 30 million gallons—for a start. The coal consumption for that will be 350,000 tons of coal a year, which is about one-half of one day's natural production. The plant will cost about"—
now wait!"—
"£2½ million".
Now multiply that by all the zeros that your Lordships have in your pockets! Then I say:
"On that basis two and a half weeks' output would supply the 10,500 million tons of coal required to supply the 1,050 million gallons of motor spirit imported into this country every year. 1935".
That was written 45 years ago with the insight of the Government Fuel Research Station under Dr. F. S. Sinnatt and of the ICI. But it did not work that way at all. Why did it not work? The story in Germany was enormously different, but nevertheless had a deplorable outcome. Hitler was planning a war and he bided his time until 1939, and we know that he was waiting for the assurance that Germany was self-sufficient in oil. They had no natural oil resources but they had to rely on being self-sufficient in oil, and he was waiting for the culmination of the hydrogenation process first suggested by Bergius in 1914, and it gave him what he wanted.
I would remind your Lordships that the mighty German war machine, the total blitzkrieg, all the bombing of London and everywhere else and all the submarines that took to sea, were all running on oil produced from coal. After Hitler's failure to reach the Baku oilfields and the bombing of Ploesti in the Romanian oilfield in May 1944, Germany became entirely and completely dependent on oil from coal from Leuna chemical works in Germany. If you read Albert Speer you will realise just what that amounted to. By the time we bombed, first of all, Ploesti, Hitler had been stopped short of the Caucasus so he could not get any oil there; but from the production of oil from coal the Germans went on from May 1944 until the whole German war machine ground to a halt for lack of petrol in the Battle of the Bulge. And Speer will tell you in his book—I will not quote it—that the fact is that the first attack on Leuna airfield was the

205
end of the war for Germany. He knew what was going to befall then.
We are talking about something that somehow has got lost in history. Here is the biggest demonstrable commercial development of oil from coal, and we are still talking about it as though it is something to which we must find new answers. There are no new answers necessary. We in this country are making evaluations under the NCB, and so on, about better and more efficient processes. We have three main ones now under consideration and one is the liquid solvent extraction—and I may say that as recently as 1960 a Governent committee on coal derivatives said this in Cmnd 1120 (1969)—and I want to repeat it:
"Even a cursory inspection of cost data shows that hydrogenation of coal is a less economic route to oil synthesis. Moreover hydrogenation calls for specially selected coals of low ash content; therefore we shall not consider, in this report, hydrogenation as a possible method of making oil from coal".
1960!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My noble friend ought to read that again, my Lords.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I have not the time to repeat it; I am very scrupulous about time. But this is important. We said it in 1960. We are now unsaying it in some way, but what we are talking about is something which is manifestly so. We have heard the recitation from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, of five forgotten chapters, or five warnings, whatever it was. We have had these warnings. What worries me is that we are going to walk into the snare and delusion of atomic energy, in the sense that we are going to accept this as a panacea without alternatives. But the worst thing I can possibly conceive is that we are going to be lulled again into a sense of security by North Sea oil. The only reason why we are in this mess is that oil was cheap. The whole thing happened in the 1930s. Why did we not go ahead with oil from coal? Because oil from the Middle East was cheaper. We got ourselves trapped. I do not want to see us trapped again. If your Lordships want any more alternative sources of energy, I will give them, but let us concentrate at least on one thing
206
—oil from coal—which has been here valid and real, for 45 years.

PAY COMPARABILITY
4.12 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the establishment of a Standing Commission on Pay Comparability. The Statement is as follows:
"In my speech to the House on 16th January I commented on the present methods of fixing pay and conditions in some areas of the public services, and expressed the Government's readiness to see a greater role for measuring their pay and conditions by making comparisons with pay for comparable work and effort in other occupations where both sides so requested.
"This suggestion was carried further in the recent joint Government/TUC statement as a means of averting strike action in areas which affect public health and safety, and we undertook to identify groups which might be covered by such agreements.
"The Government have a responsibility both to be fair to public service employees and to avoid arrangements which could in themselves prove inflationary. Comparability studies must, therefore, be made in a systematic and thorough manner, taking all relevant factors into account.
"A Standing Commission on Pay Comparability is accordingly being set up by the Government to examine the terms and conditions of employment of particular groups of workers, referred to it by the Government in agreement with the employers and unions concerned, and to report in each case on the possibility of establishing acceptable bases of comparison, including comparisons with terms and conditions for other comparable work and of maintaining appropriate internal relativities. Any further role for the Commission in each case will be a matter for agreement between the Government and the parties.

207
"The Chairman of the Commission will be Professor Hugh Clegg and members will include Sir Leslie Williams, Sir William Ryland, Mr. Peter Gibson, Mr. Harry Urwin and Dr. Joan Mitchell. Other members will be announced in due course.
"During the recent negotiations on the pay of local authority manual workers, National Health Service ancillary workers, ambulancemen and university manual workers, it was agreed as part of the proposed settlements that a study should be made of acceptable bases of comparisons for these groups. It has also been agreed that these groups should be investigated by this new Standing Commission.
"In the case of these groups it has been agreed that the Commission will make recommendations which the Government and the trade unions concerned have undertaken to accept. The Commission is being asked to report on these groups by 1st August, 1979.
"The staging of implementation of these recommendations was also agreed as part of the pay negotiations. The Commission will start work on these assignments as soon as each settlement is reached. Other groups will be referred to the Commission from time to time by agreement.
"The TUC inform me that they fully associate themselves eith the establishment of the Commission. My right honourable friend the Secretary of state for employment will be responsible for these new arrangements, which should help us in future years to avoid the dislocation and hardship that the public has suffered in recent weeks.
"This is a difficult area in which to determine proper rates of pay, but I believe that these new arrangments will commend themselves to the public as a sensible way forward".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement, which I must say
208
right away appears rather difficult to reconcile with his remarks on 1st November 1978, when he rather dismissively referred to the appealing argument that fair comparisons with similar work demand the same reward.
I think we on this side must have reservations about this Statement, if it is intended to be a response to the urgent and pressing problems of strikes which we have experienced in recent weeks. Setting up a Standing Commission may, indeed, by a sensible long-term concept, but it would surely be a fairly major institutional innovation, and it seems to me that it would be rather dangerous to ask it to do too much too quickly for fear that it got off to a bad start. Surely in this case it would have been right for Parliament to have had a chance to examine and debate the terms of reference that this Commission was to be given. Indeed, this was mentioned in the TUC statement to which the noble Lord referred.
There are various questions which arise out of that. For example, would it be possible for settlements to go down as well as up as a result of the recommendations of this body? It appears that the body is to be asked to recommend. It is more than merely a fact-finding organisation. In that case, does the reference to the fear of inflationary pressure mean that the Commission will be making recommendations within cash limits, for example? Presumably the Commission is not itself going to enter into negotiations, but what about the market forces for labour, what about the supply and demand for labour, what about local variations and regional variations, what about job security? Are all these going to be considerations which the Commission will have to bear in mind.
It looks as if it is going to be a massive new QUANGO. There are six distinguished names in the Statement, and it says,
"Other members will be announced in due course".
Can the noble Lord tell us how many other members they envisage having in due course? What will be the relationship of this Commission with the Office of Manpower Economics; will it complement the work of that body?
Reference to producing a report by 1st August 1979 takes me back to this

209
question of whether we are not trying to ask a long-term organisation to produce an immediate panacea for the four particular groups referred to. Finally, would the noble Lord please tell us what the perfectly astonishing sentence towards the end of the Statement means:
"The Commission will start work on these assignments as soon as each settlement is reached".
I simply do not understand what that is intended to mean, if it means anything at all.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, I should like to ask him three questions. First, can he indicate how this new Board will differ from the Prices and Incomes Board, which was abolished by the Conservatives in 1970, and the Relativities Board, which was abolished by the Labour Government in 1974? What is the difference? Secondly, is the work of the new Board to be confined to the public sector, or will it have some relationship with the private sector and, if so, what? Thirdly, in view of the need for continuity and permanence, have the Government tried to get all-party agreement on this new Board so that it has some chance of becoming a long-term part of the incomes policy and not something which will be abolished as soon as a new Government comes to office?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have been asked a series of questions which I shall try to answer. I did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, made a very helpful speech; if he will forgive me for saying so, I thought that he was nit-picking. He said that this is no response to an urgent and pressing problem. For the very reasons contained in the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I believe that it is a major response. His approach was much more positive. I am glad that he asked questions in which, basically, he praised the creation of this body and thought that this would be the sort of body which could be set up irrespective of party.
In this particular area, noble Lords opposite have always been pressing us to have all-party agreement. I detected no
210
constructive approach from them today. I would ask questions about the difficulties which this body would have. May I remind noble Lords that there is in existence a Pay Research Unit which has been very successful. About two or three years ago noble Lords questioned me about its effectiveness. I wish that some of my noble friends, who I know are particularly interested in this, would appreciate that the Pay Research Unit has really inspired the sort of comparability studies which we require in a body of this kind.
Therefore, without responding to the smaller areas of the questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, I believe that this body should be given a fair trial. There is no reason why we should not examine the pay situations of those in the public sector. I believe that it has been good for the Civil Service unions, despite the difficulties which we are now experiencing as a result of their strike action. However, I believe that it is a positive contribution. I hope that before noble Lords criticise this, they will study carefully what I have said.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, as a long-standing advocate of incomes policies, I should like to welcome the Statement just made on behalf of the Government because I strongly believe that some mechanism of this sort has a necessary part to play in the formation of an incomes policy. I particularly welcome the Statement because we are now drifting into a position of competition between muscle power; that is to say, the miners and the lorry drivers have shown that they can hold the community to ransom and now we are getting all sorts of people, who never dreamt that they could hold the community to ransom, trying to do the same thing. That is the anarchic state towards which we are moving. From its terms of reference I do not think that this Board will interpret comparability to mean comparability in the chaos that can be inflicted upon the country. I think that it is comparability almost in the market sense to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, referred.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. It enables me to mention a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona,

211
which I missed. He asked whether the Board will deal with matters like local variations and job security. That is precisely what the Pay Research Unit does; it will cover these points. I am glad that it has been welcomed.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer one question which I asked him—namely, what relationship, if any, will this have to the private sector?
Lord PEART: My Lords, this covers only the non-trading public sector.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us—and we may be in a minority—have for a long time rejected collective bargaining as a solution of our wages problems although we have experienced collective bargaining since the beginning of the century? We have had the results quite recently: chaos, discontent and, to a large extent, muddle. Therefore we welcome even a minor, modest contribution which might lead to a better understanding of what is required when wages have to be determined. Comparability must be regarded as only a part of the general policy which sooner or later must be adumbrated if we are to avoid anything like what happened recently.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Shinwell, for his remarks; he has had long experience of industrial negotiations over many years. I agree with him that this should be part of a general policy. Obviously, as I have mentioned, a body of this kind, created because of the experience of a body such as the Pay Research Unit—for which I have a responsibility—will enable us to sift the information far better. It is extremely important to obtain the right information before negotiations and before staff sides and the bodies concerned reach conclusions. I very much welcome this.
May I say to noble Lords that I am not running away from questions, but I have another Statement to make on another subject, and I should hate to hinder the fuel debate, which I believe has gone on so well. I hope noble Lords will understand that I am not trying to dodge questions, but I do not want to spoil
212
what I believe will be a very fine debate. Perhaps I may proceed to the next Statement, which should be easier.

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETING ON AGRICULTURE
4.27 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) in Brussels on 5th and 6th March. I was accompanied by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
"The main topic at this meeting was the future treatment of new monetary compensatory amounts—that is, increases in MCAs which might come about as a result of changes in central rates under the proposed European Monetary System. The Commission made proposals for the semi-automatic reduction of these MCAs. In so far as they related to positive MCAs, that is, the MCAs of countries with prices above the common price level—these proposals presupposed increases in common prices, so as to avoid any reduction of prices in those countries in terms of their own currencies. This would have prejudiced our resolve to ensure that there are no increases in common prices until structural surpluses are eliminated. I therefore refused to agree to the proposals unless they were linked with a decision to freeze common prices. In the event, the eight other member countries agreed between themselves to behave as though the proposals were in force. This is a decision for those member States but it has no effect in Community law. It in no way affects our ability to get a sustained freeze of common prices, nor have we accepted the automatic reduction of our own MCAs.
"The outcome of this negotiation formed part of a series of agreements by the Council. In particular the Council agreed in principle to the Commission's proposals for devaluation of various green currencies, including

213
a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound, which I have supported as in line with the policies set out in the recent White Paper, Farming and the Nation. It was also agreed to introduce a franchise (or reduction) of one percentage point in new positive MCAs when these appeared. It remains to be decided when these various decisions will take effect.
"The Council also discussed the proposed co-responsibility levy on milk producers. I made it clear that we could not accept this proposal in its present form, which grossly discriminates against our own efficient dairy industry. I also pressed for an early decision on tariff reductions on imports of new potatoes from Cyprus. And I again urged the Commissioner for Agriculture to bring forward quickly proposals for measures to safeguard the welfare of farm animals in transit. He undertook to do so in the near future."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for repeating the Statement. He said in an aside that he thought it would be easier. I am not certain whether he has found it so, nor perhaps have your Lordships. Perhaps I can take the last item first in regard to safeguarding the welfare of farm animals in transit, and say that it can only be a welcome piece of information that the matter is being brought forward. In relating the Statement to the recent Government White Paper, Farming and the Nation, I should particularly like to address myself to the question of the reduction of 5 per cent. in the value of the green pound.
It was the part of the Statement which said:
"It remains to be decided when these various decisions will take effect".
Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us when it is envisaged that a time programme will be attached to that 5 per cent. devaluation? I also wonder whether the noble Lord will tell us a little more about the new compensatory amounts. As we understand it, this phrase attaches to the system as it has evolved since the adoption of the European
214
Monetary System by certain member countries, not including Britain. It appears that the Statement is part of a series of agreements, but we should like to know when a time decision is going to take place on the green pound.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I, too, welcome the last part of the Statement on safeguarding the welfare of animals in transit. In view of the Statement, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government really subscribe to the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy. We are well aware that there are grave snags in its working. We are aware that the structural surpluses must be got down. But I must say that while I agree with many things said by the Minister of Agriculture, I find his method of saying them extremely dangerous.
I ask the question about the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy because I see here a very dangerous statement:
"In the event, the eight other Member countries agreed between themselves to behave as though the proposals were in force".
I find that this is a consequence which I would have expected from the extremely aggressive attidude adopted by our Minister of Agriculture who is, after all, a known anti-Marketeer. I say this with the utmost respect and the greatest reluctance, but the fact that the eight countries have agreed between themselves to behave as though the proposals were in force appears to me to be a highly dangerous situation for the unity of the Common Market.
I welcome the proposed 5 per cent. reduction in the value of the green pound, although the farmers of this country will not think it a great deal in view of the fact that their costs are going to rise by over l0 per cent. I should welcome an assurance by the Leader of the House that the Government support the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy while accepting that we need to cut the structural subsidy.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me about progress regarding the green pound. He really asked about the future. In other words, when will the green pound devaluation take effect? I think that that

215
is what he was after. We now have Council agreement in principle to the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound, but the regulation must be formally adopted by the Council before taking effect. This regulation would introduce simultaneously the green rate changes for the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Ireland. There is shortly to be another meeting of the Council and the matter will again be raised there.
I come to the important question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who defended most of the Statement and the need to curb structural surpluses. He asked whether we were committeed to the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy. We are. I am hoping to defend it tonight at an agricultural dinner. We are in the Community, and we have to make it work. That was my view, and always has been. It is the view of my Government. I hope that one would not read too much into this Statement. In fact there is no attempt in this Statement to criticise the CAP. What the Minister is trying to do is to improve it, and also to try to remove structural surpluses. I know that they can sometimes be exaggerated. But I believe that we are in the Community, and we have to make the Common Agricultural Policy work.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the relationship of these matters to the European Monetary System. Does what he has said mean that we are closer to achieving a European Monetary System at least among the eight Community countries mentioned by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches that have agreed? Does this mean that at any rate other countries within the Community are coming closer to achieving the kind of monetary system which was drawn up at Bremen?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot commit myself, or indeed the Government, to what may or may not happen. I personally am sympathetic to the move towards this European unity in the monetary field. If it is sensible to do it, I think it may well be that we shall one day accept it, but for the moment I cannot speculate.

