Sitting of 2 February 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  Oral Answers to Questions
  Mr. Speaker: I have no wish to appear foolishly optimistic, but brief questions would be a great help.
  Oral Answers to Questions
    SCOTLAND

      District and Regional Councils (Expenditure)
      Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reduction, in percentage terms, would have to be made in expenditure by district and regional councils, respectively, if they adhered to the guidelines for 1983–84 as against the budgets of 1982–83 adjusted for inflation on the basis assumed for the current rate support grant settlement but allowing no increase in spending.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): As the settlement is in cash, its implications for the level of services provided by local authorities will depend on the rate of inflation. Provision in the 1983–84 rate support grant settlement for relevant current expenditure is 9 per cent. more than in the 1982–83 settlement.
      Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that COSLA's figures show that if we assume budgets at a standstill level and take the basis of inflation on which the rate support grant was calculated, it means a reduction in expenditure of 7·2 per cent. for regions and 11·8 per cent. for districts? Will there not be severe and savage cuts in services if these artificial guidelines are to be met?
      Mr. Younger: What is artificial is that the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Comparing the settlement of last year with the settlement for this year, there is an increase of 9 per cent. in what the Government have provided. By any terms that is reasonable.
      Mr. Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lothian ratepayers are looking for a further substantial reduction in their rates this year, based on the expenditure plans of the Conservative group on Lothian council? Will my right hon. Friend assure ratepayers that their aspirations will be protected, if necessary by the legislative powers available to him, and that spending in the Lothian region will be kept within reasonable, not excessive, bounds?
      Mr. Younger: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings about the matter. Before taking selective action I should have to be satisfied that planned expenditure was excessive and unreasonable, after taking into account the statutory criteria, which include the burden on ratepayers, to which my hon. Friend referred.
      Mr. Grimond: I understand from the Government's expenditure plans that they expect local government expenditure in 1983–84 to exceed the guidelines and are making available in extra £1·3 billion in that year. By how much do the Government expect the guidelines to be exceeded in real, not percentage, terms?
      Mr. Younger: I hope that local authority spending will be brought under better control this year and be much nearer to the guidelines, and I gave £120 million extra to what the settlement would have been to make it easier for them.
      Mr. George Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the only consequence of further cutting back the expenditure of local councils will be to reduce further the services for the weakest people in the community and to drive even more people out of work? If this is all part of the Prime Minister's belief in the Victorian ethic, when shall we see the return of the workhouse?
      Mr. Younger: That sounds grand until one bears in mind that local authorities have not yet succeeded in making any real reduction in spending. Local government expenditure in 1981–82 at constant prices was still above the level of 1977–78. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman then saying that services were cut to the bone.
      Mr. Henderson: Is not education the largest single item in a local authority's budget? As school rolls are falling, should not local authorities, particularly regional councils, have substantially more to spend this year than in any of the years of the Labour Government?
      Mr. Younger: Even with falling school rolls we are still able, in the rate support grant settlements, to allow for better teacher-pupil ratios than before.

      Dundee
      Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give financial help to retain manufacturing jobs in Dundee.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The Government are providing massive financial help for Dundee. The city is part of a special development area attracting the highest rates of grant for industrial development, and the proposed Tayside enterprise zone may include sites in Dundee.
      In addition, the Scottish Development Agency is contributing £24 million over three years to projects in Dundee to stimulate business development and attract high technology industries.
      Mr. Wilson: The Minister has not mentioned the crisis at Timex. Is he aware that Dundee is to lose hundreds of manufacturing jobs with the phasing out of watch and camera manufacture? Is he aware that 11 million watches were imported into the United Kingdom in 1982, so there should be a market available? Furthermore, has he made any inquiries into the availability of work to sustain increased employment at Timex beyond that anticipated by the Timex corporation in its plans for Dundee?
      Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the difficulties that have been facing Timex in recent months and of the 1,900 redundancies that have been announced. My right hon. Friend and I have spent a great deal of time talking to the company, the work force, Mr. Fred Olsen, Mr. Clive

      283
      Sinclair and others. The company is making every effort to continue a programme of diversification, particularly into electronics, so that the future of the Dundee factory may be assured.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister take this opportunity to refute the suggestion by Graham Dowson, the vice-president of Nimslo, that the loss of the production of the 3-D camera at Dundee had something to do with the inability of the work force to produce the camera at the quality and production levels that were required?
      Mr. Fletcher: I am aware of the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, but I see no benefit to Dundee in repeating what the Nimslo management is alleged to have said. What matters to Dundee is that existing customers are retained. Mr. Olsen and the management of Timex are confident that they can produce high-quality products at Dundee, as they have done for many years and look forward to doing in the future.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work force at Dundee has a reputation that it does not deserve, because, given the opportunity, it is hard-working? Does he further agree that it is unfortunate that trade union leaders and others sometimes make imprudent statements which give the impression that the work force is more militant than it is, and that that consequently has an adverse effect on potential investment?
      Mr. Fletcher: There is no doubt that the events of the past few weeks have shown a readiness on the part of the work force at Dundee to try to clarify the situation, understand the problems, and do their utmost to ensure that the company will succeed.
      Mr. Millan: In view of the magnificent record of the work force in turning out the Sinclair computer, why does the Minister not repudiate the unwarranted slur on the workers at the Timex factory? Are we to take it from the Minister's statement after his meeting with Mr. Olsen that he has given up all hope of recovering any of the 1,900 jobs? If he has, we have not. Lastly, when talking about Government aid being available in future, is the hon. Gentleman referring to specific projects which are in prospect, or is it simply a general statement of what might be available if something were to come along?
      Mr. Fletcher: It is fairly obvious to all hon. Members that the market for mechanical watches has drastically reduced. That was the main Timex project at Dundee, and that is why there have been so many redundancies.
      As to the future and electronics, the company has a number of projects in mind. When the company is ready to talk to us about the details of the projects, we shall be more than happy to advise on the amount of Government assistance that can be made available.

      Long-term Unemployment
      Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the increase on long-term unemployment in Scotland.
      Mr. Younger: On 14 October 1982, the latest date for which information is available, 127,837 people in Scotland had been unemployed for more than 12 months.
      284
      I am very concerned about the high numbers of the long-term unemployed. It is for this reason that the Government have greatly expanded the resources of the community programme to help them.
      Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister not ashamed of those figures? Does he accept that the White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans for the next three years shows that they expect an increase of about 280,000 unemployed next year in the United Kingdom? Does that not mean an extra 50,000 in Scotland, which would take the figure beyond 400,000? Is that not a disgrace? Does it not call for a radical change in the Government's policies?
      Mr. Younger: It is certainly a matter of great concern that unemployment figures have reached the level that they have and that they have been rising for many years. That is common ground. I think it is generally agreed by almost all economic commentators that it would be sheer cruelty to pretend that in future unemployment will come down rapidly, because it simply will not.
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is not the paradox of public funds in excess and public funds in stringency at the beginning of the year the reason why long-term unemployment in Scotland is bound to increase unless the Government return to Keynesian principles of investment?
      Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman means that the Government should expand public spending and thus risk high interest rates, he will get a chorus of "No" to that from everyone in industry.
      Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the present world recession one of the many outstanding achievements of this Government has been to get inflation down to 5 per cent? Does he further agree that that puts us in a much better position to attract new industry than if we continued with the 25 per cent. inflation bequeathed to us by the Labour party?
      Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. The greatest enemy of jobs in every industry is continued inflation at the levels that the Labour Government seemed content to allow. This Government's great achievement is sensationally getting inflation down to very low figures.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned about the number of long-term unemployed teachers in Scotland? Will he speculate and estimate the numbers of extra teachers who could be employed in Scotland if regional education authorities were given the grant of £5,000 per child that is available to children of Common Market civil servants?
      Mr. Younger: I am not sure about the latter point. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on the matter, I am sure that one of my right hon. or hon. Friends will answer it.
      I am concerned about the numbers of unemployed teachers. However, it should be remembered that teachers are paid out of the public purse, and ratepayers have great difficulty in finding the sums that are now asked of them, let alone any extra sums.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not true that the effective cure for long-term unemployment in Scotland is not merely to encourage industry to be competitive but to encourage small businesses? Will my right hon. Friend

      285
      take up their representations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Budget so that their problems may be taken into account?
      Mr. Younger: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received many representations about small businesses and, as we all know, has already done a vast amount to help them through a difficult period. However, the most important way in which to help small businesses is to get down inflation and to avoid interest rates being pushed up again. I am sure that every person involved in small business would agree with that.
      Mr. Millan: Is not the appalling aspect of yesterday's White Paper not only that the Government are forecasting an increase in unemployment of nearly 300,000 in 1983–84, but that that increase will continue up to 1985–86? Is not the real cruelty that the Government are continuing with policies that are causing appalling hardship to the Scottish people?
      Mr. Younger: It depends on what the right hon. Gentleman feels is the responsible action to take. He might care to reflect whether it is better to tell the truth than to voice wholly unjustified and wild aspirations for huge reductions in unemployment, which everyone, including Labour Members, knows could not be brought about by any future Labour Government.

      European Regional Development Fund
      Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of total European regional development fund grants to the United Kingdom has gone to Scotland in each of the past three calendar years.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The percentage of the United Kingdom quota committed to projects in Scotland was 17·7 in 1980, 35·8 in 1981, and 25 in 1982.
      Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures suggest that Scotland is doing very well out of the European regional development fund? Is he satisfied that the grants are sufficiently well publicised and that the public know about them?
      Mr. Fletcher: I agree that Scotland is doing very well out of the European regional development fund. My hon. Friend never loses an opportunity to publicise the fact that Scotland is more and more dependent on grants from, trade with and exports to Europe. Opposition Members should not sneer at that.
      Mr. Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that any contribution to Scotland from the European development fund is deducted by the Scottish Office from the money that would otherwise come from the Treasury, so that ultimately it comes out of the same pocket?
      Mr. Fletcher: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The money that comes from the regional fund adds to the total amount of regional assistance not only for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. Regional development funds which go to local authorities are extremely helpful in reducing borrowing charges and interest rates.
      Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the number of jobs that would be at risk in Scotland if we pulled out of the Common Market and that the synthetic remarks made by the right hon. Member for
      286
      Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) are trivial compared with the effect on unemployment if such a disastrous policy were ever invoked?
      Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir. Scotland would lose tens of thousands of jobs if the Labour party ever succeeded in withdrawing the United Kingdom from the European Community. I am convinced that most Labour Members are aware of that, although for some reason they are scared to admit it.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: If all that aid from the European regional development fund is being of such help to local authorities, why did the Minister agree to cut Government regional aid to Scotland by 30 per cent. in the financial year 1979–80?
      Mr. Fletcher: As the hon. Gentleman may know, Scotland is still the priority area in the United Kingdom. The largest single special development area in the United Kingdom is in Strathclyde. There can be no question but that Scotland benefits from the Government's regional policy and from the EC's regional fund.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I agree that Scotland does very well in relation to the United Kingdom and Europe considering the size of its population. However, does not the Government's refusal to apply the strict principle of additionality—allowing the money to be additional to what would otherwise be spent—reduce the advantage and militate against us obtaining even more from the European regional development fund?
      Mr. Fletcher: I am surprised that that comment should come from a former President of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the policy that we have adopted is the same as that undertaken by most—if not all—of the other countries in the Community.
      Mr. Myles: Does my hon. Friend accept that areas such as Banff, Buckie and Keith in my constituency find it a bit hard that the regional development grant has been withdrawn and they cannot now benefit?
      Mr. Fletcher: I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but, as he knows, the regional policy is applied throughout the Community in areas that have been allocated for regional development. He will also be aware of the assistance that is available to his area, particularly from the agricultural fund and other EC sources.

      Public Sector Housing
      Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public sector houses have been built in Scotland since 1979; and how many have been withdrawn from the public housing stock.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The number of houses reported as being completed in Scotland between 1 January 1980 and 30 September 1982 for the public sector is 17,300. A further 3,500 houses were financed by the public sector through housing associations. Nearly 28,500 houses were sold—about 27,000 under the right-to-buy—and 5,500 were demolished during the same period.
      Mr. Hogg: Do not these figures show the reality of so-called Tory choice? What hope can the Minister hold out to the many people who wish to be housed by local

      287
      authorities? Given the massive housing loss represented by the figures, what steps is the Minister taking to initiate a massive house-building programme in Scotland?
      Mr. Stewart: Those figures do not represent a loss to the housing stock. The sale of council houses has no effect on the total housing stock or on the prospects of those seeking houses and transfers. During that period there were about 53,000 new house completions in Scotland. As an owner-occupier in Cumbernauld, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, as a result of the sales policy, more than 1,300 tenants in Cumbernauld became owner-occupiers during that period.
      Mr. Ancram: How many empty houses are there in the public sector in Scotland, and how many of them could be rehabilitated for use? Does my hon. Friend agree that in the present economic climate rehabilitation would be a better and cheaper way of dealing with housing waiting lists than a much lengthier and more costly new house-building programme?
      Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are concentrating resources on rehabilitation. There are about 29,000 vacant public sector houses in Scotland, according to the last census figures.
      Mr. Dewar: How can the Under-Secretary of State have the brass neck to say that the diminution in the size of the public sector housing stock, which is amply illustrated by the figures, has no effect on the prospects of those on waiting lists? Does the hon. Gentleman not know that every week constituents who are trapped in houses that are unsuitable to their needs and in areas that they do not like make representations to all hon. Members, because their choice has been destroyed by the Government's housing policies? Is it not true that by 1985–86 there will have been a cut, in real terms, of over 20 per cent., and that that is illustrated by the figures in the White Paper published yesterday?
      Mr. Stewart: The sale of council houses to sitting tenants has no effect on the prospects of those currently seeking houses or transfers, for the simple reason that, if tenants do not buy their houses, they are likely to carry on renting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that last year improvement and repair grants in Glasgow amounted to about £6·5 million and that Glasgow district council estimates its expenditure next year to be between £40 million and £50 million. Even the hon. Gentleman cannot define that as a cut.

      Western Isles (Psychogeriatric Services)
      Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to improve psychogeriatric services in the Western Isles.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Responsibility for services in the Western Isles is a matter for the Western Isles health board in the first instance. I have, however, undertaken to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman any suggestions he may care to make.
      Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that doctors and hospitals in the area are deeply concerned about what they describe as a "crisis point", and that it is against current psychiatric practice to fly patients away from their homes to Inverness, where they are out
      288
      of reach of visits from their relatives and friends? When considering the allocation for the Western Isles in the plans for Craig Dunain hospital, will he try to ensure that a hospital is built instead in the Western Isles?
      Mr. MacKay: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the arrangement is not ideal, but, after many years of considering the planning, it has been decided that it represents the best use of available resources. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the health board has submitted a request for approval of a post for a consultant psychiatrist, and we are considering that.
      Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers recollect the telegram that was sent by the imaginative Labour candidate for Western Isles, Brian Wilson, which said "Send Shackleton here"? How do Ministers justify the hypocrisy that when money is needed in the Western Isles or for investment in West Lothian, £684 million has been earmarked next year for West Falkland?
      Mr. MacKay: The relevance of that question almost escapes me. If the hon. Gentleman considered the whole sphere of psychiatric care in the Western Isles, he might begin to understand the health care patterns there. Perhaps I am being a little optimistic, given that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the needs of the Falkland Islanders.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I should like to raise a point of order at the end of Question Time as a result of an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State.

      Children (Pre-school Facilities)
      Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to regional councils on the provision of children's centres, nursery and playgroup facilities for pre-school children.
      Mr. John MacKay: None, Sir.
      Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware of the damage being done to young children in Lothian as a result of the cuts that have already been made in nursery education? Does he support the provision of full-time pre-school education, and does he recognise that the children in greatest need suffer most from the cuts?
      Mr. MacKay: Nursery education is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for education, and the provision of local services is a matter for the local authority. However, the Government are keen to encourage the various types of pre-school attention that can be given to young children. We are particularly keen to help the Scottish Pre-school Playgroups Association, to which we have given £89,000 to enable it to carry out some of its headquarters work.
      Mr. David Steel: The Minister's answer is surprising, as his Department has given no guidance on these matters to local authorities. Will he undertake to ask the Department to examine the regulations that each region in Scotland has published on the subject and to consider the wide variations in them? Will he ask the Department to note that in the Lothian region, for example, the regulations result in extremely high fees for day nurseries—sometimes more than £50 a week? Will he encourage the voluntary participation of parents through the playgroup scheme?
      Mr. MacKay: We shall do everything possible to encourage voluntary participation through the playgroup scheme. Neither the present Government nor the previous one have felt it necessary to give the guidance for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked. It is up to each local authority to examine the needs of its area and decide how best to provide for pre-school playgroups.
      Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that since the publication 11 years ago of the White Paper that encouraged nursery education and pre-school playgroups, such provision has been exceptionally valuable to children? Will he think again about making a strong recommendation to education authorities to do all that they can, especially for pre-school playgroups?
      Mr. MacKay: At the risk of repeating myself, I must say that the Government would like to and do encourage the pre-school playgroup movement. Adding to nursery education is a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), and it should be considered in the light of whether we want to reduce the school starting age. I sometimes think that that is what some of the advocates of that policy want.
      Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that there is considerable value in pre-school education in all its forms and that the Government made a grave mistake by removing the statutory obligation on local authorities to make such a provision under the Education Act 1980? Does he accept that pre-school provision in Scotland is an accident of geography and that it is no fault of the children or their parents that they are unable to benefit from such a provision throughout the country? Does he agree that a great deal more needs to be done?
      Mr. MacKay: At the moment, 80,000 children all over Scotland benefit from pre-school provision of various types. My view and that of the Government is that the preschool playgroup, involving parents and children as it does, is the best way to improve that provision.

      Unemployed Construction Workers (Glasgow)
      Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures he has for the number of construction workers who are unemployed in the Glasgow travel-to-work area.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: In May 1982, the date of the last industrial analysis of unemployed workers, 14,390 persons who had last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed at employment and careers offices in the Glasgow travel-to-work area.
      Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee now that if Glasgow district council comes to him with an urgent request for funds to pay for damage that has been done by the storms that swept the west of Scotland on Monday night, he will deal with that request speedily and ensure that some of the construction workers who are at present unemployed are given at least temporary employment and that the many people who are suffering from the damage will be given quick relief?
      Mr. Stewart: We have been considering arrangements for emergency provision. I shall of course consider any representation that we receive from Glasgow district council, or any other district council, with the necessary urgency.
      Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many of the people who are attempting to recruit construction workers from the dole have found it impossible to persuade them to leave the dole to entertain jobs?
      Mr. Maxton: Rubbish.
      Mr. Stewart: I am interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend's views on these matters. However, with regard to Glasgow, perhaps I should point out that the district council has responded positively to the Government's attractive financial package of improvement and repair grants which the council calculates will create between 2,000 and 3,000 new construction jobs next year.
      Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister ignore the slur that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has cast on construction workers? Is he aware that my constituency is in the Glasgow travel-to-work area? Is it not time to have an expansionist policy to ensure that we get men back to work in the construction industry, with all the benefits that will follow from that? Will he co-operate with the abolition of labour-only subcontractors, who are eating into the construction industry by not paying taws or insurance contributions?
      Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will agree that Glasgow is receiving a fair share of the £1,000 millon or so of public expenditure on construction that will be spent in Scotland this year. The Glasgow area continues to benefit from major public and private investment, such as the Scottish exhibition centre and the St. Enoch's complex. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's detailed points, he may be interested to know that I shall discuss the state of the industry with the Scottish construction industry group on Friday.
      Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is it not regrettable that so many construction workers are unemployed when the Government have money, but unfortunately make it available late in the day so that these schemes in Glasgow have difficulty in catching up? Will Ministers shake themselves up and make the money available at the beginning of the financial year, rather than trail away at the end of the year, trying to find people to carry them out?
      Mr. Stewart: The money to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is available until the end of the next financial year. I should have thought that that was ample time.
      Mr. Corrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that many more construction jobs would be created in Glasgow if local authorities released land for private house building? Is there nothing that he can do about that?
      Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. It is encouraging to note how much land in Glasgow has been released for private construction in the GEAR area. In co-operation with the local authorities, I inter d to consider land that is held by them and the rest of the public sector to see whether we can make progress in the direction that my hon. Friend suggested.
      Mr. McQuarrie rose—
      Hon. Members: Call Albert.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a pleasure deferred.
      Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had thought that, as Kilmarnock is in the Glasgow travel-to-work area, I might have caught your eye.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Glasgow is a very big city; it is bigger than Cardiff. I cannot call every hon. Member from Glasgow, but I shall watch the hon. Gentleman as the afternoon progresses.

      Constitutional Reform
      Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the intentions of Her Majesty's Government to hold discussions about the future government of Scotland.
      Mr. George Younger: Discussions about the future government of Scotland have been held and changes were introduced in the procedures of this House affecting the Scottish Grand Committee, including provision for meetings in Edinburgh.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the declarations of a Tory commitment to devolution that were given by Lord Home, the right hon. Members for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and even the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? Does he believe that road shows of Committees of the House are any substitute for Scottish devolution?
      Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman does not do much service to the people who work in Parliament for Scotland if he suggests that meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee are not worth having.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: They are a waste of time.
      Mr. Younger: All previous Governments, including the Labour Government, maintained that such meetings were impossible, yet the Government have achieved it.
      Mr. Grimond: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Government are in favour of Scottish devolution and there being some real power in Scotland? Or are they against it, or are they waiting to be told what to do by some other party?
      Mr. Younger: It depends on what the right hon. Gentleman means. If he means an extra layer of government, and taxes on the Scots to pay for it, I am against it and I believe that most of Scotland is, too.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As we have serious economic problems, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not the time to contemplate a major upheaval?
      Mr. Donald Stewart: That is why we need it.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to encourage further decentralisation, such as has happened with the headquarters of the Forestry Commission, which now operates extremely successfully from my constituency?
      Mr. Younger: There is a great deal of responsibility that can be devolved in that way. I detect little interest in Scotland in a new round of vast and interminable constitutional arguments when there are much more important things to do.
      Mr. McKelvey: Will the Secretary of State consider supporting the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on the future of the Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is not here to speak to his Bill, but I am bound to say that such a Bill supported by the hon. Gentleman is not likely to get much support from me.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the Secretary of State in Cabinet and the Labour party in Scotland have lost the battle with English colleagues over the proposed dilution of industrial incentive schemes in Scotland, does he not now think that it is time that Scotland had a Parliament equipped with industrial and economic powers, and with access to the oil revenues that are Scotland's by right?
      Mr. Younger: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the cheek even to raise his head on the subject of devolution, considering that his party is the one party that is resolutely opposed to every conceivable form of devolution because it wants to break Scotland off from the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the furore and interesting views expressed in the past decade on devolution, if his constituency is anything like mine, at present there is no interest in that subject?
      Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, I do not detect anyone in Scotland who is keen to pay extra taxes for an extra layer of government.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Secretary of State not regret that his first act as Secretary of State was to take the Scotland Act of the statute book? Is he aware that the people of Scotland now appreciate that their only chance of a Scottish Assembly is when a Labour Government come to power? Is he further aware that when the Labour party comes to power after the next election it will set up a Scottish Assembly, which will meet in Edinburgh?
      Mr. Younger: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's forecast. I shall leave a note for my grandson so that he can notice this, when a Labour Government come to power. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about making any commitments on devolution. He must know as well as everyone else in the House that he has no chance of carrying all the members of his party with him on that subject.

      Geriatric and Psychogeriatric Beds (Kirkcaldy)
      Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional geriatric and psychogeriatric beds, respectively, are to be provided in the Kirkcaldy area; and when he expects them to be available for patients.
      Mr. John MacKay: Sixty additional geriatric beds, 90 additional psychogeriatric beds together with 30 short-stay psychiatric beds and 80 day places are being provided in the new Whyteman's Brae development. Building work is expected to be completed in March and Fife health board intends to admit the first patients in June or July of this year.
      Mr. Gourlay: The Minister's reply will help to alleviate the tragic conditions faced by many elderly

      293
      people on the waiting list. Nevertheless, the position of those who are still waiting to use the day facilities to which he referred will be seriously aggravated because of the Government's refusal to give the necessary finance for the eight additional ambulances required to convey those patients to and from hospital. What action does the Minister intend to take to remedy that position?
      Mr. MacKay: Of course, new day hospitals place a heavy demand on patient transport. At present the ambulance service can fund two additional vehicles for Kirkcaldy. Further provision for taking the patients to the day centre is being examined.
      Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in Fife much appreciate the extent to which the Government have made a positive contribution, both in works under way and authorised, to medical care? Does he recognise that geriatric and psychogeriatric care needs continuing attention in Fife, as in some other parts of the country—
      Mr. Speaker: Is Fife in Kirkcaldy?
      Mr. Henderson: No.
      Mr. McQuarrie: Kirkcaldy is in Fife.
      Mr. Speaker: I apologise.
      Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right in saying that, not just in Fife, but throughout Scotland, we must give a higher priority to the needs of the elderly, who are a growing section of our population. In 1981 the Fife health board made available 60 new geriatric beds. Over the next few years a further 360 beds for geriatric and psychogeriatric patients will be available in Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy. When those beds are available, Fife will have moved a considerable way towards meeting the desirable standards of provision for the elderly.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) said, is the Minister aware that the Whyteman's Brae development is the Labour Government's proposal? Construction work began when the Labour Government were in office. Is the Minister further aware that his record in all areas of medicine, whether psychiatric, geriatric of paediatric care, is an absolute disgrace, because he has not yet announced the laying of a new brick in any new hospital building programme in Scotland? He is the last person who should come to the Dispatch Box and claimed credit for any improvement in the National Health Service. No one has done more to damage the NHS than the Minister.
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the planning of hospital development takes a long time. Advanced works are under way for the new West Lothian district general hospital at Livingston and there are contracts for the first phase of work at the Western general hospital. A number of relatively smaller projects keep going on. If we get to the hon. Gentleman's question on the Order Paper, I shall state what development there has been in Falkirk. [Interruption.] In response to the seated interventions, when hon. Members asked me about developments in Scotland, I explained the developments in Fife.

      Unemployed Teachers
      Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers are unemployed (a) in Scotland, and (b) in the Strathclyde region.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 9 September 1982, the latest date for which information is available, 3,851 people were registered for employment as teachers in Scotland, of whom 1,657 were registered in Strathclyde.
      Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise that those are not accurate figures, bearing in mind that many teachers are working in more menial jobs? Does he also recognise that it is now opportune to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio from 33:1 to 25:1? Does he agree that the supply of clothing and footwear for needy children should be a matter for the DHSS? If that were transferred back to the DHSS, Strathclyde alone could employ 125 more teachers. Will he pull his finger out and get cracking.
      Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that the pupil-teacher ratios in Scotland are the best ever—14:1 in secondary and 22:1 in primary.
      Mr. Maclennan: Why has the Secretary of State been so dilatory in bringing forward proposals to provide for a graduate teaching profession in Scotland? Why is he not protecting Scottish teachers, who will be disadvantaged and excluded from teaching in England and Wales as a result of the regulations introduced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science early last year?
      Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is questioning why my right hon. Friend should be carrying out careful consultations with the teaching authorities before making any announcement on the matter. If, as is unlikely, the hon. Gentleman ever has any responsibility for education in Scotland, the first thing that he will learn is the importance of such consultations.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was unrealistic over many years, with declining school rolls because of the decline in the birth rate, to continue to have teachers trained when there was no prospect of them ever finding jobs? We should use the opportunity now to weed out those who should no longer be teaching.
      Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct on his first point. If we had taken the advice of the Labour party, we would be producing more teachers today in the face of declining school rolls. The number of unemployed would be higher. However, the Government and the local authorities have taken a much more sensible view.
      Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that yesterday's White Paper suggests that the teacher-pupil ratios in secondary education will deteriorate over the next three years? Instead of allowing for a reduction in teacher training there should be an increase, especially when one takes into account the challenges facing the teaching profession, with Munn and Dunning and so on. Is it any wonder that the report published at the weekend, reported in the press, stated that morale in the teaching service in Scotland is at its lowest ebb for 30 years?
      Mr. Fletcher: That report was not particularly authoritative on that subject. The Government are taking fully into account the impact on teaching of, for example, the Munn and Dunning proposals. There is no getting away from the fact that the pupil-teacher ratios are the best

      295
      ever, and that in Scotland there are the best opportunities this year, next year and in the years thereafter for improving the quality of education of our children, which is what the House wants.

      Closures and Company Liquidations
      Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many closures and company liquidations there have been in the area covered by the Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles constituency in the past six months.
      Mr. Younger: Comprehensive statistics of factory closures and liquidations are not available by area. However, there has been one instance of redundancy notified to the MSC involving 10 or more workers and arising in the context of closure during the period August 1982 to January 1983.
      Mr. Steel: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that people in my constituency, as elsewhere in Scotland, become increasingly depressed when they read in their local papers week by week of partial or complete closures of companies? Is he aware that the CBI industrial trends survey published yesterday forecast that over the next six months investment in manufacturing industry would decrease further? Will he use his leverage in the Cabinet to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce a Budget that will be of real help to investment in industry?
      Mr. Younger: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is extremely discouraging to see reports of jobs being lost and firms being closed. However, it is also encouraging when one sees expansions and success stories, as he has had, for example, in his constituency with Fiber Materials Incorporated, Exacta Circuits and BEPI Electronics. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that the Government should continue their important work in making life easier for industry, particularly by reducing the national insurance surcharge, introduced capriciously by the previous Government and acknowledged by them as having done nothing useful.

    SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

      Armed Trespass
      Sir Hector Monroasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he considers the law on armed trespass is working satisfactorily.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): Few difficulties have arisen in connection with enforcing the provisions of section 20 of the Firearms Act 1968, which deals with armed trespass. Problems arose when proceedings were instituted in 1981 in two cases of alleged armed trespass in an area known as the "Merse" in my hon. Friend's constituency. These cases gave rise to questions of a civil rather than criminal nature.
      Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that there is anxiety about the implementation of the Act in relation to wildfowling in the Merse and on the foreshore? Will he try to resolve the matter without relying on private litigation?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This offence of armed trespass can be tried only summarily in Scotland. Difficult civil issues arise out of the ownership of the land
      296
      and who is entitled to go out to that part of the Merse. The matter can be resolved only by the owners raising an action of declarator.

      Social Security (Investigations)
      Mr. McKelveyasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions are being pursued in the Kilmarnock area as a result of the investigations by the special investigation team attached to the Department of Health and Social Security.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: None, Sir.
      Mr. McKelvey: I am glad to hear that answer, because it vindicates the honest people of Kilmarnock. Does the Solicitor-General agree that the Government could spend their money better by seeking those who are not being paid the benefits due to them, particularly the elderly and the handicapped, either because they are not claiming the benefits or they have been refused?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The matter that the hon. General has put to me is one with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have to deal. I should be involved only if there were cases reported to the procurator fiscal that suggested that there had been criminal fraud in relation to social security.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Has the Solicitor-General's attention been drawn to the fiasco that took place in Oxford, when the legal rights of many citizens were trampled on? While recognising the difficult job of the DHSS in preventing fraud and checking on possible theft, can he assure us that he will not allow similar circumstances to arise in Scotland?
      Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Assuming that Fife is in Kirkcaldy, is Oxford in Kilmarnock?
      Mr. Speaker: I have not yet absorbed the first geography lesson.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am obviously aware of the action that was taken in Oxford. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in Scotland, as he is aware, we have the procurator fiscal system. If there were to be any allegations of fraudulent activity involving social security, they would need to be reported to the procurator fiscal if any action were to be taken in court.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Solicitor-General obtain a copy of the booklet issued by the DHSS as instructions to social security fraud investigators and consider those instructions with a view to deciding whether they amount to harassment of the suspect?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall certainly look at that matter, but I am not aware that any complaints have been made to the procurators fiscal in Scotland of harassment of claimants.

      Prosecutions (Alcohol Offences)
      Mr. Ancramasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been brought by his Department for offences involving alcohol over the Christmas and new year holiday periods; and whether these figures show a decrease or increase on the figures for comparable periods in the previous year.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is not possible to provide figures of the type requested by my hon. Friend. What I can say from the information available to me is that prosecutions this year for offences committed in the relevant period directly relating to the abuse of alcohol, such as drunk and incapable and drunk and disorderly are at the same level as the same period in 1981–82. Provisional figures for drink-driving offences over the recent holiday period show a small rise over the comparable period in 1981–82.
      Mr. Ancram: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the statistics are still disturbing and that this anti-social, if seasonal, crime requires a greater degree of Government control? Will he consult his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office to see whether there are ways of impressing upon people, before the next festivities, that that type of crime will be prosecuted vigorously? In that way it may be that people will be deterred.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend will be aware that in Scotland over the Christmas period chief constables made a particular effort to ensure that drunken driving did not occur. From his experience in the Scottish courts, I am sure he will appreciate that all too often the excessive consumption of alcohol is a prime factor in the unfortunate level of crime that we experience.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Solicitor-General aware that many people believe that this matter is so important that it calls for a massive advertising campaign? Will he therefore consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, as, apparently, there is a great deal of money available for such purposes?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should certainly be prepared to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who, I believe, is regrettably all too well aware of the problem of the excessive consumption of alcohol in Scotland.
      Mr. Maxtonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland, against how many persons charges related to drunkenness were brought by his Department in each of the last two years for which figures are available.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The number of persons proceeded against in such cases is as follows: for drunkenness offences under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts and so on in 1980 the figure was 14,459 and in 1981 11,579; for drink-driving offences the figure in 1980 was 12,779 and in 1981 11,460.
      Mr. Maxton: How many of the people who have been picked up by the police for drunkenness have been referred to a designated place under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980? Is he satisfied that the police are making proper use of that section? Is he satisfied equally that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is providing sufficient money to establish proper designated places?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the provisions under section 5 came into effect on 1 June 1981. As he clearly realises from the terms of his quetion, the matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but even then the responsibility for the provision of designated places is for local authorities and other bodies. Proposals
      298
      have been received for designated places in Aberdeen, Clydebank, Inverness and Glasgow. I share his anxiety that designated places should be provided where appropriate.
      Mr. Maclennan: Does the Solicitor-General keep statistics that show not just the charges relating to drunkenness but where drink was a factor that led to the commission of the offence?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, although I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct. Far too often excessive drinking is at the centre of much of Scotland's crime. It would be impossible to keep statistics in all cases that would show whether drink was involved. He will appreciate, from his experience in the courts, that drink can be a prime factor, in crimes ranging from murder down to simple acts of vandalism.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise for taking part in Scottish questions, but as this is a national problem, may I ask the Solicitor-General to discuss with various Departments the equally dangerous habit of drug-taking and driving? Many people who have taken drugs do not know that they are a danger on the road. Could they be told to be careful when taking drugs? They take drugs for colds and other illnesses and the doctors do not advise them of the dangers.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Although the matter is not primarily my responsibility, I accept that if people take drugs and drive it can lead them into circumstances where they will not only be in breach of the road traffic legislation, but may commit other crimes.

      Procurator Fiscal (Perth)
      Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he next expects to meet the procurator fiscal of Perth to discuss prosecution procedures.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no immediate plans to meet the procurator fiscal of Perth.
      Mr. Walker: When my hon. and learned Friend meets the procurator fiscal of Perth and other procurators fiscal, will he discuss with them the problem of those who plead guilty on second diet and see what he can do to ensure that the procurators fiscal persuade them to plead guilty on first diet, before public funds must bear the cost of bringing police officers and witnesses to court, when the individual has decided to plead guilty without going to trial?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know that my hon. Friend is worried that there are too many cases where a plea of guilty is tendered on the day of the trial. However, I emphasise that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has given instructions to the procurators fiscal that it is part of their duties to meet defence solicitors to discuss the evidence available to the Crown, to arrange minutes of admissions of evidence and to give defence solicitors copies of statements of witnesses whose evidence is regarded as formal or technical. I hope that defence solicitors will take up the initiative, which should result in many members of the public, both witnesses and jurors, being allowed to stay at home and not be required to attend court.
      Mr. Dewar: Is it not a little surprising that the Solicitor-General and his colleagues should be so worried

      299
      about this problem, when they legislated for it in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 with intermediate diets and judicial examination procedures? Is the reason for the anxiety the fact that those provisions have been only a limited success, or even a failure?
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman told me himself that there is surprising success in the use of judicial examinations.
      Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise such a point of order, and I believe that it is the first that I have raised in my 18 or 19 years in the House. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we have dealt with only 12 Scottish questions today. You may respond, properly, by saying that perhaps the questions, or the answers, were too long. However, my point is that there are more than 40 Labour Members, three Liberal Members, two Scottish Nationalist Members and three SDP Members on the Opposition Benches, and more than
      300
      20 Members of the Conservative party here. In calling hon. Members, as you do properly, on a geographical basis, it gives the Conservative party an advantage of 2:1 over thase of us who represent Labour interests in the House of Commons. Although I do not ask you to make a judgment now, perhaps at some stage you will consider this real problem for those of us who sit on the Opposition Benches.
      Mr. Speaker: One advantage of having been in the House for a long time is knowing that whatever happens now has happened before. When I had the great privilege of speaking on Welsh affairs in the House, one side of the House had 32 Members representing Welsh constituencies out of 36 and the other side had four such Members. None the less, the Speaker of the day felt obliged to hold the balance in the political sense and to cross the Floor both in the Welsh Grand Committee, of which I was chairman, and here. But of course, I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Right Hon. Member for Devonport (Speech)
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise a point of order again, but I wrote to you this morning about the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who last Tuesday made very serious statements that were contradicted by the former chief of defence staff. I draw to your attention the fact that the newspaper report to which you referred yesterday is, on scrutiny, extremely ambiguous. The right hon. Member for Devonport has some obligation to come to the House and make a personal statement.
Mr. Speaker: I received the hon. Gentleman's letter this morning, but I must tell him and the House that it is no good believing that raising repeated points of order will cause a right hon. or hon. Member to be called to make a personal statement. I cannot intervene in this matter, and I hope that the House now understands that.

Prime Minister's Question Time
3.35 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter with which you are concerned. I have read the Hansard report of your statement yesterday, for which the House is grateful, in which you said that you would call a conference of all the parties
"to consider the outrageous way in which Prime Minister's Question Time is being ruined."—[Official Report, 1 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 144.]
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that that followed a point of order raised by me when I suggested that there could be a better way of distributing the opportunities to be called at Prime Minister's Question Time. Obviously, the most effective and fair method of doing so must be discussed, because it will always cause some controversy.
I suggested giving priority to those who had taken the trouble to table questions to the Prime Minister. I hope that you can confirm that, when you call the conference with the parties, my original suggestion, made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), that a new method should be adopted and that we should eradicate the privilege that attaches to Privy Councillorship in this place, as is widely believed, will be considered by the conference in addition to the point that you made.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can enlighten the House. I hope that the respective parties will meet in Speaker's House today. Of course, we shall discuss broad issues. I am not trying to bulldoze anything through the House, but I wish to know the will of the House. We shall not resolve the matter here with points of order—although if they are reasonable I shall not discourage them—but we shall meet later today and talk. Nothing will be done without the House being made fully aware of it, because the House's special pride is Question Time.
Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your kindness in advising the House of this meeting. If the meeting is to take place today, although it may be difficult, would you take it amiss if an hon. Member were to pass a note or a letter into your office stating his ideas and suggestions? In the past, Speakers have not been so prompt in dealing with ideas and suggestions such as you have mentioned. Does that preclude hon. Members from going to your office even today and handing in a note or letter? Several hon. Members have come to me with ideas and suggestions and I have said, "Drop a note into Mr. Speaker's Office"— [Laughter]—Yes. "Drop a note into Mr. Speaker's Office, because if Mr. Speaker does not know, he cannot consider it."
Mr. Faulds rose—
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I take any further points of order, I shall answer the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who always makes reasonable points. Hon. Members will be very welcome to come to my Office one at a time or to put in their written points

303
of view, which I should be glad to receive. As for the hon. Gentleman telling people to write to me, from time to time, when I have received a flood of correspondence about the appalling noise during Prime Minister's Question Time, I have advised many people to write to their Members of Parliament.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that, whatever system is used, because of the number of hon. Members who wish to catch your eye at Prime Minister's Question Time, it will be very difficult for an hon. Member to be called. I hope that you will bear it in mind that there are advantages for Back Benchers in the open question as opposed to another type of question, and bear it in mind that we must table oral questions two weeks in advance. If we put down a question for the Prime Minister that is not relevant two weeks later, we are stuck with that question. There are advantages in the open question for those who are not Privy Councillors.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has pointed out, you stated yesterday that you would convene a conference to discuss the "outrageous way" in which Prime Minister's Question Time was "being ruined". That was reported in c. 144 of the Official Report. That statement arose out of two points of order, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) on the abuse of their privileges by Privy Councillors. I am rising to ask—this is an extension of this matter—whether a related matter could be examined by the conference at the same time. Privy Councillors have the first call on catching your eye in every debate. Perhaps we ordinary Back Benchers must just learn to endure that.
When we have a series of debates, such as we had on the Falklands, and not just a single debate, is the practice fair of giving priority in every debate to Privy Councillors? The House had to endure during those debates a small bunch—it was a small bunch—of Privy Councillors who abused their privilege by speaking, some every time and most of them a number of times, in those debates, so effectively debarring a larger number of Back Benchers from being called.
Could the conference consider whether it is proper that a dreary parade of Privy Councillors should impose their predictable views on the House when there is a running series of debates on one issue? Some Privy Councillors seem so arrogantly self-important that they are incapable of a considerate self-denying ordinance when the opportunity presents itself.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion that is the feeling of a great number of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] What I can do about it is another matter. I shall consider the matter. I think that it is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure rather than for me if we are to change conventions in the House.
Mr. George Cunningham rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall come to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I do not want to rush, because as a rule we do not rush deciding our conventions. That is why I did not want to take the decision on myself. I wanted to have the feeling of all the parties, which I shall do later today.
Mr. Cunningham: Might there not be some difficulty if the so-called conference is made up primarily of Privy Councillors who would be dealing with the point that has been made. Could you throw light on this, Mr. Speaker? When the House makes use of a Speaker's Conference for other purposes, the result of that Speaker's Conference is normally put before the House and implemented by the House without going through any intermediary body such as a Select Committee. Indeed, the Speaker's Conference is seen as an alternative to putting a matter to a Select Committee. Is it not the intention of the conference that you are to begin today that it should make recommendations to the House for implementation without those matters being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure, which, of course, would have to be set up, because the present Select Committee on Procedure is not authorised to consider these matters?
Mr. Speaker: Quite right. It would be much wiser if the House awaited the informal discussions, whose title has been elevated into that of a conference, that I shall have later this evening with representatives of each of the parties. I shall come back to the House to see whether any action is proposed, but it will be a matter for the House itself.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you clarify what you delivered by way of an obiter dictum in reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis)? When referring to the tiresome issue of noise in the House, you said that you advised correspondents who wrote to you in large numbers to write to their Member of Parliament? Could you say when you do so that you do not suggest by implication that the individual Member of Parliament is responsible? It is well known to the House that the source of noise is extremely limited and that very few are responsible for it.
Mr. Speaker: I think it right and proper for the House to know that the public is appalled by the noise in the House during Prime Minister's Question Time. The House might as well realise it. I have often told hon. Members that I am trying to get order. Therefore, it is to Members that the public ought to write. Every citizen of this country has a Member of Parliament of his own. I encourage people to tell their Members what they think of this matter and not to tell me. I know what I think about it.
Mr. Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear the last point of order from the hon. Gentleman, because this is developing into a conversation.
Mr. Faulds: I enjoy conversations, Mr. Speaker. Would the answer to the problem of noise in the House which so offends the public be very simply resolved if we were to decide as a House to get rid of these damned microphones?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is another question for the House.

Education in Prisons
3.45 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of educational facilities in prisons and other custodial institutions; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure by law the development of a range of educational facilities in prisons so that prisoners may, according to their different needs, have the opportunity of experiencing to their betterment a purposeful and positive aspect of life. I speak as one who has regularly visited prisons and other penal establishments for more than 20 years.
The reality of imprisonment in 1983 is that we are allowing men and women to live in conditions that increase their disaffection and inadequacy. By doing that we increase the chances that when they are released they will fail to cope with the world outside and so return to prison. Present conditions in prison are helping to produce recidivism. I should be very wary of saying that on my own authority, for I know that I shall be accused of exaggeration. What I have just said is simply a summary of the analysis of the situation given by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his report for 1981, which is the latest one available.
The factor in the present prison regime that is doing the damage is idleness and lack of occupation for the prisoner and stimulation for his mind. Lest I be accused of exaggeration, let me quote the words of the Chief Inspector of Prisons about what he found in several prisons:
"Prisoners locked up for 22 hours a day, or more, for days on end with nothing to do all day."
About training prisons, he said:
"One training prison with a population of 745 had 200 men locked up in their cells all day because of lack of work."
Some prisoners who were recorded as being at work were really idle. He said:
"Domestic work in particular was occupying so many at some establishments that there was very little for any individual to do."
All that is verbatim quotation.
Ideally, of course, everybody would want thriving prison industries, offering a good day's work to the prisoner and some profit to the taxpayer to offset the cost of prisons. But, alas, this simply is not possible. There are too few orders. In 1981–82, out of a total of 305 prison workshops, 212 worked for less than half time or at less than half capacity. The chief inspector is too clear about this matter for comfort. He said:
"It may well be sensible to accept that production for sale must cease entirely until the market picks up".
How can we occupy prisoners and prevent their descent into inadequacy and dependence if there is no industry? The only real alternative is education. The chief inspector states this just as clearly.
Let me deal at once with two arguments that will certainly be put against what I have said. The first is that prisoners do not really work at education—that it is a joke to them and an excuse to shirk and gossip. I have received many letters from ex-prisoners that tell me otherwise, and hon. Members may see them if they wish.
There is, however, more general and objective evidence—examination results. Good examination results are not achieved without hard work, and prison education departments get very good examination results indeed. I take one set of examinations at random—the City and
306
Guilds of London examinations. In 1978, nearly 1,000 students from prisons took those examinations and the pass rate was 88 per cent. I am told that it has been even better since. To say that prisoners do not work at education is against the evidence.
The second argument is that prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment, not to get qualifications. I should imagine that most people feel some sympathy with this argument, but what is our sensible course of action? Is it to continue to support the kind of imprisonment that will make it more likely that the criminal will continue in his criminal ways, or is it not only in his interests but in our own and those of society that he be improved? Our aim must be to offer him an avenue to better occupation so that he may live a more useful life.
If we want to rehabilitate an offender, one of the really difficult things is to break the bonds that tie him to the society of other criminals—to the criminal sub-culture. If we fail to do that, we have failed altogether. Prison strengthens those bonds. If shut up with other criminals, the prisoner talks and thinks crime and becomes more attached to crime.
Let me tell the House briefly by example about the writer of one of the letters that I have mentioned. A witness in the Strangers Gallery today will confirm what I say. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Order".] The writer was in prison with a history of violent crime. She had been on drugs and her child was in care. She knows herself that her old ways and her old friends had not lost their attraction for her, but through her interest in education classes she had formed other relationships, which she trusted, with her teachers. On the day of release she sought the help of one of her tutors.
As she walked through the prison gate, one of her old associates was waiting for her in a taxi with a "fix", but so was one of her tutors prepared to escort her back to her parents' home if she would go. She tells me in her letter that she did not make her choice without some hesitation. It was a case of pull devil, pull baker. Luckily, the new and better relationship won. She now has a job and has her child back. Had she not formed that new relationship, the old bonds would surely have pulled her back into the old ways.
I do not tell that story to extol the virtues of the tutor, though I might well do so. I would certainly say that every branch of the prison service has its share of humane and committed people. I am saying that through education in classes we have a context uniquely valuable in the prison setting for the prisoner to form relationships that will tie him or her to a better world than the world of crime.
Why do I ask the House to consider this subject at this particular time? The answer is twofold—the expense of the operation is alarming and the rate of increase of expenses even more so, and in return the taxpayer gets fewer of those services that might help the offender to rehabilitate himself.
The cost of keeping one prisoner in a training prison in 1978–79 was £12,000;, in 1979–80, £16,000 and in 1980–81, more than £19,000. What is the taxpayer getting in return in the form of services that might help the prisoner to rehabilitate himself? I again quote the words of the chief inspector:
"A rapidly diminishing possibility of access to recreational, educational and other facilities".

307
It must be said that in most prisons 80 per cent. of the prisoners return after release. Can we allow this leaping expense and diminishing hope of any usful outcome to continue?
This Government have given the surest proof of their concern for the prison situation. They have allocated a large sum of money to the building programme. I am grateful for the concern shown to me in the sympathetic reply that I received in an Adjournment debate in November 1980. I am also grateful for the time which, since that date, two other Ministers of State and the Home Secretary himself have generously given to advise me on this matter.
I am not suggesting an immediate increase in expenditure beyond the practicalities of the present time. I am asking the House to establish, with the authority of primary legislation, the position of education in prison, because it is the one activity in prisons that can quickly and cheaply be used to help solve one of our most intractable national problems—that of providing an effective role to take the criminal out of his criminality and into a useful life.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Chrisopoher Price, Mr. Chris Patten, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

Education in Prisons
  EDUCATION IN PRISONS
  Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to require the provision of educational facilities in prisons and other custodial institutions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 February and to be printed. [Bill 71].

Youth Training Scheme
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I am delighted that on this Adjournment motion the House has an opportunity to discuss the youth training scheme. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), is not able to be present. He is unwell as a result of a slipped disc. I say that because my hon. Friend has been closely associated with much of the hard work involved in getting the scheme organised and on its way. He would have liked to open the debate. However, his absence gives me the pleasure of substituting for him.
The youth training scheme is a major reform of the greatest importance for youngsters leaving school for work—indeed, for our future as a trading nation—which the House has not yet had the opportunity fully to debate.
As hon. Members will recall, the origins of the scheme lie in the new training initiative, a consultative document issued by the Manpower Services Commission in May 1981 and backed by the Government. It proposed three interrelated objectives for training in the 1980s—to remove unnecessary restrictions on skill training; to open up widespread training opportunities for adults; and to move towards a position where all young people under the age of 18 should have the opportunity either of continuing in full-time education or of planned work experience coupled with work-related training and education.
The youth training scheme represents a means towards achieving the last of those objectives, but it will also help towards the other two as well.
The scheme has been launched at a time of distressingly high unemployment and, of course, to some extent it eases the problems of the young unemployed, but it is not a short-term expedient dreamt up to cope with unemployment. It has been built on the experience of the youth opportunities programme, and I am grateful to my predecessors, not least the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), in the Labour Government, who pioneered that scheme. However, YTS is different. It is an integral part of our policies for improving our levels of industrial training and performance.
Britain's record on training is not good enough, and the deficiencies are most glaring in our provision for young people who do not go into further education after school. For many years the early school leaver—the 16 or perhaps 17-year-old—has not had a fair crack of the whip, either in his last years at school or, all too often, in the opportunities for training afterwards. While 80 or 90 per cent. of young people in France and West Germany get systematic vocational preparation, the proportion in this country is less than half.
The scheme has been developed with the support of all interested parties—employers, trade unions, local authorities, the education service, voluntary organisations and others. Without that backing it would not have been possible to reach agreement on the scheme in the first instance or to develop it with the speed that has been required. Now, seven months later, all systems are go for launching the first schemes at Easter and getting fully under way by September.

309
The scheme will provide a bridge between school and work. It will provide all the youngsters who take part with a better start to working and adult life, through an integrated programme of training, education and work experience. In due course, as we explained in the White Paper, we would like to be able to include every youngster under 18 in such a scheme, but Government resources that we can make available for training, although enormous, are not infinite. The scheme will therefore focus primarily on 16-year-olds and will guarantee an early offer of a place to all unemployed 16-year-old school leavers. That guarantee will effectively eliminate unemployment for 16-year-olds in their first year out of school. I cannot offer quite so strong a guarantee to 17-year-olds, but I expect that the resources will be sufficient to cover unemployed 17-year-old school leavers as well.
In the first year of operation of the scheme we shall make available £1 billion, which is about twice as much as we are spending on the youth opportunities programme this year and represents more than eight times the expenditure, in real terms, on the youth opportunities programme in the last year of the previous Administration.
Mr. Frank Dobson: As the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Government are providing so much more money than the Labour Government provided in 1979, will he tell us the cost per youth involved?
Mr. Tebbit: I do not have the figure here, but when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate he will be happy to provide it.
The increase in cost is very considerable. The increase is not just to cater for the increase in the numbers of youngsters in the scheme—on the contrary, numbers may be a little smaller—but to provide the improved quality of training that the new scheme is all about.
Employers have argued for a long time—certainly since the last century, and possibly earlier—that youngsters leave school ill-equipped to make their way in the world. Trade unions have complained that training has been inadequate and badly directed. Tragically, we have let those complaints go unheeded for far too long. The new scheme will be a major step towards meeting those basically well-founded criticisms.
The scheme, however, must be rigorously practical. Training is of no value just for its own sake. The scheme must be employer-based. I hope that 300,000 of the 460,000 youngsters in the first year of the scheme will receive training with employers. The closer they are to real commercial life, the better for them. Direct experience of the workplace and an understanding of its disciplines combined with a range of basic skills may not necessarily enable them to go off and earn their living straight away, although many of them will, but it will give them a foundation that their predecessors have mostly had to do without.
Here is a practical reform, on the verge of implementation, in an area in which every party has wished for reform but none was previously quite able to find the resources to turn that thinking into effective action.
Of course, the scheme has its critics. Miss Clare Short, for example, writes almost daily in The Guardian. Yesterday she wrote regretting that the scheme is the way it is, and said:
310
"Not that we should or can ignore YTS, but we should expose the scheme for what it is and demand something better."
How should it be better? "Educators", she says, "must … get control". I wonder whether that is necessarily the best way forward.
Just the other day I noticed that there was criticism of the scheme in my local newspaper. The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) will no doubt have seen it, as we share the same borough. There was criticism by prospective employers of the standard of preparation provided by schools in the borough. I suspect that some of the criticism was overstated. Certainly the headlines were somewhat sensational. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the educators may not necessarily have done all that should have been done for youngsters leaving school.
I notice that Miss Clare Short also said of the YTS yesterday:
"In the days of full employment this would have been a great step forward, but in those days governments were unwilling to find the resources. Resources have now been released".
I am very pleased that she has recognised that.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) is a little more practical. She was generous enough to admit that she would have liked to do the same when she was in government but had rather less success with her Cabinet colleagues than I have had. Nevertheless, I am grateful to her for helping to prepare the way by arguing that this should be done. Even if she did not actually achieve it, her efforts made it easier for me to do so.
Some will say that the scheme does not go far enough and will ask for it to be extended to young people in higher age groups. To them I say that we must not try to run before we can walk. This is a massive step in the right direction and it will help those youngsters who are most in need.
A further initiative to help our young people prepare for employment is the scheme announced by the Prime Minister in November, giving financial support of about £25 million to technical and vocational education. Mr. David Young, chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, is presently preparing the way for 10 pilot projects, each catering for 1,000 youngsters of all abilities to receive, on a full-time basis, integrated courses of technical and vocational education starting at 14 years of age and continuing through to 18. I regard this as a most important and long overdue development in our secondary education system.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this, too, should be kept out of the control of educators?
Mr. Tebbit: I think that it would be best if control were broadly shared between those concerned with training and those concerned with education. The scheme, in the form in which it seems likely to proceed, will be within the education service, but I hope that there will be a very strong input from employers and others who have the closest interest in the standard of training and vocational preparation provided for the youngsters concerned. I hope that the education service and educators will benefit from that experience.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) seemed to be tutting a little, if that is the right expression, when I referred to this development. I know that he does not altogether approve of it, but I hope that he will consider it on its merits and accept that it is perhaps something that

311
should have been done years ago. We may not get it absolutely right at first, but I am sure that we should try to improve our standards of technical and vocational education.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I concur with the Secretary of State's remark that he is in favour of improved standards of technical and vocational training for all youngsters. I was tutting while reflecting on the fact that if the Government had committed the resources that they are now willing to commit through the youth training scheme and the technical vocational initiative to the schools that are already practising proper vocational preparation for youngsters—by using teaching expertise that is under democratically accountable local education authorities—we might get even more value for the money that the Government are willing to spend, having stolen it from education.
Mr. Tebbit: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has his own views on what would be appropriate to be taught in such schools. In the magazine "Teaching London Kids", he said that every secondary school should have a teacher responsible for "peace studies". When he was asked if that amounted to political indoctrination, he replied:
"No head, as far as I know, has stormed into a history classroom and upbraided the teacher for teaching war".
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant, but presumably his ideal of a technical and vocational college would be one with teachers teaching peace studies rather than teaching subjects and skills that would be useful for youngsters in earning a living.
Mr. Kinnock: I shall not prolong the debate by talking at length on that point, as we shall have a future opportunity to discuss it, but we are used to distortion on that scale from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tebbit: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that to be quoted is to be distorted.
The new initiatives build on the youth opportunities programme, which has grown from sound but modest beginnings, to show what work experience can do for youngsters. Between April and Christmas last year more than 300,000 school leavers took part in the programme and the target of providing a place for all last year's school leavers has been substantially met. That is a massive achievement and I congratulate the Manpower Services Commission and all others who contributed to it.
Of course, no Government can simply provide young people with jobs—[Interruption.] Only employers can do that. Governments can get in the way and Governments can create inflation, which puts the products of our industry and commerce out of the market, allows imported goods to be substituted and loses our export markets. Equally, the Government can help to control inflation—[Interruption.]—and help us to price our goods competitively and put our people back into jobs.
The Opposition Whip—the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton)—would like to turn the debate into one about economics rather than about the YTS, which is the debate which the House wishes to have. He must not be so naive as to think that customers who have been turned away for many years will suddenly be turned on again over night. Progress is being made and he must
312
be content to wait a little longer for that progress to become substantial. In the meantime, I suggest that he concentrates on the debate on the YTS.
The recession has destroyed many tens of thousands of jobs and made the employment market for youngsters in particular much more uncertain. School leavers have been especially hard hit, and for two basic reasons. First, they have, in general, few skills to offer in an already highly competitive labour market. Secondly, they have been encouraged to price themselves out of jobs. Of course, that is not their fault, but they suffer for it none the less. I therefore believe that the youth training scheme will help, not just in the short term, but in the long term, by providing school leavers with a more secure position in the labour market.
Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tebbit: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but this is a short debate and he will wish to contribute before long.
The Manpower Services Commission has been hard at work getting its machinery geared up to deal with the scheme. It will begin on 1 April, and we are looking for 460,000 places by September. Some of the places needed by September will be achieved by building on existing places in the youth opportunities programme. We set ourselves a target of 100,000 such places by Christmas, and the target has now been reached. We intend the new scheme to be primarily employer-based and the Manpower Services Commission's advertising campaign to attract employers to come forward has only just begun. Even before the campaign started, we had lined up more than 50,000 places which had been offered by major employers.
The House may be interested to know reaction of the employers to the advertising scheme. I am glad to say that literally thousands of people have responded to the MSC's advertisement during the last few days, by telephone calls and letters. Doubtless the House will have noted one advertisement which could broadly be called the "hypocrisy" advert. It first appeared on 26 January, and in the following five working days more than 2,000 inquiries were received.
Mr. Dobson: What date?
Mr. Tebbit: It was on 26 January. Again I say that the hon. Gentleman must be patient. In addition, about a dozen anonymous or critical comments were received as well as three angry telephone calls from people who, after discussing the advertisement with MSC staff, asked to receive more information.
The first "city-gent" advertisement appeared on 18 January and is still attracting about 500 daily inquiries.
Mr. Barry Jones: Which company handles the advertisement brief?
Mr. Tebbit: I do not mind advertising a good advertising agency. It is Saatchi and Saatchi. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows a better agency, but it won in a competitive run-off under the normal terms by which contracts for Government services are placed.
The scheme begins on 1 April, but even before the advertisements appeared in the press we had lined up more than 50,000 places in addition to the 100,000 offered by major employers. The special programmes unit of the CBI