ENERGY AND PRICES AND INCOMES PROGRAMMES
Debate resumed.
4.37 p.m.
Lord ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, may I add my thanks to those that have already been tendered to my noble friend Lord Halsbury for having initiated this debate. May I at the same time apologise to your Lordships if I am unable to stay until the end of the debate. We began on a slightly controversial note when the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, suggested that we were not dealing with a crisis. Whether or not with a crisis, I think we all agree that what has just happened in Iran has shown how vulnerable modern industrialised societies are to any dislocations in energy supplies. I do not think that anyone will dispute that proposition.
Equally—and this has not been raised yet, and maybe I shall conclude on this note—we have not yet recognised in this debate the enormous political consequences, both national and international, which may result from this kind of dislocation. In the very short term, as the noble Earl said, one country can buffer itself against the shock waves generated by a sudden dislocation of this sort, but at great cost, and it will not last. As everybody who has spoken so far has indicated, no industrialised country today can declare for itself a Monroe Doctrine for energy, and not only for energy but even for conservation.
Yesterday some of your Lordships were present at a sub-committee of the European Communities Committee where we heard from Dr. Riccardo Perissich of Directorate-General XVII about the success or failure of conservation programmes in the Community. He indicated that even those programmes—and the measure of their success he admitted he could not possibly attest to—reflect on all the other countries in the Community. We are quite definitely all part of a world nexus of supply. Yet in spite of that of course we all have our national problems. We have different mixes of supply: coal, oil, nuclear. France, for example, has most successfully embarked on—and here I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in what he said—a splendid programme for nuclear energy. We are all lagging.

217
Each of the countries concerned has its particular problems, just as we have ours. There are problems of employment; we have our balance of payment problems and, above all, we have different investment programmes; and when we look at the problems, even though we are tied up with the rest of the world in the whole situation of supply and demand, our problems come first. But for years this problem of energy supply has been an international one and has been recognised as such. There have been successive world energy conferences. When President Carter assumed office he also accepted the results of an inquiry carried out under the auspices of the Ford Foundation—it was known as the Ford-Mitre Study—which had an enormous influence on President Carter's approach to nuclear policies, not only in the civil field but so far as defence was concerned. He wanted a no plutonium economy; we did not quite agree with him.
Other international inquiries are going on. There is a most formidable one, which has been going on for three or four years, by the International Institute for Systems Analaysis in Vienna under the control and direction of a very distinguished German named Dr. Haeffle who has contacts all over the world. I have cited only three—the World Energy Conference (there was one last year in Istanbul) the Ford-Mitre Study and the Vienna Study—and because we all have our own investment programmes, in the end we pay very little attention to the results of these international inquiries.
Despite that, we all agree certain basic propositions. We know, for example, that regardless of the views of some people who are proponents of low energy policies, the demand for energy globally is bound to go up because of increases in population, because of the need—indeed, the demand —to increase standards of living, and because of our need to maintain our own standard of living. We would also, I think, not dispute the proposition, though nobody can put a date to it, that fossil reserves are going to dry up and will be exhausted at some time; as the noble Earl pointed out in his opening speech the price of fuel will change as these things happen.
Another point which I think no one will dispute is the environmental issue.
218
We cannot have unconstrained access to fossil fuels—coal and oil—without affecting our environment, and that of course relates back to the whole problem of standards of living because, so far as the environment is concerned, ignorance and poverty due to low standards of living are a far greater hazard to the environment than greed.
In theory, we also agree with what I would call my fourth proposition—it was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—that nuclear power could solve all our problems. And even if there were a shortage of uranium ore—if the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, were here today I am sure he would have spoken to this point—the breeder reactor would help look after us. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that one can make oil from coal. Everyone knows that is possible; there are possibilities in all these fields. We agree all these propositions, but we still cannot buffer ourselves against short-term crises such as the present one, partly because we have to deal with fears about the nuclear option.
In 1974 I had the honour of being invited to give one of the opening addresses to the World Energy Conference in Detroit. I spoke following Sheik Yamani, who opened the conference, and I was asked to address myself to the topic, "Can we have enough energy and an acceptable environment." I had forgotten this piece until I was reminded of it today, so with the permission of the House I will read a little of what I then said:
"Investment in new major sources of energy is held up, but if investment is held up then the environment, like every other aspect that makes for the quality of life, will be bound to suffer. In the end we shall have to rely on nuclear energy long before reserves of fossil fuels start dwindling, long before marginal inputs of energy can be gained from unconventional sources and regardless of what savings can be made by more efficient usage".
I said that in 1974, and I do not think anything has changed, except that nuclear programmes have been set back even further, set back because the public is scared stiff of the word "nuclear". We know there are risks, we know there are hazards in the operation of power plants and we know there are environmental hazards. We also know—President Carter made much of this point

219
when he began his presidency—that there are major political consequences from the availability of plutonium.
I do not intend considering how the pro and anti-nuclear lobbies and factions can be got together. There certainly are risks associated with the nuclear option; there is the question of leaks and the problem of waste disposal to which reference has been made and questions asked, But I ask noble Lords this question: is it a nulcear option or a nuclear must? There are human errors, and the newspapers have been full of them this past two or three weeks. But these errors can and will be overcome with discipline. I would remind the House that they are overcome every day in the nuclear fleet of this country, the much bigger one of the United States, the even bigger one probably of the USSR and in the nuclear boats of France. Discipline in the operation of nuclear reactors is achievable and I trust will be achieved.
If the risks of the nuclear 'must', as I think of it, are as they are painted by Friends of the Earth and other enemies, if I may call them that, of the nuclear option, would any country entrust its national security to this nuclear option in the way we are doing today? Efforts have been made by many to provide a numerical assessment of risks, but unfortunately, as we know—Lord Rothschild discovered it in the recent lecture he gave—it is very difficult to persuade those opposed to the nuclear option that they are wrong by telling them there are risks somewhere else. The point is that there are major risks on the other side; there is the denial of economic growth and there is an environmental price which will also have to be paid if, instead of proceeding with investment policies—of the kind Lord Thurso mentioned—we go in for the much bigger exploitation of coal reserves.
There is also a new risk, Dr. Harold Brown, the United States Secretary for Defence, has recently been to the Middle East and so has Mr. Schlesinger, or at any rate he has spoken about the matter. They have both indicated that it is of national and vital interest of the United States that its supplies of oil are no further dislocated, and that there are no further threats. Whether or not they used the words, they left the thought that the
220
situation could be such that there might have to be a resort to arms.
Dr. Kissinger was lately prominently displayed in the cloumns of the Economist in two articles. In the first he dealt with the defence issue of SALT and in the second he dealt with Iran. He was taken to task afterwards by George Ball, who had looked into the matter and who criticised Dr. Kissinger for his view of what has happened. Mr. Ball asked in his letter to the Economist what Mr. Kissinger would have done.
"Would he have sent the Sixth Fleet sailing up the Gulf?"
he asked. And Mr. Julian Amery commented on that in the current issue and said:
"After what has been allowed to happen in Iran, it is difficult to see what else can now protect the rest of the oil bearing gulf on which Western and Japanese industries are so dependent".
I mention that because it is a new risk. A confrontation of the super-Powers would carry the risk of nuclear disasters far greater than those that are discussed in relation to nuclear power plants. This is a point which has emerged as a result of the Iran crisis, and I sincerely trust that it is a point that will be taken into account by those people who are concerned with low energy policies or who are concerned to see that nuclear power is not exploited at all.
In conclusion, I believe that the consequences of disruption in short-term supply would be far less dangerous and violent if we had an assured long-term policy, if such a thing can in fact be formulated and agreed. But how do we learn to heed the writing on the wall? The other day, before I knew that the debate was to take place, I was reminded that in 1955 PEP issued a very big report on world population and resources. It was an anonymous report, but two Members of your Lordships' House were members of the panel which was responsible for the writing. I was one of the two, but I had forgotten all about it. After referring to what would be the likely increasing demand for energy over the years, and what would be the cumulative consumption of oil and natural gas et cetera, the report went on to say:
"One reservation, however, must be made. In an increasingly nationalistic world the oil producing countries may prefer to keep some of their oil resources against the time when they need

221
them themselves, rather than to exploit them immediately. It is also possible that as a result of political factors some of the Middle East's oil—and it is in this region that the bulk of the world's reserves are situated—may be lost to non-communist countries. Subject to this, oil reserves et cetera will be ample to carry us on through".
Mr. Max Nicholson who was then the director, I think, of the PEP, in passing me this reminder, said:
"Message received in Whitehall in November 1973"—
the report was issued in 1955—
"time elapse 18 years five weeks. Distance from Queen Anne's Gate to Whitehall 300 yards".
There must have been many other groups and individuals who in 1955 saw this writing on the wall. I hope that we can realise that there will be more writing on the wall and that there will be more crises. I hope also that we buffer ourselves by having an assured long-term policy, at least in the nuclear field and, if it is economically feasible, also in such fields as the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him whether, in my unavoidable absence to take a message, he said that I had suggested that nuclear energy would solve all our problems? I certainly did not mean to suggest that nuclear energy would solve all our problems, but merely that it was a key factor in any strategic solution that we might seek to the energy problem.
Lord ZUCKERMAN: I fully take the noble Viscount's point, my Lords. Of course nuclear energy cannot solve all our problems, but it is a buffer background to energy supplies. Prime movers will need oil. I see no way in which that proposition will ever be pushed aside, whether in agriculture, or on the roads. But then, of course, there may be other long-term options as well.
4.54 p.m.
Lord TEDDER: My Lords, it is with more than usual trepidation that I rise to speak in your Lordships' House sandwiched as I am in the list of speakers between my noble friend Lord Zuckerman and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, both of whom are first eleven speakers, while I regard myself as lucky to get into
222
the second eleven. As previous speakers have pointed out, events in Iran have shown how we need to be reminded how precarious are the supplies of oil on which so much of the Western World depends for its energy, but surely the most important lesson is not simply the precarious situation of the Western World's oil supply, but the lack of diversity in our energy supplies. Too many people in this country seem to take the attitude that we can lie back and use up our supplies of North Sea oil, and when these are finished go back to our large reserves of coal. I need hardly remind noble Lords how vulnerable are our North Sea oil supplies, or for how short a period the North Sea will provide adequate supplies of oil for our domestic needs. What is so much more important—and many noble Lords have already emphasised this—is the dependence of the whole of the Western World's economy on adequate supplies of oil, mainly from Nigeria and the Persian Gulf. We belong to the European Community, and we are also a founder member of the Western Alliance. We cannot separate our affairs from those of Western Europe and North America.
When we debated in your Lordships' House nuclear power and the environment I accepted that in the short term nuclear power must be developed, but I made a strong plea for the development of energy resources which would not affect the environment. I was then, and I remain, absolutely convinced that in the long term our descendants' primary source of energy must be what it has always been —the sun. Here I take issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Zuckerman. I am not saying that nuclear power should not be developed in the short term, but I am sure that in the long term the primary source must be the sun. While I accept that in certain circumstances wind and waves may be important sources ofpower, the really important source will eventually be, as it has always been, the conversion of solar electromagnetic radiation into fuels by photochemical processes.
All the fossil fuels which we currently use, from wood, to peat, to coal, and to oil itself, were formed by photochemical processes utilising sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water in the air into

223
complex carbon compounds. The simplest possible photochemical process is the direct decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen, and the subsequent use of hydrogen as a fuel. Some noble Lords may have seen the television programme on the use of hydrogen as a fuel, and this will I hope have convinced some of the doubters in the previous debate of the practicality of using hydrogen as a fuel source once one has elucidated a way of making it. In the earlier debate I discussed two ways in which solar energy can be used. The first was the direct conversion of solar radiation into either heat or electricity. The second was the use of electromagnetic radiation to promote chemical transformations which lead to fuels which can subsequently be burnt, releasing the energy stored by the chemical synthesis.
I have briefly retrod the path that I travelled in our debate on nuclear power and the environment because I wish to remind noble Lords that the key to all our energy problems is research, and of course this applies to nuclear energy just as much as to other and conventional sources. In the past this country was pre-eminent for the way in which its sons and daughters ventured out into the unknown. The now departed British Empire was by and large created not by conscious empire builders, but simply by the enterprise and initiative of British men and women as they explored the then unknown. There are no new continents to be found, few unsealed mountains are yet to be climbed, but there are endless continents and almost impenetrable mountain ranges to be discovered and to be crossed in the fields of science. The enthusiasm and initiative of British youth should be turned more and more to the exciting, but yet unpenetrated, fields of scientific research. So far what I have had to say though I believe important, has to some extent been platitudinous. My message is that in order to protect ourselves, and indeed to protect the whole Western World, we must diversify our energy supplies, and the only real way in which we can do this is by intensifying our research.
There is a EEC programme for research and development of non-nuclear sources of energy. It is an indirect programme, which means that research contracts are offered to interested laboratories on an
224
approximately 50–50 cost basis. The four-year programme was formulated in 1974 and started in 1975. The programme comes to an end on 30th June of this year. The programme has fairly modest aims; namely, to reduce the Community's dependence on imported fuel from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. When you remember that it was formulated in 1974, I think it shows how far-sighted some people were at that time. The total programme, costing about £35 million, includes energy conservation, the development of hydrogen as a fuel, solar energy, geothermal energy and systems analyses appropriate to the problem.
I wish to concentrate on solar energy, as it is the field about which I know most. The solar programme, costing £10 million approximately, involves about 125 to 150 laboratories in the United Kingdom and the rest of the EEC, both industrial and academic. The solar programme includes, first, habitat. I had a vague impression that that meant something to do with animals—I do not know—but what it in fact means is the heating and cooling of buildings, and it is in fact a very applied programme. It takes about 20 per cent. of the solar budget. Then there is the photovoltic programme. This is the direct conversion of solar energy into electricity. In the United Kingdom, this is mainly supported by industry; in the other EEC countries, the universities take a bigger share. It is a field in which the United States is unquestionably well ahead of Western Europe at the present time. That takes about 30 per cent. of the solar budget.
The next item is power plants. These are large focusing mirrors to heat boilers. This is, of course, not terribly suitable to this country, but the trial power station is being built in Italy. That takes about 25 per cent. of the budget. Then, photochemistry and photobiology, which is the area in which I have been interested, is just basic research at the present time; and that takes about 10 per cent. of the budget. Biomass—that is, the deliberate growing of trees and plants and the use of waste organic materials as fuel—takes 10 per cent. Finally, there is the assessment of radiation data. That is to collect the flux of the sun around the world, so that you know where to build your solar station. That takes about 5 per cent. of the budget.

225
All this latter work is just the solar energy section of the whole programme. As I have explained, the whole programme was for four years, and it ends on 30th June. I am given to understand that the prime reason it has not been renewed is indecision by the United Kingdom. Even if a second four-year programme were agreed to in Brussels today, no new work could be started until the beginning of 1980. Once the new four-year programme is agreed by the Commission, they still have to decide which projects to continue, which projects to stop and what new projects to start. In the meantime, the highly-skilled research teams will have been broken up, and the best men will have left to do other things. The decision to proceed or stop should have been made at least nine months before the renewal date.
Noble Lords should appreciate that the United Kingdom receives from contracts given to British firms and British research institutes probably more than it puts in. This is a measure of the high regard and esteem in which our scientists, engineers and management are held by their colleagues in Europe. I tried to get a message to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I hope I did, but what I should like to know when he answers this debate is whether he can give us some indication as to when a decision about the second four-year programme for the research and development of non-nuclear sources of energy will be made. But, above all, I hope that everyone responsible for scientific research, noble Lords and civil servants, will realise in the future that you cannot leave the question whether to continue or not to continue a research programme until the programme has almost run out. If you do this, you will get a very poor return for your investment. My Lords, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to protect the future of our sons and daughters and to protect the fabric of our Western civilisation, we must diversify our energy supplies, and the only real way to do this is to support and intensify our research effort.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the modest appearance of the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, is also a rare one, and, perhaps because modest and rare, is all the more welcome. I am sure that other
226
noble Lords will share my view that it is a pity we cannot lure him down from St. Andrew's more often than has in fact been the case. Whether we go "nap" on his theory about the solar solution, we would certainly agree (I, at least, would) that we must diversify and must research to that end. My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, among so many telling phrases, asked whether we must be cold, hungry and unemployed before we learn the truth, or words to that effect. It is commonly said of energy that the lead times are long; but the learning times are longer still. It took the Heath Government three years to set up the Department of Energy; it took the Department of Energy five years to set up a conservation division; and it took successive Governments seven or eight years before they hearkened to the pleas of this House that an Energy Commission should be established.
Again on learning, my Lords, there are still lamentably few results from the Government's endeavour to encourage conservation by the "Save It" campaign, by taxing fuel or by cutting down the speed limits on motorways. Over the past year, two more million tons of oil were used in this country—a rise of 2· per cent. That included one million extra tons of motor spirit, a rise in that sector of 5·8 per cent.; half a million more in aviation spirit, a rise of 8·2 per cent.; and a third of a million more in fuel oil, a rise of rather more than 1 per cent. My Lords, although I, too, am a squander-maniac gas-guzzler in my motor car, I must endorse the view expressed, I think a year ago, by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that while a rise in petroleum tax on cars is unpleasant for motorists it is in policy terms vital; and I have heard it said by oil men on the Continent that until there is a mammoth rise, whether by tax or some other means, in the cost of motor fuel at the pump—probably to some five times what we pay at present—the motorist's insatiable desire to move will not be stilled.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, drew attention to the great risks in the Middle East, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, reminded us that the apparatus of civil war is now available to troublemakers in many quarters. Surely, indeed, the so-called Islamic revolutionary upsurge is something which is unlikely to be stemmed where it now stands. Whether

227
or not it is going to spill over into the Soviet Union, presumably no-one in this House can tell; but we see the South Yemeni pressure on North Yemen, we see the Palestinians' contamination (if I may use that phrase) of all the Gulf States, and there are already whispers of an unholy alliance between Colonel Ghadaffi and President Amin with the eventual aim of unseating Prime Minister Sadat. All these are omens of evil.
So the search for alternative energy sources without the Arab world is necessary; and what can we see, at any rate in terms of oil? There is the Canadian Arctic, where there may be some hopes. There, a sedimentary basin of 500,000 square miles may bring some comfort. There are higher hopes of Alberta; there is Venezuela; there are shale resources in the United States; and there is the Mexican situation, enigmatic and curious though it is, where for 40 years a nationalised oil company has sat on its resources and is now denying anyone else the opportunity to determine independently what those resources are.
But whether with regard to Mexico or the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, I ask this question seriously: how much longer must it be before both sides of both Houses of this Parliament insist that, in the area of issues long outlasting the lives of most of us in this House today, ideology has no more place than demonology itself? My Lords, charlatans, albeit of fanatical integrity, really do not have any place in this matter.
Baiting the multinational oil companies reminds me of Lord Lovat's cry on his way to the scaffold: "The greater the mischief, the better the sport." There is really no bonanza for these companies in the current and prospective rise in crude prices. Even a 20 per cent. rise this year will still leave the crude price lower in real terms than in 1973–74. The supposition that the companies in the North Sea are going to get enormous new and extra profits out of the rise currently envisaged is not borne out by the most intelligent calculations to which one has had access in the City. One gathers that a rise from, say, 15 dollars to 18 dollars a barrel in the North Sea would, of course, raise the present value of future cash flows of the smaller fields like Beatrice and Maureen because they have practically a nil cash flow at the
228
present time; so they might gain in value something like 30 per cent. But the major fields like Ninian and Forties that have been in production for some while do not stand to gain more than about 12 per cent. in the present value of future cash flows from crude oil rises of the sort to which we have been addressing our minds.
So, my Lords, surely one lesson is that Britain must once again undertake a radical reappraisal of policy in regard to the Continental Shelf. There are only nine wildcat rigs operating now as against 19 this time last year. Why? Not only because the main exploration drilling under the fourth round and some under the fifth round has been accomplished; but for lack of confidence. Nobody in the private sector oil industry would gainsay that assessment. It seems there is going to be an economic slowdown, in any event which, in turn, is bound to discourage further investment not only in industry generally but in the oilfields too.
What a time, then, to be proposing, as the Government have been proposing, to renege on the 1975 Varley assurances that the PRT régime would be stable! This, when more than £14,000 million has already been invested and committed before the latest promise of a rise in PRT. It is bad enough to plague the companies that have found and developed the oil (and most are private enterprise companies) by retrospectively changing the ground rules after the licence has been issued—an activity against which many protests have been made in this House and in another place—but, surely, the Government cannot go on asking us simply to take sides against arithmetic! It is better to go back than to go badly.
Surely it is time, too, for the Government to define and publish—I repeat "define and publish"—their policy in regard to the deeper waters between 1,800 feet and 3,000 feet on the Slope. It was not clever to invite those companies that had the drill ships available to spend great sums of money drilling seven or eight deep stratigraphic holes near the Rockall basin at about £10 million per hole without the prospect of any real reward in the certainty of licences thereafter. It is time that the Government stopped huffing and puffing in regard to deep-water policy. To blow and swallow at the same time is not an easy thing to do.

229
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman drew our attention to the environmental problems raised by an extensive development of the coal industry. But I wonder whether he would claim that those difficulties apply to coal under the sea as well as to coal under the land. The fact is that we have not heard, we do not know, whether the Government have any policy whatever with regard to the coal measures already identified but not explored under the North Sea. When the National Coal Board already needs heavy subsidies, which I support, for its work on land, one must ask the question—and companies abroad are already asking the question—whether that monopoly, the Coal Board monopoly, is to be extended to the Continental Shelf; or is private enterprise to be invited to take the risks there as it has done in regard to oil, but with the confidence henceforth that the ground rules will not be changed halfway through the game?
Coal has also been referred to obliquely by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and, since I agreed with so much of what he said, I wondered whether he meant to make clear the critical distinction in regard to nuclear policy between thermal reactors which use uranium indefinitely and fast reactors of the kind that he naturally hopes (and I hope) will come to Caithness soon but which will not require those enormous supplies of uranium. Unless the fast reactor is soon established on a commercial scale and unless several have been established and given 10 years to be proved, the nuclear answer will not be the answer for the year 2010 or the year 2020, for the reason that, on moderate estimates, uranium supplies in the world will run out.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, the figures I quoted were based on a programme started with thermal reactors which would be necessary in order to build up stocks of degraded uranium and also because thermal reactors are available and proven and could be put into action now while the CFR programme was going ahead as a start with the fast reactor programme. Once this sort of combined thermal and fast reactor programme had got going and once the pipeline, so to speak, was fuelled with uranium through the thermal reactor, then, after about 1990, the fast reactor
230
should be able to take it away without further imports of uranium. The reserves of degraded uranium so far available would, according to the figures I have, be greater than the total coal reserves at the moment.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for adding to his speech in such a way as to make his position clearer. It is a position with which I fundamentally agree. The critical thing is that unless we have the fast reactor proven and demonstrated by the mid-1990s or the end of the century and unless it has had 10 years to show that it is harmless so far as the public mind is concerned—unless that happens, a nuclear programme based simply on the thermal reactor will sooner or later run out of such uranium supplies as can reasonably be forecast.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred to the renewed interest that there might be in extracting oil from coal. I am not sure whether he had the benefit of listening to an exchange on the Floor of this House when the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, gave the figures only the other day for oil from coal. He said that it comes out at about £100 a ton. The price of oil has not yet got near that price and it will be some time before it is likely to do so. But on the coal problem, if there is one lesson which comes out—and I think this chimes in with the message given us by the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, that we must diversify by research—it is that in the coal region there is an urgent need for research on means of making coal easily transportable, whether by emulsification or by other means. There is an urgent need for further research on a great scale into gasification; I refer to this both on the surface and in situ, and, arising out of that, there is need for research into the possibility of sub-sea mining by gasification or other means which one hopes will not encounter Lord Zucker-man's apprehensions on the environmental aspect.
In conclusion, may I say that none of the points that I have made is new. One only hopes that their repetition does not again recall the men who can still hear the decalogue repeated without a twinge of conscience. Within weeks of the close of a Parliament, a debate on

231
long-lasting issues does have merit, especially when the issues will outlast the five General Elections which are to follow the next one, which itself cannot be far away. Without wishing to say too unfriendly a farewell to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who sits on the opposite Bench, whose leadership on energy questions has always been so courteous, agreeable and informative to this House, it would be a pity to miss the opportunity of saying before this Government departs that the only good Government is a bad one in a hell of a fright.
5.20 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I cannot begin without expressing what has been said by others; that is, my extreme gratitude to my noble friend Lord Halsbury for having initiated this debate at very short notice, and for the stimulating way in which he opened the general horizon. The occasion of the debate is the Iranian revolution. It is not my intent on, however, to go into the political background. So far as one can see, the result which has been achieved so far has been the most peculiar combination of strict Moslems and extreme Marxists, from which it is not altogether rash to conclude that the situation is likely to change one way or another and, in any case, must be regarded as being extremely unstable.
The few remarks that I want to make this evening are entirely concerned with supply and prices, both in the short and long period. I suppose that unless things get very much worse in Iran—which is certainly not excluded—some oil will go on being produced there and some oil will probably be available for exports. I fancy that for some time it will be fractional compared to what was available before. My guess is that in the immediate future we shall witness what has actually been reported in the papers this weekend: fantastic prices being paid for such oil as is exported from that part of the world. I also conjecture that, if that continues on any scale, other oil producers may be tempted to break their existing contracts and cash in while the stocking up panic lasts.
On the whole, this is a matter which we can contemplate with a certain amount
232
of equanimity. The period of abnormal and extraordinary bargains and prices will, if the general situation does not deteriorate, work itself out. I am reasonably sure that, whatever happens in the immediate future, the price of oil is likely to go up, and it will go up by more than was the prospect before these events occurred. In his opening remarks, the noble Earl raised the very important question: Should this cause further inflation? On that important question, I hope that there is one answer which need not promote controversy: It need not be so.
If an individual is faced with a considerable rise in the price of something which be regards as necessary for his standard of life, then his alternative is either to work harder and to make good the deficiency that way, or to economise on other things. These remarks apply not only to individuals but to communities and it is only if the Governments of this world respond to higher prices of oil by matching them with higher degrees of inflation that the vicious circle which the noble Earl described—and which is by no means excluded, politics being what they are—will take place.
The habit is for short speeches on this occasion, and I want to address my main remarks to the future of supplies of energy in general with particular regard to the almost inevitable diminution of the supplies of oil as time goes on. I think one should take that as one's assumption. Since I was a very young man I have imagined us as living on the edge of a precipice. Statistics used to be flung about in the 'twenties predicting a chronic oil shortage in the 'thirties, and so on. So far additional discoveries have seen us through. It would be absolutely criminal folly to rely on that process continuing for ever. The position which confronts us now is a position which was suggested to my mind by the very interesting debate that we had the other day on the population problem.
On the whole, speeches in that connection took what I regard as the right side. But there were authoritative voices raised arguing that one should not worry too much. I put to myself the following conjecture: Supposing we were to wake up tomorrow morning and find in our newpapers, if they still persisted, that the

233
resources of the planet as it exists at the moment had contracted by half. We should surely be a little bit worried about that, and particularly worried about the resources that we are talking about at the moment. Sober demographers assure us that the present population of the world will have doubled by the early years of the next century, but, other things being equal, the relation between population and resources will be exactly the same as it would be if the catastrophe which suggested itself to my imagination had occurred yesterday. So I do not think we can possibly spare ourselves anxiety on this count. Either we must consume less or we must have recourse to other sources.
Coming back to the immediate oil question, which is the subject of this debate, I want to make the point that this is essentially a question for the Free World. We cannot control OPEC unless the dreadful possibility suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, were to take place and foolish attempts were to be made to coerce the nations which comprise that cartel. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the world is not badly served by the refusal of OPEC to increase supplies here and now to any large extent to meet the needs of the present or indeed of the next 10 years.
However, leaving that on one side, the problem for the Free World is this. If we do not act together, at any rate as regards consumption, then the activities of any one country may possibly put its balance of payments in a better position but it will make precious little impact, other than in one country which I shall be mentioning in a moment, on the world energy situation. More countries than one have to take steps of one kind or another before we can face the future with any sort of equanimity. Therefore, I welcome as a first step the decision of the IEA to restrict consumption in some way or another by 5 per cent. However, I fear that will not be enough to solve all our problems.
In connection with the further solution of our problems, I have only two points to make. The first one I want to emphasise is the good side of higher prices in this connection. Higher prices sooner or later force lower consumption, and in this particular respect there can be no doubt that the Free World situation would be enor-
234
mously eased if the United States policy in this matter was reversed and if much higher prices were charged for oil in that important part of the world. Furthermore, higher prices not only restrict consumption of oil at the expense of other commodities but they force the substitution of near-substitutes for oil, and they stimulate thought on inventions for developing them. I have no doubt at all that in the next few years the probability is that the price of oil will rise to such a point that the further exploitation of, let us say, the Athabasca tar sands will become commercially profitable. Similarly, I imagine that the price of oil has only to rise a bit more than that for exploitation of the Colorado oil shales to become commercially profitable.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am grateful to him for giving way. Would he not agree that generally higher prices for oil would inevitably raise the cost of living in addition to raising the cost of transport, and so on?
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, the noble Lord has anticipated the next sentiment I was going to utter; namely, that higher prices will only have this beneficial effect if, as I said earlier, they compel people to work harder and increase productivity and if Governments do not attempt to match the higher price of oil by increasing inflation.
Finally, I do not think we should be prepared to rely only on higher prices, whether they come as a result of market prices or whether—as may be desirable—they come about as a result of pretty swingeing increases in taxation. In the last analysis, as has been well emphasised by the distinguished speakers who have preceded me, we must look to the continuity of Western civilisation for developing other sources of energy. Those other sources of energy which must be sought demand further research and, before the research reaches its goal, they also demand, as has been urged by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, much more immediate action than seems likely to be taken in the near future.
I agree 100 per cent. with what the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said about the fundamental necessity of developing on a much larger scale the resources of