313
has played a very important role in attracting the interest of industry, and I wish to record my thanks to it. The MSC has made a good start and, with continued help and cooperation, I am confident that targets will be reached.
Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tebbit: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so.
This is a massive scheme, with ambitious targets, and we must develop administrative machinery of an entirely new kind to develop it. We have rejected the model of bureaucratic scheme controlled rigidly from the centre and are going for maximum local involvement and responsibility, both in putting together and operating the schemes. The great majority of schemes will be run, not by the MSC, but my managing agents, who will coordinate contributions by individual employers, colleges and others to enable groups to participate in the scheme without having to accept individual responsibility for the whole package.
The area manpower boards being set up by the MSC will approve and monitor schemes. Those boards will include representatives of employers, unions, local authorities, colleges and voluntary bodies, and will, I hope, develop into a forum for exchanging information and attitudes on the whole spectrum of local training needs and provision, and not just for young people.
The boundaries of the area manpower boards will follow those of local education authorities, though because of their greater size some boards will include more than one local education authority in their area. That means that for the first time it will be possible to consider together both training and education provision for young people. The MSC has reorganised itself so that a single division now deals with all training matters, with a new network of area offices to mesh with the area boards.
Most of the financial and other details of the schemes have now been cleared up and employers will know precisely what is involved. The CBI has negotiated with local education authorities rates for provision in colleges of further education which reflect a one third discount on normal rates. Private sector sponsors will be paid monthly in advance, which should help to overcome their cash flow problems. Employers can recruit young people direct if, having consulted the careers service or the jobcentre, they expect problems in finding suitable youngsters through those agencies. I urge employers who have been thinking about the scheme but have, perhaps, held back because of uncertainty about what is involved, to contact the MSC as soon as possible.
There remains the matter of the allowance paid to trainees. When the scheme was announced last June, we accepted that an allowance of about £25 would be appropriate for the introduction of the scheme, though we shall not reach a final decision on that, or the matter of excess travel costs, until the summer. In the meantime, I notice that in one area of industry a new form of apprenticeship has been agreed between the unions and the employers. First-year apprentices will be paid £28 a week as wages, which will be subject to the normal deductions.
We are not seeking to foist a Government scheme on employers and young people. The scheme was drawn up by all those with a stake in what happens to our school leavers. It will depend for its effectiveness mainly on those who implement it at local level in firms and colleges. I am
314
happy to acknowledge the efforts that the CBI, the TUC, officials in my Department, the MSC and local authorities have made to get the scheme off the ground. It is now for individual employers, trade unions and trade unionists to back the scheme. It is an outline, not a blueprint or a boot print. None of us can afford to see the scheme falter at this stage. It must and will be a success. Indeed, our youngsters leaving school this year will not forgive us if we let them down by making anything other than a success of the scheme.
4.22 pm
Mr. Harold Walker: We have seen a rather different Secretary of State this afternoon from the one to whom we have become accustomed. He gave an uncharacteristically emollient speech, and I wish that he would show that side of his personality more often—especially when we are debating industrial relations or changes in labour laws.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy for his Under-Secretary. I send my best wishes to him for a speedy recovery from what must be a painful and disabling condition.
During the past two or three years we have had a cascade of reports and reviews of our training arrangements. There was "Outlook on Training—Review of the Employment and Training Act 1973" in 1980, "A Framework for the Future" a year later and "A New Training Initiative: An Agenda for Action" published by the MSC in 1981. Last year, there was a report of the task group. All the reports have been lengthy and complex documents proliferating with jargon. None of them, as such, has been debated by the House. Together they provide a confusing and muddled background to the debate.
The Government's White Paper "A New Training Initiative" emerged in the wake of those documents. It must strike many people as extraordinarily odd that a policy statement that proposes £1 billion additional expenditure, which was produced more than a year ago and is now to be implemented, should not have been fully discussed in the House. Even today, we are having only a short debate on one section of the White Paper proposals. I admit that it is the most important section.
If the White Paper purports to be a comprehensive approach to the reform of industrial training, the House should discuss its proposals in a comprehensive manner, not piecemeal. The Secretary of State seeks to put up for debate only those parts of the White Paper that he thinks might have some political sex appeal. If the Government really believe that their policies are good and effective, they should not be afraid to put them before the House for debate.
Glad as I am that we have an opportunity to discuss the new training scheme, we cannot realistically do so in isolation and without reference to the wider training context and the general background. The Secretary of State properly and fairly touched upon a background of soaring unemployment which, in accordance with the public expenditure statement published only today in the Vote Office, is bound to rise by hundreds of thousands. A heavy responsibility for that must be borne by the Government for their deflationary policies and the enormous loss of productive potential involved. Those things are blighting the lives of an entire generation of youngsters.

315
At the same time, Britain has one of the least trained work forces in the industrial world. The position varies from sector to sector, but only slightly more than half our youngsters receive any systematic vocational or educational preparation for work, compared with 90 per cent. in West Germany and 80 per cent. in France. About 35 per cent. of 16-year-olds enter jobs that offer no training, and a further 18 per cent. receive hardly any training at all. Girls fare worse, as we all know.
When employment is available, it tends to be in the service industries, with less training and lower standards. As the Secretary of State acknowledged, the position has grown worse in recent years. Whereas in the 1960s, 40 per cent. of 16-year-olds obtained apprenticeships, in the 1980s only 20 per cent. entered jobs that provided systematic training.
The number of apprenticeships in manufacturing declined from a peak of 236,000 in 1968 to less than 150,000 in 1980, and has declined even further to about 100,000 now. The numbers of manufacturing employees receiving any form of training fell from 210,000 in 1968 to 90,000 in 1980, and fewer still in 1981.
Education and training opportunities for both youngsters and adults have been falling fast. Employers have cut back hard on training, investment and apprenticeships. The Government have hacked away at the education service and inflicted damaging cuts on the MSC's mainstream employment and training services. At a time when the employment, education and training needs of youngsters have been growing to meet the faster pace of industrial and technological change, the resources and investment necessary to meet it have declined.
Despite the intervention of special measures, notably the youth opportunities programme, unemployment among under-18s multiplied five times between 1975 and 1982. The immediate prospects are even worse. The MSC estimates that without policy interventions, 57 per cent. of 16-year-olds and 48 per cent. of 17-year-olds will be unemployed in September 1984.
In 1983–84, of slightly more than 500,000 16-year-olds leaving full-time education, a mere 200,000 are likely to find jobs. It is obvious that the immediate training and employment prospects of youngsters are grim. It is against that background that we must assess the White Paper and the youth training scheme.
The scheme has been presented jointly by Ministers and the MSC. They both addressed themselves to the same documents and to what are put forward as joint concepts. I wonder whether the underlying motives are the same in both cases. Is the scheme intended to help youngsters to fulfil their hopes, aims and ambitions? Is it intended to be a serious contribution to meeting the future skilled and trained manpower needs of industry and commerce to help capture Britain's lost markets? The MSC might modestly claim that, in its view, the scheme might help towards those ends.
Is the scheme born of some desperate need to be seen to be doing something, no matter what, in the present desperate climate to help the young unemployed? Is the reason for it the fact that, even though there will be no job at the end of the scheme, it is still better to spend a year learning something in a work environment, being subject to the disciplines of industry, than hanging around the discos or the streets? Perhaps the MSC and the Secretary
316
of State share that view. I understand it, and share it also. But the Secretary of State will know that there are many who believe that his commitment to the scheme—as revealed in his speech—springs only from an anxiety to massage further the unemployment figures. Unhappily, it might yet be his track record—his lack of credibility in these matters—that proves to be the scheme's biggest handicap.
The real Secretary of State—the man whom we all know—was exposed in an interview last September with Mr. John Fryer, the labour editor of the Sunday Times, headed:
"Tebbit backs cheap youth labour"
Mr. Fryer wrote:
"Norman Tebbit, the Employment Secretary, is backing a controversial proposal by which jobless teenagers on his £1,000 million youth training scheme will make cheap products for sale. Tebbit has been having confidential discussions with one company which reckons that if it set up a special state-subsidised factory, in which youngsters were paid £25-a-week, it could undercut imports from the Far East.
Tebbit describes the idea as 'super' and has asked officials at the Department of Employment to work out details. It is clear that once approval is given other firms will be encouraged to follow suit."
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us whether his officials have fouled it up, whether he has given approval and whether other companies are following suit.
Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman straight away. A good deal too much was made of that particular case, where a company made the observation to me that it thought that it was tragic if youngsters were merely employed to make exhibition components which had no good use, and suggested that it had ample facilities where youngsters on this type of scheme could, as part of their work experience, make genuine components which could be sold into the main company and substitute for components which were bought from the far east.
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that an immoral thing to do and that it would be better to throw those components into the sea or if this is a reasonable idea. In my view, most people would think it quite reasonable.
Mr. Walker: Doubtless the House will be grateful for that explanation, long overdue, from the Secretary of State, but I must tell him that it is rather different from what Mr. John Fryer said. Of course, we all learn in this House very quickly not to pay too much attention to what we read in the public prints, but in this case Mr. Fryer claimed that what he had reported was on the basis of a personal interview with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is nodding, confirming that it was an interview.
I am bound to say that what the right hon. Gentleman has said to the House now is different from what Mr. Fryer reported. I hope the Secretary of State is prepared to tell Mr. Fryer that the report was wrong. Otherwise the Secretary of State is misleading us, because the article went on to say:
"The employment secretary"—
this is presumably what the Secretary of State told Mr. Fryer—
"has been having a series of top-level meetings with companies to secure backing for the youth training scheme."
It goes on to talk about the reluctance but says:
"But setting up special factories"—
plural—

317
"will give employers a fresh incentive."
The Secretary of State is telling us that it was a particular, one-off case but here we are talking about factories in the plural.
"Tebbit will not disclose the name of the company with whom he has been having discussions, but he says: 'At the moment it is buying components from Korea and Taiwan. It will now be able to make them itself at Korean and Taiwanese prices'."
These are remarks attributed in quotation marks, by the way, not in direct reporting. The article goes on:
"'Instead of trainees making things which are broken up after training exercises, the main company could actually buy components produced by the special factory. It is a sensible idea. You can't first go on training people without making a product.'"
The Secretary of State then said:
"I instance this as part of the ingenuity that is being devoted to finding new concepts."
If the Secretary of State says he was misreported or that it was not like that, we will accept it, but I am bound to say that all that, no matter how much or how little truth there is in it, is a long way from what the director of the MSC is saying about the scheme. In an article in Industrial Society of December, Mr. Geoffrey Holland says that the new training scheme covers a time during which
"young people can move from dependence to independence"
with the soldering iron, making plug boards or whatever to compete with the people in Taiwan and
"learn and acquire a broad foundation of skills, knowledge and experience which will enable them and their future employers to survive in what will inevitably be an age of uncertainty … the foundation must be broad and must result in a young person acquiring and being able to use a range of practical and transferable skills, knowledge and experience."
I very much hope that the scheme is the one that is being described by the director of the Manpower Services Commission and not the one Mr. John Fryer attributes to the Secretary of State, because they are not the same thing at all. If there was reason to believe that it was what the Secretary of State described to Mr. Fryer, I would be advising this House not to debate this matter and let it pass without a Division tonight but to vote against it. However, I am prepared to give the MSC the benefit of the doubt of my support in this matter.
If the Government themselves see the new training scheme, no matter what they say in the House or elsewhere, as primarily a device to reduce the number of young people registered as unemployed, there will inevitably be a temptation to accept standards lower than those at present described by the Manpower Services Commission. That is what happened with some of the youth opportunities programme schemes. If that happens, the new training scheme will inevitably and progressively fall into disrepute.
Mrs. Angela Rumbold: Successive Governments have been trying to work through unified vocational programmes and so on, introducing work experience for young people from 16 to 19 and older. Certainly the previous Labour Government were interested in this. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how it would be possible to have work experience without young people actually going into manufacturing and service industries in order to acquire that basic experience?
Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Lady has not been listening. I am saying that the new training scheme, as set up by the Manpower Services Commission, with its work experience and work discipline elements, deserves the support of the House. The point I was making is that it is very different in character and quality from the scheme
318
describe by the Secretary of State to Mr. John Fryer of the Sunday Times. If the hon. Lady does not understand, I can only ask her to obtain a copy of the Sunday Times for 12 September 1982 and look at what the Secretary of State apparently said to Mr. Fryer, and then consider what the director of the MSC is saying. They are two different schemes.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He knows perfectly well, does he not, that the Manpower Services Commission reports to the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State is the man who has been the impetus behind this scheme? Why is he wasting such a lot of this debate on one newspaper article which seems to be somewhat inaccurate?
Mr. Harold Walker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when the Manpower Services Commission was set up by a previous Conservative Government, who said the MSC in future would be the focus of manpower policy and would initiate policies of this kind. I deeply regret that the Secretary of State has sought to use the MSC as his poodle. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to the list of documents I gave at the outset he would have known of the genesis of all these schemes and of their development from the days of the special measures introduced by the last Labour Government.
I have been describing the developments that may lead the scheme into disrepute. It is no less certain that if young people are persuaded to take part, in the belief that their job prospects will be enhanced, and if, despite that, the jobs continue to be unavailable, we will only have bred cynicism and disillusion. If hopes are raised, and reasonably raised, only to be cruelly dashed on completion of training, the scheme again runs the risk of becoming discredited.
We are told that the youth training scheme is a bridge between school and work, but if the work is not there at the other end of the bridge the bridge itself is turned into a pierhead going nowhere or, worse still, a gangplank into the dole queue. Obviously, hand in hand with the scheme, if it is to be meaningful, should go a positive economic strategy that justifies the investment in training and offers a real prospect of jobs in the end. Instead, under this Government, the real dole queue—not that created by Saatchi and Saatchi but the one already a thousand miles long—will get even longer and the hopes of young people will diminish even further.
As the Secretary of State admitted, the new training scheme has been received with some scepticism and criticism—not least, as he rightly said, from the educational interests. Because of the inevitable restrictions on our time, I shall leave it to others to pursue those criticisms. Despite my own reservations, I hope the scheme has a fair wind but I seek some assurances and answers from the Minister who is to wind up the debate.
Many of us were glad that the Secretary of State responded positively to the proposals of the task group. One recommendation on which the right hon. Gentleman has not made a statement is that contained in paragraph 20 of part 7, that the young workers scheme should be wound up and the money put to better use. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has now considered this matter and if he can now give his response. Will he also give a

319
categorical assurance that the scheme will continue to be voluntary, as the task group recommended, and that he will not seek to reintroduce any element of coercion as he previously intended? Will he say that young people will be free to reject any course that does not accord with their wishes and career aims?
How many places have been offered by Government Departments? My attention has been drawn to an article in The Guardian of 18 January which refers to the reluctance of the Prime Minister to accept young people undertaking the new training scheme into Government Departments. The chairman of the Manpower Services Commission is quoted as saying:
"I know of no reason why the Government should not be coming into the scheme. I hope they will be able to."
The article goes on:
"But Mrs. Thatcher is known to believe that training and work experience is better carried out in commerce and industry, if places can be found there, rather than in the Civil Service."
The House is entitled to some explanation. It is extraordinary if the Minister, who advocates the scheme to the rest of the country, says that it would be inappropriate to allow young people into the Civil Service to gain work experience. I hope that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) and the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) will say something about this, in the light of their earlier comments. One would have thought that the Government would be trying to set an example.
I recognise that there have been difficulties because of the attitude of the Civil Service. I could have understood the position if the Prime Minister was saying that there would have to be discussions with the Civil Service in order to obtain agreement. She is apparently not saying that. The report states that the Prime Minister believes that training is better carried out in commerce and industry, if places can be found, than in the Civil Service. If that is a valid argument, it can be used by every local authority and every part of the public sector providing services. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government wish to set an example and that they want to help to make the scheme effective for young people.
Mr. Bernard Conlan: Before my right hon. Friend reaches his peroration, if he is going to reach his peroration, I should like him to refer to the industry from which he and I come, the engineering industry. When the Government took office, there was an intake of between 30,000 and 40,000 apprentices a year. Now, only three and a half years later, it is down to less than 10,000.
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is right. I shall be referring to this aspect of the White Paper before I reach my peroration.
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that one should not believe everything one reads in the press. The right hon. Gentleman should not believe, every time he sees views attributed to a Minister or, indeed, to a member of the Opposition, in the press, that those views are the views of the person concerned. I hope that we shall be able to find suitable places within the Government service for these trainees. I believe, however, that the
320
greater number of them who can be placed directly in industry and commerce the better. I hope that the Government will play their part, too.
Mr. Walker: With that denial, we have Mr. John Fryer knocked down and are told that Mr. John Ardill is misleading us. The heavy press is being discredited at a rapid rate this afternoon. Is the Secretary of State giving a categorical denial of the report? Is he saying that it is wrong? Is he saying that the Prime Minister has not expressed this view, that she does not hold this view and that the Government will be taking new training service trainees into the Civil Service?
Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is an old enough hand in this place to know that if Opposition spokesmen or Ministers were to spend their time confirming or denying everything that is written in the papers, we would never have time for any other business. I shall deny myself from time to time the privilege of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether everything I read in the papers about what goes on inside his party is true. The right hon. Gentleman may deny himself the opportunity of always assuming that what is written in the papers about the Government is true.
Mr. Walker: The House will make up its own mind. Hon. Members are entitled to know from the Minister what Government policy is. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman straight. Is it the Government's intention to take these trainees into the Government service? Is the Prime Minister incorrectly quoted? Is this not the Government's view? We are told that we cannot spend our time denying what appears in newspaper reports. The House will make up its own mind.
Mr. John Grant: The Secretary of State cannot deny that the reason behind the suspicion among some Civil Service unions about giving their cooperation is the decision taken by the Government on Civil Service manpower limits and especially the decision of the Cabinet—I have in my possession a document to which I shall refer if I am successful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in catching your eye—on 16 December that Departments should aim to contract out much more of their work.
Mr. Walker: The House will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
I wish to deal now with another aspect of the White Paper. I should like the Minister of State in his reply to clarify the position of traditional apprenticeships in relation to the YTS. Will he clarify the co-existence of traditional apprenticeships with traineeships, because this is a potential source of tension? Many people have pointed out that there will be a strong temptation, especially where trade union organisation is weak or non-existent, for employers to evade national agreements on pay by substituting trainees under the scheme for apprentices.
Where the so-called "additionality principle" applies—the requirement that an employer, in addition to his normal apprentice intake, should take on trainees under the scheme in the ratio of 3:2—there may be difficulties about pay disparities. I hope that the Minister will explain what steps are being taken to eliminate possible friction. No less may there be tensions where trainees take educational courses alongside students still at school who receive no grants or allowances. These are difficulties to be overcome. They cannot be ignored. Hon. Members are

321
enitled to hear from the Government what they have thought about these matters and the action they propose to take.
Ministers will know that, under the present youth opportunities programme, anxieties have been expressed about the non-eligibility of trainees for social security protections, particularly industrial injury and disability benefits. I understand that there are explanations but it would be helpful to have them on the record from the Minister's lips. It would also be helpful if the Minister were to say more about the level of allowances. What the Secretry of State has hinted at is welcome. I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to say that a periodic review will take place to ensure that the allowances maintain at least their real value. It is the Opposition's view that they should be enhanced.
The Minister may care to make some remarks about the rights of trade unions where trainees are taken on under the youth training scheme and about the rights of trainees to become members of trade unions. I am assuming that they will have the right to become members and to seek trade union protection. It would be useful to have the matter clarified and, I hope, confirmed by the Minister.
Equally, concern has been expressed about the status in law of trainees. Since they are, for legal purposes, neither workers nor employees, I wonder where they stand regarding the requirements and protections of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 or the Employment Protection Act 1975. This is not something new. The same must have arisen under the former youth opportunities programme.
Another problem to which I wish to draw the attention of the House faces local authorities which might wish to support the scheme actively. It is best illustrated by a letter of 1 February sent to one of my hon. Friends by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities:
"Local government is keen to be involved in the YTS both as a provider of off-the-job training in colleges and as a sponsor/managing agent. In many areas the local authority is the largest single employer, so it has duties in that role. Further, the local authority acting as sponsor/managing agent could co-ordinate the efforts of a large number of small employers in the area. Thirdly, local authorities feel they should set an example."
I wish the Government would feel that way. The letter continues:
"But because of the system of Rate Support Grant—with its expenditure targets and grant penalties—participation in this Government initiative can cost ratepayers disproportionate sums."
The letter then cites the case of Bradford:
"In Bradford, the Council estimates that to operate the YTS could require expenditure of 1·6 million. The cost to ratepayers does not end there. The system of grant penalties means that Bradford could suffer a reduction in grant of about £1·4 million to £1·6 million of expenditure which will cost Bradford £3 million on the rates. Bradford, together with many other authorities, is having to consider very hard whether to participate in YTS when faced with this sort of financial burden. This is not just a metropolitan problem but many authorities all over the country are faced with a similar dilemma."
I must resist the temptation to speak about the stupidity of the Government in relation to local authority expenditure and the rate support grant. If that letter is correct, the Secretary of State will be concerned that local authorities should not be penalised when seeking to support the scheme which he and the Manpower Services Commission are commending. I hope that he will clarify that or seek to discuss the matter with the Secretary of
322
State for the Environment to ensure that local authorities are not penalised if they want to spend money on supporting the scheme.
When does the Secretary of State expect to get the outcome of the Manpower Services Commission study on the future financing of industrial training?
A matter which relates to the new training scheme but has a wider relevance is the setting up and monitoring of standards. Last evening I had the pleasure of listening to the senior officer of the engineering industry training board explaining how it was responding to the scheme and integrating it into its programme. What he said was positive and, at least in regard to the YTS, encouraging. The employers and the unions together within the board are thrashing out a policy on standards and monitoring. That is how it should be.
What about the industries where there is not an industrial training board or anything comparable? This is a further example of the foolishness of abolishing the great majority of industrial training boards, the very bodies which would have had such a useful role in applying the scheme in the testing times ahead. The White Paper itself says:
"Better vocational preparation in school and in the first year of working life will lay the foundation for a more flexible workforce. But urgent reform is also needed of the arrangements for training in craft, technician and professional skills, both for young people and for adults."
Yet the White Paper is silent on the means by which this reform might be achieved. In the engineering industry the training board is showing the way ahead but in many other industries the potential of the industrial training boards, not least as a forum for bipartisan discussion and decision, has been removed because the boards have been abandoned senselessly by the Government.
The Government have spelled out the need; what are they doing to satisfy it? While the White Paper rightly draws attention to the fact that increasingly job opportunities will be for the higher skilled and that the demand for the unskilled and lower skilled will diminish, it is silent about the decline in apprenticeships in the skilled trades and crafts whose services we shall need in future. Attention has already been drawn to the sac decline in engineering apprenticeships over the last few years. I do not know whether there is a similar decline in other industries which produce and use skilled labour. The Government seem to be paving the way for a shortage of skilled workers, which will be scandalous if the economy starts to recover.
The Secretary of State is cynical about what is printed in the press, but in a leading article on 18 January The Guardian, commenting on the decline in engineering apprenticeships, said:
"While the Government fails to tackle this problem, rather than aggravate it by abolishing many of the Industrial Training Boards, there will remain the sad suspicion that it is rather more interested in cosmetic effects on the dole queues than in remedying long-standing deficiencies."
The White Paper makes a vague acknowledgment of the long-term skill problems in paragraph 48 but then it pins its hopes on retraining the existing labour force as though it takes less time to train an unskilled adult than an apprentice. I have no doubt about the need to retrain adult workers and give them new opportunities. But when the Government say in the White Paper:
"This is primarily a matter for industry",
it would be helpful if they were to tell the House what this means. Is it intended to be some kind of apology for

323
continued cuts in the training opportunities programme and a justification for the threats that are hanging over some of the skill centres?
Before the Government took office in 1977–78 the throughput of the skill centres and colleges of further education that were participating in the training opportunities programme was 78,000 to 79,000. This year it has been reduced to about 61,000.
Given the facts of the present situation—the abysmal prospects for young people, the wasted potential, the latent social backlash that we have already seen erupt in places such as Brixton and Toxteth—there can be no doubt that we have to create a new deal for the nation's youth. The Government's proposals in the White Paper, seen in their totality, neither reflect the seriousness of the problems nor show much sign of understanding them.
My hon. Friends and I believe that the most urgent need is for a complete reversal of the Government's economic policies and the adoption of an alternative strategy that will give not only young people but all those who are unemployed and willing to work the hope and prospect of worthwhile and fulfilling employment. This should allow for the creation of a unified and comprehensive system of education and training for all in the 16-to-19 age group.
As I said earlier, we should give a fair wind to the new training scheme, as presented by the Manpower Services Commission. It should be strengthened and built upon to enable access for all 16 and 17-year-olds. It should be a broadened and reinforced two-year scheme, based on our concept of training for students with adequate allowances. I look forward to an early opportunity for the House to have a full debate and not a half-day debate on all the wider issues that stem from the White Paper. There should be a chance for us not only to expose all its inadequacies but to develop the positive proposals contained in the Labour party's discussion document "Learning for Life".
4.57 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). It is better when the House hears his virgin thoughts than long repetitions of reports from newspapers.
I wish to deal briefly with two points relative to the youth training scheme and its contribution to society. I welcome the scheme, and I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Doncaster say that the Opposition would give it a fair wind. It is important to the nation and to the young people who are the key to all this that that commitment is followed up.
The first point relates to preparing those on the youth training scheme for the difficult task of finding permanent work when the year is over. Some will continue to be employed in the places where they have done their year's work, but others will be on the job market. I hope that the Manpower Services Commission will give considerable thought to the matter and take action that will ensure that, as part of the off-the-job training that all young people will get on this course, time will be devoted to teaching them the skills of self-marketing.
That is not for one moment to denigrate or lessen the problem of finding a job. I am not suggesting that self-marketing can overcome that in full, but, as part of that training, young people must understand that they can no
324
longer expect the opportunity of working always for the same employer. Therefore, the problem of finding their first job, and of self-marketing may recur during their later career.
Attention needs to be paid to how to get that training across. It needs a major change in the thinking that has been done up to now on this issue. Some of those agencies involved in the out-placement of people, and in the placing of large numbers of redundant workers when there have been closures, can bring to bear views, ideas and experience of these circumstances of which the MSC should make use. It should be responsive to getting those involved in the off-the-job training of young people to put over an effective package. It needs video and audio training schemes, and the people who are doing the training should have an understanding of marketing techniques.
This is new and, to many of us, somewhat un-British. The British are not always the best at selling themselves. Young people need even more assistance in equipping themselves to do that, so that they can think in terms not just of what jobs are available locally, but of how each of them, as young persons coming on to the labour market with one year's training behind them, can look for and identify the type of local need that might enable them to persuade a potential employer, who is not at that moment looking for somebody else, to take them on because they appear to have something to offer. I hope that that can be fed into the scheme.
My second point relates to the necessity to increase the present low level of apprenticeships—a point that has already been referred to by the right hon. Member for Doncaster. There is a major problem here, and I should like to discuss it from the point of view of a part of the country known to me—Kent. I shall talk about the experiences of the Kent industrial training association, which is a young people's training association servicing, as many of these associations do in different parts of the country, the needs of small firms.
Let me spell out the problem. There are about 110 small firms in the membership of this association. In 1979 there were 105 engineering apprentice places. In 1980 there were 61, in 1981 there were 30, and in 1982 only 25. There is no ducking that problem. It is my view, and that of most of the people to whom I talk in industry, that, when the upturn occurs, we shall be in the same bottleneck circumstances again, caused by lack of skilled workers.
Those circumstances cause a number of problems, but two in particular. First, they will prevent us as a nation from making the best use of new opportunities to sell at home and abroad. Secondly, they will produce wages pressures again because an employer who has orders that he wants to get out of the door, or a service that it is essential to give, will pay anything to get people to do the job.
Therefore—I say this as a supporter of the new training scheme—we are looking for ideas and possibilities of linking the new training scheme to additional sponsored skill training. The Department should pay close attention to that. We have a problem for the future. If we are to make the best use of the pain and grief that has occurred in industry over the past three years, we must not be short of people when the boom comes.
Mr. Conlan: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the new engineering training scheme to which he has referred, is any substitute for a proper apprenticeship?
Mr. Wolfson: I am not suggesting that. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, as I develop my point further, I hope to answer his question.
There are four distinct groups of young people to whom the new training scheme offers an opportunity. First, there are those young people who know what they want to do and where they are going, and who have the ability and qualifications to achieve their ambitions, if given the opportunity, but some in that group will not be able to get jobs.
Secondly, there are young people who, like those in the first group, know what they want and have the inherent ability to achieve it, but unfortunately have not obtained the most appropriate academic qualifications.
The third group consists of those who are well or appropriately qualified, have a high level of ability, but unfortunately are not sure what they want to do.
The fourth group consists of school leavers who have no worthwhile qualifications and have no ideas as to the work for which they would be suited, and whose opportunities are therefore limited.
Groups three and four—the less well qualified who are not clear about what they want to do—are well suited to the new training scheme. It will give them the broad-based training that has been required in this country for far too many years, which several Governments have had the opportunity of tackling but have not done so far.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that those groups have had a particularly raw deal in Britain up to now. However, in present circumstances, groups one and two—the better qualified who are clearer about what they want to do—are also unable to get work. Therefore, they are available as candidates for the new training scheme and will be going into it.
I suggest that in many cases the new training scheme will not adequately meet the needs of persons in that group because they can take more than the training offers. Therefore, for that group, I should like apprentice training to be incorporated in the new training scheme.
I hope that by describing how the Kent industrial training association sees this being done, I shall answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan). The association maintains that training places in companies and in technical colleges, are not fully used. The association can offer 25 apprenticeships this year on the basis that, in the first year, those 25 young people spend 46 weeks on off-the-job training at a training college. Those places will not be with the firm. It might be possible to double that figure and make it 50. The trainees would then alternate, spending six months with the company and six months at the college. That would continue for the three or four years of apprentice training—preferably, the shorter time, based on the skill standards reached, not the time served.
Is that feasible? One person would be a company employee, and the other would be a sponsored employee from Government funding. However, there is a problem, because the Government-sponsored employee gets £25, whereas the apprentice gets £45. Perhaps the answer would be for the apprentice rate to come down to a more realistic and comparable figure. I think that £28 was the figure, now agreed by one union, stated by the Secretary
326
of State, but without reference to the particular skill training. The gap is now narrower. There are other ways round the problem. Perhaps the company could be persuaded to make up the difference between the two types of trainee—that for the company employee and that for the Government-sponsored trainee—if the difference were smaller. We surely need to use these under-utilised training places in both technical colleges and companies.
It may be argued that there will not be any unused training facilities by the time the new training scheme is under way, but I suggest that those training places will not be utilised for the skilled training that can and should be given if we are to overcome the long-term lack of skilled people in our increasingly skill-necessary industry. I hope that the MSC will give enlightened consideration to both those matters.
The Kent industrial training association, which, accepts that it is a small group, could offer a pilot opportunity. It has a very real national application, and it is accepted by the engineering union. The union's response to the director of this industrial training association is as follows:
"Having given careful consideration to your document we are satisfied that your scheme meets the principles which our organisation could support and therefore we will be pleased to endorse your suggestions".
What about the EITB?
Mr. Conlan rose—
Mr. Wolfson: Perhaps I may continue. Its reply was positive:
"You ask for the support of the EITB. We would be willing to work with you on the development of your programme if it proves acceptable in principle to the MSC. It is not for us to say whether your proposals meet the current MSC criteria Put if you are able to reach agreement with the commission we shall be very happy to participate with you in order to ensure that a pattern of training in engineering skills is developed which we can support".
That support from both the engineering union and the EITB does not talk of the cost or of what people would be paid. It relates to the type of training offered, where two places would be provided instead of one.
Mr. Conlan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the engineering union. He surely knows that there are many unions in the engineering industry. Which union is he talking about?
Mr. Wolfson: The Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.
Mr. Conlan: Which section?
Mr. Harold Walker: Who signed it?
Mr. Wolfson: Mr. Gavin Laird. I wish to make it clear that the support relates not to wages, but to the scheme. I welcome such a positive response from the union, because it gives priority to the needs of young people and of the nation. It is surely on that basis that, even in this House, we can go forward together.
5.15 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The House has benefited from the practical experience of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) in trying to develop from the training initiative a scheme that is suited to employers and potential apprentices in his area. He underlined the fact that this scheme cannot possibly meet some of the skilled training needs of industry, and he stressed how much needs to be done.