235
atomic fission, especially in regard to fast breeders. It is no use sitting back and saying that in the long run it may be that the discovery of methods of atomic fusion will solve the problems of the world. That may happen. if it does happen, it will be a very happy event. But it certainly will not happen sufficiently soon to solve the problems which, other things being equal and if all the next period catastrophies to which some people have alluded do not occur, will certainly begin to emerge in the 'nineties. Here, I suggest, is a subject on which men of goodwill of all parties, whatever their belief in individualism or collectivism may be, can come together and urge on the Governments of the Free World more immediate action than, cynically speaking, is likely to take place.
5.41 p.m.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for promoting this debate. He has certainly operated a very successful one-man whip on potential speakers, including, I am glad to say, one or two new recruits. I claim no special knowledge of Iran, but it seems clear that a large section of the Iranian people has reacted against a rapidly enforced change in their traditional habits and beliefs. This appears to be an example of grass-root resistance to rapid change and, in particular, to technological advance. The phenomenon is not confined to Iran. We are witnessing a similar kind of ground-swell in developed countries, and, perhaps most strikingly, resistance to technological advance in the energy field, where the opposition, manifested largely through environmental bodies, is holding up development which many informed people consider to be essential—and I am not talking only about the nuclear field—if our successors are to enjoy reasonable living standards.
The immediate consequence of the revolution in Iran has been brought out already in this debate; the interruption in supplies—the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, put it at 10 per cent. of world oil production—and the concern that this disturbance might be followed by others in other oil-producing countries. If reasonable internal stability is re-established, it is, I suppose, probable, as the noble Lord,
236
Lord Robbins, pointed out, that oil production in Iran will recover within a few months to something like two-thirds of its old level and will be fully restored in due course, though at what price remains to be seen. Iran will still want to develop its economy, though probably at a much slower pace, and can get the resources that it needs for this purpose only from the export of oil. It is useful, perhaps, to recall that in the Abadan crisis of 1951, when, as a result of Mossadeq's rise to power, the oil industry was nationalised, oil refining was interrupted and the expatriate staff expelled, many doubted whether refining would ever be resumed. Yet, in the event, oil production was resumed and the refinery was back in production in a surprisingly short time.
But while we may have reasonable confidence that the Iranian oil industry will recover, there will be a short-term shortage and we shall have a shock from which we should draw the necessary conclusions while we are still suffering from it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, so aptly suggested in taking his analogy from the medical world, the oil shortage arising from the Iranian situation is our mild coronary, and we should learn wisdom from the short-term inconvenience from which we are likely to suffer and adjust our regime, in the manner of a convalescent patient, to avoid much more serious trouble in the long-term.
There is, I think, general agreement between experts that global oil supplies will pass their peak in the 1990s and that thereafter they will decline. Forecasting in this field is notoriously hazardous but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, pointed out in speaking in our debate on the coal industry on 23rd January—and I am very sorry that he cannot be in his place today —the best and safest guide through the minefield is the report made by the last World Energy Conference, to which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has also referred. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, said, painted a broad brush picture of the future, assuming upper and lower limits for both supply and demand of the different fuels. There are other forecasts, both much above and much below these figures, but I would follow Lord Hinton in accepting the World Energy Conference report as the basis for action since at any point within the

237
limits it sets, what it calls for is something far more positive and specific than anything that has been attempted so far in Europe, in the United States or in this country. In the coal debate I also referred to a shorter range assessment made by the European Commission which also assumed reasonable upper and lower limits for supply and demand up to 1990 and from which similar pointers to positive action in the shorter term can be derived. Having accepted the assumptions in these documents I think we should ask ourselves what régime should now be followed to avoid disastrous trouble in the future.
A number of specific proposals have been made in this debate, and I shall not pursue any of them now but I should like to take one illustration from overseas. President Carter has just presented an Energy Bill to Congress. It provides for specific restrictions but only I think on a standby basis and that seems hardly good enough. Just before coming down to the House I picked up a paper on the energy outlook in the United States written last December by a Professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Let me quote from his summary:
"Even when the annual growth of US consumer needs is reduced from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. and even when major conservation efforts reduce the delivered energy from 2 per cent. to 1 per cent. growth per year the United States requires a 70 per cent. increase in energy production by the end of the century if oil imports are eliminated. Even when the use of existing fuels is increased to the maximum extent practical there is still a requirement for a 50 per cent. increase in imported oil. The USA must reduce its end use demands. It must make major conservation efforts. It must increase its use of present fuels. But that is not enough. New technologies are needed".
Then he goes on to describe what those are. He concludes with an observation so often repeated that it falls with a dull thud—"Time is not on our side".
I think there are some general conclusions which can be briefly stated and one or other of which has emerged from the speeches this afternoon. We should realise that as oil supply falls off there will be a demand that a higher proportion of our energy should be supplied as electricity and this in spite of the fact that electricity, which is a secondary source of energy, is an extravagant user of primary energy. We should realise that coal will be needed not merely to generate electricity but also for conversion into those
238
liquid fuels which must make up for the dwindling supply of oil.
We should realise that it is improbable that additional coal supply output can keep pace with the demand which will result and that much of the electricity must be generated in nuclear stations. We should realise that it is foolishly wasteful to burn only 6 per cent. of the available uranium, as is done in thermal reactors, and that the use of fast reactors, which make it possible to use not 6 per cent. but 60 per cent. of the energy in the uranium, ought to be pushed ahead immediately—at least to the extent of building one reactor of commercial size so that a fully proved design is available by the end of the century. Here I follow the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in thinking that the promised inquiry into the safety and other circumstances of the fast reactor should start soon and should be related to a specific site.
Further, we should realise that the so-called soft energy alternatives are not merely expensive, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, pointed out, but also that they can make only a small contribution to our energy requirements in the critical early years of the next century. Above all, we should remember—here we are again—that we are running a race against time and that one certain thing which will give us hope in that race is conservation. Energy conservation can give quick results. Restrictions may have to be imposed which are unpopular, but I suggest that only sharp restrictions can produce quick results. And it is quick results which are needed, since one unit of energy which is saved today is worth several units of energy which are saved in 10 years' time. Some savings are made quite easily and lie near at home. More than one of the witnesses at the recent meetings of your Lordships' Sub-Committee on Energy has complained of the heat in the committee room.
My Lords, I should like to make one final point. I have drawn attention before in this House to the lack of an energy policy in the European Community, despite discussions in the Council which have now been going on for about five years. We are by far the largest producer of energy in the Community, but so far we have given little or no leadership. Should we not take this opportunity of the shock

239
administered by Iran to adopt a constructive attitude and get a move on in Europe?
5.53 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, like all other speakers, may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for having introduced this debate. I hope he will forgive me if I do not go into all the ramifications of the Iranian origin of the crisis; they have already been gone into very thoroughly by several speakers. I hope that instead I may be allowed to speak about the problems which will inevitably arise. They are foreseeable problems, not just chance problems like the Iranian one. In this connection, I should like to take the side of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale who, in his inimitable way, pointed out the advantages of a non-political approach to energy problems. He always does this singularly well.
When we speak about the long term—not about what we do immediately, because that may have certain very clear political implications—it seems to me to be perfectly clear that we must have an acceptable energy policy, one which will not be overturned by every change of Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, pointed out, it is not only discouraging but absolutely inimical to any form of research if one does not know whether one is going to be allowed to continue the work which one is profitably carrying out. Therefore, I hope that we shall try to get the major political Parties to agree that they should have a policy which is acceptable, at least in its broad outlines, for a long period.
During the debate on coal which we had nearly two months ago, the Sub-Committee of your Lordships' House which put forward its report on coal pointed out that it hoped that the Government would raise the target for the production of coal at the end of this century to beyond the 170 million tons per annum which has been put into the Green Paper. Everything that has happened since then has merely shown how important it is that we should try to raise this target to an appreciably higher figure and that we should treat it not just as a target but as something which must be achieved.
240
When we are dealing with what happens at the end of the century, I believe that it is unwise for us to speak as though the year 2000 is a magical year and as though, if we have solved our problems by then, there will be no further problems. On the contrary; if there is to be any development in this country—and we can take this country as typical rather than as unique in the whole of the Western World—we know perfectly well that considerable demands for more energy will be made well beyond the year 2000. It is important to realise that the plans put forward in the Green Paper—good as I believe they are in general—really hold out no hope for the period beyond the year 2000.
If one looks at the figures and carries out any kind of projection which represents not a drop in consumption and production but any increase at all, one finds that inevitably the gap between the amount that we are planning for and the amount that we shall need will be increasing. The demand will not have levelled out by the year 2000.
Today I had the good fortune to meet somebody at ICI who has made a very serious survey. I was shown the whole survey. It took a period of three hours and I learned a great deal in the process. I found that after the year 2000 the demand for hydrocarbons for the chemical industry will increase enormously. I was amazed to learn that if one takes the rate at which petrochemicals are produced and used—the feedstock is drawn in and turned into petrochemicals and all the things like plastics which we have round about us—7 per cent. of our energy resources at the present time are used by the chemical industry. This percentage has been increasing steadily over the years. About 30 years ago it was only 2 per cent. If this increase continues, the projection is that 30 per cent. of our energy will be used by the chemical industry by the year 2000. They themselves say that the figure is impossible, but it shows the kind of problem with which we might be faced.
It is the kind of problem to which, in a way, my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder referred. We shall be faced with this enormous demand for feedstocks for the chemical industry as well as for other energy purposes just at the time when our petroleum resources are dwindling

241
and when gas has virtually gone. We shall want to use coal. The conversion of coal into anything which is effectively usable in the chemical industry involves hydrogenation. That means that for every unit of coal there must be one unit of hydrogen. How do we get our hydrogen today? The cheapest source is from the gas methane, but by the end of the century where will be our methane? We shall have to get our hydrogen some other way. How do we get it? By electrolysis and electrolysis today is too costly to use, but it is the only way that shall be available. So it is clear that, when it comes to turning coal into anything that we want to use effectively, either as gasoline or as a feed stock in the chemical industry, we must have considerable supplies of hydrogen, which will be costly. We have to face the fact that our economy will be subjected to enormous stresses at the turn of the century, and from that point they will not decrease—they will probably increase.
The problems can be solved, of course. If one takes, for example, the making of petroleum from coal, this is already being done in South Africa. They are using a well-established process, and on top of a coal mine they have the plant for making the gasoline. According to the figures I was given today, they expect to be able to make more than one-third of their gasoline requirements in that way. It is vital for them because, with Iran refusing to supply them with petroleum, they will have to do this. Apparently, the coal never sees daylight at all. It is put straight into the processor and there they have the hydrogenation process—it is actually a Fischer-Tropsch process that they use—and the first time that the coal sees the light of day is when it is petroleum. It has been turned into a liquid as a result of this process. The process is not cheap.
It is in this way that we have to plan for the future. It is no good saying that it is too expensive or that the resources that we have to put in are too great. They are: they are enormous, but our alternative is to do without all the things that we have been accustomed to have, to deny ourselves all the development that has been going on. If we wish to do that, we can, of course, do it. There is no problem; it is quite simple. It is very cheap in money and very expensive in human life, in human pleasure, in human happiness and I should have thought that
242
we really have only one answer. We must do this sort of thing. So we are looking forward now, stimulated by the Iranian incident, to doing all those things that we ought to do.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Zuckerman, who I think is not here at the moment, in his estimate that we should have nuclear power, that we shall need it; but I do not agree with those people who say that we should have nuclear power without paying any attention to the risks. I think that the risks still are not fully understood. I do not mean that we do not understand them in principle; of course we do, but we do not understand them in detail and in particular the disposal of waste is something which has not yet been satisfactorily solved. To me it is tragically irresponsible that the people who oppose the development of nuclear energy should also oppose the drilling of bore holes in order to try to find out how it can safely be contained. It is as though a person says, "This is too dangerous for you to do, but we will not allow you to take the safety risks that will make it safe". That is monstrous, and I think it is time that people, who for perfectly worthy reasons—and I do not blame them—are alarmed about this, do realise that at the same time they must not stop the investigation which would enable those risks to be curtailed. I believe that is the way in which we should go forward and I believe that the Government should do it as a matter of urgency. They ought to insist that these bore holes are made so that the proper containment of waste can be dealt with. There are of course many other problems, but this is not a general debate on energy: it is rather a debate on what we should be doing in consequence of what has happened in Iran.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount SIDMOUTH: My Lords, since, by the luck of the draw, I have to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, today, who spoke first after my maiden speech, I should like to take the opportunity of returning the compliment, only I fear with much greater reason. The debate today, so ably introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has shown, as usual, the great depth of knowledge and experience available in your Lordships' House.

243
So far as what has happened in Iran is concerned, this is obviously a clear reminder of the political factor in the energy situation to be taken into account along with the other technical considerations about which we have also heard. Whether or not its effects are long-term it is my belief that the time has already come for making major decisions about energy supply, even for the 1980s. In support of this view, my purpose is to draw attention to some of the problems which occur downstream, as it were, from the sources of energy; that is, from the point of view of the user. In doing this, I propose to refer briefly to two energy-consuming industries of which I have had experience, since in their contrasting ways they illustrate two aspects of the situation.
The glasshouse industry is made up almost exclusively of small-scale users. On the face of it, this multiplicity of small boiler plants should be readily convertible to whatever alternative fuel is ultimately established as being the most suitable. However there are many other small plants of similar type throughout the country—engineering works, and so on—which are in the same position and there would be great difficulty in effecting the change if they were all to make a move together. It would be far better to replace old plant over a period as it wears out. Unfortunately, however, the glasshouse industry has a problem, which is that a very high proportion of the total cost of its product is represented by fuel costs—30 per cent. or even more.
I believe that glass-making is one of the few other industries which has a percentage as high as that. No doubt for this reason—and in illustration of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins —glasshouse growers have had to concentrate much effort since 1973–74 on fuel saving, and only this week I saw a Ministry of Agriculture estimate that since that time the industry's fuel usage has been reduced by 24 per cent. This has been done by paying attention to detail, good housekeeping in the boilerhouse, attention to lagging, the installation of windbreaks, and so on. In bringing about this creditable result, much useful advice and encouragement has been received from Ministry advisers.
There are a few more shots left in the locker, but taking into account the pro-
244
jected future price of fuel oil the industry might well be priced out of existence before oil supplies run out. It has in the past proved itself to be adaptable and well capable of looking after itself. Within recent years, for example, it has survived the transition from being a protected industry to one operating in the Common Market, which was already in structural surplus in most horticultural products before we joined. It has, I am glad to say, a particularly good record in the uptake of research and development, and is urgently in need now of an alternative fuel policy as soon as possible.
The transport industry presents a different picture—not so much road transport, where again there is a large number of small units amounting in total to a vast industry based on the internal combustion engine. In the road freight and passenger business the cost of fuel expressed as a percentage of working cost is not so high, at about 11 to 12 per cent., as the figure already quoted for glasshouse horticulture, but it has doubled since 1973–74. The viable alternative to the internal combustion engine does not seem yet to have emerged and road transport may well be tied to oil, or oil from coal, for many years yet.
For rail transport the time of decision must be far closer. The Railways Board has already put forward a policy document on the subject of further electrification of the system, which presumably is still under study by the Ministry of Transport. Although a good case emerges on many grounds, it does seem on present data to lack the kind of financial justification which is rightly demanded at a time of stringency. Possibly the reason is that those parts of the system for which the best case exists in isolation have already been electrified, so that the remainder make most sense only as parts of a completed whole. However, the effect on the economy of the energy situation which we have been considering today might well alter the case into one much more favourable to electrification.
When it comes to the situation, not so far ahead, when oil will have to shed some of its present energy load, then it seems to me that most of the alternative energy sources now being considered, and particularly nuclear, are geared to the

245
generation of electricity in large static units. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether this is a fair assessment, and, if so, whether it does not add a new dimension to the case for railway electrification. Electricity does not seem at present to have much future on the roads, and is also not a good prospect for space heating, as in glasshouses. All the more reason for gearing up rail transport, for which it is well suited, to make use of it in the foreseeable future, when it will not only have a cost advantage, at least in real terms, but also be available in increasing quantities. We are talking here of a costly scheme which will take many years, probably into the 1990s, to complete. A decisive approach to energy policy is needed to resolve it.
6.13 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, I, too, would like to extend my thanks to the noble Earl for bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House for debate, especially at this time, and using such a dramatic occasion to emphasise the points that he and others have been making so eloquently over the years. Your Lordships may remember that the Persian story started on 28th May 1901 when William Knox Darcy, a Devon man who had made a fortune mining gold in Australia, signed a contract with the Shah to develop oil in Persia for 60 years. This was the foundation of one of the most famous oil companies in the world. With his normal acumen, the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914, none other than Winston Churchill, injected £2 million of Government money into the Anglo-Persian venture. What we are witnessing today is the product of that far-sighted piece of work by Darcy and Winston Churchill.
I think it is important to remember it, as I should like to return to it towards the end of my speech, because it illustrates how often fanatical outbursts can so discolour and temporarily discredit a fundamental picture. In 1951 Mossadeq came along. He was as fanatical about nationalisation as some other people we know about. He did not last very long, because without the expertise of the British the Persian oilfields would not develop or progress, or exist even. Now we have another fanatical outburst. Are we going to see a repetition of the Mossadeq
246
failure? I think we are. Therefore, I urge upon Her Majesty's Government not to put two big flat feet on the road along which they are trying to push the Shah at the moment. I think this is a time to hesitate, because while they may be able to use the oil that is pouring out of the wells at the moment, every oil well has a limited life.
The expertise of sinking new wells in Persia is peculiarly a product of British invention. We are too apt to forget the genius of the British in this world of oil. They have created the major advances in the discovery of oil. Originally when Darcy was developing oil in Persia he was developing the superficial oilfields. But after the war, as a consequence of the work done in Nottinghamshire, the British Petroleum Company had a set of scientists who solved two major problems, how to penetrate the flat lying cover which hides the anticlines which contain the oil and how to drill a hole absolutely vertical. They solved both these problems, and if they had not solved these the major developments of Iranian oil would not have happened.
Extrapolating that into the North Sea, had it not been for the sensible fiscal policy of this country in relation to the oil found in Nottinghamshire, we would never have been able to extrapolate the geological structures at great speed into the North Sea. The oil that was produced in Nottinghamshire was tax free and the tax was given for exploration. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has been pleading for exploration. The reason why we are not getting continuous exploration is that the money is not there to pay for it, because these academic economists who have got their fingers in the till are squeezing the profits out of the oil companies, who cannot now afford to go forward with wildcat holes to extrapolate out beyond the limits of the Continental shelves. And here we are talking about supplies of oil from Iran and other places when for all we know there is as big an oilfield lying off the west coast of Ireland as exists in the North Sea, but we have not got the money to go and find it.
Therefore, I urge this Government, or the next Government, to bring some common sense into this fiscal attitude to the exploration of oil. In other words,

247
there is no room in the oil world for the political amateur. I would plead for the release of the shackles that are being put upon the oilmen searching for oil in the North Sea. I think I can say this, because I have been involved in finding oil, but never once did I ever persuade myself that I had the expertise to develop an oilfield. That is an entirely different expertise. I think we should in our own interests leave it to the oil men and leave politics out of it.
I would now like to turn to thermal power stations. We have solid fuel power stations, liquid fuel power stations, nuclear fuel power stations, but all they are doing really is boiling water. It is on the merits or efficiency that we think that a fast breeder reactor is better than an ordinary reactor or is better than an oil-fired boiler or a solid fuel boiler. That is what we are talking about. However, whichever type of thermal source we use, we only have to stand in any power station—nuclear or otherwise—to see the heat losses that are involved in the power station. As a round yardstick, I would say that power stations can never be more than 60 per cent. efficient. Therefore, we have this enormous heat loss with which to contend in the production of thermal energy.
However, in going too far with this concept of the future based upon nuclear energy, what is very important to remember is the strategic distribution of radioactive minerals. They are distributed in countries which can hold the world to ransom. We have seen what happened recently in Australia, and that can happen again. If one bases one's energy programme entirely upon nuclear energy, one can be held to ransom overnight by some event beyond one's control.
Therefore, I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, in his plea for diversification. We have not heard anything about the solar furnaces of the Pyrenees. We have not heard anyone say, "Why don't we use the spin-off from Concorde where they produce the beautiful aluminium mirror, which is perfect for solar radiation and solar furnaces?" Why not? I think that it is because we are too obsessed with the politics that surrounds this subject. So I should like to take a stand and deliberately say that my human energies will be put into the search for sources of
248
energy with which no one can ever interfere. In other words, I am talking about hydroelectricity.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Before he leaves the question of nuclear energy, is it not a fact that there is already enough energy in this country to fuel our breeder reactors almost indefinitely once they have been developed? Although I completely agree with the noble Lord on the subject of uranium, is it not quite a different situation—and I defer to the greater experts in the House—once we get on to the fast breeder reactors?
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, that I would admit, but it is only one unit of energy; it will not supply enough energy for the whole country. No one in their wildest moments would make that suggestion. As the noble Lord has said, it is one facet of the energy picture. I am not decrying this at all. I simply point out that whatever type of fuel is used for a thermal power station, it is vulnerable and has a limited life. But when we come to hydroelectricity, we are talking about eternal energy. That is the plea which I should like to make. We have some perfect examples staring us in the face. I would remind noble Lords of the imagination of President Roosevelt who listened to geologists explaining to him how, on recession, the ice caps of Canada revealed a gap through which water poured and drained dry the whole of the coolees along the 49th parallel, an area of agricultural devastation; and that that area is covered by basalt which produces beautifully rich soil, but there is no water. President Roosevelt took this suggestion seriously and rebuilt a dam—the Coolee Dam—to take the place of the ice. As a consequence of the Coolee Dam, today we see the most fertile area of America, with three crops per annum. To my mind that is the use of energy. Both water and electric power is produced.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, spoke about electrolysis. That is the way to produce electric power for electrolysis—the hydrogen economy. I could go on and cite Kariba, where 800,000 horsepowers are produced by a dam which is only 400 feet high, although admittedly there are 3,000 square miles of water behind it. However,

249
that is not the point. The point is that only 400 feet of dam is needed to produce 800,000 horsepowers. I have spoken about this before and I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to the nonsense that is talked about marine barrages. History tells us that the Dutch reclaimed their land from the sea by making barrages, not out of concrete or stone—they did not have any (concrete was not invented)—but out of clay. Why clay? Because the only geological deposit that the sea will not erode is clay. Why will it not erode clay? Because clay is water repellent.
What can we use to replace clay? The answer is polythene bags. In the last couple of weeks we have seen good examples of the refuse that has been piled on the pavements. Noble Lords will have noticed how rigidly they stand and the height to which they can ascend simply by being dumped. That is a demonstration of a technique, which I have described many times here before, of making barrages with plastic bags filled with refuse. We have done all the desk work on this. Where will it be first employed? The probability is that it will be the technique used in putting the barrage across the Bay of Fundy. Why do we not use it in the Bristol Channel?—but not for a barrage across the Channel; that would be a piece of sheer nonsense. Hydrologically, the most stupid thing we could do would be to put an obstruction across the sedimentary effluent coming from the River Severn—it would silt up the whole river in a matter of years. No, we want to imitate the Rance experiment of a barrage of a loop type extending between Cardiff and Newport filling plastic bags—I am sure that many ribald remarks will be directed at me about this—with all the tip refuse within 30 miles of Cardiff and Newport. It would result in a dam which would contain the sort of turbines that they have at the Rance, Straflow and all the others. There electricity would be generated. In addition, we would produce a runway which would give an airport within two hours of Paddington. Also, we would create an industrial centre in South Wales which could be all-electric. Indeed, my plea is that this country ought to go all-electric and not be dependent upon solid, liquid and nuclear fuels.
Finally, I should like to make one other point. This country is really saturated with energy. It must be, or otherwise we
250
would not have over one million units of human energy rotting and stagnating here. The Government should get off the backs of those of us who are planting little acorns from which we hope great oaks will grow to recreate the virility and stimulus of the kind of British industry we should like to see for the future. That is how I would use my energy.
6.28 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, first, may I join those who paid tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for initiating this debate and getting it off to such a good start. It is a fascinating debate to listen to and I am sure will be to read in tomorrow's Hansard. I suppose that it was triggered off by the events in Iran. I shall not spend much time talking about Iran; I spent nearly a year there as a pilot. The population there is very volatile and I have little doubt that the events that followed Mossadeq's weeping performance some years go will happen again, and oil will begin to flow from Iran in reasonable quantities in the not too distant future. But that does not alter the fact that we are facing an energy crisis, and that we have to make up a policy that will be long-term and stable. I echo Lord Tedder's comments on the need for that policy to be evaluated.
My contribution to this debate will be simple. It is to support Lord Ritchie-Calder's plea for the development of oil from coal in vast quantities. We are all grateful to the National Coal Board for initiating research on this subject, although a great deal is known about it already. Our friends in South Africa have taken the bull by the horns and are making a great deal of petrol out of coal. I would take my plea a stage further. We have to have an economical fuel for transportation. Trains can be fed by electricity. They run on tracks. But trackless vehicles and ships, and so on, have to carry their own source of energy in their own tanks, and the problem is to get the lowest cost per seat mile, or per ton mile, out of the starting point, such as a ton of coal.
It seems to me that what is needed is the development of the diesel compression ignition engine in small bore units which are high speed and which will take the place of petrol consuming engines that are used in the bulk of motor-cars, family saloons and small vans, today. Diesel fuel

251
is highly regarded on the Continent, and it is about time that its development was more widespread in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has said that to make a liquid fuel out of coal you have to have hydrolysis hydrogen, and where do you get your hydrogen from? The cycle seems fairly simple. You promote nuclear energy which can be used to produce the electricity that is required to hydrogenate the coal and make it into a liquid, and there you have a wholly indigenous supply. You have your nuclear energy, your coal, your liquid fuel, and you have the electricity to drive trains, heat houses, and for other purposes. All this is going to take a great deal of time.
It is important too in the development of fuel for internal combustion engines that diesel fuel is not taxed out of existence. There must be a tax concession or encouragement for the development of these processes. If we could have a better understanding of the benefits of a differential taxation rate on fuel for automobiles and aeroplanes it would be of great value. Let us go forward in developing British diesel fuel from British coal, made with British nuclear energy.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is aware that diesel fuel in fact already carries a kind of differential taxation in that motor vehicles propelled on diesel fuel do more miles to the gallon than those on petrol?
Lord THOMAS: Admittedly, my Lords, but if the taxation were reduced still further they would do even better, would they not?
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to add a rider to his important point? As your Lordships know, Diesel originally invented the engine for small coal and not for oil. So really we are only turning back the pages of history.
6.35 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I was uncertain right to the last moment whether I would be here for this debate, and so I asked to be put down as the
252
last speaker. I have not prepared a full speech, so it may in some respects be a little disjointed, and in any case will be confined largely to supporting what noble Lords have already said. I think that very often this is the function of the last speaker.
The first point I should like to make is that we really must look at all this on an international basis, not only because morally we ought to, but because it has now been shown clearly from what has happened in Iran that in regarding our own interests we cannot do otherwise. Taking the broader picture we really must remember that the developing countries are going to need more and more energy if they are to develop at all. Do not forget that nitrogen fertilisers require a great deal of energy to produce them. Unless the developing countries have that energy, or somebody is going to do it for them, we remain with the situation that perhaps one quarter of the world—I think the figure at present is something like that—will remain grossly undernourished. I make that plea for a worldwide look at this problem, and not just a parochial look, which we are far too apt to take.
The second point I pick up again, and it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. Coal should be preserved for the future, so far as possible for the petrochemical industry. Even leaving that aside, it is all very well talking about using it for this and that, and our reserves, but so far we have proved utterly incapable of getting it out of the ground in increasing quantities, and that problem remains with us in spite of research into more sophisticated ways of mining. It does not look as though coal is going to be the answer to the maiden's prayer during this period when we are going to be short of energy, whatever else we try to develop as alternative sources.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Viscount allow me to intervene for one moment? He referred to coal and said that we cannot get it out of the ground in sufficient quantities. Is the noble Viscount aware that there is no problem in getting it out of the ground except the capital expense? In other words, if the community is prepared to do it there is no problem in doing it.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I would not wholly agree with the noble Lord because if you are going to employ labour you have to increase the labour force, and that takes a period of time. I think he would agree that the efforts that have been made so far to try to get more sophisticated ways other than mining have not yet paid off. There is opencast mining, but whatever you do about that you will get a strong reaction from the environmentalists.
I would join with a large number of other noble Lords in saying quite firmly that a nuclear programme is essential in the short term. There is nothing else round the corner to meet this energy gap. I also believe the time has come, particularly in view of the latest developments, when we must grasp the nettle and at least go for a full-scale breeder reactor now, and that has been emphasised already by at least three noble Lords. Such reactors in their use of raw material are 50 to 60 times more efficient than the present one. I should have liked to have quoted statistics but I do not have confirmation for them, so I shall only say that what we already have in the shape of spent uranium fuel and plutonium made in the process represents an enormous energy store which can be used with the breeder reactor. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned this increasing to a point when it had more energy than the whole of our coal reserves, though I am not sure under what circumstances that would occur—whether by the end of the century with existing nuclear plant or assuming some increase—and I am anxious not to make any statement about which I am not sure.
The unfortunate thing about the whole nuclear programme is that it has raised, presumably because of the atomic bomb, emotionalism and people have tried to justify their emotional feelings with logical arguments, always a highly unfortunate thing to do. I take the view that with care, certainly even with the fast reactor, we can completely forget the safety aspect of these reactors. Lord Rothschild was of that view and I believe it is accepted by many. Indeed, there is a book which points out that the danger of mining coal in terms of deaths and injuries is far greater than it is ever likely to be with a comparable nuclear programme.
254
I also differ from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, about storage. Even taking the worst case, suppose we neutralised 100 square miles somewhere in the world to put it down so that that 100 square miles could not be used by future generations. That, judged against the way we are in many cases wantonly using up irreplaceable resources, such as tungsten and so on, would be a small price to ask future generations to pay. Thus, with the possibilities that now exist of producing a reasonably satisfactory solution for the disposal of waste, I write that off as unimportant.
What concerns me far more is the danger in the ultimate of nuclear blackmail. This will occur sooner or later, even with the situation as it exists now, so it is probably only slightly more likely if we continue with a nuclear programme. It is not the few who might try to make some sort of crude atom bomb who worry me so much as some of the more irresponsible nations of the world who might get their own atomic reactor and then have sufficient expertise to make a reasonable nuclear bomb. That is a real worry to me.
I suggest that possibly a good solution would be for the developed nations to use as much nuclear plant and generation as possible, leaving the oil much more to the smaller and developing countries. That would have many advantages. From the point of view of the threat of nuclear blackmail it would make life easier; it would be advantageous from the point of view of being able readily to use it; and it would make it easier for the developing countries, and we of course have the technical knowledge to do that. That is perhaps the only new thought I can produce today.
We should press on with alternative forms of energy, but I wish to stress that people often think that the more likely a certain project is to succeed, or perhaps to provide the answer, the more funds should be put into it. That view needs looking into carefully because if other countries—for example, America—are putting vast research into a given area, we might better employ our limited research in another area because, in this very vital consideration of getting more energy, I do not believe patents will be all that important. In that event, I would advise keeping a small team which could do their