327
The best illustration of how far behind Britain has fallen in training is provided by the tables at the end of the youth task force report, which show quite clearly how badly our record compares with those of all our European industrial competitors. We therefore welcome the fact that this scheme has been brought forward. It is a considerable improvement on everything that has gone before. I shall criticise it and draw attention to the problems that it involves, but that should not detract from the fact that I am glad that more resources are to go to training, because that has been necessary for a long time.
The scheme presents a number of problems to which we should give attention. One problem which has been widely discussed relates to the financial support and the relationship between trainees on this scheme and those undergoing other forms of training and education. In the absence of a system of education maintenance allowances, there is an inevitable element of "bribing" in the scheme. If the scheme continues on the present basis, without a system of education maintenance allowances, we are in effect saying to young people at school, "Why not come on this scheme, obtain a regular allowance, get an uncertain certificate or qualification at the end, instead of staying at school, knowing that you can get a formal qualification, but with no financial support?." That is not satisfactory.
Similarly, those who are on the scheme in colleges will find themselves alongside further education students who have no financial support because of the drying up of discretionary local authority awards.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Unemployment made that point, and I do not believe that the Government have yet grasped its implications. The pattern of young people's decisions about whether they go for training or stay for education will be distorted by the financial support that is available. That is likely to become more apparent as families feel more keenly the impact of the recession. The lack of financial support for youngsters becomes more relevant than ever before to decisions about whether young people will stay at school, go into training, or remain on supplementary benefit without going on a training programme. The Government should pay much more attention to that problem than they have in the past.
That brings me to one of the other fundamental problems of the scheme, and that is its relationship with the whole education system. It is lamentable that no Minister from the Department of Education and Science is here and has not been here from the start of the debate. Are we to take it that the Department of Education and Science has been told that it must have nothing to do with the whole operation? Is it, as so many commentators have said, a simple vote of no confidence in the education system and an underlining of the fact that the Prime Minister is prepared to grant resources through the Manpower Services Commission, but not to have anything to do with the development of some of the same things through the edcuation system? To do it in this way will not avoid problems, but create them.
I had expected Ministers from the Department of Education and Science to be in the Chamber to listen to some of the problems and to work out the implications for their Department. In the attitude implicit in the opening remarks of the Secretary of State for Employment, there is a considerable danger. He said something about
328
educators not being in control, and it suggested to me that he regarded the influence of educators in training as malign and undesirable. I do not share that view. I believe—as the right hon. Gentleman later corrected himself and said when I intervened—that there is a partnership between those with experience of industrial training and those in education. There are strands that can be brought together.
This country has developed certain education values that should not be thrown out of the window because we have suddenly realised, belatedly, that we should step up our training commitment. Some of those values are beginning to be threatened.
The MSC is a large national body and is organised quite differently from the local education authorities which are traditionally involved, and have to be, in the local communities. They are an arm of the local authorities. To the extent that the Government still allow local authorities any power or responsibility, those bodies are responsible for a whole range of services and for the health of the community. Therefore, they can bring to educational activity a knowledge of the community and its needs. However much a national body such as the MSC evolves its activities, it cannot do that.
The MSC has not absorbed some of the educational values that are important. One of those values is particularly relevant at present. We cannot train people in skills on the assumption that there will always be a demand for those skills. We must educate young people to be able to adapt to what is likely to be a changing industrial and technological climate. One of the aims of education has always been to ensure that young people can adapt themselves and have the ability to apply themselves to different situations, instead of being trained for a skill for which the market may have disappeared almost before they are ready to present themselves for a job.
If training values push out educational values altogether, it will do a disservice to training. Young people will not have the adaptability that they need.
Mr. Richard Needham: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. Does he agree that education may be successful for the top 30 or 40 per cent. of those who leave our school system but not for the bottom 30 or 40 per cent.? It is those at the bottom who leave without the necessary education and without any vocational training. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman believe that the education system can be changed so that those at the bottom end of the scale have the right education qualifications?
Mr. Beith: I share the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the way in which the education system has failed many children, such as those for whom the examination system was not designed. However, that is not an argument for removing those values. Those educational values are just as relevant to someone with limited academic attainments as to someone going to university. However, there is a strong argument for recasting the examination system and for ensuring that resources are invested in improving our educational provision for those who will not go to university and who perhaps will not even take A-levels, or whatever replaces them.
One can sense the MSC's attitude in other worrying ways. For example, the MSC clearly does not like political education. The Secretary of State spoke about peace

329
studies. That may be a slightly controversial issue, but it has been accepted by the education system and by Her Majesty's inspectors, who published a report on the subject, saying that young people should understand how the democratic process works. That is why political education is given to young people. The MSC apparently does not think that its trainees should find that out, although it is a normal part of the curriculum in colleges of further education. That suggests a narrowness of outlook in equiping young people for life. Educational value is lost because the MSC has not been brought up with such things.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I think that I know what the hon. Gentleman means by educational values, but perhaps he could be a little more precise about how flexibility of mind, tenacity and all the other qualities in someone endowed with such values can be achieved?
Mr. Beith: To answer that question I should have to speak for far longer than hon. Members would wish.
Mr. Eric Deakins: I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about educational values, but he seems to be criticising the scheme because young people at 16 who take part in it will not be given the educational values that he considers to be essential. Surely they should have acquired those educational values—irrespective of academic attainment—by the time they leave school at 16.
Mr. Beith: I agree with that to some extent, but, between the ages of 16 and 18, a young person's widening knowledge, understanding and maturity allow him to appreciate things that he did not appreciate when he was 14 or 15. We should not stop imparting educational values at the age of 16. There is another aspect of which our schools have become more aware over the years, but of which the MSC has not become aware.
By the time young people reach the age of 16, they begin to think that they should have some say in what goes on around them. However, provision for that is not apparent in the way in which the scheme is structured. Schools are increasingly catering for the participation of young people, through schools councils and through the way in which the school is organised. The MSC does not understand or appreciate that, and no way seems to have been found to associate trainees with the decisions that are taken about their work and courses. The Government should talk to bodies such as the British Youth Council, which has developed the case for the involvement of young people in the planning of courses. They should find ways of establishing trainee councils or other bodies that would give the trainee a chance to play a part.
As yet there is no clear procedure for dealing with the rights, problems and grievances of trainees. I refer to such matters as sickness, time off and disputes in the workplace. The trainee is in a slightly different position from an employee, because he may not have joined a trade union, and his legal relationship is not the same as that of an employee. That, too, is an area of concern. The local authorities should have played a larger role in the process. My party would like local education authorities to be the sponsoring body for youth training, setting up youth training committees to do the work which the area boards will carry out for the MSC.
That brings me to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and to the problem
330
of the cost to local authorities. One of my hon. Friends was approached by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the case of Bradford was cited in particular, although the same is true of other authorities. The Government have the power to exempt local authorities from rate penalties for particular subjects and could apply that power to the youth training scheme. In the Local Government Finance Act 1982 there are provisions to exempt categories of expenditure from the targets and penalties. The Minister should either get his colleague to do that or should at least ensure that grant-related expenditure takes account of all this. The development in youth training was not envisaged when the figures now applied to local authorities were devised.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has spoken in a way that would lead those who are not as familiar with the subject as he no doubt is to believe that local authorities are being asked to carry the cost. If they take on trainees, their costs are reimbursed in exactly the same way as a private sector employer. None of that expenditure is in any way accounted against their expenditure limits. Indeed, those expenditure limits are extremely generous. As the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) knows, the London borough of Waltham Forest was in penalty a year ago. As a result of good management the local authority has managed to make a spectacular cut in the rates and has got out of penalty, because it is managed far better than ever before and because a Conservative leadership has taken over, with the support of alliance councillors.
Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman also knows that there are Conservative-controlled authorities that now face penalties under the scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman might be satisfied that local authorities will incur no expenditure that will bring them on the wrong side of the penalty clauses, because they are reimbursed for trainees, but the role that they exercise will be much wider than merely taking on trainees. They may have to take on a great deal of the sponsoring work which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is satisfied that a cost to local authorities will arise and it wants local authorities to take part in the scheme. I do not believe that those worries can be entirely unfounded. If the Minister can assure me that they are, I am sure that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities will regard that as good news and welcome it.
There is a problem about the certification of qualifications which young people will obtain at the end of their training. Little has been said about that today. We need to know more about the Government's thinking on the subject and where it relates to examination reform. We must take that seriously if we are to deal with the weakness of the education system for young people who do not go on to higher education. All these issues are closely interrelated. Many of us are not yet confident that the Government have found the answer to the type of qualification that young people can obtain at the end of their training and how it relates to potential reforms of the examination system.
Many people in education and local authorities and employers are putting a great deal of effort into making the scheme work. They are trying hard to get something out of it. For them to achieve the reward for young people for which they are striving, they must have co-operation and

331
a commitment to go beyond this year. It is not possible to mount an operation on this scale for 12 months without implications for the future. They also require economic policies that give young people a fair chance of what the Prime Minister used to call real jobs. If they do not have that prospect soon, much of what we are discussing today will achieve very little.
At the beginning of my speech I said that Britain has lagged behind in its provision of industrial training. It is a criticism of us as a nation that it has taken high unemployment to generate the necessary heavy expenditure. We will have to do something about the level of unemployment if the scheme is to produce results, not cynicism and apathy among our young people.
5.32 pm
Mr. Richard Needham: When the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) was not quoting from The Sunday Times at great length and then requoting from The Sunday Times at even greater length, he gave the impression that the major cause of youth unemployment was the Government's economic policy. He said forcefully that only an alternative economic policy, which he did not spell out, would help to solve the problem. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends represent a party that has long believed that a controlled economy, planned economic policy and a social policy combined is the best way to solve the problems facing the nation.
I invite the right hon. Member for Doncaster to consider youth unemployment not simply as a problem that comes about as a result of recession, although it would be foolish not to accept that recession plays some part in it, but as one that comes from two other sources. First, unemployment arises from demographic problems. The people who retired last year and those who will retire this year were born during the first world war. It is understandable that few people were born then. However, those people who are now coming on to the labour market are the result of the baby boom and the mini-skirts of the 1960s when men were not undertaking the same types of tasks as their parents had to undertake.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Doncaster accepts that those factors were well known in his Department when he was a Minister. I am sure that the same is true of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams). The baby boom could have been foreseen, as could the drop in the numbers of people retiring. For every one person retiring last year and this year, there are two people coming on to the labour market. Ten years ago, the figures balanced.
Why, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster and his colleagues were planning the economy, did they not foresee that demographic problem and do more about it? The right hon. Member for Crosby said that she lost battles when she was at the Department of Education and Science. No doubt her colleagues did, too. Nevertheless, that is not good enough. It is impossible for any Government of any political party suddenly to come in, in a complete vacuum and resolve the problems that faced the present Government when they came to office.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Doncaster will agree that youth unemployment arises not only from demographic changes, but from real changes in the basis
332
of employment. It was possible to foresee that 16-year-olds who came on to the labour market with the qualifications that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned—the bottom 30 per cent.—would have the greatest difficulty in finding jobs in a changing economic climate. It was possible to foresee that the types of jobs that 16-year-olds have done hitherto would no longer exist.
It did not require an enormous forecasting ability by either party, especially the Labour party when it was in government during the 1970s, to see the scale of the problem that Britain would face, yet virtually nothing was done. It is therefore not good enough for the right hon. Member for Doncaster and his right hon. and hon. Friends to carp and complain about what the Government are doing. They had the chance, but they did virtually nothing.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster, the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and I had the opportunity to visit Japan. The Japanese would have had exactly the same problems as we have if they had continued as we have done since the 1960s. However, in the 1960s they decided that they had to achieve a highly qualified and better educated work force. What did they do? They gradually expanded training and educational facilities so that whereas in 1960 about 60 per cent. of Japanese youngsters went straight on to the labour market, by 1982–83 94 per cent. of Japanese youngsters stayed at school until they were 18. Moreover, a further 45 per cent. go on from school to some form of university.
At a stroke, not only have the Japanese achieved a much larger and better educated work force, but they have dramatically reduced the size of the labour market. Because they have reduced the size of the labour market, they do not share our problems of youth unemployment. That is what the right hon. Member for Doncaster and his right hon. and hon. Friends could have foreseen but did nothing about.
Whatever faults the right hon. Member for Doncaster may say the Government have, they have applied their mind with a creativity and determination that has not been shown before. They have produced money and a system of training that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, will bring into training three of the four groups that previously had no training. The Government deserve credit for that. Nor is it possible, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster said, just to increase that level of training from 16-year-olds to 17-year-olds. He knows how hard it will be to ensure that we achieve proper verification and adequate standards for the 16-year-olds. It is not possible to find overnight the thousands of trainers who will be required in addition and to train them so that they can ensure that the youngsters get the proper and complete benefit from the scheme that they deserve.
The right hon. Gentleman should consider one other factor. He talked about a gangplank to the dole queue. He said that if a Labour Government were returned to power their policy would be to ensure that adequate jobs were there for those who had finished their course. With respect, I believe that that is a terrible confidence trick to play on many young people. I defy any Government in the world, forgetting our structural and social problems, overnight or even within a few months, suddenly to be able to provide the massive number of employment opportunities that this generation will require. To say that there is some simple economic strategy that can suddenly

333
be deployed, which will give those kids worthwhile employment for the remainder of their lives, is plain nonsense. It suggests to those youngsters a future which, unfortunately, many of them will not have.
Of course, the 16-year-olds must be taken out of the labour market. The Government are to be congratulated on doing this. I think that the right hon. Member for Doncaster will agree that we must go down the route that the Japanese and others have taken, and improve the quality of the education and training of not only of 16-year-olds, but of 17-year-olds.
Mr. Harold Walker: I also advocate that we should follow the Japanese road, because the Japanese have a policy of jobs for life, certainly in the public sector, on the part of major employers.
Mr. Needham: The jobs for life analogy between the public sector in Japan and the public sector in Britain is about the only analogy that we can draw. By and large, there are jobs for life in the public sector in Britain, as there are in Japan. I am not sure that that benefits the British or the Japanese in terms of overall efficiency. However, we must continue to work towards a longer period of training for young people so that we do not end up with a significant proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds who are incapable of finding work because of poor educational standards.
Therefore, we must support the scheme wholeheartedly. We must accept that it is of great advantage, compared with any scheme that has gone before it. We must build upon it. However, at no stage must Conservative Members suggest that it is the only answer. It is not. We appreciate that. We shall do what we can. What we will not do is promise that which we cannot deliver. That is what is being done by Opposition Members.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. This is an appropriate moment to remind the House that there is a great deal of interest in the debate on trade, which follows this debate. I understand that it is desired to bring this debate to an end at about 7 o'clock. Many hon. Members have been waiting all day to take part. Will those who speak tailor their speeches accordingly?
5.43 pm
Mr. Robert C. Brown: The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) will forgive me if I do not follow him right through his speech. He sounded exactly like the Prime Minister when he described what has happened since May 1979 and implied, as the Prime Minister does regularly, that it is everybody's fault except the Government's.
The greatest of the many betrayals of the Government is without a doubt the betrayal of the nation's youth. Our youth are the nation's seed-corn. Many Conservative Members are farmers. I am sure that none of them would deny that the destruction of the seed-corn would be nothing short of unmitigated disaster.
The thoughts of a generation growing up deprived of a basic human right, the right to work for a living, worries me no end, because of what the future might bring as a direct result. In the county of Tyne and Wear, part of which I represent, 25,066 school leavers have never had the dignity of a full-time job. In the city of Newcastle the
334
figure is 2,853. In Tyne and Wear, 14,500 are on the palliative of the youth opportunities programme or community enterprise schemes.
I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Terence Finley, the general secretary of the Newcastle upon Tyne Council for Voluntary Services. In it he complains bitterly about the lack of consultation by various Government Departments on initiatives such as the community programme, which I am sure the Minister will agree is closely connected with today's debate.
We badly need the co-operation of the voluntary organisations, because we all know that local government is very much hamstrung and faces manifestly difficult problems. It is not good enough for Government Departments and Ministers to take it for granted that voluntary bodies will co-operate automatically without being given the fullest opportunity for genuine and meaningful discussion before Ministers' minds are made up.
I shall not burden the House with long quotations from Mr. Finley's letter to the Secretary of State for Employment, except for the penultimate paragraph, which reads:
"While voluntary organisations wish to contribute in relation to unemployment and its social consequences, the effect of different departmental initiatives and differing approaches to, for example, consultation can be bewildering. This was particularly so last year. So far there is little evidence that the Voluntary Services Unit at the Home Office has been able to facilitate a more co-ordinated approach by Government Departments to voluntary organisations."
I appeal to the Secretary of State to take Mr. Finley's letter seriously. Will the Government get their act together on this very important issue? It cannot be much of a show if the monkey is doing a tap dance on top of the organ without the organ grinder being present.
In essence, the youth training scheme is useful, if properly undertaken. However, there are serious reservations. The scheme is meant to be a bridge between school and work. It cannot be denied that as a principle it is useful. However whatever the good intentions of the scheme, the fact cannot be hidden that the Government are on the one hand committed to this form of training while on the other they are abolishing most of the industrial training boards. A suspicious soul, unlike me would suggest that it is yet another cosmetic powder-puff to cover the ever-growing problem of the numbers of the young unemployed.
The YTS sees the main problem of youth unemployment as lack of skill. If only there were the skills, the jobs would be there, goes the refrain. However, a glance at the numbers that the YTS is supposed to cover in its first year reveals that, whatever the merits of the scheme, it does no more than get 16-year-olds off the streets. I do not disagree with that.
The idea that by September 1984, somehow 500,000 jobs will be available for youngsters with only the broadest and most general training is nothing short of a chimera under the Government's policies. If 500,000 jobs for skilled or semi-skilled workers were to be available in the foreseeable future, the Government could claim that their policies were working. However, everyone, even the Government in their secret conflabs, knows that that is not true.
The engineering employers know that Government policies are failing their industry and, therefore, failing the nation. Engineering employers are deeply sceptical of the

335
YTS. I have fact sheet No. 1 of the engineering industry training board dated January 1983. It makes utterly depressing reading. It states:
"Before the present recession redundancy was almost unknown for apprentices. Since September 1980 the situation has been very different. Large numbers of apprentices have been made redundant every month. In 1980–81 training year 2,959 were made redundant, an average of 246 per month. … In the next training year, 1981–82, although recruitment of apprentices was sharply reduced, there were another 1,468 redundant apprentices, an average of 122 a month. … In the current training year redundancies are running at around 150 a month despite an even greater cut in recruitment."
It gives me no satisfaction to quote that passage. It is a most depressing catalogue of what is happening in the productive engineering industry.
The YTS recruits in engineering will be working alongside first-year apprentices. They will be wearing the same overalls and caps and will be instructed by the same instructors. However, there is one essential difference: the first-year apprentice will have £50 a week and the YTS recruit will have £25 a week. There is a grave danger that that might arise. I am not suggesting that the major employers would be a party to it, but questionable employers in the engineering industry might well exploit the scheme.
There is a simple equation. An employer might want 10 apprentices. If he took those 10 apprentices, he would have £500 per week to pay, which is about £26,000 a year. Will there not be a grave temptation for that employer to take 20 YTS recruits at no cost? At the end of the year he can throw out 10 and keep the best 10 at no cost. He will then have 10 first-year-trained engineering apprentices. Fortunately, the redeeming feature of the YTS is that it will outlive the Government. When the next Labour Government come to power they will have an opportunity to put right some of the scheme's imperfections.
There is a crying need for quality training which would be a real alternative and supplement to the apprenticeship scheme. If the quality of the YTS is right, it can be useful, not just as a bridge between school and work, but to educate and retrain and update skills. My union's experience is that the quality that is being produced is, to say the least, variable. Improvements are made after negotiations, but what of the failures which the unions do not spot?
Another cause for worry is that there appears to be no mechanism for checking that the legitimate complaints made about the YOP, particularly in relation to health and safety, will be resolved under the new scheme. It is not sufficient to say, as an MSC spokesperson did on Radio 4 two weeks ago that "some slip through." It is too late to make improvements when limbs and even lives are lost. We have no guarantee beyond a pious hope.
The trainees are not employees and it will be extremely difficult to protect their rights in that vital respect. Clearly, unions will insist on safety representatives, but they have no legal right to do so for trainees. The better schemes and employers will be satisfactory. It is the small ones that are the worry. The relationship between the employer and the trainee will remain a worry. The latter has few rights. He or she has no redress against discrimination. That is an important safeguard, given the insistence on the voluntary nature of the scheme. That lack of rights is reflected
336
clearly in the training allowance. It is set at the absurdly low level of £25 a week. I believe that that figure should be indexed.
A more serious point is that the scheme creates a two-tier system of trainees with rates of pay that differ from person to person according to whether the person is a trainee or an employee. In almost all cases the training allowance is less than the statutory minimum laid down by wages councils, and that is anything but a living wage.
One major criticism of the scheme, which has its merits, is that it pays lip-service to continuing education for the post-18-year-olds in changing skills. There is little plan for development in that vital area.
I make one further criticism of the scheme. David Young of the MSC talks of 500,000 places and says that at present 150,000 are available. Two points emerge from that. I understand that the full operating guidelines will not emerge from the Institute of Manpower Studies until April. That is four months later than expected originally. It makes it nonsense to talk about quality training when we do not yet know what criteria will be applied. Although there is a pilot scheme already, it seems that there will be a severe shortage of places. What will the Government do to remedy that?
The YTS is not an answer to the problems facing today's youth, nor is it an alternative to a decent economic policy. It can have a vital role to play, but only as part of an alternative economic policy.
5.58 pm
Mr. John Grant: I want to deal with the scale of the problem. We have heard from the Secretary of State that the Government are spending on and doing far more for youth training than has been done before in an attempt to combat youth unemployment. We have heard comparisons of YOP with the new youth training scheme. I want to make it clear from the outset that I am not knocking YTS, but there is no real comparison to be made. The youth opportunities programme was designed to deal with a position very different from the one that we face today. The programme has been utterly swamped—as the Secretary of State must acknowledge—by the appalling rise in youth unemployment.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) is no longer in the Chamber, because I wish to comment on his remarks. The hon. Gentleman talked about demographic factors and gave disproportionate weight to them in his reasons for the increase in youth unemployment. No doubt he will read my remarks. I should have been more impressed by what he said had he and his right hon. and hon. Friends made those speeches before 1979, because those factors were apparent then.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) has had to leave the Chamber to attend a Committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend was a little harsh on the hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the Labour Government, and other Ministers in that Government, when he said that they should have done more and provided the money to set up a youth scheme such as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) wished. They were handicapped by the fact that the International Monetary Fund insisted that they made the most massive spending cuts that have been inflicted on Britain by any Government. Their economic policies landed them in the mess.
Mr. Grant: We could have a long debate about the economic policies of the Labour Government and the disastrous economic policies of this Government, but you would not encourage me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to go further down that road in the short time at my disposal. However, that does not alter my assertion that before 1979 the Conservative party did not make those points about the reasons for the rise in unemployment. It was high then, but only about half what it is now.
I shall underline the scale of the problem with some figures that I extracted from the Department of Employment about a month ago. Although they are a month out of date, they show that the position has worsened, not improved. The figures show that in Greater London the number of unemployed school leavers aged under 18 has increased by 897 per cent. since May 1979. It is probably better to use percentages because they avoid the difficulties that we now face after the Secretary of State's decision to change the method of collecting and publishing statistics. In the London borough of Islington, part of which I represent, the increase was 528 per cent. The number of unemployed under-20s in Greater London increased by 371 per cent., and the figure for the same age group who were unemployed for more than a year increased by 963 per cent. The comparable figures for Islington were 268 per cent. and 700 per cent. The Islington figures are lower, because we start from a different base.
I use those figures to underline the urgency of the problem. The Government have taken much of the credit for the youth training scheme, but it was devised by the Manpower Services Commission, and at one stage the Government appeared to be dragging their feet. However, it is a major step towards securing training opportunities for youngsters. The TUC has described it as a mighty step in that direction. That is a generous description, and I hope that it will prove to be justified. It would be churlish not to welcome the scheme, but we are still entitled to ask whether it is enough to meet the needs of young people. Last year one in two school leavers had no job to go to. The position is becoming worse, not better, and youngsters have a bleak prospect. More than 1·25 million under-25s are unemployed, and long-term or hard-core unemployment among youngsters is clearly becoming worse.
The "Jobs for Youth" campaign has made some sensible suggestions—for example, that places on the new youth training scheme that starts in September should be available to all 16 and 17-year-olds who wish to join. The Secretary of State said that that is his aim but that he cannot give us such a guarantee now. The campaign mentions an increase in allowances and says that those with special needs should receive more attention. The campaigners argue that young workers must be given training and education as part of their jobs and that apprenticeships must be increased and modernised. Overall, the demands are modest in our present position. I emphasise the special needs of young blacks and of the disabled, who face a double handicap. I know that the Secretary of State recognises that, but I ask for more attention to be given to their problems.
The Secretary of State said that he is confident that places will be found. I question that confidence and ask him whether he believes that commerce and industry will
338
find 460,000 jobs from September, bearing in mind the depressed state of British industry. I need only refer to the latest CBI survey—
Mr. Tebbit: I hope that 300,000 places will be found in commerce and industry and that the remaining 160,000 will be what we call mode B places.
Mr. Grant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for underlining that point, but it does not alter the fact that, whichever figure is chosen, I question whether he will be on target in view of our increasingly depressed economy. If the target is not reached—the lower figure that he gave was for those who will be dealt with by the local education authorities—the hard-pressed authorities will presumably be under even more pressure to take up the slack, which will cause difficulty.
It seems that some Civil Service unions oppose the youth training scheme because they fear that it will be used to cover up the Government's arbitrary staff cuts. The Manpower Services Commission wishes to have Civil Service participation, and the Secretary of State agreed with that this afternoon, although he did not deny the suggestion that the Prime Minister does not wish it. Perhaps his right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with that point in reply. It is not surprising that there are such suspicions. I hope that the Civil Service unions can overcome those suspicions, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame them for being worried about job substitution and cheap labour when one examines the guidance notes to Departments from the Government on privatisation and arbitrary manpower targets. It explains the unions' attitude fairly well.
The allowances for training and administration are inadequate. That comes back to the old argument that if the jam is spread too thinly, the quality may suffer. That, in turn, raises the point made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) relating to adequate monitoring. The Social Democratic party is calling for a special training inspectorate. Are the Government prepared to give serious consideration to that suggestion?
The problem that concerns the British Youth Council, among others, is that managing agents in the private sector can recruit direct from the youth training scheme without going to the careers service. They may cream off the better equipped youngsters and leave others at a disadvantage and without a fair crack of the whip. However, those youngsters are most in need of help from the scheme.
There must be more direct representation of youngsters or their organisations on the area manpower boards. That is causing some anxiety. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient cross-section interest on those boards and does he believe that young people are adequately represented?
We need a training system that is flexible and responsive to needs. We must ensure that youngsters have the opportunity of full-time education and training on or off the job, and we must move—there is no dissent from this in the House—from the traditional arrangements for time-served apprenticeships towards national standards. The YTS should be expanded to include all unemployed 17-year-olds. The courses will have to be lengthened.
I hope that the YTS will be highly successful. It should be a platform to build upon. Young people need real jobs. The Conservative party talked about that and constantly reminded us of it during the run-up to the 1979 election. Otherwise, the efforts will be wasted, however good the training schemes are.