255
own bit of research and could easily be expanded if that was the way we wanted to go. If noble Lords do not like that idea, then the other answer is to see that we get reasonable arrangements with our partners in the EEC so that, say, Germany does one thing and we do another, if necessary on a swapping basis.
The point has been made, but I wish to emphasise the need for inter-party agreement. This is not a political issue and some noble Lords may remember that not long ago I had a Wednesday short debate on the need for inter-party agreement. I said that though there were many issues on which in the long term I thought it unlikely that inter-party agreement could be obtained, it was even more unlikely they would be solved without it. This question of energy is not potentially, as I see it, a political subject.
My Lords, I fear that for the first time for perhaps two years I have exceeded my allocation of 10 minutes, the reason being of course that I did not prepare my speech beforehand.
6.48 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who volunteered unselfishly to speak last and who, if I may say so, made one of the best speeches in the whole debate. I agree with him and with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that this is a matter which should be approached on nonparty lines, and what has particularly impressed me has been the strictly nonparty approach in this debate, and we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for initiating it.
This subject is of course extremely important; energy is vital to our economy and indeed to our way of life, as has been said. A great many matters have been raised and some of the problems ahead have been posed, and posed most eloquently, by noble Lords, and I will do my best to answer them. I wish that we could know all the answers in advance, but the truth is that in many areas we cannot be sure of all the questions. One cannot have an energy policy in the form of a blueprint saying that, for example, in the year 2000 electricity will meet X per cent. of energy demand and coal Y per cent. and that so much of the
256
electricity will come from nuclear power. The uncertainties are too great. We cannot predict precisely what the demand for energy will be, or what will be the most economical way of meeting it. Indeed, the recent events in Iran, which have been referred to today in almost every speech, and with which I shall deal later, serve only too well to highlight both the uncertainties with which we are faced and how rapidly circumstances can change. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, mentioned this point, and I agreed with him. He asked—quite properly—where the next crisis would blow up.
What we are trying to do is to develop a strategy that will move us in the right direction over a broad range of possible futures—and not one that will be perfect in one set of circumstances, but disastrous or very costly if things should not turn out as we expect. However, we are not completely in the dark about the future. To start with, there is very wide agreement that oil will get increasingly scarce and more expensive during the rest of the century and beyond, as has been said today. The Department of Energy's forecast is that oil prices will go on rising until, by the end of the century, they are double their present levels or more in real terms. We can therefore expect to see oil gradually withdrawn from its non-premium markets, where another fuel would do as well, and become concentrated once again in uses such as transport and petrochemicals, where there is no ready substitute. Nuclear power may provide the answer, but it will not provide a quick or easy answer to the world's energy problems. In such a high technology area you must learn to walk before you can run.
We must also bear in mind the need to reconcile energy policy with other objectives, such as environmental policy. We have recently set up the Commission on Energy and the Environment to advise on the relationship between these two important policy areas. As I think has been recognised today, by comparison with most other industrial countries, the United Kingdom is well endowed with energy supplies for the next couple of decades. We have substantial reserves of oil and gas, and very large reserves of coal—enough for 300 years at present rates of extraction. We can expect to be at least

257
self-sufficient, and possibly net exporters of energy, for some years from 1980 onwards. But we should never forget that this will not cut us off from the long-term difficulties of energy supply which the world as a whole can expect increasingly to face. We therefore attach great importance to active participation in international discussions on energy, whether at summit meetings, the United Nations, the International Energy Agency, or in the EEC.
The Government give great importance to energy conservation, and the demand estimates on which our strategy rests imply an overall reduction in final energy consumption of about 20 per cent. by the end of the century. The Government will have to keep on stepping up their continuing conservation programme if these savings are to be achieved. We have made a good start by implementing since December 1977 a comprehensive 10-year package of measures.
Even after allowing for ambitious levels of conservation, our use of energy is likely to go on rising, including a large and growing demand for fuel as a chemical feedstock. As in the past, the main influence is likely still to be the rate of economic growth, as I think was implied by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. The recent study by the International Institute for Environment and Development suggests a possible low energy strategy for the United Kingdom. The low energy futures advocated by a number of such groups are currently being assessed for the Government by the Energy Technology Support Unit at Harwell, in conjunction with the Department of Political Economy at Aberdeen University. We do not know of course what our rate of growth will be, and we are working on a range of possibilities, which were examined in detail in the Green Paper.
We have identified supply options which might give us a total of home-produced energy equivalent to between 475 million and 515 million tons of coal a year to 2000, if all were successfully developed. The figures included for coal and nuclear power are upper limits of what we can reasonably expect in the time available, and will not be achieved without very great efforts. We recognise that we cannot yet define the precise combination of home-produced suppliers, of conservation, and of imports which
258
would provide the best way of meeting our energy needs at the turn of the century. We have therefore proposed a strategy based on developing conservation and a broad range of supply options, while maintaining what flexibility we can to make adjustments in the light of results and changing circumstances.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on a point of clarification? I thought I heard him say that he was hoping that energy conservation would improve, or increase, by 20 per cent., and later he went on to say that our consumption of energy would go on increasing. If so, what is it that we are conserving—20 per cent. of what? The only true measure of conservation success would be if the demand for energy was actually going down by 20 per cent. Alternatively, is the noble Lord saying that we arrest what would normally be an upward trend by 20 per cent. less than otherwise would have been expected?
Lord STRABOLGI: I have been trying to paint a rather large canvas, my Lords, and I was making the general point that as our consumption went up so would our need for conservation grow. I was not going any further than that. What I was also saying is that in general we are aiming to be well placed to adopt whichever course turns out in the event to be cheapest and most acceptable.
Turning now to the supply options open to us, our most plentiful source of fossil fuel is coal. Through Plan for Coal we are showing our determination to maintain and modernise the industry at a cost of over £4 billion, and the National Coal Board considers that output could reach 170 million tons by the end of the century. But coal may also be required for uses other than those at present associated with it. Work is therefore also taking place on the technology of coal use and its conversion to substitute natural gas and synthetic crude oil. Nuclear power could also provide a substantial part of our energy needs—perhaps the equivalent of 95 million tons of coal in 2000. We may need therefore to be able to expand our nuclear capacity rapidly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, if that proved economically desirable and acceptable in other respects; and some of these

259
various options have been referred to today.
By the year 2000, home-produced oil could still be contributing the equivalent of 150 million tons of coal—more than our current oil demand. The Government's first priority has been to get self-sufficiency as quickly as possible, so that the country benefits from the balance of payments improvement, greater security of supply and the tax revenues. We must make sure, though, that there is neither too sharp a peak in production in the 1980s, nor too rapid a rundown thereafter. Development of natural gas reserves should be managed, I suggest, with an eye to maintaining supplies to the markets, including petrochemicals, which can make the best use of its special qualities, and so to postpone the need to turn to expensive alternatives. The equivalent of 50 to 90 million tons of coal a year of our energy requirements might come from natural gas at the end of the century.
By the year 2000, however, oil and gas supplies worldwide, as well as in Britain, will have reached or be close to their peak. Their decline will have begun, or be just about to start. The major significance of oil and gas, then, is in the medium term, during the next two decades, rather than in the longer term of the end of the century and into the next. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that we must use wisely the breathing space they offer to prepare for the period when they will be in short supply, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said. The renewable sources are still at an early stage of development, and their contribution to energy supply in the period we are dealing with is expected to be small, although it could grow substantially in the next century. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, to whose speech I listened with particular interest—and I shall have a little more to say about alternative sources later on—I would say that we are giving high priority to the necessary research and development work. Indeed, total Government spending on energy R & D in 1977–78 was in the nature of £254 million.
My Lords, we do not know what society will expect in the next century, but we might expect energy demand to continue to grow. We must be able to meet
260
it in a period when our own production of oil is declining perhaps quickly, and when our production of gas is declining, or is about to decline. As we move into the next century, the world's available oil will need increasingly to be reserved for uses in which other fuels cannot easily be substituted, particularly in transport and in petro-chemicals. Coal may be able to fill some of the gap caused by withdrawing oil from heating purposes, but coal itself may increasingly be needed as a raw material for producing substitute natural gas, transport fuels and petro-chemicals, and the amount available for generating electricity may decline.
We cannot be certain at this stage when fusion power will prove practicable. At present, the only assured source in the longer term, apart from coal, is nuclear power, as I think has been rightly said by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. Because of the limited availability of uranium, worldwide dependence on nuclear power almost certainly involves using fast reactors eventually. In the end, society as a whole will have to make the choice whether to accept fast reactors or whether, if there is no suitable alternative, to accept lower national living standards as a result either of diverting resources into very high-cost forms of energy or of energy shortages. While there can be no certainty at this stage that fast reactors will be needed, we need to keep the option open, as I think was recognised today, while continuing with the development of fusion power and renewable sources of energy. The Government's strategy therefore involves developing all the options I have mentioned, while maintaining what flexibility we can to make adjustments in the light of results and changing circumstances.
My Lords, I think it would be right if I said a few words about Iran, as this has been mentioned in every speech. From the point of view of this debate, of course, this has been the most serious recent development. The cutting of exports of crude oil from Iran since Christmas has meant that the only production has been up to about 600,000 barrels a day to meet domestic needs. The only exports have been of fuel oil produced in refining that production, which is not required in Iran and which was clogging up the

261
storage tanks. Happily, with a somewhat more settled political climate, Iranian exports are now beginning again. It is still much too early, however, to be certain of a substantial, uninterrupted resumption, and we must wait to see whether the Iranians will wish to push exports to their previous levels; and, if so, whether the technical problems can be overcome. There is also still much uncertainty about the price they will charge and the method of sale they will choose. There must be some doubt, to say the least, as to whether the consortium which previously lifted most of the oil will resume its former position.
My Lords, the effect of the Iranian situation on oil prices has been worrying, as I readily admit. Some spot prices have reached almost double the official OPEC price, and this has led to a more modest but general and still worrying increase in many contract prices of around 1 dollar to 1.50 dollars a barrel. We hope that when OPEC meets shortly to discuss developments it will take a responsible view of the effects of excessive price rises across the board. These could be very damaging to world growth prospects, and particularly to the economies of the less developed countries. In the meantime, it is important that the consumer nations should do their bit towards meeting the shortfall in supplies, which will affect us not only now but in stocking up for next winter. At its meeting in Paris at the end of last week, the governing board of the IEA agreed on a 5 per cent. saving on oil consumption by its members. The United Kingdon will be playing its full part in implementing this decision; and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, I can say that a Statement about this will be made in another place in the near future by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and I am sure it will be repeated in your Lordships' House. I am hopeful that these measures, coupled with a resumption of exports from Iran, will serve to stabilise the world situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, also asked about oil stocks. The latest figures for oil stocks for the United Kingdom show that we are holding 191 days on the IEA basis and 88 days on the EEC basis. This is equal to 72 days of expected consumption. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to a depletion
262
policy. The Government's initial priority in the development of our offshore resources has been, of course, to build up production as rapidly as possible, so that we can benefit from the balance of payments improvements, the greater security of supply and the tax revenues. We are now approaching the point of net self-sufficiency in energy, and during the 1980s we have some choice between early oil production at higher levels, with associated early additional benefits to the economy, and reserving supplies for the 1990s and beyond to assist the economy and the energy sectors in achieving a smooth transition to reliance on imported oil (which is likely to be scarcer and more expensive) or alternative indigenous fuels.
We must avoid, I suggest, both too sharp a peak in production and too rapid a decline thereafter if we are to ensure that when production runs down it does not do so at such a rate as to cause unmanageable problems in switching to alternative indigenous supplies or paying for increased imports. This, of course, is one of the factors which made us decide to control the production of our North Sea oil—a point which I thought was not sufficiently appreciated by my noble friend Lord Energlyn; but I do not want to trespass today into these fields, which we pursue frequently in other debates.
Turning to the current Iranian situation, I understand that BNOC has been able to respond by offering previously uncommitted supplies to two oil companies in the United Kingdom who have been experiencing difficulties in obtaining crude. However, BNOC cannot at short notice dramatically increase the amount of oil supplied into the United Kingdom. It must honour its other commitments if it is to build its reputation as a responsible oil trader. BNOC's disposal policy is, in the first instance, a matter for the corporation's commercial judgment although we expect it to take Government policy fully into account. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to gas. So far as the use of gas is concerned, the Government's policy is that our resources should be depleted in a controlled manner, with supplies going so far as possible to those markets where the special qualities of gas make it an especially valuable fuel.
The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, and my noble friend Lord Energlyn referred to

263
alternative sources of energy. In this connection, I am, of course, referring particularly to wave energy, tidal energy, wind energy, solar energy, crops and organic wastes providing fuel materials and geothermal energy. These alternative energy sources are still at an early stage of development, and their contribution to meeting the country's energy needs by the end of the century is expected to be small, although it could build up substantially in the first quarter of the next century. I can say that the Government are giving high priority to the necessary research and development work on these sources and in June last year an increase in the funding available for this work was announced, taking the total amount of money available to £16 million. It is not, however, the level of funding which is the limitation to making faster progress on these sources but rather the state of the new technologies involved. I am sure both noble Lords, with their great technical knowledge, will appreciate that.
With regard to nuclear, or atomic, energy, Government policy has been to maintain the capability rapidly to expand nuclear power if that course proves to be economically desirable and acceptable in other respects. To do this, we need a proven reactor system or systems and a manufacturing industry able to produce them. We also need to ensure that fast reactor technology will be available to us if we need it. With regard to fast reactor policy, the prototype fast reactor has been operating at Dounreay since 1974 and the Government are currently reviewing policy towards the next stage of the system's development, including the possible construction of a full-scale commercial demonstration plant. The Government have given an undertaking that any decision to build a plant would be subject to a public inquiry. The precise procedure has not yet been settled but the inquiry would not be limited to local matters and would enable wider relevant issues to be considered.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, asked about the EEC energy research and development programme. The United Kingdom has fully supported the current four-year energy R & D programme in the Community and many United Kingdom organisations are participating in this. In considering the Commission's proposals
264
for a second four-year programme to run from 1979 to 1983, however, we have noted that these proposalswould call for some £80 million from the Community budget and have insisted that such a sum should be agreed only after the most careful scrutiny of the proposals. What we are questioning is the size and scope of the new programmes and the balance between topics. I should emphasise that we fully recognise the importance of this research. It is precisely because of this that we are anxious that scarce resources of manpower and money should be used to the best advantage.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, asked about coal from under the sea. The National Coal Board are considering the possibility of exploiting coal reserves under the sea, and the techniques of underground gasification currently being studied by the Board might find an application in this area. There are, however, considerable technical problems involved and it is unlikely that a contribution to meeting the country's energy needs can be attained from this source for a considerable period of time. But I am sure that one day we shall be able to get at it.
My Lords, I hope that I have answered most of the points raised by noble Lords. Remembering what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said, I do not want to speak for too long. I am afraid that I have spoken longer than I should have done, but if there are any other points I will write to noble Lords.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, in rising to bid au revoir to this subject and not adieu because I am sure that it will be in front of us at least once per Session for an indefinite time to come, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who responded to my invitation to take part in the debate and to comment on the fact, which is obvious to you all, that you have, not for the first time, put on a performance unmatchable by any other legislative assembly in the world. It started with oil; then the geology of oil from Lord Energlyn; then oil substitutes by hydrogenation of coal by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and then hydrogenation for chemical feed-stocks from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones,

265
to the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, who has come all the way from St. Andrews to tell us about his preoccupation with the photolysis of water which, in my view, is the best bet for the utilisation of solar energy one day in the future.
In thanking those who have come a long distance I look at the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who has come farther than anybody else and thank him for the support he has given me in his remarks on atomic power. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, gave us his characteristic blend of wide-ranging knowledge and experience and blunt common sense; and I was grateful for his comments on some of the environmental problems. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, speaks with authority based on many years of service to this House in Committees and constant attention to our energy affairs on a day-to-day basis. He is a master of detail; he has put it at our service this afternoon, and I am grateful correspondingly.
I was glad at having avoided a demarcation dispute with my noble friend Lord Robbins on the subject of economics and that I managed to get away with it without him finding anything on which he was in disagreement with me. I say I am glad because, although I never had the privilege of attending his lectures, I regard myself as an honorary pupil of his through close study of his very interesting writings. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, combines dual qualifications in the diplomatic field and in the nuclear power field and I am sure that he would be ideal adviser to monitor what is going on in the mind of President Carter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, does not speak very often in this House and I wish that he spoke more. He gave an example of what careful housekeeping can do. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was kind enough to refer to the importance of the diesel. This is a great British achievement. It is not generally known that this country used to (and for all I know still does) export more diesels than the USA makes. That was the gift of differential taxation at one time. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, enunciated a principle with which I am in agreement; namely, that we ought never to use gas where we can use oil; we ought never to use oil where we can use coal; and we ought never to use coal where we
266
can use nuclear power or anything wherever we can use revenue resources, provided we can manage to do it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, for tackling the price structure problem, which is not the most glamorous part of one's homework but it is fundamental. Clearly the present price structure is unstable and can only lead to rises. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his attention to the debate and for his careful answers to as many of the points as he could cope with in the time available. I hope that he will report to his right honourable friend and will assure him of the high quality of the debate which was entirely non-partisan in quality and of the singular unanimity on the question of priorities demonstrated by everybody who took part in it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HONG KONG: ARREST OF PETITIONERS
7.20 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will inquire into the circumstances under which 76 persons travelling in coaches to present a petition to the Governor were arrested in Hong Kong on 7th January, 1979, and into the conditions of the boatmen and their families who for seven years have been denied houses at Yaumoti. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising this issue in an Unstarred Question because I felt that on 12th February, when I put a Starred Question, the exchanges between a questioner and the Front Bench were inadequate to clarify these issues at depth. The only other Back-Bencher who intervened paid a tribute to the Governor of Hong Kong. I want wholeheartedly to endorse that tribute. In the unique circumstances of Hong Kong the endeavours which he has made for the rehousing of the people and his activities in public work construction should receive the recognition of all Members of the House. About that there is no difference at all.
These boatmen used to be fishermen from the mainland of Hong Kong.

267
However, when the trawlers came they were no longer able to carry out their activities. For more than seven years now they and their families have lived in boats under shelters on the shores of the mainland. They have had to live there because, despite the fact that they have asked for housing accommodation, it has not been provided. With their wives and their children—and children are being born continually—the number of them now reaches 5,000. More than a half of them work on the mainland. Their children go to schools on the mainland; but they are still limited to living on their boats. The housing department of the Government of Hong Kong has stated that many of them are immigrants, illegal immigrants, living in these conditions because they wish to claim houses.
There was a survey by Social Action which interviewed the residents of 474 of the boats accommodating over 4,000 people. That survey showed that 70 per cent. of the residents of these boats had been there for seven years. That is a sufficient answer to the Housing Department so far as at least 60 per cent. of the residents are concerned. The conditions under which they live are appalling. Boats are becoming old and rotten. If they moved they would sink. There is no fresh water supply or artificial light. There is no sanitation. The water round the boats is filthy and stinks. In the past year alone 12 children from these boats have drowned. Over the years the boatmen have sent many petitions to Government departments. They recently decided that they would petition the Governor himself. I should remark that in Hong Kong petitions are the accepted method of bringing pressure from the population to the legislature and the Governor. There is no elected member of the legislature; all are appointees or nominees of the Government. It is the only method by which the people can express their differences.
I want to recognise at once that the first action of the boatmen was provocative. They held a Press conference and announced that 1,000 of them would march to the Governor's residence. Such a march without seven days' notice and without a licence from the Government would have been illegal. I think it very likely indeed that it was the announcement of that
268
march which provoked the police—no doubt justifiably with the authority of the Governor—to take action. However, this project was cancelled. Undoubtedly there were consultations between the leaders of the community and with representatives of the boatmen. A decision was taken to cancel the proposed march and that instead there should be a deputation which would present a petition to the Governor. As a result of the discussions, the deputation was to represent community leaders and to present the human problems of the families living on these boats by representation of the women and children there. A deputation was selected of 76 persons including a Catholic priest, a doctor, two social workers, 48 women and 10 children.
When one considers whether that deputation was illegal or not one has to recognise this. Undoubtedly they were accompanied by a number of people to the pier where they entered two coaches. However, the significant fact in the issue which I am raising tonight is this. No charge was made against any illegal procession on the mainland before the deputation of 76 entered their coaches. They had to travel, as those who know Hong Kong will realise, by a tunnel which joins the mainland to the main island of Hong Kong and its harbour. When they reached the entrance to the island, they were arrested—the deputation of 76 travelling in these two coaches. They were arrested because they were said to have taken part in an illegal procession and an illegal assembly. I wonder how two coaches with occupants can be held to be "a procession". I wonder how 76 people in those two coaches can be held to be "an assembly".
When I raised this question in this House on 12th February 1979, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said at col. 971 of Hansard:
"No charges were made against the ten juveniles, and the adults were released on bail pending trial".
A word about bail: it was 200 dollars and the men arc earning 150 dollars. I think that is unreasonably high; but I want to draw particular attention to the statement that no charges were made against the 10 juveniles. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am making no suggestion that the Minister sought to mislead the House on this matter. There is no one in this House that I more regularly believe than

269
the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. He always takes the utmost care in stating facts and explaining them to this House; but I do not think there is any doubt that he was misinformed on this matter. I have in my hand a letter from Councillor Elsie Elliott, and she says this:
"I personally bailed out 30 persons from the Central Police Station. I examined and signed the bail papers for three of the children, aged 7, 8 and 12. On the papers I signed it stated clearly in English that they were being charged with 'unlawful assembly', and each one bore the thumbprint of the child whose name appeared on it, indicating that the charge had been read to the child. I heard the police inform each child individually to attend the adult court at Causeway Bay next morning (8th January). When the 12-year-old boy said he could not go as he had to go to school, he was told he must attend court.
At the time, I protested against such small children being charged with offences they did not understand, and against putting small children in an adult court. Mr. Holliday, who seemed to be in charge of the operation, said that children are responsible in law from the age of 7 and that the charges must stand.
I think it was the Magistrate who objected to the charges next day; no credit is due to the police or the Government for having arrested children who did not even know what was going on".
My Lords, I do not think anyone will dispute that statement from Councillor Elliott—missionary, educationalist, the voice of the people, given a distinguished award in 1976 for her achievements in social welfare and awarded the CBE last year by Her Majesty the Queen. She is a responsible person, and no one who knows her can doubt that on this matter she has told the truth. The children were charged, and it was only through the intervention of the magistrate the following day that those charges were withdrawn. I pause to ask: Is it really tenable that in Hong Kong a child of seven should be held responsible in law?
It is often suggested that this is just an agitation by the boatmen concerned and a few others. I have had a letter from the Ecumenical Community Development Project, with members of the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches, of the Salvation Army and the Church of Christ in China, thanking me for having raised this matter in the House. They say:
"The issue is not only of great importance to the boat people themselves in their quest for resettlement but has grave implications for the civic rights of residents in this city".
I believe this event, distressing as it has been, will be important and will have three results. First, greater care in the future will be taken in the application of the law against processions and assemblies. Secondly, there must be a reconsideration of the age when a child becomes responsible in law, now seven years. Thirdly, because of the publicity which has been obtained, there will be a resettlement of the boat people by the provision of housing for them. I ask for an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the arrest of the 76—and not only that but, more importantly, into the conditions under which the boatmen and their families live, in order to facilitate the three results I have mentioned.
7.39 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I always approach the solution of distant problems with more diffidence than I do those close at hand. It is more difficult to come at the facts. However, I know Hong Kong and I have apprised myself of some of the facts. I always admire the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I am not entirely certain that I follow him through the whole of this argument this evening, but I would endorse his view of the work of the present Governor, as a preliminary to what I say.
It seems that we are looking at three questions. We are looking at the particular incident which resulted in the arrest to which the noble Lord has drawn the attention of the House; we are looking at the conditions which gave rise to it, not only in that flotilla of boats but in Hong Kong as a whole, and we are looking at a specific question of the responsibility of 7-year-old children in law. If I may take them in that order, as touches the arrest itself, as I understand it, the assembly, which was quite a large one, which preceded the setting off of 76 people in two buses, was illegal. It was in fact the latest in a series of such assemblies which, in a crowded and cramped community such as Hong Kong, which is much more like a rabbit warren than a city in the sense in which we mean it in this House, looking at London and Paris, is a serious matter in itself.
I understand that the first time any objection was made formally by the authorities, in the shape of the police,

271
was on 24th December last year, and that that was merely a request to disperse which I do not think was fully met, and what happened on 7th January continued despite police requests. Then, the parties having been warned, I imagine, that if they went through the tunnel they would then have gone beyond the bounds of official patience; they proceeded to do so. The noble Lord suggested that it was important that large numbers of people had dispersed unarrested, and yet they had committed the offence of which the 76 were said to be guilty. I do not think that that crowd was made up of lawyers, and I think any normal group ofpeople would see that this was a gradation of response, which was not in any way extreme or brutal.
As to what happened after that, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will doubtless be in a position to enlighten us. As I understood it, charges were preferred against the adults. Convictions resulted, but the people who had been charged and convicted were bound over and thus incurred no penalty at all, although they were, I understand, members of an organisation which, quite properly, is trying to draw attention to the hardships of a particular group of people in Hong Kong. The causes of the demonstration arc the circumstances of the boatmen (who are not to be confused with the boat people, which is an emotive term relating to refugees from Vietnam). These people are living in the vessels in which they used to live, or in vessels similar to them, when they were working at their trade as fishermen.
The objects of the demonstration were to get them rehoused on dry land and, presumably, to have this done in advance of the long queue of others who are waiting to be rehoused. I would just draw the noble Lord's attention to the very large number of people living in shanties on geologically unstable slopes, in which the danger is that with the torrential rains in Hong Kong you get a mud slide which results in instant burial and asphyxiation. If your boat starts to go down, on the other hand, you can step on to another one next door. I think that that is an important consideration, and I wonder whether the people in the shanties have a greater claim than the people in the boats.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case that those on the waiting list have to wait seven or eight years before they get any hope of a house, and that this is the condition of these boatmen?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord were to extend his attention to the other people on the list, he might find that this was the case elsewhere. He has to look no further than Islington to find people waiting interminable years. I understand that the council there cannot say how long people will have to wait in order to be housed. This is a universal problem. It is increased in Hong Kong by the fact that in the 12 months up to 31st December, 1978 over 100,000 new residents came over the border from China. What authority of a conurbation in the United Kingdom could cope with that and still shorten the list? There were 70,000 who came illegally and 30,000 who came as fugitives, without papers. Therefore, if it is at the back of the minds of those reading the columns of Hansard after this debate that somehow Hong Kong has a repressive régime, I think that the figures speak for themselves. People do not fling themselves so willingly and in such large numbers into prison. That, I think, is, in itself, an endorsement of what Hong Kong is achieving.
I have, as it happens, been around many of the housing projects in Hong Kong. I have seen the emergency housing and the various grades, as well as the latest schemes that they have. It is difficult not to be fulsome in one's admiration of the organisation, energy and sheer achievement of what has been done. I do not wish to state the case in too flowery terms, because it will sound like propaganda and this is not a propagandist occasion. I merely think that, in extremely difficult circumstances, the local authorities there have done rather better than local authorities in this country have done with far more resources at their disposal. That is an important element in looking at what is going on in Hong Kong. Let us have a yardstick, and let us find what area in this country, with an equivalent population, could produce an equivalent solution.
I come now to the question of the responsibility of 7 year-old children.

273
That is a matter which I would happily leave to lawyers. It is a matter of which I was not aware until the noble Lord raised it. My view is that I would need to know a very great deal more than the noble Lord has vouchsafed to us, before I knew what I was talking about. It seems to me that, with legal responsibility, there may go other considerations. I do not wish to draw illustrations out of my imagination. I agree that, on the face of it, it is a surprising provision, but it is possible that responsibility brings with it privilege. I simply do not know. I shall be fascinated to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Gorowny-Roberts, has to say in comment on the letter of Councillor Elsie Elliott who, I know, is profoundly interested in housing. It is impossible to look at this problem out there without being aware of the fact.
In conclusion, I would just say this. What I have said is simply a gloss on the discussion. The intention is to make it clear that, having looked fairly closely at what is going on in Hong Kong, in person, on the ground, twice in the last three or four years, I am convinced that a great deal of good is going on there, and that with the extraordinary, indeed the unique, stresses under which that Crown Colony exists, with the enormous neighbour with a titular right to resume ownership before the end of the century, with very considerable numbers of immigrants coming in from that neighbour, and others, I might say—after all, it is not only the 100,000 whom they have to house; I think that at the latest count there were 9,000 refugees from Vietnam who have been added to the list—one might expect riots, one might expect destitution, one might expect deprivation and one might expect epidemics. When we consider that the question at the moment is whether 76 people were wrongly required to appear before a magistrate and to be bound over, that puts the question in perspective. As to the other question of the responsibility of juveniles, I feel that one of my noble and learned friends on this Bench would be better equipped to comment on that than I am.
7.50 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, the process of dying slowly interests and in many ways fascinates me. One problem more than
274
any other, perhaps, which has been worrying me is that once in my somewhat impertinent youth I asked a very distinguished Labour Minister of the highest repute whether or not, when he spoke about lessons of experience, he was speaking about the hardening of the arteries. That is perfectly true today. Having listened to a talk at about three o'clock in the morning on the new technology of the silicon chip and the marvels and miracles as well as the problems that are to come, and having had the privilege of listening to most of the very brilliant debate which took place this afternoon, I wondered whether there was a certain lack of perspective. I am quite sure that I was wrong.
I have listened to my very old, respected and valued friend putting his case with studied moderation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is an old and beloved friend, but the interjection, "I know the Governor and we can rely upon him" is to be deplored. First, it is not very kind to the Governor, who is known all over Asia and who has had tributes paid to him in almost every debate which has been held on Hong Kong. He has received the highest honours from Her Majesty. When I listen to my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts speaking about the Governor, it is obvious that he holds a special place in the heart of my noble friend. That is a great distinction on its own. I shall not pursue the matter, but I do feel that, "One must trust the Governor" is the precise antithesis and the precise problem of democratic politics. If one must trust the Governor, there is no room for debate and argument. Tonight, nobody has said a word against the Governor.
We had a debate on Hong Kong in 1976, and many of the same points were made then. Tributes were paid to the Governor. I said then that Hong Kong had never had a better Governor. Nobody raised any criticisms because the Governor was facing problems of quite exceptional difficulty. He has obviously been facing such problems quite recently. What is one to do if refugees come, by purchase, over the seas from the devastated territories of Vietnam, which have borne more bombardment and more destruction and which have had more poison poured upon them than any other country? If those refugees