339
This is clearly not the time to discuss broad economic issues, but, in reply to the hon. Member for Chippenham, there is no suggestion of overnight or simplistic solutions from the Social Democratic party. Public investment, shorter working time and general economic regeneration must come. There must be a change of Government policy. Unless we get those things right, trained or untrained young people face the appalling prospect of growing old on the dole queue. That is the challenge that faces the Government, the House and the nation. I do not believe that the Government have measured up to that challenge.
6.12 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: I apologise to both Front Benches for the fact that I will have to leave the House at 6.30 pm for a constituency engagement. I will be unable to hear the winding-up speeches. I look forward with interest to reading the remainder of the debate.
I echo, briefly, some of the criticisms that have been made about the youth training scheme. Criticisms have been made of the fact that there is no guarantee of a job at the end of the scheme, of the differentials between the training salary and the wages paid to apprentices, of the lack of any information about trade union rights and responsibilities and of the fact that the scheme will be seen by some people as an expedient to try to reduce the unemployment figures.
There was a hint in the Minister's speech that some employers, if they were quick off the mark, might be able to choose some of the trainees for particular occupations. That is all well and good. Will the Minister or his right hon. Friend give a little more detail as to how the trainees are to be matched with particular occupations?
It would be a great advantage to an employer in the engineering or electrical contracting industry to have a fairly bright trainee who might well at the end of a year's course have acquired sufficient knowledge to go on to a full apprenticeship. That would count towards his apprenticeship and reduce its length.
For many other young people who might benefit from such skilled training during their one-year course, there may not be the opportunities even under the 3:2 arrangement. How will the selection be made? Will the MSC say to employers, "You have agreed to take a dozen young people. Please take this dozen young people," or will it say, "Here are 100 young people in the local area. We know you want a dozen people. We know you are a good employer. Would you like to come along, see them and take your pick?"? More information is needed about that.
Secondly, and more important, if 300,000 trainees go into commerce or industry—that is very good—how will they be selected as distinct from the 160,000? Will it be on the basis of qualifications? That is not clear. A more important question for the 300,000 trainees going into industry and commerce is that they will be going into the existing pattern of industry and commerce. That is unavoidable, by the nature of the scheme.
What worries me about this scheme is that of the young people who get skilled training during their year, a number will be lucky enough to have decent employers and trade unions to help them. However, a number may be trained in skills of the past, not in skills of the future. Will there
340
be any direction in the scheme so that more of the trainees are guided towards a growth industry rather than to the existing patterns that might not necessarily meet the needs of industry over the next five to 10 years?
Representatives of the microcomputer industry, for example, visit schools. As a result, many young people coming out of schools and taking part in this training scheme in the next few years will have some knowledge of and interest in skills of the future. If, however, such opportunities are not present and they are trained in the retail trade, for example—there is nothing wrong with that—their skills will be wasted. We must ensure that the scheme is weighted towards industries of the future rather than industries of the past.
Mr. Tebbit: We shall do our best to push industries of the future and get young trainees into them. Geography will sometimes resolve some of these questions, as opportunities in some parts of the country will be better than in others. Above all, this will be a locally based scheme under which local employers, trade unionists and other interests can identify the skilled needs of their area in the next few years.
Mr. Deakins: I take that point. The Labour party and I would go further and say that the Government ought to be playing a greater part in planning the direction of the economy in the future. If we had a different Government, there might be more direction so that young people got better advice both at school and during the scheme, even if there was no local industry. However, some attempt should be made to provide skills locally, which the young people could then use, not necessarily by getting on their bikes but by going elsewhere to obtain suitable employment. The points I have made are important, and I hope that consideration is give to them.
6.18 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: I accept, of course, that the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) should approach the YTS in a critical and questioning manner. That is a reflection of the partisan way in which we tend to conduct our affairs in this place. It is also right to ask many questions about the complex issues arising from this inevitably new and ambitious scheme. I do not object in the slightest to the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
The hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members should accept that this is a genuine and sincere effort to deal with a long-standing problem. Reports came from Germany as long ago as the 1870s. The problem is more than a century old. We must be conscious that training in Britain has always been one of our weaker points.
In the past 10 or 20 years that realisation has been widespread throughout industry and, to a lesser extent than it might have been hoped, in the teaching profession and politics. The Labour party has issued a number of consultative documents about it. A document published in 1978 referred to the fact, that unless something was done, many workers in Britain would continue to be substantially less well paid than their counterparts abroad.
It is widely accepted that something new is needed. It is to the Government's credit that at such a difficult time in our economy they should embark on a scheme of this imagination and of cost. I hope that it will continue to receive the fair wind that it needs.

341
The country must be told again and again that the new scheme is not just another YOP. It offers at least 13 weeks of genuine high-quality training and the opportunity, whichever mode is used, of continuous work experience. We all accept that the most demoralising thing for young people of 16 and 17 is the lack of the regular discipline of work.
When the scheme was first announced, I was somewhat distressed at the timetable, which seemed to be on the slow side. As the months have gone by, I recognise that the Government and the Manpower Services Commission have got their skates on. There is much more to do, but the Secretary of State will not need me to tell him that.
I am concerned that, for example, in my own constituency, local authorities have only just begun to tell me about the YTS. My reaction has been to ask why they have not heard of it before. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State and the MSC will pull out all the stops to give all the assistance needed by the local education authorities, local authorities generally and commerce and industry, which will play such a major part in the scheme.
I am sure that all hon. Members are concerned that we should give this new start to our young people. It is up to us to heighten awareness both of what is available and of the immense resources that are being offered. This is a good deal for employers, and it ought to be a good deal for our young people.
It is easy to suggest the possibility, not of fiddling, but of sailing close to the wind. Such a suggestion should not be taken too seriously. Any possibility of creating more training opportunities and a better work force must be for the good of us all and certainly for British industry. I hope that this issue will not degenerate into a party political dog fight. It is what the country needs. On the whole, both the trade unions and the employers recognise that.
The Government must ensure the final push so that by September we have a scheme of which we can all be proud. We must ensure that no longer will we spend a century looking at our overseas competitors and admitting that the standard of training in Britain falls below that available in other countries.
6.22 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham: I begin by referring to some of the Secretary of State's remarks. He said that training in Britain was not good enough. Labour Members have been saying that for many months. No more than 12 months ago we hotly contested the Government's proposal to curtail the activities of the industrial training boards in an attempt to save £50 million. During those debates we pleaded with the Government to recognise that the standard of training in Britain was not comparable with that of our European competitors. I am therefore encouraged to note that the Minister of State is now accepting that statement. My only regret is that he did not give voice to it some months ago when we tried to resist the curtailment in the activities of the training boards.
The concentration on 16-year-olds has aroused much suspicion, because some of our youth feel that that will be at the expense of 17, 18 and 19-year-olds. I seek an assurance that the funding for 16-year-olds will not be siphoned off from the funding of other age groups. Some clarification on that point is needed.
We must face the fact that many of our youth are cynical about the Government and do not trust some of the
342
statements that are made. One Conservative Member referred to planning and said that Labour Members believed in it. We do indeed. He recognised that a lack of planning for the provision of skills would create manpower shortages with all its other consequences, and there are numerous examples of the consequences arising from the failure to make provision for any economic upturn.
I was delighted that another Conservative Member referred to Japan. He seemed to praise the Japanese education system. He said that Japanese youths were kept on for technical education and training, as a result of which Japan was better equipped to compete with the rest of the world.
To our great sorrow, the Government have consistently cut back on education. I have even heard it said that they might reduce the school leaving age to below 16. If Conservative Members really believe that the Japanese education system is so good, the ought to use their influence to persuade the Government to do likewise.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that it was the Prime Minister who, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, raised the school leaving age to 16. From my long and wide experience, I know of no school at which any pupil has been refused a place beyond the statutory school leaving age if that pupil has wanted one.
Mr. Eastham: I have no doubt that the raising of the school leaving age to 16 was a party obligation that had been entered into a number of years before the right hon. Lady took office as Secretary of State for Education and Science. It is hard to believe that the Prime Minister is so progressive that she wants to introduce advances in education, because if that were so she would be urging education Ministers to change the savage policies from which we are suffering at present.
Apart from the dreadful state of youth unemployment, another problem requires specialist attention. I am thinking about the many companies that have taken on apprentices and have then gone into liquidation. Many young people have begun four-year apprenticeships, but after two or three years have found themselves without a job. They have been unable to complete the full apprenticeship scheme. There are thousands of young people in that terrible dilemma. I assure the Minister that parents have written to me about this terrible predicament, and any special assistance to deal with that problem would be gratefully received.
The situation remains gloomy. I have read some of the glossy leaflets, but the White Paper makes three important references—to developing skilled training; to work-related training and education; and to updating skills and knowledge. Those are the three most fundamentally important aspects of training. I hope that those objectives will be achieved in some way or other.
There was much justifiable criticism of previous so-called training schemes, some of which were greatly abused. Young people said that they were being exploited as cheap labour, that there was no skill training and that they were being used to sweep floors and run errands. That is not training. I realise that a considerable amount of money—£1 billion—is washing around here. I sincerely hope that it will not be misused. We must be extremely cautious about unscrupulous agencies. It is important that skilled, trained, professional people in education should have a major say in these matters.

343
Employers sometimes criticise standards of education. When I was involved in education a few years before I came to the House, some employers were saying that the young people were doing badly in their entrance examinations and that standards were unsatisfactory. We investigated that complaint to discover what was going wrong. We found that although the metric system of measurement had been introduced into the schools, some of the employers were still using the imperial system. The education system had advanced but the employers—the critics—were not moving with the times. One cannot blame education for that. Employers have to tell educationists what they want. I am sure that educationists will then co-operate to try to meet employers' needs.
I should like to say more, but time is against me. I hope that the Minister will bear those points in mind, and I shall be grateful for any observations that he may make.
6.32 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), who has had a distinguished career as an engineer and was a distinguished lay educationist in Manchester for some years.
Overall, the Secretary of State's speech was low key, low profile, candid and frank, but it was also an apologia for the current youth unemployment figures. We were disappointed to hear that the Minister has engaged the diabolical smoothies who conned the British people into voting Conservative for supposed full employment after 1979—the advertising agency of Saatchi and Saatchi—to sell the scheme to employers and parents.
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Jones: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I assume that he will now be the apologist for Saatchi and Saatchi.
Mr. Tebbit: Ministers do not engage advertising agents for the Manpower Services Commission.
Mr. Jones: I fully accept that, but I conclude that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the choice was a right and proper one. We would contest that fiercely.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend may be right to castigate the Minister who may or may not have been responsible, but surely it is better to give the account to a British firm than to an American firm? The pro-nuclear campaign is to be handled by an American firm, J. Walter Thompson. The Government are giving away £1 million. As the Prime Minister says, "Buy British, pay British."
Mr. Jones: I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) for the patriot that he clearly is. Nevertheless, Saatchi and Saatchi is currently fulfilling the role of specialist cosmetician for the Conservatives in relation to unemployment figures that stink.
The Secretary of State in his approach and style today resembled a Samuel Smiles in a moral panic. His speech was that of a worried man with a sense of urgency and of a Cabinet Minister somewhat on the defensive.
Miss Clare Short was the subject of a studied attack by the Secretary of State. Clearly, her bulletin "Youthaid"
344
and her correspondence in The Guardian have touched a raw departmental nerve, but committed, researched and informed criticism from a former member of the special programmes division may surely be helpful.
The critics of the scheme have had a hearing. They say that after 12 months' training one in two young people will return to unemployment and that that is not a better way to train people for work. The Government fanfare is that £1 billion is to be spent on the new training scheme and that £750 million has already been allocated this year for the YOP schemes. In the first year the YTS will cost about £900 million. The critics say that much of that would otherwise have been spent on supplementary benefit. They further argue that employers will recruit trainees rather then employ school leavers for wages so as to cut their wages bills. The critics also point out that the hours and holidays offered are inferior to those enjoyed by the average worker and that the allowance is declining in value. Others state that the advertising campaign for which Saatchi and Saatchi is being paid £1·5 million is in part being manipulated to help to allay public fears about youth unemployment.
Both sides of the House must agree that the debate takes place against a daunting backcloth of unemployment. Youngsters are told the truth that a job is the pivot of life, but in the next few years the number of long-term unemployed may rise to 1·5 million. If, as many forecasters expect, unemployment remains at about 3 million for some years, 35 to 40 per cent. of the total will be long-term unemployed.
As the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) said, unemployment is increasingly hitting younger people and 60 per cent. of the total are under 45 years of age. Worse, the fastest growth in long-term unemployment is among the under-25s. At the last count 1,248,000 citizens in that age group were unemployed. Worse still, as recently as October 1982 the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), calculated that 263,000 16 and 17-year-olds had neither jobs nor training. That is the gaping hole in the Government's provision for youth. That deplorable statistic can incite only outrage and shame, and the Secretary of State openly conceded today that there was not so strong a guarantee in the scheme for the 17-year-olds.
Precisely how do the Government propose to help the great army of underprivileged youth? Will the new scheme come to the rescue of all unemployed 17-year-olds? The new community programme—supposedly the cheaper version of the old community enterprise programme—achieved only 40,000 places out of a possible 130,000 in November of last year. Ministers may bang the drum of departmental achievement, but they should hang their heads in shame about such statistics.
The hon. Member for Islington, Central referred to ethnic minorities. We want a clear statement on that issue from the Minister of State tonight. The Government should spell out their policy on the scheme as it relates to ethnic minorities. The new scheme should represent a new deal for them. As recently as November of last year the Commission for Racial Equality postulated that there was a 60 per cent. unemployment rate among black teenagers in our inner cities. The commission even alleged that discrimination existed. The Minister should tell us of his hopes in that sphere.

345
The Minister should also be aware that researchers have found evidence of a lack of equal opportunity for females on YOP courses. He should guarantee that the scheme's staff will not segregate girls into traditional roles. The new scheme should ensure a widening of opportunities for young women.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the physically handicapped. How genuine are the Government in their declared promise to guarantee training for all unemployed 16-year-olds? How will the scheme cater for the physically handicapped? Does the new scheme need to be amended to achieve that? Should places be offered on the new scheme to those handicapped young people who remain in full-time education until they are aged 18 or 19? So far the Department's attitude to the scheme has been vague and unconvincing. Perhaps the Minister of State will go on the record today and reassure some of us about that attitude, just as he might reassure us on the subject of vouchers.
We should have a categorical denial that the Department is preparing to ask workers and the unemployed to pay for part of their retraining when they wish to keep or obtain jobs. That query is of relevance and interest to every youngster who is soon to embark on the new scheme. In an article in The Guardian on 13 December, the newspaper's social services correspondent said that, according to a report that is being considered by the Government:
"Workers would be expected to raise bank loans with easy repayment terms if they wanted to retrain for new skills."
I challenge the Minister to go on record today and kill that allegation and reassure the tens of thousands of youngsters who are about to embark on the scheme.
Last year the MSC urged the Government not to operate the £260 million young workers scheme, and especially not to operate it alongside the youth training scheme. The MSC pointed out bluntly that the young workers scheme did not encourage training for young people. It is disgraceful that the Government today seek praise and acclamation for their new scheme and for their public commitment to training, while at the same time they propose to pump £260 million into a widely advertised young workers scheme that is bereft of training provision. Arguably, that scheme is devoted to forcing down youngsters' wages.
The Minister should announce today that the moneys that are earmarked for the young workers scheme will be switched to the youth training scheme, as the MSC has urged the Department to do. There was a distressing catalogue of accidental deaths and amputations in last year's YOP scheme. How will the Department ensure that health and safety training and the protection of trainees in the new scheme can be enforced?
There has been some evidence of employers having a lack of faith in the new scheme. Indeed, it places too great a reliance on employers providing many of the facilities and much of the support for training. Sir Terence Beckett of the CBI commented that employers might find it difficult to give all the help they would like to give to the scheme unless company profitability improved and the economy showed greater signs of recovery. He made that statement early last year. Today, the front page of The Guardian surmises that the CBI sees that 90,000 jobs could be at risk, with no sign of the recession going away. On that basis, the Minister needs to assure us that the Government believe that they can obtain sufficient sponsors.
346
The Opposition's fundamental criticism of the scheme and of the Government centres on the Government's unwillingness to reflate the economy. In the immediate years ahead, the mass unemployment level will probably still approximate 3 million. Many of our boys and girls may thus be doomed to joining the dole queues after completing their training year.
We know that 250,000 under-18s are without work or training. It may be said that the scheme, given a fair wind, could be a golden bridge between school and meaningful, secure and fulfilling work. But it might also be said, sadly, that the scheme will for tens of thousands of youngsters, be a gangplank from school to the humiliation and frustration of the dole.
The Secretary of State tonight set out one of the Government's election stalls. Clearly, they envisage the scheme—warts and all—being a vote winner. We all want the scheme to be successful, but, in itself, it will be useless if those who complete it successfully find themselves high and dry on the dole. They will be the best qualified school leavers, but nevertheless part and parcel of the monetarist-induced mass unemployment statistics.
The House must not forget that since the Government took office one in five jobs in manufacturing industry has disappeared. Most companies have ruthlessly slimmed their manning levels to stay alive. If the present economic strategy continues, the eager trainees will become a generation at risk. To doom them to the dole will be for the Secretary of State and his Government to engage in a moral crime.
6.48 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) raised a number of points, some of which echoed those raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) at the start of the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to cover the points in a cornucopian manner. He made one reference to the community programme. He was a little unfair in quoting the figures that we had reached by December. They were not bad figures, because the scheme only began in October. We have full expectation that we shall achieve the 130,000 target by the end of the year.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster made an odd speech, with a curious Pavlovian aspect to it. He was clearly taken aback by his own pet stereotype of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He was expecting a roaring lion prowling around seeking whom he could devour. Instead, my right hon. Friend performed like a dove. The right hon. Member came to the debate with a lion trap to trap my right hon. Friend, but he flew away. He made a constructive, entirely peaceful, informative, factual speech that was full of harmony. The right hon. Member for Doncaster was so surprised that all he could do was to wheel out the old blunderbuss with which one attacks lions. My right hon. Friend was not performing like a lion today, although he is a lion in Cabinet when it comes to getting money.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) was quite right to say that she was unable to obtain the resources that have been given to my right hon. Friend. He has been able to do a job in securing resources for this programme which no former Minister on the Opposition side has come anywhere near doing.

347
The right hon. Member for Doncaster, after spending almost the whole of his speech trying to shoot my right hon. Friend as if he were a lion, but getting the wrong target, then produced the most ludicrous case by way of a weapon with which to attack my right hon. Friend—a Sunday Times article of June 1982 about a truncated report of some interview on a particular training scheme in a particular company. Obviously, because he was expecting my right hon. Friend to have attacked everyone indiscriminately, this was his studied riposte and he spent about 20 minutes on it. It was entirely irrelevant.
As for Guardian articles that have been ladled out like gruel in the poorhouse to the House this afternoon, we will not scrape a drop from the carpet. It is all rubbish. A Sunday Times article is one thing; these endless drips from The Guardian, alleging scandals, are not worth the time it takes to read them. So I am afraid there will be no response to them.
It was a pity that the right hon. Member for Doncaster also had to bang the old party drum about unemployment—that is to say, that it is monstrous that we have unemployment under a Conservative Government, the implication being that it is something, like strikes or inflation or shortages of resources, which never happens under a Labour Government. He forgets that, if unemployment has doubled in the 1980s—we do not pretend it has not—it also doubled in the 1970s and in the 1960s. In both the 1960s and the 1970s it did so under Labour Governments. This "holier than thou" attitude towards unemployment is therefore particularly uncon-vincing in the Labour party.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster's patronising and superior tone of condescension about the youth training scheme is particularly damaging not to the Government but to the Opposition, because it comes from a member of a party which, having presided over two lots of doubling of unemployment, managed to come up with nothing further in respect of training than three consultative papers, the first of which was produced as late as 1978. That is the record of the Labour party whose members try to lambast my right hon. Friend today for having done something real and substantial to come to grips with unemployment, which was presided over by the Labour party for far longer than by the Conservatives.
Mr. Dan Jones rose—
Mr. Alison: Of course I will give way without hesitation to the hon. Gentleman in just a minute. I have carefully marked that he is to have a helping in this debate. I just want to point out that, to get the youth unemployment figures in perspective, it is worth reminding right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of a vivid and fair way of putting it which they may have seen in the extremely effective exhibition mounted in the Committee Corridor by the Manpower Services Commission.
Mr. Harold Walker: Where were you?
Mr. Alison: I was standing in for my right hon. Friend, who was sick.
As can be seen in the exhibition, for every 10 youngsters who reach the age of 16 at the present time, three continue at school and three find jobs. That is, the majority either find jobs or stay at school, and the
348
minority—four out of the 10—are unemployed. That is the group we are seeking to garner and help by the youth training scheme. We expect that two of those four will get jobs at the conclusion so that eight out of ten school leavers either continue at school, get jobs straight away or get into the youth training scheme and only two at the end fail immediately to get work. That is not a bad record in relation to the real problem we have.
Mr. Dan Jones: Whatever might be said about the lions and the lambs, this is a constructive document. I am very pleased to tell the House that about two and a half years ago in Nelson, a neighbouring constituency to my own, I was asked to address a meeting of apprentices. I did so and found it a great pleasure because, having been in engineering for many years, I know that apprentices are the very basis of engineering. I am sure the Minister realises this as well. Out of politeness to him, I had to tell the resident Member, who is still a Member of the House, now on the Government side, that I had been there. We, seven Members from that area, collected nearly £400 which we gave to the people organising the apprentices. We asked them if they would tell the employers' federation that we had done it. We asked the employers if they would make a contribution as well. I wrote to the Minister in question, telling him what we had done.
Unless this is done, whatever money there may be in the next Parliament, without this type of personnel, not much will be achieved. I am very pleased that there is a place in north-east Lancashire for the people who began this on behelf of the engineering industry.
Mr. Alison: I have noted carefully the point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) about apprentices and I will try to say a word about them. The House will recall that he is the hon. Member who once said in the middle of one of his own speeches: "I pause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to interrupt myself." I hope he will remember my support when he gets to heaven.
Turning to some specific points made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster after he had finished his abortive attempt to attack my peace-loving and right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, he asked a question about the young worker scheme. The expectation is that it will run parallel with the youth training scheme—that is, at least throughout 1983–84. Beyond that, no decisions have been taken. There are 145,000 applicants approved on this scheme so far. That was the figure at the end of December 1982. That is a large number of youngsters being helped in jobs.
Local authority expenditure on the youth training scheme which is reimbursed by the Manpower Services Commission will not count towards expenditure limits. This is the same arrangement as the youth opportunities programme. While we would not wish to see local authorities penalised as a result of additional expenditure incurred through participation in the new scheme, we should not consider an exemption for additional expenditure justified.
The right hon. Member asked about apprenticeship schemes. I hope this is where I can say something to encourage the hon. Member for Burnley too. I can understand concern that the scheme should not undermine in any way the quality of apprenticeship training in at least its opening year of operation, 1983–84. I can assure the right hon. Member for Doncaster, the hon. Member for

349
Burnley and others who talked about apprenticeship schemes that there is no intention at all of overturning existing good practices, but rather of building on them. Managing agents will be able to run schemes on which some youngsters are treated as apprentices while others receive training in different skills, provided the youth training scheme standards are met in both cases. We hope many more young people will be given the opportunity to go on to specific skills training as a result of entering the youth training scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) and I had the privilege of visiting the north of England not long ago when we saw an ICI scheme which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Burnley may know about and my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) may have heard of, which is an interesting apprenticeship scheme. There is a common first year for youth training scheme entrants and apprentices. There is a common wage, to which the company contributes. It is a consolidated figure. All the unions have agreed the scheme. I have welcomed it myself, as has my right hon. Friend. Apprentices will be selected from the total intake at the end of the first year. The skill attainment of the trainees will determine the apprentices taken on after the first year.
I have also visited schemes—Carreras Rothman in the north-east is one example—where there are two separate streams. The YTS stream is separated from the apprentice stream. Within that spectrum, there is a good deal of scope for variation.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is interested in the wage factor. I cannot generalise. In the ICI scheme, there is a consolidated figure. In the Carreras scheme, the apprentice rate continues alongside the YTS rate. I cannot generalise. It depends upon the particular scheme.
I have been asked about the protection of trainees. The existing YOP arrangements, which are, in effect designed to ensure that trainees are as much protected as full
350
employees, will continue under the youth training scheme. The MSC will take out the necessary insurance cover which it will fund. At the end of the day, trainees will effectively be as fully protected de facto as those who are legally and technically employees.
The right to join trade unions is under examination. The right of local trade unions to have some say in a local scheme is being studied. The likelihood is that they will be consulted on it.
A number of hon. Members have made other comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) was concerned about the extent to which life and social skills aspect might be dealt with in some training schemes being developed. All youth training scheme programmes which have a life and social skills dimension to them, and some of those I have visited, make a considerable amount of that element. They are designed to teach skills relevant to obtaining and retaining a job. To the extent that political training is relevant to the objective of the scheme, it can be included in off-the-job training. It is not only a matter of political realities. The Carreras Rothman scheme includes visits to prisons and to the police service.
Mr. Wolfson: My point was more specific. It would be part of the life and social skills training, but training specifically designed to enable those taking part to market themselves in finding jobs.
Mr. Alison: I am certain that this is regarded by those devising the modules and programmes as a crucial element. The schemes that I have visited—the Carreras Rothman scheme is a good example—included as a major element the part played by the trainee in self-assessment and measuring his own progress. I have tried to cover the points made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). If I have not covered every issue, in this short debate, I shall write to those hon. Members who have raised other points.

Trade
[Relevant documents:
Unnumbered European Community Document on common rules for imports of certain textile products originating in third countries.
European Community Document No. 11775/82.
Department of Trade memorandum of 13 December 1982.]
7.3 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Peter Rees): I hope that the House will not find difficulty in switching its mind now to problems of trade. No one, I am sure, will question the appropriateness of a debate on trade. It is right that, in a period of world recession, the House should re-examine the principles by which we have ordered our trade policies for many years and assess the United Kingdom's performance under them.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that, notwithstanding the over-clouded sky of the world recession, the Government believe that the United Kingdom—and, indeed, the world—benefits, and will continue to benefit, from the maintenance, strengthening and extension of the open market trading system. Whatever disagreements there may have been at the GATT ministerial meeting in November, it should be noted that the 88 signatory countries, which between them are responsible for about 80 per cent. of the world's trade, reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the open trading system and, in several areas, initiated work to strengthen and extend that system. That cannot have been an accident induced by the fatigue of five days of continuous discussion and debate.
Having been privileged to take part, I like to think that it was a sober and considered view. Indeed, in commiting themselves to the final communiqué, the Government were only reaffirming principles which have found favour with many previous Administrations. I cite, because he puts it so succinctly and attractively, the words of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore):
"This country can only prosper if it is part of a world trading system in which we are able to trade freely with the other five continents of the world."
In case it should be thought that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking to some esoteric body, it was apparently a speech made to the Southampton constituency Labour party in June 1974. The right hon. Gentleman was addressing the grass roots. I have no doubt that his remarks evoked a warm response.
I refer also to the wise words of the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) who, as Secretary of State for Trade, in December 1978, said:
"We in Britain remain convinced of the desirability of defeating creeping protectionism and of the benefits of maintaining, if we can, the open world trading system."
How right those words were then. How right they are today. I hope, therefore, that a strong consensus on these lines will emerge from the debate.
Leaving aside philosophic considerations, the facts and figures should, I believe, persuade us that the United Kingdom has not been doing badly under the present system. At a time when the volume of world trade fell significantly, the volume of United Kingdom exports increased by 1 per cent. The United Kingdom exported £37 billion of manufactured goods in 1982 compared with £35 billion in 1981. That is a creditable performance when the
352
House recalls that world trade contracted by 3 per cent. It is hardly the sour fruit of an industrial wasteland as some hon. Members, although perhaps not those now present, are prone to describe this country at present.
Our trade in invisibles was about £31 billion in 1982—an increase of 6·5 per cent. over 1981 and an increase of 21 per cent. over 1980. Since over 11·5 million of our fellow countrymen are employed in the service sector, this must be reassuring news for them. Our current account surplus in 1982 was over £4·5 billion—almost as high as the record surplus in 1981, which came to over £6 billion. Our cumulative surplus for the last three years has been over £13 billion. That is not the performance of a country in irreversible decline.
Credit must, of course, go first to British exporters. However, as they would no doubt be the first to admit, there has also been a positive commitment by the Government to aid and support expanding exports. The British Overseas Trade Board deserves particular mention. Its export intelligence service alone provided opportunities which led to sales of £1 billion in 1982. In 1982, the BOTB supported over 340 United Kingdom joint venture stands at overseas trade fairs compared with fewer than 300 the year before.
The Export Credits Guarantee Department also provides a service as flexible and comprehensive as that offered by any other country. It is currently doing business worth about £30 billion a year by way of insuring and helping to finance United Kingdom exports. Despite all the risks round the world today, the ECGD's commitments to exporters stand at about £38 billion. Again, the aid and trade provision budget—that part of the aid budget specifically related to projects—has been increased from £55 million in 1982–83 to £66 million for the next financial year. I believe that this programme is good for the recipient countries since it is channelled into projects that they want, but that it is also good for the United Kingdom because it goes to support competitive bids by efficient United Kingdom companies.
Mr. Dan Jones: I think what has been recited so far is accurate, but has it been selective enough? Places which were predominant in the textile industry at one time have not got even a rag to manufacture. That is my point about being selective.
Mr. Rees: I hope the House will not think me churlish if I do not give way too often, but this is a short debate and I have much ground to cover. I shall be coming to the textile industry and to the importance of the multi-fibre arrangement.
The ATP programme, which is not relevant to the textile industry, since its inception, has been used to make aid grants and loans of £247 million associated with United Kingdom project business worth over £1 billion, and has created and sustained many thousands of United Kingdom jobs. I regard this as exceptionally good value for money.
While no one should doubt the Government's commitment to the open market system, I hope no one will regard this as stemming from blind ideological conviction. It is tempered by a pragmatic, not to say practical, concern for special cases and for special sensitivities.
The Government have recognised, as have previous Governments, and still recognise the special problems of the textile and clothing industries—the often painful process of readjustment which has involved shedding

353
about 180,000 jobs in the last three years. That is why, to enable them to adjust to competition from low-cost suppliers and not inconsistent with the general principles that have influenced our trade policies, we have supported the European Commission in its prolonged negotiations for a tough multi-fibre arrangement—tougher, I must remind the House, than the MFA which preceded it and which was negotiated by the Labour Government. [Interruption.] I wonder. I think the storm clouds were there to see, judging from earlier debates in which possibly the hon. Gentleman did not take part.
I need hardly remind the House that the protocol was signed in December 1981, and 25 new bilateral agreements were entered into before the close of last year. As soon as they are formally signed, they will be laid in the Library of the House for hon. Members to study in detail. They cover the sensitive group 1 and the slightly less sensitive groups 2 and 3. Since the detail is enormous, I hope the House will forgive me if I do not attempt to summarise the agreements here tonight, particuarly because I made a full statement just before Christmas.
I should, however, emphasise that this MFA will involve a lower growth rate than under the previous MFA—in the case of group 1 just under 1 per cent.—a cutback on the dominant suppliers of around 7·5 per cent.; an anti-surge mechanism to prevent the rapid take-up of previously unused quotas; a basket extractor mechanism to enable new quotas to be opened; a special recession clause; and measures to deal with fraudulent imports. I believe that this MFA will provide a breathing space for these hard-pressed industries of which they will be able to take full advantage. Indeed, because I might appear to concentrate too strongly on the problems of these industries, I should like to congratulate them publicly on the level of their exports, which amount to about £2 billion per annum. That again demonstrates that there is a good deal of resilience, strength and entrepreneurial skill in those industries, and I do not think that we should write them down.
Of course, this MFA has a price. It is a price which has to be paid largely by the United Kingdom consumer. In all these cases a balance has to be struck between the interests of our consumers, producers and exporters and even of the developing world. If the developing world cannot sell into our markets, it will not be able to buy from us and it will not be able to service its debts. It is right that I should emphasise that.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The Minister has attached importance to the MFA. On what date will the new agreement be placed in the Library? Textile industries in St. Helens are waiting expectantly for it.
Mr. Rees: I understand the concern of the House and of the industries. The outlines are by now fairly well known. The industries have been keeping a watchful eye on the negotiations, as many hon. Members can confirm. I am afraid it does not lie with me to say exactly when the agreements will be signed. I have no doubt that it is a formality. None the less, I cannot lay these agreements until they have been formally signed and can be regarded as documents to be put before the House. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said and will communicate his concern and that of the industries to the Commission.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend has talked about the textile industry. It is normal,
354
when talking about the textile industry, to talk also about the footwear industry. I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends to come to the footwear industry. I think he is aware that the footwear industry has felt somewhat of a Cinderella industry in regard to its treatment by Governments over the last 10 years. It has been left on one side and has not had a fair crack of the whip. There has been a problem not only in Canada, Brazil, Australia and Japan, but within the Community, where we are supposed to have free trade. There is strong resentment that, for example, in Italy the industry does not carry the overheads and pay the taxes that our manufacturers have to bear. We import from Italy twice as much as we export to the rest of the world. What will be done within Europe against the Italians and the French, who, for one reason or another, compete unfairly with our industry which is suffering so severely?
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend will no doubt have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is no: usual to debate the multi-fibre arrangement and the footwear industry in the same breath. I am well aware of the concern on this subject in Northampton. As my hon. Friend will know, there is a whole range of voluntary restraint arrangements to which the Government have given support. I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I shall be coming to the internal market, if I am given sufficient time.
Perhaps I may turn rapidly, and rather more succinctly, to Japan. It follows from our commitment to the open market that we expect other developed economies to accept the same obligations as we do. Our trade deficit last year with Japan—some £2 billion—may in part reflect the efficiency of Japanese industry in certain sectors, but we believe it also demonstrates very clearly that the Japanese market is not as open to our exports as ours is to its exports. Indeed, Japan's imports of manufactures, as a proportion of gross domestic product, are only half those of other developed countries, such as the United States and the countries of the European Community.
We have not hesitated to make our case robustly to the Japanese Government and to Japanese industry, not only bilaterally but through the Community. Indeed, the Community is now pressing its case against Japan before the GATT under article 23 and has asked for the case to be considered by a GATT working party. Commissioners Davignon and Haferkamp will again be in Tokyo this month. They are in no doubt about the need for identifiable progress on this front.
It would, however, be churlish not to recognise that the Japanese have taken a number of steps over the past year to help to improve access to their market. Of particular interest to our exporters was the reduction by 12 per cent. in the tariffs on confectionery, biscuits and chocolate. It seems, too, that gradual progress is being made towards eliminating other difficulties, such as onerous testing and inspection procedures. Furthermore, Prime Minister Nakasone has made a public appeal on the need for Japan to increase its manufactured imports, and we shall be pressing for some genuine follow up by action—for example, through major purchases of our aerospace and other capital equipment products. But I have to emphasise that we shall not be satisfied until we have secured a fairer deal for our exporters.
The Government are also concerned about the acute imbalance in trading opportunity between the United

355
Kingdom and Spain, and in particular the tariff disparity that stems from the 1970 agreement between the Community and Spain. I am well aware of the concern in the west midlands on this subject. The disparity may have been justified by the relative backwardness of the Spanish economy in 1970, but it is now totally archaic. The problem is further exacerbated by Spain's failure to observe with any exactness its obligations under the 1970 agreement and by its vigorous policy of export promotion.
As in the case of Japan, we have taken action through the Community. The Commission is pursuing the matter with a greater sense of urgency with the new Spanish Government. Several sessions of talks have already been held—most recently in Brussels on Monday 31 January. The Commission made an interim progress report at the Community's January Foreign Affairs Council and a full report will be given to the February Council. We have made it clear that we need early and effective action in Madrid. We require early improvements in the opportunities for United Kingdom exports to Spain.
I should, in passing, emphasise that in all these areas our negotiating position has gained considerable strength from our membership of the European Community. I should be the last, in the aftermath of the south Atlantic conflict, to underestimate our capacity for national action. However, I have to point out that in trading questions our exposure to retaliation is diminished, our muscle is increased, and our opportunities enlarged by our membership of the largest trading bloc in the world.
Dr. John Cunningham: The matters to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been addressing himself have, of necessity, been those of the broad brush and the large scale, and have therefore included some strengths and some weaknesses; and he has now mentioned Europe. Therefore, I should like to put two points to him about trade in Europe. The first concerns the chemical industry and the second the British paper industry, both of which are at present losing their share of the British market, mainly because of imports from European countries. This is particularly ironic as our trade surplus is based on energy exports, and it is the very cost of energy that these industries say is undermining their position.
Mr. Rees: I am aware of the concern about the petrochemical industry's overcapacity in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman can bring to my attention any cases of distortion of trade in this industry, I shall bring the subject up in Brussels. The paper industry's greatest concern is with imports from European Free Trade Association countries. Again, we are happy to look at any specific cases.
I know about the three large lay-offs in the north-west, which are matters for the companies concerned. I am concerned about these matters, but I notice that Wiggins Teape has a £9 million expansion programme in other parts of the country.
Yesterday I attended a Council of Ministers in Brussels. It was devoted exclusively to questions of the internal market of the European Community. This was the first such Council to be held and was largely prompted by the Government. It was designed to initiate a programe of measures to eliminate barriers to trade—to make internal trade easier—in the internal market of the European
356
Community in conformity with the decision of the European summit held in Copenhagen on 3 December 1982.
The subjects discussed included third country access, a single administrative document for goods crossing intra-Community frontiers, information exchange about standards, reducing frontier formalities, and a system of postponed collection of VAT. The subjects are highly technical and complex, but they relate to the central theme of liberating trade in our largest export market.
Further meetings of the Council are likely to be held before the European summit in June this year. In particular, the Council will hope to begin consideration of questions relating to trade in services.
It is of the essence of the Community that there should be a free market for the exchange of goods, services, capital and labour. I hope that this and subsequent Councils will make a significant contribution to the attainment of this objective.
This leads me back to the grand theme of this debate. Last week the Leader of the Opposition, with both his shadow trade and foreign affairs spokesmen strangely silent, apparently sought to overturn this country's commitment to the open trading system in the event of a Labour Government being returned to power. His analysis of the problem and his prescription have the air of engaging eccentricity that increasingly marks his pronouncements on serious subjects.
I am sure that the House will have noticed the right hon. Gentleman's recent pronouncements at the Labour party rally in the MacLellan galleries, Glasgow, on Saturday 22 January. In case his lapidary words escaped the House's attention, I should like to refer to some of the more telling passages. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman appears to have been rather badly briefed as he suggested that the Government
"have succeeded in losing a balance of payments surplus of £6 billion."
The figures that I have given to the House show that the trade surplus in the last year was over £4·5 billion and in the previous year £6 billion. Where he thinks the balance of payments surplus has been squandered or lost, he alone can say.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"They have squandered our foreign currency reserve and inflation will be rising."
On what facts he bases that extraordinary proposition, I do not know, but perhaps his hon. Friends taking part in the debate tonight will enlighten us further.
Admittedly, the December 1982 trade figures had not then come out, but, even so, it would have been possible for anyone who had studied these matters, with the vast resources of the Labour party's research department, to forecast that our current account balance would be well in excess of £3 billion. It was nearly £4·5 billion.
The right hon. Gentleman then said:
"Socialist France under President Mitterrand has shown us some of the answers".
I hesitate to comment on the policies of a friendly neighbour in the European Community, but to what can he be referring? The French current account balance? Surely not, since that is likely to amount to a deficit of 80 billion francs in 1982, equivalent to a deficit of £7·5 billion. Its rate of inflation? Surely not, since that it is now about 9·5 per cent. The stability of the Frence franc? But the slide in confidence has been halted only by a deposit of $4 billion by Saudi Arabia in Paris.

357
The right hon. Gentleman then continued—this is worth studying as this will presumably be the basis on which the Labour party will go to the polls—by saying:
"What we have to recognise is that the present free trade system is an obstacle to world recovery."
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have consulted his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he said that. His right hon. Friend as recently as 13 November last year told us:
"Some Socialists were tempted to seek salvation through trade restrictions or competitive devaluation when they are faced with the difficulty of unilateral reflation … Such beggar-thy-neighbour policies if pursued on the scale required to offer any hope of escaping the dilemma are more likely to lead to a trade or currency war than to insulate their sponsors from the recession of the outside world."
How right his right hon. Friend was. What a pity that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) does not talk more regularly to him, or, if he does, talks of other subjects. What a pity, too, that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar did not talk to his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East before suggesting his 30 per cent. devaluation. Will the Opposition Front Bench spokesman confirm that that, too, is part of the Labour party's economic policy?
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The Government have taken us half-way there already.
Mr. Rees: We shall see. I hope that we shall get some applause, although I do not claim any of the credit for that.
However, I revert to the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman seems to claim that his proposals for planned trade based on import controls are something entirely separate from old-fashioned protectionism. The difference is too fine for me to grasp. His major difficulty seems to be that the distinction is likely to be too fine for our trading partners also to grasp when they find trade barriers erected against the growth of their exports. If we can plan trade with them by controlling their exports, they can presumably plan trade with us in exactly the same way. That is still a trade war by any other name and still a risk to which a country that exports over 30 per cent. of its gross domestic product should not be exposed. It was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East who again, in a speech in March 1980, said:
"People talk of planned trade as the answer. But it takes two to tango, and trade can be planned only by agreements with one's trading partners."
How right he was.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Do the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks this evening in praise of free trade apply to agriculture? Has he consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about this matter?
Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman and I have had this exchange before in the context of my GATT statement. From his experience under the various Labour Governments, of which he was an adornment when we were outside the European Community, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that no country fails to support its agriculture to some degree. If the Labour party is coming out against any support for agriculture, perhaps it had better incorporate that clearly in its election manifesto.
The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition's casual readiness to disregard painfully negotiated international agreements and treaty obligations, his conviction, in
358
contradiction to almost all the world's leading international trade experts, that free trade is a major obstacle to, rather than an essential precondition of, world economic recovery, and his desire to withdraw first from Europe and then from the rest of the world behind tariff barriers must have already helped to raise doubts in some minds about our reliability as a trading partner. If such policies were to be implemented, they would be a disaster for our economy, a disaster for our consumers and a disaster for our exporters. The Leader of the Opposition appears to have forgotten the lesson of the 1930s when world trade in manufactured goods contracted by 40 per cent.
I hope that the House will unhesitatingly reject such reckless and ill-thought-out solutions and recognise that the trading policies of this country are best left in the practised and careful hands of the Conservative party.
7.30 pm
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The words of the Minister for Trade, who is faced by the economic disasters that his Government have perpetrated in this country, fall ill from his lips. I shall say more later on that matter.
First, however, I shall say a word about textiles and clothing, as the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned those matters in the early part of his speech. I know that the House would have liked to discuss these matters today in the light of the documents and details that we had all hoped would be available before this debate. Unfortunately, that information and the assessment of the implications of the agreements are not yet available. This is a regrettable delay, however understandable it may be, in the context of this debate. I need hardly remind the House that these industries have experienced a rapid decline in employment in recent years, and the remaining 600,000 workers will expect Parliament to look carefully at the latest agreements, when they are available. I hope that the Minister will tell us that time will be allowed for their proper consideration when the documents are available. In the meantime, I shall make a few brief comments and await that further consideration in due course.
I remain worried by the apparently considerable gap between actual imports last year and the quotas fixed for 1983. There is still considerable scope for significant import penetration if and when an upturn comes. The treatment of some clothing imports from eastern Europe and ASEAN countries is already causing concern.
Now that the agreements have been made, I shall put three important points to the Minister. First, there must be strict and thorough monitoring and control of imports, in line with the agreements, and they must be made to stick. Secondly, the potential advantage of the agreements must not be thrown away in dealings with other sources of imports, such as Turkey and China. Thirdly, we as a country must seek an early reduction in the unequal and often high tariff barriers that are put up against textile and clothing exports from this country in countries such as the United States, Spain, Australia, South Korea and Brazil.
The Government have now been in office for nearly four years, and the time has long since gone when they could blame others for the failings of their policies. Rarely have I heard Ministers claim so much credit for so little success, and disclaim responsibility for so many failures.

359
It is difficult to know whether the damage that has been wrought by this Government is the result of intent, over-optimism, or incompetence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when in opposition, told The Times on 3 August 1978:
"Of course we"—
the Conservatives—
"should not want to proceed in such a way as to produce what some people would call a dramatic short term recession."
That was the pre—election promise. Since then, unemployment has risen by 2 million, our national income has fallen by 3½ per cent., manufacturing output has fallen by 19 per cent., manufacturing investment has fallen by one quarter, and the CBI economic report published only yesterday forecasts an unprecedented fourth consecutive year-on-year decline in manufacturing investment. How can the Minister come here tonight and criticise the Leader of the Opposition for putting forward policies, on the argument that they might cause a disaster to this country? Frankly, I do not understand his gall.
When the Prime Minister put her oar into the pre-election waters last time, she dropped this pearl of wisdom in Darlington in April 1979:
"Another Labour accusation is that the Tories plan to increase unemployment. But we Tories believe in policies that will create real jobs … We say Labour isn't working. They are the party of unemployment. We are the party of opportunity".
The truth is that 1,200,000 people have been unemployed for over a year now. If the Prime Minister went to Darlington now and told the unemployed there that hers was the party of opportunity she would get very short shrift. She should tell the story of opportunity to the record number of firms which have gone into liquidation and bankruptcy during the past year. She should look at what her party of opportunity has brought to the industrial regions of our country, the real wealth-creating areas of Britain. Since 1979, unemployment in the northern region has risen by over 100,000. The north-west has seen unemployment increase by 250,000. Yorkshire has seen an increase of 200,000. The west midlands, which 10 or 15 years ago was the bedrock of our industrial prosperity, has had an increase of unemployment of 250,000 under this party of opportunity. Even the south-east has had an increase of unemployment of nearly 500,000, and Scotland has borne its burden of 180,000 extra unemployed.
To be fair to Conservative Ministers, they at least have the virtue of consistency. They misled the country before they were elected, and they have continued to mislead the country since. The Prime Minister told the country in January 1981 that 1981 would be the year when results showed. Indeed, 1981 was the year in which results showed. Unemployment in this country rose by 764,000. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the country last May:
"the evidence of a start of a recovery is all about us and not even the most blinkered pessimist could fail to see it".
Unfortunately, 300,000 more unemployed people have failed to see the signs of upturn all around them.
The truth is that the economic policies of this Government have been a disaster for the industrial areas of Britain. Now, after four years of sitting on their hands and watching our industries suffer, trade Ministers have
360
joined in the chorus of self-deceit. The Secretary of State for Trade, commenting on the trade surplus for 1982, said that the surplus
"means that Britain is making a success of itself".
How can 3½ million unemployed people, a fall in national output, a collapse of manufacturing investment, and a massive fall in manufacturing output in all honesty be called a success?
Emboldened by his gall in regarding the destruction of jobs, industry and investment as a success, the Secretary of State told a meeting as recently as 31 January:
"The task before us in 1983 is to lead this country out of recession".
We have heard that before. He said:
"The signs of success are already there".
We have heard that before. He said:
"We must build on that success".
If this is success, thank goodness the Government did not fail.
Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, the Government published their expenditure plans yesterday, and only one or two days after talking of success in the year ahead, those plans reveal that the Government expect unemployment to rise by another 280,000 in the current year.
What then has the Department of Trade achieved in its policies since 1979? Ministers have failed for far too long to face up to, and to oppose, the disastrously over-valued level of sterling on the foreign exchanges. For three and a half years British producers have had to operate in export markets as if they were carrying a huge tax on their prices and have had to face import competition that effectively received a substantial subsidy. The miracle is that so many firms have stayed in business. Under this Government it has been an achievement, not to succeed, but simply to stay in business.
The success of British industry has been despite and not because of Government policies. Ministers at the Department of Trade have been misled by their own rhetoric and by that of their over-optimistic economic Ministers. In a deep recession, one would have expected imports to have fallen in the past three or four years, but imports of manufactures have increased since May 1979. There has been increasing import penetration in addition to a lack of domestic demand. I could assume from the Minister's remarks that manufactures were doing well and thriving, but exports of manufactures have fallen by 10 per cent. since May 1979. The same picture of a fall in the volume of exports and a rise in the volume of imports is true of trade in all goods, other than oil.
That brings me to what has saved the Government. The real explanation of Britain's trade surplus and the Government's sham claim to success lies in the enormous benefit that the Government have gained from North Sea oil. North Sea oil should have been a source of new investment, new growth and prosperity, but it has been used as a crutch to prop up an economy laid waste by incompetent policies. It has been used to finance unemployed workers to stay at home, instead of being invested in new industry to provide new jobs so that they no longer needed to do that. North Sea oil has been used to conceal the failures of trade policy and not as a bonus to expand trade and industry.
During this Government's term of office, the balance on non-oil visible trade has deteriorated by £3 billion per year. The balance on oil trade has improved by £6·5 billion

361
per year as North Sea oil has come on stream. Oil's contribution to the balance of trade has increased sharply in recent months. In December, oil exports were running at an annual rate of £12·5 billion. The net balance of trade in oil was running at an annual rate of £8 billion in December. It is little wonder that on 4 January 1983 the energy correspondent of The Guardian described our trade position not as a success—as the Government would have it—but as a current account cover-up.
What has happened to the bonus of North Sea oil and gas? What benefits have they brought this country and how have Government policies made that bonus work? How will it help the future and present prosperity of Britain? The Government have made it clear that their economic, trade and industrial policies stand aside from such problems as how to make the best use of North Sea oil and gas. The trade policy of the Minister and his friends has not ensured that oil is channelled into the positive development of Britain. Instead, the oil revenues have been frittered away and wasted. They should have been channelled into new industries and into our established industries, which will be needed when the oil runs out. However, a hands-off economic policy and a laissez-faire trade policy has resulted in our oil wealth pushing up the value of sterling for more than three years, thus bringing hardship and collapse to many of our home industries. The Minister did not want to talk about that. He only wanted to talk about what he called success.
Many people in the industrial areas have come to regard North Sea oil, and the Government's handling of it, not as a boon, but as a curse. For three or four years, of course, those in financial institutions were willing to welcome a high pound and to receive the high interest rates that the Government perpetrated on industry. It is only in recent weeks that the longer-term reality has begun to get through to financial markets. The pound has begun to move towards a more realistic level at which our industries can hope to compete in export markets and against imports. The House will have noted the article that appeared in the Financial Times on 1 February, which argued in some detail that sterling remained greatly over-valued against other currencies, such as the deutschmark and the yen.
The Labour party has not been apologetic in arguing that the value of the pound should be lower. Indeed, our arguments of the past two or three years have been justified. The Government are embarrassed to agree that they welcome the fall because it will give trade some chance of recovering. Trade Ministers have stood idly by, proclaiming the virtues of free market non-intervention; oblivious to the consequences for British industry and jobs, and oblivious to the wasted opportunity of North Sea oil and gas.
What of the future? What trade policy do the Government have to cope with the falling value of our oil and gas resources in the not-too-distant future? The City experts Phillips and Drew recently forecast that the output of North Sea oil would drop precipitously by 1990. We do not have to agree with the details of that forecast to accept that the broad thrust of the problem is clear for all to see. The company argued, with some justification, that the production of oil and the revenue prospects for the Government are likely to deteriorate fairly soon, which
"will cause major problems for the next Government, whatever the political party in power."
At the conclusion of the debate, perhaps the Minister will give us his assessment of the position in the next few
362
years. How are we to replace oil revenues and exports, and how are we to continue to finance even the current level of imports? If we are to expand the economy and get people back to work, how will he cope with the increased level of imports that will result from present policies? The Minister made a meal of what he considered to be the views of the Labour party and the views put forward in our policy statements. However, the Labour party believes that the Government have a duty to put the right to 'work at the top of their priorities. That requires expansion, not continued deflation.
Private industry and commerce have as much to gain from expansion as the public sector. Trade policy must be closely aligned to an industrial policy. Taken literally, the so-called free trade system—the Minister was careful to use the words "open trading system" as perhaps more appropriate than "free trade system"—would rule out not only active trade intervention policies, but positive industrial policies as well.
In reality, many countries have clear interventionist Government policies towards industry and trade. Meanwhile, the British Government appear to be one of the few who are not willing to intervene on any systematic basis in industry. They are one of the few Governments who appear to play by the rules of the game.
My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned the paper industry. The Wiggins Teape group has closed the New Bury paper mills in Bury, Lancashire. When asked why that was so, management said that the work force could not be held responsible. The work force, in co-operation with management, had demanned, improved productivity, accepted redundancies and increased flexibility. Even if the work force had agreed to no wage increases for two years, the mills would have had to close—partly because of import prices and partly because of energy costs. The hon. Gentleman said that continental competitors often have advantages that we do not have. For example, they often have the advantage of low energy costs.
Many people in Britain cannot understand why that should be so when we are self-sufficient in energy. They cannot understand why we cannot tailor Government policies to industries, such as paper manufacturing, that are energy-intensive. Why, if we have energy, are we incapable of enabling our energy-intensive industries to compete on equal terms?
What type of free or fair competition is it when Italian firms that employ 30 or fewer people are relieved of paying social security contributions? Why does the chemical industry face import penetration that has risen from 32 per cent. to 40 per cent. while the Government have been in power, while production has fallen by 9½ per cent? Is there nothing that trade and industry policy can do? Are the Departments of Trade and Industry working together in the interests of our basic industries?
The Labour party believes that we must carefully examine the way in which the world economy is going. There are deep worries about the way in which the present international system operates. In some respects, the international trade system is supposed to eliminate discriminatory practices but not prevent interventionist policies. In practice, GATT appears to tolerate discrimination but to discourage intervention.
There is a dilemma here. In the present depressed state of the world economy, any country that tries to expand its economy and create jobs for its people, even at rates that

363
were regarded as modest a few years ago, runs the risk of a balance of payments problem. There is a growing realisation that all countries would like to share in mutual expansion, but no one is clear about how to get it started.
The Labour party believes that the initiative to start Britain's expansion must lie firmly with the Government. It would be nonsense if that expansion were to be cut short by an unwillingness to control the growth of imports. That growth would benefit foreign producers and workers much more than the recession and depression policies of the present Government.
The Labour party wants an expansion of our economy and jobs, helped by sensible trade planning and industrial policies. The real danger that faces the world is that critical international financial problems, combined with inaction on policies for expansion, could lead to full-blooded protectionism of the type that the Minister for Trade mentioned.
The worst of all worlds would be if countries were afraid to expand their economies and tried to create jobs at home by shutting out imports. Simply working to prevent "beggar-my-neighbour" protectionism is not enough. The world's political leaders must inject a sense of urgency into measures that are aimed at promoting growth and employment.
Working within the present framework of thinking in GATT will not be adequate. Much has changed since GATT was established. There has been a wide spread of capital, technology, know-how and skills. There has also been a wide spread of the sophistication and mobility of financial capital. Moreover, there has been an increased sense of sovereignty and political equality in the multitude of nations that make up the world.
The Labour party believes that an adapted framework for international co-operation to expand employment, output and wealth is needed to come to terms with the world of the 1980s and 1990s. The Government came to office promising to be the party of opportunity. Instead, their policies have devastated industry upon industry, and region upon region. Unemployment has risen by 2 million, and this year it promises to rise towards 3½ million.
Government trade policy has thrown away many of the benefits of North Sea oil and gas. By refusing to intervene in market decisions, they have allowed the strength of oil revenues to destroy much of our manufacturing industry. Where there should have been new investment there have been closures. Trade Ministers have stood idly by while an incompetent Chancellor opted for a grossly over-valued pound for far too long. Imports have risen and exports have stagnated. Oil revenues have helped to hide those failures of Trade Ministers, but trading circumstances, far from being a success, have been fundamentally weakened.
At the heart of the Government's weak position is the fact that they have no industrial or trade policies. Faced by the failure of their reliance on market forces, they have no alternative but to blame someone else, whether it be the trade unions, the previous Labour Government or the international recession. They either blame someone else or promise that an upturn is still just round the corner.
The fall in the exchange rate will be a considerable help in the next few months. The Labour party believes that a positive and vigorous trade and industry policy, based on a willingness of Government to plan with and assist industry and the financial system, is urgently required. A
364
planned growth in trade, combined with expansionary policies that are aimed at getting people back into jobs, will offer real hope where at present the Government can only offer fatalistic despair.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before I call the first Back Bencher, I remind the House that the debate must end at 10 pm. The winding-up speeches are expected to start at about 9.40 pm and many hon. Members wish to speak.
7.56 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: While I was listening to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer), I thought that we were having a debate on unemployment, and therefore I was just about to remind the House that when I ceased to have responsibility for unemployment the figure was 600,000. Within two years of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) getting his hands on it, unemployment had increased by 1 million. Therefore, because of its record, I do not take seriously anything what the Labour party says about unemployment.
The debate is about trade. I listened eagerly to discover precisely what is the Labour party's official policy. As far as I could gather, it is a return to inflation behind some sort of new tariff barrier or import control. If I am wrong, I understand that the hon. Member for Batley and Morley will put me right in his winding-up speech. We wait, agog with excitement, for further enlightenment on that subject.
It is right that many hon. Members should wish to raise constituency points. I shall confine my speech to the greatest economic danger that faces the world—the possible growth of protectionism. Indeed, it is more than an economic danger. If one examines history, one finds that the protectionism that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s was one of the factors—only one, but a substantial factor—that gave rise to the second world war.
At the end of last year the secretary-general of the OECD said that in his view there had been a serious deterioration in international trade relations in the previous two years. This has shown up less in the imposition of traditional trade restrictions—the Spanish example is a glaring case in point; it is ridiculous that our exporters should have to overcome a tariff of 38 per cent., whereas we have only a 4 per cent. tariff—though these have been on the increase—but rather in the increasing use of such techniques as voluntary export restraints, monitoring of imports and the growth of domestic subsidies propping up uncompetitive industries that have grown up behind the scenes. They are a concealed form of protectionism. This has caused a drift towards seeking bilateral solutions to what are essentially multilateral problems.
Protectionism does nothing to make British industry more efficient and competitive. It does nothing but harm to the newly industrialised countries, which can service their substantial debts only out of export earnings. Inevitably, protectionism invites retaliation, which would probably damage this country more than any other, because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, we probably depend on a higher percentage of exports of our gross domestic product than any other country in the western world—30 per cent. compared with Japan's 12 per cent., for example. If we do not export, we do not eat. It is as simple as that.
Mr. James Lamond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Anthony Grant: I would rather not.
Protectionism does nothing to help the consumer, who seems to have been all too forgotten in the debate. His freedom of choice is restricted. Protectionism hinders rather than helps the world pull out of recession and loses more jobs in the long run than it appears to save in the short term.
The Prime Minister summed that up well in the debate in November on the Loyal Address when she said:
"For a time, the protection road is more comfortable, especially for the slow coaches, but there would be no surer way of destroying our own competitiveness. Why should companies exert themselves to reduce their costs and improve their products if their overseas competitors could be shut out of our domestic market? They would, instead, subside into a comfortable mediocrity—with poor design, outmoded technology, lower production, higher costs, poorer job prospects and the slow suffocation of effort and enterprise."
That sounds remarkably like the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Lamond rose—
Sir Anthony Grant: I shall not give way at the moment. I shall finish my quotation first. My right hon. Friend went on to say that consumers would
"pay higher prices for a more restricted range of poorer quality goods. They would be losers all round."—[Official Report, 3 November 1982; Vol 31, c. 22.]
I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lamond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Will he tell us why all the things that have been prophesised for a country that gives way to protectionism have not happened to Japan, about which he was complaining a moment ago?
Sir Anthony Grant: We could have a whole debate on Japan, but I shall give the hon. Gentleman one answer. Japan has had the good fortune to have a more sensible trade union system than this country.
I am extremely glad that Ministers have followed that policy. To be perfectly fair, the Labour Government also opposed protectionism when they knew the real facts. The Leader of the Opposition said that import controls in the 1930s
"led to retaliation and deepened the nature of the slump."—[Official Report, 29 January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 802.]
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister, said, in more vivid language, that import controls
"would benefit some home industries but only at the expense of the livelihood of everyone working on exports. We should be robbing Peter to pay Paul."
The deputy Leader of the Opposition said that in the process of improving import controls
"we could finish by dragging the country down to the sort of prolonged depression which it experienced in the 1930s."— [Official Report, 17 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 1409.]
Mr. Dennis Skinner: They do not say that now.
Sir Anthony Grant: They do not say that now because, now that they are in opposition, lunacy has set in again.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, I studied the remarkable speech delivered to the faithful by the Leader of the Opposition in the McLellan galleries in Glasgow on 22 January. He started with the startling discovery that
366
"If each country bought more, its imports would be matched by exports to the other expanding countries."
One could argue that if each country bought less, its imports would be matched by exports. The right hon. Gentleman inveighed the free trade system. He then announced in ringing tones Labour's message to the world. We awaited it with bated breath, and here it is:
"Labour believes in planning production and planning trade."
We have heard that before somewhere. What on earth does it mean? I do not know. In the immortal words, "I think we should be told." The answer is that import controls work only in a totally managed state, as in eastern Europe, in a society in which the acolytes of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) would dole out to us what they thought was suitable for us from the limited resources that were left.
Furthermore, there is substantial humbug in the Opposition's attitude to trade. They pontificate volubly on aid, the North-South dialogue, and the Third world, but no sooner do those unfortunate nations get an industry going and try to sell their products than a great squawk of outrage erupts from Opposition Members, on the ground that their constituencies are being ruined.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Anthony Grant: I shall not give way any more, least of all to the hon. Gentleman, who has come into the Chamber at a late stage of the debate and will pro 3ably go out again.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Sir Anthony Grant: The whole subject—
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I had just entered the Chamber. That is not true. I was here for the whole of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). I listened with interest to his constructive views.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now put that on the record.
Sir Anthony Grant: The whole subject of trade is riddled with myths. For example, one might wonder why, with a big surplus of £4½ billion on our balance of payments, we need protection at all. That question perplexes many of our friends abroad. The Opposition are always telling us that it is made up more out of the service sector than the manufacturing sector. What is wrong with the service sector? It employs 11·5 million of our fellow citizens—three out of five people are employed in the service sector. It contributed a record £17 billion—worth of exports last year. Why is there greater merit in making costly goods that people do not want than in performing efficiently services that people do want, such as tourism, transport and many other activities in the service sectors? Is there an element of inverted snobbery that says that if one cannot make ships that people do not want, it is better to draw the dole than to work in hotels that people want? That is the inverted snobbery of people who object to the service sector.
What on earth is wrong with oil contributing? I do not hear people saying, "Those poor Saudi Arabians have to depend on such a big proportion of oil for their gross domestic product." After listening to the hon. Member for

367
Batley and Morley, one might think that we should be ashamed of having North Sea oil rather than being very pleased.
There is also the myth that leaving more money in people's pockets by taking less tax causes a flood of imports unless controls are imposed. However, only one third of imports are finished manufactured products. The rest are raw materials, food or semi-finished articles. The increase in the propensity to import is more among industrial than among non-industrial consumers. Products such as black and white television and shoes, which show the highest import penetration figures, constitute only a small proportion of total consumer expenditure.
Of course there are special cases, such as textiles, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is particularly concerned. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on achieving the success that he did in the MFA negotiations. Of course there are many barriers to trade. Of course there are strange and subtle restrictions in Japanese trading practices, although it is all too easy to treat Japan as scapegoat for some of our ills. Never let us forget that we export successfully to Japan. We export chemicals and textiles. Of course there are too many hidden subsidies in world trading, but we are not backward in imposing subsidies ourselves, as our foreign competitors tell us. We do quite a bit of subsidising for milk, steel and motor cars.
The policy should be to remove obstacles, not to create new ones. There is absolutely no justification for the panic that seems to prevail in some quarters, most noticeably in the Opposition. I believe that the Government are on the right lines and should stick to their policy.
I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who has to bear a heavy burden. If I had more time I should suggest that the Departments of Trade and Industry should come together again, but that would be the subject of a separate debate. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to redouble their efforts, first, to eliminate the use of standards in the EC as a concealed form of protectionism; and secondly, to support West Germany in its fight for freer trade within the EC and to press the Commission to speed up proceedings against some of the ridiculous French non-tariff barriers against European and Japanese imports.
Thirdly, I urge the Minister to press for the service industries to be brought into GATT and to make much more rapid progress towards removing barriers against service industries across Europe. They provide a great opportunity for Great Britain.
Fourthly, I urge the Minister and his colleagues to back fully my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade in his battle for free ports against some of the mugwumps of Customs and Excise. It is absurd that there are about 400 free ports in about 70 countries, including the EC, yet there is not one here.
We wish the Under-Secretary of State for Trade luck in what he is doing. Above all, the Minister should continue the successful battle against inflation, because that, more than anything, will enable us to trade successfully when we emerge from the recession.
By all means let us buy British where the goods or services are the best in quality, price and delivery—as they often are—but they will be best only if they are made or performed within a free but fair trading system.
8.12 pm
Mr. Douglas Jay: The Minister started his speech with a paean of praise for the open trading system. Meanwhile, he is a member of a Government who support, as does the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A. Grant), a common agricultural policy which is the most extreme and vicious protectionist system there has ever been. In a debate such as this we are not helped by the sort of sweeping statements about protectionism and free trade made by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central. We should take the subject rather more seriously.
It is absurd to assume that either general free trade or general protection is somehow always good for all countries at all times. The amount of free imports or protection that is desirable depends on which country, which period and which industries one is talking about. One might as well say that it was advisable for everyone to take unlimited quantities of brandy at all times to the exclusion of anything else as to talk in such generalities.
In Great Britain, in the modern world, the correct recipe for achieving growth and high standards is free trade in the import of food and raw materials with direct support for agriculture and some restraint on the import of manufactured consumer goods. We must live by the export of manufactures because our labour costs and standard of living depend materially on keeping down the cost of our food imports. While we have followed such a policy this century, we have succeeded. When we departed from it there were difficulties.
In the 1920s and 1930s, a period which tends to be caricatured, we were thrown into imbalance and unemployment by the excessive imports of manufactures. Then, in 1932 a Conservative Minister, in a largely Conservative Government, wisely introduced a moderate tariff on imported manufactures and left the imports of food and raw materials entirely tax free.
Contrary to the sweeping reference by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central to the 1930s, what actually happened was that from 1932 to 1937 under that system there was a major recovery of British industry in output, employment and investment. British steel production rose by nearly 50 per cent. between 1932 and 1937. If it had not, we should have been poorly placed when war broke out in 1939. After the war, a policy of restraint on manufactured imports and free imports of food was followed by both Governments until the end of the 1950s. Until 1960, while those policies were followed, we enjoyed rising production, trade and living standards, and unemployment of 1½ per cent. or 2 per cent. During those years we had the fastest increase in the volume of our exports that we have ever had in modern history.
In 1959, the Government, no doubt with the best of intentions, removed the quota restraints on manufactured imports and the whole position began to change. The figures for our manufactured imports are remarkable. In 1950 manufactures represented 18 per cent. only of our imports. By 1960 the figure had already risen to 33 per cent.. It reached 51 per cent. in 1970, and 61 per cent. by 1978. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the figure for 1981 and 1982, which I suspect is about 80 per cent. It is a sweeping change from the 1950s and an explanation for our present position.
The abandonment of import quotas in 1959 led to growing deficits in the 1960s and devaluation in 1967. In

369
addition, the major blunder was made in 1973 of simultaneously forcing up all our labour costs by imposing up to 100 per cent. taxes on imports of food and removing suddenly all tariffs on manufactured imports from the continent. That is what brought us to our present position. Anyone could have seen that that policy would lead to major difficulties. In fact, it has led almost to disaster in our trading position which is masked only, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) has said, by our temporary oil exports and huge oil earnings. The combination of higher United Kingdom costs and free entry of manufactures introduced in 1973 was bound to lead to a huge deficit in our trade in manufactures with the continent.
Rather surprisingly, even the Foreign Office—20 years too late—grasped the essential point. In a remarkable booklet published a few weeks ago by the Foreign Office called "The Budget Problem", we are told:
"The cost of EEC policies to Britain is more than just its net budget contribution. Britain is a net importer of food"—
a great discovery by the Foreign Office.
"It buys food from other member States at Community prices which are higher than world prices. The resulting cost to Britain is not matched by equivalent gains on the industrial side because the Community does not have a comparable system of price support for industrial products."
It would have been better had the Foreign Office discovered that 20 years ago, but I am glad to have confirmation of it now.
I estimated, modestly, in 1968 that the deficit in manufactured trade with the continental EC would rise to £300 million or £400 million a year, at 1968 values, which would be about £1 billion today. I apologise for my understatement 15 years ago, because the deficit in manufactures with the rest of the EC last year was not £1 billion but £4·5 billion, as the Minster said in answer to a question only last week.
It has been asked why we quote figures for manufactures but do not include oil. The reason is simple. Had we not joined the EC, we should be selling just about the same amount of oil to Germany, France and the continental EC as we are now, because those countries need our oil. That is the easiest way for them to obtain it. If we were to leave the EC, they would probably buy much the same amount of oil from us. Therefore, if we are trying to estimate the consequences of our membership of the EC, our trade in oil must be omitted because it is not affected either way. The trade in manufactures has been affected by present policies because tariffs were removed on each side and because our labour costs have been increased artificially.
The striking point about the £4·5 billion deficit in manufactures last year is that such a deficit has arisen since we joined the EC. In 1971, we had a surplus in manufactured trade with the present EC countries of about £140 million, but now we have a deficit of more than £4 billion. Some people say that that swing into deficit was due not to membership of the EC but entirely to lack of competitiveness and the decline of British industry. However, the official figures prove that that is untrue. In the same years, our trade in manufactures, again omitting oil, with the non-EC world has improved, not worsened, from £2·4 billion in 1971 to £6·5 billion in 1981. The deficit in trade with the EC cannot be due to the alleged inefficiency of British industry.
The overriding lesson of the story is that the mutual removal of tariffs on manufactures between Britain and the
370
EC has produced a swing of more than £4 billion a year. More importantly, it follows that the restoration of a moderate tariff both ways would swing the balance back towards where it was before. If one reverses the policies, it is only reasonable to suppose that one will reverse the consequences.
If we left the EC, at least two options in trade policy would be open to us. It is better to examine those than to make sweeping statements about protectionism and open trading. We should remember that the contintenal EC, especially Germany, has an extremely strong motive to retain as free an entry as possible into our market for manufactured goods, which is extremely valuable. We could grant such free entry to the EC and the other EFTA countries that now enjoy it. If we took that option, we should have the advantage of lowering our labour costs as a result of the elimination of the common agricultural policy, and we should retain mutual free entry into both EC and EFTA countries. That would be the best policy.
The alternative, because so much damage has been done during the past five years, is to impose a temporary moderate tariff on EC industrial imports. The obvious tariff to impose would be the EC's common commercial tariff on industrial imports from outside the Community, which averages about 9 per cent. The Community countries would then apply the same tariffs in response. If we do that, we should reverse the policy that we adopted in 1973 and it is likely that the deficit would be reduced.
I favour the moderate tariff solution, whatever we do about the exchange rate, for some time, with the possibility that at the end of that period we could return to the EFTA agreement that we should never have left 10 years ago. I prefer that solution because a moderate restraint on industrial imports is now essential for employment and growth in Britain.
I have been conducting correspondence with the CBI about the effects on employment in Britain were we to leave the EC. Interestingly, the CBI estimates that about 2·5 million people in British industry are employed in producing manufactured goods to sell in the EC. Since the ratio of our manufactured imports from the EC to our exports is about 4:3, it would follow from the CBI's estimate that our present manufactured imports from the EC are costing us about 3·25 million jobs. That means that, on balance, if we eliminate the manufacturing, deficit, so far as one can calculate such matters, we should gain about 700,000 to 750,000 jobs.
I have no reason to believe that the CBI estimate is other than reliable. The total increase in jobs from leaving the EC would be much larger than that because of the reduction in labour costs due to freedom from present agricultural policies. For all those reasons, I have no doubt that we shall not return to full recovery or employment until we have freed ourselves from the economic handicaps, which are now so clearly understood by the Foreign Office, that are inflicted on us by our EC membership.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A Grant) said how wonderful it was to be earning billions of pounds by exporting oil. That would be so if the oil was permanent. As we all know, those earnings will decline in 1990. The Minister rightly said that the current balance of payments surplus last year was £4·6 billion. The present benefit from North Sea oil, taking into account import savings as well as export earnings, is about £10 billion to

371
£12 billion. Apart from oil, we are running an annual deficit of £5 billion or £6 billion. If we continue in that way, in the 1990s we shall clearly face disaster.
8.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). There is always a consistency to his argument and a basic pragmatism which I greatly admire. I do not agree with everything that he said about the European Community, but the Government should heed some of the points he made. There is no doubt that our manufactured goods have lost out within the European Community.
I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade has left his place because I intended to refer to an occurrence which will take place in the EC on 11 February. It relates to agriculture. I understand that the French Government intend to put up barriers against dairy products going into France from all other countries, including countries within the European Community. They will demand a veterinary certificate with every delivery of dairy products.
What immediate action do the British Government intend to take in retaliation to this action by a member of the European Community?
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A. Grant). I think that he made far too many sweeping generalisations. His reference to a free and open market means that he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land, and his feet are well off the ground. We must live in the real world.
Let me deal with the clothing and textile industries, as I know them well, and consider some of the tariffs that are levied against our goods by developed and developing countries.
The United States Government have put up a 13 per cent. tariff against cotton yarn from the United Kingdom; Spain has put up a tariff of between 25 and 27 per cent.; South Korea 30 per cent. and Brazil 150 per cent.
The tariff against wool yarns from the United Kingdom to the United States is between 15 and 20 per cent.; in Brazil it is 85 per cent. and in South Korea it is 30 per cent.
The United States imposes a tariff on cotton fabrics from this country of between 16 and 20 per cent.; Spain between 32 and 35 per cent.; South Korea, 50 per cent.; Australia, 40 per cent.; and the most amazing figure is Brazil, 205 per cent. Yet my hon. Friend is preaching what I describe as open, free and fair competition.
I agree with fair competition, but when other countries expect us to import their goods and put up that sort of tariff against our goods, I do not believe that is either free or fair competition. We are not doing right by the workers in the textile and clothing industries, which are among the largest employers in this country, if we tolerate this situation.
Mr. James Lamond: Has the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whose words I listened to wth great interest, had even a whisper from the Government of the possibility of retaliation against countries that have high tariffs? We are told that is the reason why we cannot have tariffs.
Mr. Winterton: I do not believe that retaliation will often occur. If it does, we can often retaliate and do more damage to them than they can to us.
I shall now deal with garments, because they are the finished product. The United States has a tariff against our knitted outerwear goods of between 21 and 40 per cent.; in Spain it is between 33 and 36 per cent.; in Australia—a friendly country of the Commonwealth—it is between 80 and 100 per cent.; and Brazil has that amazing figure of 205 per cent. again.
As for woven outerwear, tariffs against our goods in the United States are 30 to 40 per cent.; in Spain between 36 and 39 per cent.; in Australia between 70 and 100 per cent.; in South Korea, 50 per cent.; and in Brazil 205 per cent. yet again.
This shows the reality of the trading situation. Our Government have a duty to ensure that we maintain a proper and full manufacturing base.
Sir Anthony Grant: I am sure that my hon. Friend misquoted me through inadvertence. He referred to "free and open trading". I was careful to say "free and fair trading". He will also note that I regarded textiles as a special case. I am sure that, like me, he will congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the MFA negotiations.
Mr. Winterton: I am happy to apologise to my hon. Friend if I misquoted him in any way. I am equally happy to withdraw those remarks. Like my hon. Friend, I congratulate the Minister for Trade on the wonderful job that he did in negotiating the MFA that is currently in force.
Representatives of the knitting and hosiery industry who came to the House of Commons this afternoon made it clear that while the MFA is not exactly what they wanted, it is a jolly sight better than what they expected, and they are grateful to the Minister for the work involved in negotiating it.
My hon. and learned Friend is well aware of my concern about the 1983 quota levels compared with the levels in 1982. That is the whole basis of the new MFA with which we are now dealing.
Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton: I shall do so in a moment.
Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1981 imports of cotton yarn totalled 1,721 tonnes, whereas the quota for 1983 under the present MFA is 2,607 tonnes? In 1981, imports of spun synthetic yarn totalled 1,712 tonnes, yet, under the new MFA, the quota is 3,610 tonnes. In 1981, towel imports totalled 2,921 tonnes, yet, in 1983, the quota is 4,912 tonnes. Imports of bed linen in 1981 amounted to 1,001 tonnes, but the quota in 1983 is 2,737 tonnes. In 1981, 849 tonnes of household linen were imported, yet the 1983 quota is 1,954 tonnes. The import of blankets in 1981 totalled 293 tonnes, yet the quota for 1983 is 503 tonnes. The import of cotton fabrics in 1981 totalled 35,110 tonnes, yet the quota allowed in 1983 is 57,968 tonnes. Total fabric imports in 1981 amounted to 50,897 tonnes, yet the quotas negotiated under the new MFA, which is now in force, total 76,540 tonnes. That is the problem that our textile and clothing industries must face.
The textile and clothing industries are concerned about the possible growth within the quotas that have previously

373
been underused. My hon. and learned Friend will see what I mean if he studies the statistics that I have just quoted. It is impossible to know the extent to which supplying countries will be able to fulfil those quotas in future, but this is a real problem for anyone planning to invest in clothing or textiles in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it would be helpful if my hon. and learned Friend made a statement that the anti-surge mechanism to which he made brief comment will be used to the full on every occasion when it is necessary.
There is also the question of free circulation—the arrival of goods in the United Kingdom via another EC member state. Such goods are not counted against United Kingdom quotas, but the Government have the right to ask the Commission for permission to block these imports. Under article 115 of the treaty of Rome, the Commission has the power of decision. We do not have that power. Therefore, I urge the Government to put pressure on the Commission to be more responsive to requests from United Kingdom industry to block disruptive imports, as such action would be helpful, particularly to the textile and clothing industries and would prevent further redundancies and closures.
Turkey is a major problem at the moment. Its exports of cotton yarn, cotton fabric, knitted shirts, towels and bed linen have grown enormously in the past 18 months. Cotton yarn is covered only by a voluntary restraint arrangement which is currently non-operational because of a dispute inside the Community, and for 1983 there are no restraints on the other products. I fear a large-scale import surge, such as there was in 1982 when restraints on fabric and knitted shirts were introduced during the year. There is a serious risk that high-level damage could be done before the quotas for which the industry would ask could take effect. Therefore, I hope that pressure will be brought to bear in Brussels for rapid and firm action when such action is required.
I also ask my hon. and learned Friend for an assurance that the 1983 quotas will not be based on the inflated levels of trade built up in 1982 as a result of the EC's inaction and delay. Apart from anything else, that would be most unfair to other Mediterranean countries which reach voluntary agreements with the EC.
I wish to put one or two matters in perspective. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North made a very constructive speech. The views that he expresses are always consistent, and the House is the wiser for that. The total volume of imports into the United Kingdom—I am speaking not just about textiles and clothing but generally—rose by 21 per cent. between the first and fourth quarters of 1981. Over the same period, imports of finished manufactures, to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred, rose by 28 per cent. in volume and 42 per cent. in value. Import penetration in the textile industry has more than doubled in the past 10 years; and imports of canned vegetables, for example, have risen by 51 per cent. in the same period. Import penetration in respect of built-in ovens grew from 20 per cent. to 47 per cent. between 1973 and 1981.
Motor vehicles are extremely important to the economy of this country. Import penetration in the second quarter of 1982 was 35·8 per cent. The forecast for the first quarter of 1985 is 44·2 per cent. That massive increase of 23 per cent. in import penetration will result in many further redundancies in our car industry and in the many companies that supply it. We must not forget the domino
374
effect that the collapse of our motor industry would have. There will also be huge import increases in relation to other major sectors of our economy.
I believe that my hon. and learned Friend is familiar with the following calculation. If each of the 20 million households in the United Kingdom switched, on average, £3 per week from spending on imports to spending on British goods and services—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central on the importance of services—350,000 jobs could be created within two years. Is that not something that the Government would wish to happen?
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of good points and the information that he gives is most valuable. Will he make it clear that the Government can do something to help if people decide to buy British? The Government should require that garments made up in this country from imported cloth should not be labelled as having been made in the United Kingdom. Only garments made up in the United Kingdom from cloth made in the United Kingdom should be labelled in that way.
Mr. Winterton: I intended to mention labelling. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Labelling is still inadequate. Many of my constituents return home after buying what they thought was a British-made shirt—for example, because the label on the collar bore what they regarded as a traditionally British title—only to find a small label somewhere halfway down one of the sleeves stating that the garment was made in Taiwan, Hong Kong or wherever. That is highly misleading. Indeed, I go further than the hon. Gentleman. I believe that mail order catalogues should give full details as to the country in which the article was made, in which the cloth was made and, in the case of garments, in which the garment was actually made up. I commend that proposition to the Government.
I hope that the target announced by the "Think British" campaign has the support of my hon. and learned Friend and of the public. There are signs already that the proposition first announced last June, is beginning to get through to people in that imports in the last two months of 1982 were marginally lower than expected. If the 20 million households in this country switched not just £3 but £8·60 per week expenditure from imported to home-produced goods, more than 1 million jobs could be created in two years. The figures that I give are not picked out of the sky but are based on an exercise carried out for the campaign by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
The "Think British" campaign has investigated the sheeting industry, in which jobs have been reduced by two thirds in the past 10 years, aggravating an already serious unemployment problem in the north-west, where so many of the textile mills are situated. Only 25 per cent. of sheets, pillow cases and duvets sold in the United Kingdom are manufactured entirely in this country, although if the orders were there we could cope with 40 per cent. of the demand. A shift by consumers to British-made sheets would have an especially beneficial effect on the textile industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central seemed to miss the point that when large numbers of people are out of work, purchasing power in retail stores is bound to be less. That is especially true in areas north of Watford. I intend no slight in that comment. I do not

375
suggest that people south of Watford are inferior and those north of Watford superior, but large numbers of people are out of work in the east and west midlands, the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Scotland. There is thus a domino effect in terms or purchasing power in retail stores. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the big multi-outlet stores—not just Marks and Spencer, which is setting a fine example—to promote and sell British products.
I was recently informed that the National Health Service, which is a very large consumer of sheeting, buys a large quantity of imported products. That is a matter of serious concern. In my view, there would have to be an extremely good reason for that practice to continue, as the long-term health of an entire sector of British industry and the future availability of supplies at reasonable prices should surely be a factor in the buying policy of the NHS, the Ministry of Defence and all Government Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and others may argue that all contracts and tenders must be advertisd, because this country is a member of the European Community; but that applies only if the cost of the contract is estimated at more than £25,000.
Why do we not break down the contracts—as the French and most European Community countries do—so that they are below £25,000? In that way, our industry would benefit—[Interruption.]
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: So that my hon. Friend does not fall into the trap of knocking down paper tigers, he may wish to know what I was saying to my hon. Friends. I said that I hoped that overseas customers of companies based in my constituency would not take the view that he has advised British purchasers to take. If they were to do so, we could not sell our exports.
Mr. Winterton: That is not accurate. There is a great movement by the British people to buy British. Is Marks and Spencer unsuccessful in selling abroad? I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that it is not. Yet that chain store overtly and forcibly practises a think, sell and buy British policy. If Marks and Spencer can do it, why cannot so many other chain stores, companies and Government Departments in Britain?
The debate has been interesting for me. It has given me the opportunity to get many matters about which I feel deeply off my chest. I have addressed myself to a Minister who has shown much ability in negotiating, and who is also very understanding about the problems of the industry that has been the basis of most of my remarks.
If my hon. and learned Friend cannot deal with all the points that I have raised, will he respond by letter? I assure him that the British people—especially those in the clothing and textile industries, which employ more than 600,000 people—are very interested in what the future holds for them. Our trading policy will dictate what future they have.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I remind the House that 22-minute speeches at this hour mean that many hon. Members will not have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
8.51 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: The debate has been interesting if only because it has given us an opportunity
376
to hear the contrasting views of Conservative back benchers. It is difficult to believe that the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) sit on the same side of the House. I always listen with rapt attention to what the hon. Member for Macclesfield says about the textile industry. We have fought many battles on behalf of that industry. While we may disagree on the majority of political matters, we certainly agree that the textile industry should have a future.
I am sorry that the Minister is leaving the Chamber. I was disappointed with and distressed by his speech. Listening to him today, one would not have thought that Britain's industries were facing tremendous problems, many of which are due to the Government's economic policies. They are the problems of an over-valued pound, rising imports, industrial energy costs and lack of modernisation, yet we have heard nothing from the Minister about the real issues.
It would be batter if the Minister moved away from Dover and into the real world of the regions. He would find that we are fed up with hearing pontifications from the Dispatch Box. We heard about the Japanese again today. I have told the Minister and preceding Ministers that the Japanese will talk and talk and talk again so long as no action is forthcoming. The Japanese are, of course, stringing along the new Ministers who have been sent to Japan to speak to them.
The Minister must come to the regions to see that the open trading system about which he speaks is not working. It is beginning to destroy vital industry. The Government's complacency will not do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) remarked on the idea that we can solve our problems with our revenue from oil. The world's oil resources are finite, and no other oil-producing nation in the world has dissipated its resources in the way that we are doing.
Other countries are using the revenue from oil to modernise their industries to make them more com-petitive. Indeed, many of them are restricting imports to build up their industrial base. Britain is doing the opposite. We shall rue the day when the oil begins to run out. Everyone will condemn the Government, and other Governments, for their lack of action when oil was plentiful.
The remark made during the debate about the destruction of the vital textile industry could be applied to the motor, steel, glass and electronics industries. I wish to concentrate on one industry that is suffering greatly—the paper industry. Not only is it facing all the problems that have been mentioned, but it is trying to compete with competitors who have the benefit of subsidised energy costs. The result is that we are destroying the British paper industry.
What has happened to the industry since 1979? Exports have fallen slightly, while imports have risen from 49 per cent. in 1979 to 59 per cent. in 1982. Our production figures for 1982 were ther lowest for 25 years. As has happened in the textile and other industries, foreign paper manufacturers are turning to Britain as their markets collapse—and they are finding it easy to enter the British market.
Dr. Lenton, the managing director of Bowater, said that foreign competitors eye the United Kingdom as a nice little offshore island. Of course they do. It is easy for them to send their products to Britain. What has been the effect of

377
that on the paper industry? In 1978 it employed 60,000 people, but by 1982 the figure had fallen to 30,000. There were 140 mills in 1978—there are now 111. The number of machines in the industry during that period dropped from 300 to 225. Twenty-five years ago 70 per cent. of all our requirements were manufactured in Britain. In 1980, United Kingdom manufacture for the home market had fallen below 50 per cent. The real tragedy is that the figures between 1980 and 1982 show that the 50 per cent. supplied by British manufacturers had fallen to 40 per cent.—a collapse of 10 per cent. in two years.
Far from competition subsiding, it will increase. That is the tragedy. The Scandinavians have the advantage of low-cost energy supplies because of their hydroelectric schemes. They also have a plentiful supply of timber. One matter of great concern to the industry is that there have been large devaluations in both Sweden and Finland. We have been told that the EC is our saviour.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North was right when he commented upon the large deficit in manufactured goods in our trade with the EC. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with him. I am sorry that more SDP Members are not present, because they bear the heaviest responsibility for taking Britain into the EC and the consequent destruction of British industry. I see that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally), an SDP Member, is nodding his head. If he agrees with me he will try to convert his colleagues—[Interruption.] I did not not catch the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, South.
What is happening in the paper industry? While we are trying to play fair, what is happening in Belgium? The Government there are propping up the loss-making Intermills with huge subsidies. There are large-scale subsidies to the industry in France also. In addition, energy costs in the EC countries for large users of energy, such as the process industries, are far lower than in this country. In Italy, electricity to such industries costs 50 per cent. less than in Britain. In France it is 40 per cent. cheaper and in Germany 25 per cent. cheaper. How can we expect our industries to face that kind of competition?
Time after time we hear excuses from Ministers that some action will be taken or that they are working through the EC to remove this kind of subsidy, but while they are doing that the industry itself is dying, and if no action is taken there will be no industry to discuss in the House. That would have two grave consequences for Britain—the loss of jobs and a flood of imports, which would have a disastrous effect on our balance of payments.
In 1982 we had 2,400 redundancies in the industry. This year, 1,900 redundancies are already forecast, almost as many as in the whole of 1982. This is grave news. We know that 1,000 jobs are to be axed by Wiggins Teape, 740 of them in Dartford, 200 in Newbury mills and 70 out of the 240 at Lincoln. In my own constituency, Thames Board Mills Ltd. has already declared that it will close its mill completely, which will mean the direct loss of 800 jobs and 200 more lost indirectly. These figures demonstrate the immediate nature of the crisis in the industry.
We cannot reduce imports under this handicap of high energy costs. I have already described the present situation. If we look into the future, we see that the competition will increase, because while we are talking about doing something, our competitors are taking action. In West Germany alone, 8,000 million deutschmarks were
378
set aside last year for energy efficiency assistance over the next four years. We can guess what that will do for the West German paper industry in relation to our own. Also in 1982, the Dutch completed a study on energy efficiency in this industry, as a result of which the Government intend to invest in 18 new combined heat and power plants using gas turbines. Again, modern and efficient mills will be competing against ours. Germany, France and Sweden are all giving huge grants for efficiency measures. They have thus directly strengthened their industries, which are already competing more than efficiently with ours because of the handicaps from which we suffer.
I deal now with the effect of this on the regions. If I am parochial in referring to the situation in my constituency, with the loss of 1,000 jobs, I make no excuse for doing so. I want to describe what the death of a large board mill means to a town like Warrington, an area which in the whole post-war period up to 1979 had enjoyed prosperity because, unlike many of the other towns in the north-west, it had diverse industries—steel, engineering, paper, soap, wire drawing, chemicals and clothing.
Steel has largely disappeared. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield will know, clothing, too, has almost disappeared. Many other industries are in severe trouble. This has meant an increase of unemployment from 5 per cent. in 1979 to over 14 per cent. now. The closure without warning of Thames Board Mills Ltd. therefore comes as a body blow. I visited the mill only three months before the announcement. The company had troubles, but it was thought that they could be weathered.
Before describing the effects on the town, I should like to place on record, for the benefit of Conservative Members, the fact that the closure is not due in any shape or form to labour troubles. The management acknowledges that the labour force has been pliable and efficient. There has never been a strike. The need to accept new working conditions and flexible operations to try to raise efficiency has always been accepted.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not a fact that throughout the paper industry industrial relations have been good and innovation and investment have also been good? There is no real reason why this industry should not be maintained in our economy.
Mr. Hoyle: I agree with my hon. Friend. There have been no labour troubles. As in the textile industry, the employees have been prepared to co-operate. In fact, what has been stated about the paper industry and the textile industry is true of most of British industry. I am only sorry that Conservative Members do not recognise this fact often enough. They do not speak about it often enough. A different climate of opinion would exist over labour relations if they did.
For the 1,000 employees who have lost their jobs, the closure of the paper mill is an absolute disaster. Their standard of living will be severely cut. In an area of high unemployment, their chances of obtaining a new job are remote. Among them there is already a sense of hopelessness, stemming from the fact that a large concentration of the 4 million unemployed are to be found in the north-west.
One has to consider the impact on other businesses in the town, especially the retail trade, which will feel the effects of the loss of purchasing power of the 1,000 people and their families. There will be a disastrous effect on

379
transport contractors. One company conducted nearly all its business with Thames Board Mills Ltd. The outlook for employees of that company is bleak. A number of small engineering companies and other subcontractors depended heavily on the mill. It is clear that the effect of the closure will be cumulative. It means the blight of the town of Warrington.
Can that be allowed to happen? Is it not time that action was taken? Is it not time that help was extended to such areas? Is it not time for sensible policies? The mire in which we find ourselves is partly due to the world recession, but it is largely due to the economic policies of the Government. The answer must lie in planning our economy and our trade. We must restrict imports. That does not mean stopping trade. It would lead to more trade with the world as a whole. However, we should push back imports in areas such as textiles and paper, where they have reached a dangerous level. We ought to restrict them to give our industry a chance to recover while we make the necessary investment.
Industries such as chemicals, paper and board are asking that they should not be subjected to competition from countries that subsidise energy costs. If they have that kind of competition, they want action to be taken here to provide similar subsidies for them. That is the only way in which they will be able to compete on equal terms. It is the failure to take such action that is causing the destruction of the paper industry.
We should address ourselves to two problems. First, how can we make ourselves more efficient so that we can compete? Scorn was poured by the Minister on the idea of devaluation. We are already seeing devaluation, whether the Government like it or not. Already they are singing a different tune and saying that it will help our exports. Of course it will, because an overvalued pound is no good to British industry. Secondly, our interest rates are no good to British industry. High interest rates make it difficult for industry to compete. Who will invest in new methods to bring about higher productivity if they face high interest rates?
I couple with that the need for sensible controls on imports that are damaging vital industries. We can delay no longer. Something must be done about energy costs. We must think again about unfair competition and we must do something to save industries such as the paper industry before it is too late.
9.11 pm
Mr. Christopher Murphy: In contributing briefly to this debate on trade, I wish to concentrate upon the responsibilities of the Department listed relating to policies for tourism and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on the vigorous approach he has adopted as, in effect, the Minister for tourism. He has been right in seeking to tackle the requirements of this key sector of the economy and in appreciating the importance of tourism to our future industrial and trade development.
Tourism turns over £8 billion annually, of which £4 billion is in foreign currency, and employs 1·5 million people. On these simple figures alone, its value in economic terms is clear. Yet, with the coming growth in the leisure industry, already evident in many areas, it
380
seems appropriate to query whether enough emphasis is being placed by the Government upon the potential of this development.
To illustrate that concern, I cite the delineation of ministerial responsibilities—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whose Department is responsible for many aspects of our heritage. The time has surely arrived—many might say it was overdue—for there to be a Department embracing all three functions because each impinges upon the other.
What of our future tourist industry without the arts and heritage? What of the success of many arts events without the setting of the heritage and the support of tourism? What about our continuing heritage divorced from the arts and the tourists of the world? All the Ministers involved have shown their individual and valuable commitment. I know also of the interest in the arts and our heritage of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade.
Such co-ordination becomes ever more self-evident and the need for co-ordination runs deeper even than this. For a thriving tourist industry to have an input when transport policies, such as good signposting, are decided is essential. For it to have an input when industrial policies are decided is vital to avoid the duplication of scarce resources. For it to have an input when fiscal policies are decided is essential to ensure that maximum advantage is gained from overseas visitors with minimum discomfort. These are but a few obvious examples.
My hon. and learned Friend has rightly set up a radical and comprehensive review of the way that we handle tourism—a step that should be welcome on both sides of the House. Tourism can be yet another example of the excellent workings of the social market economy—the Government providing a backcloth against which private enterprise should be allowed maximum freedom to operate, and the individual being encouraged to give full rein to the entrepreneurial spirit. New opportunities are springing up not only from overseas visitors, but from closer to home. Leisure for our constituents—if not for us as hon. Members—is on the increase.
Lest it be thought that my words this evening are purely conviction rather than backed by experience, I humbly draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that my constituency has at its centre the splendour of Hatfield house, under whose shadow, almost, I live. This magnificent building surely epitomises the bringing together of the arts, our heritage and the tourist industry. Hatfield house shows clearly how each is interrelated, and is most definitely private enterprise.
9.16 pm
Mr. Tom McNally: I hope that those who organise these matters in the House will have noted both the informed nature of the debate and the large number of hon. Members who wish to participate, and that they will see this as significant and allow us more debates on trade, as the debates obviously attract much interest. I agree with the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) in advocating a vigorous policy of expansion of tourism. I hope that tourist policy will be tied to regional policy. Investment in tourism is a good job creator. I know that the Under-Secretary of State is aware of the need to tie development of regional airports to tourist expansions.

381
The Minister has already appreciated the flavour of the debate. Hon. Members wish to campaign against unfair subsidies to industries abroad and also want subsidies for our industries. Hon. Members wish us to penetrate the export markets and want the Minister to argue that our competitors should show restraint. Hon. Members wish our utilities to buy British and attack French chauvinism. Like the late Jimmy Maxton, the hon. and learned Gentleman has the job of riding two horses at once. It is not only in the circus that that is a required art, but in the Ministry of Trade.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) made it clear that there was no clear argument between free traders and protectionism any more. There is a whole range of shading and subtleties. Nevertheless, it is important that the country should see the direction in which the various parties are going. The official Opposition have some clarification to do about where they stand on protectionism and on our future relationship with out largest industrial market, the European Community.
I shall not try to interpret the past ten years, of the EC, as did the right hon. Member for Battersea, North because we do not know what would have happened if we had stayed out. All I know is that we would have been operating alone in an increasingly hostile world of trade. Hon. Members cry "EFTA", but it is amusing that they are now talking about the problem of our industrial deficit, when the alternative to the Community would have been an industrial free trade area, which would have presented us with the same problem that hon. Members are now complaining of with regard to the Community.
We have to get this clear. My party and hon. Members who were in the House at the time take a pride in saying that we gave a majority for going into the Community. Many statistics have been bandied about tonight—one thirtieth of the SDP is here tonight, but only one thirty-fifth of the parliamentary Labour party.
It is clear that we need a trading system that gives the industrial economies time to adjust, train, retrain, and invest in new industries. That in itself makes a move towards total laissez-faire impossible. I ask those hon. Members who in the past have taken pride in their internationalism to accept that we can offer hope to the Third world, the less developed countries, only on the basis of access to our markets. The industrial centres of the European Community have quite a good record in development programmes, as has the British textile industry. It has understood the need for access by the developing countries, and it has worked with them. It is not a bitter, narrow and chauvinist industry.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) made a valid point when he said that a secure home market was important for a successful export industry. Indeed, it could be said that the most attractive market for British industry to win now is the British market. However, hon. Members on both sides should remember that much of the penetration has taken place because millions of individual consumers have opted, for reasons of price, design or quality, to buy goods of other than British origin. It would be as well for us to consider quality, design and price so as to win markets abroad and here at home.
I agree with the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Hoyle) about relations with Japan. The best thing for world trade would be to have a good co-operative understanding between the United States, Japan and the European
382
Community. Those countries have the capacity to be the engine room of a real world trade expansion. However, if Japan, an economic super-power, does not contribute to a stable and orderly world trade, that hope will be frustrated. The hon. Member for Warrington was right. We hear time and again of missions from Brussels banging the table and telling the Japanese what is what, how tough we shall be, and nothing happens. Political patience is fast running out.
From Japan we want two signs. The first is the tangible sign, which can only be in figures and goods, of her own market being opened up to her trading partners. The second is for technology and investment to go the other way, towards her trading partners. That is the way to achieve a stable trading partnership.
I hope that the Minister will also pay considerable attention to our relationship with the United States. Over the past two years we have had too much conflict with the United States on steel, the pipeline, textiles and a number of the other matters. There is a strong case for a permanent commission between the European Community and the United States on trade matters in an effort to fore see and thus avoid many of the problems.
Let us be under no illusion: the pressures for protectionism are growing strong in the United States, and if they gain the upper hand, as that country moves towards a presidential election period, they will endanger our living standards and employment prospects.
I shall not go into detail on the multi-fibre arrangement because, in his usual robust fashion, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gave the Minister a precise list of points that need to be answered. However, we need to spell out to those in the textile industry that they have a future and that the Government and the Community will defend it.
In the past 20 or 30 years the industry has never had more than a year or so in which to look ahead. Negotiations have always been in process, but on the basis of retreat. The textile industry still employs more people than the shipbuilding, steel and coal industries combined. For a long time the industry has suffered a Corby or Shotton a week as jobs have disappeared. There does not seem to be any sense of urgency or commitment towards its long-term survival, particularly in Brussels. We roust make it clear that the textile industry is not dispensable. We want it to have a long-term future. As has been said, when the British textile industry produces goods of quality and at a good price, it should not be barred from markets through discrimination.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us who represent textile areas know that the goods are the finest quality and that the work force is the best, yet we still cannot sell our goods in the markets of the world, particularly those that are protected?
Mr. McNally: In his years in the House, the hon. Gentleman has put over that message forcibly. We should like to have some evidence that Ministers take that message to both multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations.
The Minister mentioned invisibles. We in Britain tend to get a little irritated when we are told that if our competitors have improved in some areas, we must understand it, and take our medicine like men. We are told

383
that we must accept that other countries are producing the right goods. However, the service industry is producing the right goods, yet the industry is discriminated against, both in the Community and elsewhere. I hope that the Department will confirm that it is adopting a clear and firm line with the Community and in bilateral trading negotiations on shipping, insurance and banking in order to promote British invisibles. The same could be said of the airline industry. The Under-Secretary of State for ever gives us optimistic statements about what he will do to the Europeans, yet precious little seems to happen.
Mr. Dan Jones rose—
Mr. McNally: I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is missing a treat.
Mr. McNally: I bet I am.
Obviously, such debates as this are likely to concentrate on industries that are in difficulties. It is right that those problems and difficulties should be aired in the House. However, as the Minister said, this country exports 30 per cent. of its gross domestic product. That means that parts of British industry are doing things right. Some of our firms are getting the right orders to the right people. However, we want an assurance that the embassies and various governmental agencies will give British industry a chance to sell in the world. We should like the British media to reflect on what is good in British industry. That is the way forward, if our industry is to become technological and competitive enough to win markets in the Community and third countries and, most important, to win back the confidence of the British consumer.
9.29 pm
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally). It is high time that we had a debate on trade, because this touches on many aspects of life in Britain. Like most things, even the election date, it is subject to fashion.
When I was first in industry there was a tremendous passion for rationalisation, for turning businesses into larger units and diversification. A year or two later, the rage, with equal passion, was for turning businesses back into smaller units and concentrating on what one did well.
Similarly, today, there exists in trade a growing and dangerous fashion for protectionism. It is easy to understand how that has happened. During a world recession, we all have factories in our constituencies that are under threat. It is pleasant to save jobs by advocating constituents' interests, and it is a source of anguish if those jobs are lost.
The Government have a duty to look through fashion. They must avoid private interests and stick by what is in the interests of the public. If they do that, I know that they will find overwhelmingly that Britain's long-term interests lie in the open trade system. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend supported that so strongly.
We all know that Britain is a great trading nation. We export more in goods and services, as a proportion of our gross domestic product, than any other country. It is evident that if world trade expands we become richer, and that if it diminishes we suffer.
Between the two world wars, trade contracted. We went back into protection. As the volume of trade shrank,
384
the effect on Britain was bad. We all know the results. After the second world war, and in a different spirit, trade was liberated under GATT and in the 1960s under the Kennedy round. Tariffs were reduced, trade expanded and prosperity in the West grew.
In the light of that evidence, and more, it is clear that we benefit from free trade, but there are special pressures on all constituencies in Britain and in other countries. One can understand why video recorders must be imported to Poitiers. One might ask why one does not import machine tools into Britain through Betwys-y-coed. I understand that 100 Bills on import controls are proceeding through Congress. The danger of rising protection grows monthly. The Government have a duty to expose the fallacies that lie behind the seductive call of protectionism.
We benefit from an increased volume of trade. That is self-evident. We cannot scoff at the threat of retaliation. There are examples of that. We can all remember how the failure to increase the quota on textiles from Indonesia led to a far greater cut in Britain's exports to Indonesia. If we withdraw from the Common Market, we cannot be sure that a common external barrier will not be raised in our largest market. Serious retaliation would destroy the case for import restrictions. There is no guarantee that our balance of trade would be helped. Resources would move out of exports to satisfy the home market. Marketing effort would be spent at home and we would not necessarily create extra capacity to export goods. Inflation would be worse. The British Consumers Association estimates that we pay between 15 and 40 per cent. more for textiles as a result of the MFA restrictions. If we put up more tariffs, the inflationary pressures would grow.
Many people argue that import controls would last for only a short time, but all experience shows that once they have been erected they continue. That has been the experience of the MFA. What is initially made for a short time is extended. The MFA is now in its third stage. By their nature, import controls must be imposed for a long time if they are to encourage the necessary investment in import substitution in Britain.
Import controls weaken the economy. They act as a hidden subsidy. They encourage scarce resources to stay in the protected industries instead of moving out to the growth industries. They nurture inefficiency and as such are a type of restrictive practice. They need a complex apparatus to administer them. That bureaucracy would weigh more heavily on the productive sector of the economy.
Is that the road that we really want to take? Do we want to become a remote, little Britain? That is what Labour's programme of 1982 proposes. I am chilled by its call for import controls, tariffs and quotas. This is a very important point. If we want to help the Third world, we owe it to those countries to provide a market in this country for their goods.
For those reasons, and others, the Government have a duty to explain why the growing passion for protectionism is bad. They have a duty to stand up for free trade. Of course, they must also advocate fair trade. We have been through that argument. We must not delude ourselves that it is in the long-term interests of our country to follow the course of protectionism. We must be tough against unfair trade. We must work with the Common Market countries in this great trading area for free trade, because in growing trade lies our prosperity and that of the world.
9.36 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Labour party does not believe in protectionism. I do not believe that we get anywhere by caricaturing our opponents' arguments and policies.
There are strengths and weaknesses in our trading position. Anyone who looks at the past 100 years of British economic history realises that we have severe problems, which were caused not by one party or Government. What can we do about those difficulties? We do not serve anyone well by erecting false dichotomies between a free world order of trade and a narrow, protectionist stance. As intelligent men and women in the late part of the 20th century, we all want the country to be prosperous and to create wealth to be shared among our people. Therefore, we must look at the problems, analyse them, and find specific answers.
The Opposition believe that we must have a proper exchange rate policy as part of the programme to put things right in a measured way and that there must be massive industrial investment to counter the decay of many years. There has been a lack of investment, particularly since the Conservative Government came to power.
In the short term, and probably in the medium term, some areas of trade must be planned to give British manufacturers the chance to compete and grow. That applies only to some areas of industry. Some must have protection in the short term. That is sane and sensible for any party or Government facing the realities of trying to make strong the weak parts of our economy. The Opposition can do that.
At the next election the electorate will choose our positive policies—not hand-wringing, but positive—to put men and women back into jobs and to get our trade and exports moving again. My constituency is at the centre of the exporting and industrial wealth creating sector. It is unlike Dover or the south coast. We create the wealth of Britain. We do not expect the destruction of 25 per cent. of our industrial base. We do not expect the closed mills and factories that we pass every day in our constituencies. We know that those mills and productive units will never come back into production. This is not a stop-go part of our economic history. It is a stop, stop, stop part of our history. Unless we have positive policies for control of the exchange rate, planned trade, of planning for growth and of creative planning—there can be such a thing—we are doomed as an industrial and trading nation.
9.39 pm
Mr. John Fraser: The Opposition are grateful for even a half-day debate on trade matters. We do not discuss often enough matters that are vital and essential to this country's success. Our gratitude to the Government, however, should not prevent us from being outspoken about the extent to which the Department of Trade and its Ministers have been associated with adverse trade balances, losses, failures and lack of effective action.
The Minister for Trade is a fine advocate. He would not have his style and title were that not so. He can put a good face on almost everything. By the end of his speech one would have thought that the country had few problems and that the only trade problems faced by his Department were likely to come from intervention, from following the policies advocated by the Labour party and from protectionism, which the Opposition describe as matters
386
of common sense. A greater degree of intervention to assist Great Britain's trade in manufactures surely cannot cause so much disruption. I am sure that the Minister did not convince Conservative Members, in particular the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and he certainly did not convince Opposition Members.
The Minister of State's able exposition of the Government's case is a dangerous masquerade. I should be extremely worried if I thought that he believed what he was saying.
The trends in visible and invisible trade are horrifying. The horrific nature of the trends are masked only by the balances from North sea oil. In assessing the long-term prosperity and future of this country and its trade, we cannot ignore the finite nature of North sea oil. We cannot aggregate all the elements of our trade and say that, because Great Britain had a surplus of £6 billion in one year and £4·5 billion in another year, everything in the garden is rosy. We have to look at the prospect for our trade in manufactures for 50 or 100 years, and not allow it to be distorted and covered by favourable balances of trade as a result of North sea oil.
The Government have allowed what could have been our greatest asset to become one of our greatest liabilities. I did not use the word "horrific" lightly. Let us look at three consequences for visible trade. I understand that, for the first time since the reign of Elizabeth I, this country has an adverse balance of trade in manufactures. The Government have brought about an extraordinary position.
The non-oil balance in visible trade—these figures were given by the Minister on Monday last week—was in deficit last year by almost £2·5 billion, whereas in 1978 we had a favourable balance on visible trade of £500 million. More terrifying than anything is the fact that our deficit on manufactures with the rest of the European Community is a staggering £5 billion per annum. We cannot ignore such figures by putting them alongside what is likely to be a temporary surplus on oil trade. The figures show the devastation to British manufacturing industry, what lies behind job losses, and the depths of industrial dereliction to which Britain has fallen as a result of the Government's policies. The terrifying prospect is that a fall in the price of oil, or a diminution in supply as it begins to run out, will leave us exposed to massive deficits.
It is grossly irresponsible of the Government and their supporters to ignore those projections and the finite nature of oil and to behave like people on a limited supply of hallucinatory drugs. The clear message from this debate is the failure of the Government to recognise the reality of the exposure of Britain when the oil runs out.
The Government have not only failed on visible trade. Several hon. Members mentioned tourism. We used to have a healthy surplus from tourism on the invisible account. At one time it was about £1 billion a year, but now it is a deficit of £500 million a year. That, again, is a direct consequence of the Government's policies on the exchange rate. No one can say that tourism suffered because of the behaviour of workers or their wage claims. It suffered because the industry was made uncompetitive by the Government's operation of the exchange rate.
The Government's achievement, as was clearly demonstrated during the debate, is to shift jobs and money out of Britain and to bring foreign goods in. They have weakened their ability to control those matters by relying

387
upon negotiations with the European Community, where they have often neither the power nor the resolve to deal with such matters.
I do not doubt for one moment that the Minister for Trade was vigorous in the GATT negotiations. The trouble is that he was vigorous for the wrong group of countries and for the wrong objectives. The negotiating team was concerned with the preservation of the protectionist common agricultural policy and the disturbingly large subsidised dumping of food exports on other parts of the world. The Minister had to be associated with that because he was a member of the EC negotiating team. That did not help in negotiations with the Americans, and he was not associated with the European stance of freeing the trade in services. For example, if as a member of the EC one is trying to reach agreement with America on synthetic fibres, America's ability to retaliate against the other members of the Community is much greater. It would be better to have bilateral arrangements with the United States than to be tied down to negotiating as part of the EC.
No one who examines the disastrous trends in both visible and invisible trade, especially in manufactured goods, can be reassured about the future of his job or trade while the Government preserve their present noninterventionist policies. There must be a change of heart, although there is not likely to be a change of heart in a Government who have an ideological attachment to nonintervention. The prospects for better trade and employment will come not from a change of heart in Ministers, but from a change to a Government who will adopt policies that are devoted to increasing employment and prospects for our working people.
9.50 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): We have had a wide-ranging debate. I am sure that it would have been wider had many of my hon. Friends who sat through the debate—the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker)—caught your eye, Mr. Speaker.
In the 10 minutes that are left, I shall cover several of the points that were raised.
Several hon. Members raised a wide variety of points relating to the conclusion of the bilateral textile agreements negotiated last year by the Commission under the terms of the new multi-fibre arrangement.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the kind words they have said about the Government, in particular about the contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and the tough line that he and the Commission took.
Several hon. Members have expressed concern and reservation about the level of protection that will be provided under these new arrangements.
The clothing and textile industries operate in a highly competitive international environment. This is inescapable. The success of the United Kingdom industry is apparent in its substantial exports to the rest of the world—some £1·7 billion in the first 10 months of 1982. This is something upon which the industry should be congratulated. It was a good performance by any standards. The House and the country should be proud of it.
388
Secondly, the Government accept that in the especially difficult circumstances that have faced the industry in recent years, continued protection is necessary against certain low-cost imports where the industry has no reasonable hope of competing successfully in the immediate future. The level of protection now offered under the new MFA is without doubt higher and more extensive than that available to the industry under MFA2.
Under the MFA and associated arrangements, my Department currently operates more than 600 specific import quotas on clothing and textiles. They represent a massive level of protection. The Government believe that protection is necessary. There must be no doubt in hon. Members' minds, whatever their reservations, some of which have been expressed this evening, that the level of protection afforded is massive and far greater in absolute terms than that given to any other part of the private sector.
It is no good hon. Members saying that a higher level of protection could have been negotiated. The Government believe that the European Commission negotiated the toughest deal that it was realistic and possible to obtain. To have sought greater restrictions on supplies—for example, by seeking to base 1983 quota entitlements on the exceptionally low level of imports in 1980—would not, in the event, have been a realistic negotiating aim.
Were the Community to force such a proposal on our partners in the developing world, I am quite sure that we would have had no new MFA and no new bilateral arrangements. We would have been thrown back onto our normal safeguard rights under the GATT, and any action on that would need to be agreed by the rest of the Community. That alternative did not commend itself to the Government, and it is not an alternative that would have been acceptable to British industry.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, there is a price to pay for the high level of protection which the clothing and textile industry will enjoy for the next four years. The Government believe that it is worth paying that price to help the industry face the exceptionally difficult problems with which it is confronted. The House should not be misled into believing that such massive protection, even though necessary and warranted, does not have to be paid for in terms of increased costs to the consumer and its effect on our trade relations with supplying countries.
I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) to give certain undertakings on the detailed aspects of the Government's textile policy. I am happy to give an undertaking that the Government will, as in the past, closely monitor imports from countries with which the Community has signed bilateral arrangements. The Government will try to ensure that those are honoured.
I assure the House that we shall closely monitor imports from the Community's preferential Mediterranean suppliers, and that the Government do not propose to allow excessive imports from those countries to undermine the good work that was achieved in negotiating the MFA bilaterals.
We shall also be taking a realistically firm position on the renegotiation of the bilateral agreement with China, which falls to be done in 1983. The Government are fully aware of the importance of the clothing and textile industry to this country. The new MFA gives substantially

389
increased protection for the next four years, and that should provide some certainty for the industry in its planning.
It is an extraordinary fact that too often people in Britain do not seem to realise what an exceptional and unique exporting record this country has today. We are always too eager to play down our own achievements and to play up our own failings. That is one of our less sensible national characteristics. It needs to be said loud and often that British exporters are at present doing a superb job for the country.
Let me spell out just three examples of what I mean—examples that are far too little known at home and abroad. First, this country exports a higher proportion of its GDP than any other major industrialised nation. We export more than the United States, Japan and West Germany. We export almost 30 per cent. of what we produce—almost double the proportion that Japan exports. That is something of which our exporters can be justifiably proud.
Secondly, while the gloom merchants—many of them on the Opposition Benches—have been moaning about the United Kingdom becoming a commercial and industrial desert, since the Government came to power the United Kingdom has turned in massive balance of payments surpluses each year. That is a tremendous record.
Thirdly, few people realise that while last year world trade by volume was falling by about 2 per cent., British exports were rising