275
jump the queue, what does one do about it? Whether they are rich or whether they are poor, in the end the answer is that they are refugees and that they have children. I do not quarrel with anything that has been done. The spectacle of things which are done by force, by good sense and with my complete approval is naturally likely to excite perturbation among people who have suffered very considerably because of their living conditions. When people read justifiably glowing accounts of the many achievements in Hong Kong, they must wonder whether they are the victims of discrimination.
We have heard a great deal about the housing programme. I have not seen it, but my information is that this excellent housing is being built on ground that is too costly to be used by the poorer inhabitants. Many other things are going on which are likely at least to exacerbate people's minds. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that if you are on a boat there is the advantage that you can step off it. There is, if you are awake and active at the time and know what is happening. I understand that the water there is so dirty and filthy that it is not easy for a boat to sink. What it does is to rot and fall to pieces. I understand that, as a perfectly proper safety precaution, inspectors go round month after month to examine these boats and see how long they will last. For all these years they have had no water or artificial light, and virtually no sanitation. And families are growing up on these boats.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who said that there are housing problems in England. Indeed there are. There are problems in Oldham. Oldham has seen its major industry pass to Hong Kong. I spent the best part of 30 years pointing out the problems of the cotton industry in England and the competition which it had to face from Hong Kong because of the subsidies that were paid from time to time to Hong Kong. The fact that Oldham machines were being exported second-hand to Hong Kong and also to Shanghai—a great deal more to Shanghai, let us be frank about it—and refurbished there also affected our home industry. This island community —partly a mainland community, it is true—with a somewhat uneasy tenure and with certain difficulties, was at one time costing our national Exchequer a very considerable sum of money.
276
In the year of that debate, I was privileged to receive a handsome book on Hong Kong which recounted its achievements. Frankly, I do not think that Texas could do it so well, or possibly so inexpensively. It may be that cheap labour helps. It is a remarkable book and a remarkable achievement; it is something of which they can be proud. The book is magnificently illustrated. It contains a picture of the Queen's visit and also a picture of the other Queen Elizabeth II departing from the harbour on another world tour. Illustrations are given of the immense advances which Hong Kong has made. It was the pioneer of the transistor industry, which brings it a little nearer to silicon chips. In a very fine harbour it has been carrying on a considerable amount of shipbuilding. It is also building—I call it hand-made to contrast it with the major form of shipbuilding—junks of considerable beauty, which are made with quite exceptional skill. If all that labour is being devoted to shipbuilding, it ought to be possible to provide houses on the riverside which contain adequate sanitation and so on. I suggest therefore that it is an unfortunate step to take, to say that you must not come to present a petition. I do not doubt for a moment that there have been faults on both sides in this matter. It is possible to get like that after seven or eight years of privation, particularly if people are reading about the new race course and all the other amenities that are being constructed for Hong Kong.
One gets to the point of protest; one reaches the point when pent-up indignation gets out of control. That is one of the difficulties in our world today, where there is so much violence, so much crime and so much demonstration. It is a wise law which permits the maximum possibility of ventilation of grievance. All my noble friend said was that there was a calling of attention to some rather regrettable points in procedures. In these circumstances, one wonders whether there should have been a conviction at all. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said—and I am not suggesting that he is wrong—that in effect there was no punishment, but of course a conviction is a punishment and binding over is a conviction. It is a finding of guilt, it can remain on the record all the time and if fingerprints were being taken that adds a little more point of regret to what transpired.

277
I have spoken for too long and I shall not pursue the matter. I have tried to be completely fair and I earnestly congratulate my noble friend on not thinking such a matter too insignificant for the attention of your Lordships' House and on having presented his case in full detail and with his customary fairness and force.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I apologise for speaking without having put down my name but I should like to ask your Lordships' indulgence to put one question concerning the rehousing of the boatmen whose present conditions the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has so clearly described. One understands the intense pressures on available housing which affect Hong Kong; some of them have been mentioned already. There is the natural increase of the existing population, there are refugees from China and more recently still there have been refugees from Vietnam. Taking all these things into consideration, the pressures on the housing authority are obviously very great indeed. My question is this: if the Government of Hong Kong were able to provide building sites and building materials on the mainland is it not possible that the boatmen would then be able to rehouse themselves in a co-operative way and by methods which one might describe as community self-help?
8.4 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend Lord Brockway for the way in which he has introduced this debate which, as my noble friend Lord Hale has reminded us, is indeed on a very important subject. I appreciate also the balanced way in which the official spokesman for the Conservative Party put forward his own views.
There is no question of anybody in need of housing in Hong Kong being denied a fair opportunity of achieving that. It is the policy of the Hong Kong Government to provide subsidised public housing for all who need it. The problem is to provide it fast enough to meet the demands of a population that has increased more than sevenfold in the past 35 years, and a population which is continuing to increase at a rate of over 150,000 a year. In such a situation and despite a housing pro-
278
gramme of which the Hong Kong Government have every right to be proud, it is of course inevitable that there should have to be a waiting list, which in turn means that there have to be priorities. It was this situation which led indirectly to the incident referred to by my noble friend in his Question.
The aim of the Hong Kong Government is to rehouse everybody who lives in substandard accommodation. This includes not only boat dwellers but also large numbers of people living in unsatisfactory conditions on land. Within this general policy, priority is given to people made homeless as a result of fire or natural disaster, or whose homes become dangerous. Some people, too, have to be moved from land that is needed for development, usually for new industry and new housing, and when this happens they, too, are rehoused immediately. Otherwise, everybody takes his turn, as is the case in this country. At present, there is a waiting list of some six to seven years in Hong Kong—almost as bad as in some parts of our own country. If this sounds a long time, I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind both the scale of the problem, as shown by the population figures I have just quoted, and the very great efforts that are being made to cope with it. I should like to give a few details of those in a moment.
That is the general picture with regard to priorities for public housing in Hong Kong. The boat dwellers had recently claimed that they should be allowed to jump the queue. Who are the boat dwellers? Those of us who are fairly familiar with Hong Kong and its history will know that Hong Kong has always had a large floating population, most of whom are fishermen but including also a great many involved in other marine trades, such as cargo handling. They are part of a wider tradition extending all around the coast of China. For centuries people have lived their whole lives afloat, hardly ever going ashore. In Hong Kong the numbers have in fact declined steadily over recent years as people whose families have worked afloat for generations have taken jobs ashore. Ten years ago there were some 100,000 boat dwellers in Hong Kong; today the reckoning is about 60,000. New industry on land, and obviously new re-housing on land, has made an impact on these and other

279
figures. Many of these people still make their living from fishing, but there are also a large number of squatters—that is, people who, unable to find accommodation ashore, live on boats moored in various typhoon shelters and anchorages around Hong Kong. They fall into three categories.
First, there are the traditional Hong Kong people who, although they have now taken jobs ashore, continue to live on their boats for want of other accommodation. Secondly, there are Hong Kong land dwellers who have resorted to boats as a cheaper form of accommodation. Thirdly, there are recent illegal immigrants from China who arrive in their own boats and continue to live on them until they can be resettled. I shall have a word to say about refugees and the causes for the mass exodus into Hong Kong in recent weeks.
The policy of the Hong Kong Government towards boat squatters is exactly the same as towards land squatters—to allow them to remain where they are until they can be moved into suitable subsidised public housing. However, the boats on which they live are examined from time to time and if they are found to be in a dangerous condition the occupants are moved to temporary housing ashore. Since 1977 922 people from 111 boats which have been found to be dangerous have been rehoused for that reason. Apart from this, the Hong Kong Government believe there is no justification for giving the boat people priority over other applicants for government housing, and they must apply in the normal way; many of them do so, and over 80,000 boat dwellers have been rehoused by the Government since 1960.
I now turn to the incident on 7th January. We have received a full report from the Governor of Hong Kong. Since September last year there has been a series of demonstrations and petitions by a particular group of boat dwellers, those from the Yau Ma Tei typhoon shelter, who are seeking priority in the allocation of public housing. Although some of these demonstrations were not authorised—and I shall describe the arrangements for obtaining permits later—no action was taken against the organisers or those involved until 24th December. On that day 150 boat dwellers, with 50
280
other supporters, assembled to march to the Government's Central Offices. As no permit had been obtained for the march, the police warned the demonstrators that their action was unlawful and advised them to disperse. Most of them did so, but a few remained, to hold, as they said, a Press conference. The police took no further action on that occasion.
On 7th January, which is the occasion to which my noble friend has referred, a group of boat dwellers and sympathisers assembled to go to the Governor's residence to present a petition. They had not applied for a permit and were warned that their action was unlawful. This time they declined to disperse and instead set out in two coaches to present their petition. Along the way the coaches were stopped by the police and the occupants were again warned that their demonstration was illegal. They were told that, while two representatives could in fact proceed to present their petition, the rest of them should disperse. When they refused to do so, the police escorted the coaches to a police station and charged the occupants with unlawful assembly.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene, is it not the case that when they were asked to disperse they themselves suggested that the coaches should be allowed to go to the not distant Botanical Gardens and they they would disperse there; and they would be satisfied with three going in a deputation to the Governor?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that may be so. I have no information of quite that nature. I am not for a moment doubting my noble friend's words. All I know is that after the first time there was this attempt to demonstrate, to process, without fulfilling the requirements of the ordinance which everybody else accepts; namely, applying for a permit. From that flows the incident we are discussing. If it were a momentary lack of attention to the needs of the ordinance in not applying for a permit for this particular purpose at that time, 7th January, I think we would take a rather dim view of this action concerning these people with whom we sympathise so much. But this was not the first time; they had been warned before and they persisted.

281
The police, as I said, escorted the coaches to the police station and charged the occupants with unlawful assembly. The 76 people concerned appeared in court on 8th January. As regards the 10 children involved, I said in reply to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Brockway on 12th February that no charges were made against the 10 children. What I should have said was that they were charged—my noble friend was quite right —on 7th January, but that no evidence was offered against them when they appeared in court on the following day. I apologise if unwittingly I misled him or the House or others in Hong Kong on this point. As to the legal and other reasons for putting the age of prosecution at whatever point it may be, I join with my noble friend in thinking that this is a matter we would need to go into separately and on what I would call a legal basis. Otherwise I would prolong my statement beyond the endurance of this crowded House!
The 66 adults were released on bail of about £21 each until their trial on 12th February, when they were all found guilty as charged. Of that 66, the 56 boat people among them were given absolute discharges with no conviction recorded. The others, including a priest, two social workers and four students, were hound over in the sum of about £32 each to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months. I do not think that all in all the magistracy took an unduly harsh line in this case. This is a matter of opinion. As to the amount of the bail, and indeed the sums in which they were bound over to be of good behaviour, that again is a matter of opinion; one could go into the relativity of the sums involved and the average monthly income of Hong-Kongese.
I have described these events in some detail in order to make it clear that the authorities did not act hastily. The people involved were given clear warning that they were breaking the law and had ample opportunity to change their minds. There can be no doubt that the organisers of the demonstration on 7th January knew that their action was illegal. Well established arrangements exist in Hong Kong for obtaining permits to hold public demonstrations. The police require one week's notice, but normally issue permits provided they are satisfied that the demonstration is not to be held for illegal
282
or immoral purposes and will not represent a threat to public order. We are dealing with Hong Kong, a crowded city colony, where the population is growing at an alarming rate, for external reasons which the local government is doing its utmost to control, often without success. The strain on public services, including housing, should be apparent to us all, and so equally should the great success of the Hong Kong Government in coping with that strain to the extent it has. Also it must he absolutely clear to us that it would be an ill service to a crowded city State of this kind if there were not provision for the orderly organisation and supervision of demonstrations.
There is no reason to suppose that if a permit had been asked for on this occasion it would not have been granted. It is not necessary to obtain permission to present a petition to the Governor, provided it is not done as part of a public demonstration. All residents of Hong Kong have an unqualified right to make petitions to the Governor on any matters of public or private concern. In this instance, the Governor could only have acceded to the petitioners' request at the expense of other equally deserving people.
I mentioned earlier that the Hong Kong Government have an outstanding housing programme. Under this programme, over two million people—no fewer than 46 per cent. of the population—have already been provided with subsidised public housing. I would repeat that that total includes 80,000 former boat people. New houses are now being added at a rate which will reach 35,000 houses a year in 1979. By 1985 it is the intention to provide accommodation for 65 per cent. of the population. Here is a country where two-thirds of the people will be housed in accommodation none of which is older than 35 years, and that subsidised. This programme is impressive by any standard, and it is the more impressive when one considers that it is being carried out in an overcrowded territory which suffers from an acute land shortage. I note the constructive suggestion made by the noble Lord, and I am quite sure that the Governor and the Government of Hong Kong, if they have not considered such a possibility, will most certainly give their attention to it. Many of the new houses are being built on land created by flattening hills and filling in the sea.

283
I should like to stress the added dimension that is brought to this problem by the relentless rise in immigration into Hong Kong, from both China and Vietnam. We have heard descriptions of the circumstances and the conditions of life in Hong Kong which, as my noble friend said, are indeed in too many cases appalling. But people are fleeing something even worse in order to get into Hong Kong, and the proportions of the problem of illegal immigration into Hong Kong despite those conditions is something that is commanding international concern and attention.
Last year, some 70,000 people entered Hong Kong legally from China. Another 30,000 entered illegally. The impact of immigration on such a scale must be clear to all of us, particularly when it is borne in mind that the equivalent for a country the size of the United Kingdom would be an influx of about one and a quarter million immigrants in one year, and going on at that rate year by year. The Government have made repeated representations to the Chinese Government about this. We believe that the Chinese Government understand the difficulties which the arrival of people from China in such large numbers is creating for Hong Kong, and are making genuine efforts to reduce the numbers.
I wish that I could say the same about the Vietnamese Government and the flood of refugees from Vietnam. Noble Lords will be well aware of the much publicised cases involving the "Huey Fong" and
284
the "Sky Luck", which between them brought nearly 6,000 refugees from Vietnam and dumped them on Hong Kong with its limited resources. What they may not realise is that since the beginning of this year almost as many refugees have arrived in Hong Kong in their own boats —the two figures together approximate to those which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and they keep on coming.
I am sorry to say that there is every reason to believe that most of these people leave Vietnam with the connivance—indeed, the active connivance and assistance—of Vietnamese officials. The British Government have made their views on this despicable trade in human misery very clear to the Vietnamese Government and will continue to do so until the traffic is stopped.
Of course, there is a problem in Hong Kong. There is also a problem of the influx into Hong Kong, both illegally from China and inhumanly from Vietnam. In addressing ourselves to whatever is happening in Hong Kong and to what has happened in Hong Kong in regard to this incident and its causes, let us not forget the appalling problem which faces Hong Kong and the rest of South-East Asia as a result of the actions, not of individuals but of governments, which are driving whole communities out of their own countries into leaking boats, and creating conditions in Vietnam which impel thousands of people to take every possible means of escaping and to fetch up even among the boat dwellers of Hong Kong.

  ECGD: FINANCIAL AID TO LATIN AMERICA
  ECGD: FINANCIAL AID TO LATIN AMERICA
  ECGD: FINANCIAL AID TO EAST EUROPEAN BLOC
  ECGD: FINANCIAL AID TO EAST EUROPEAN BLOC
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW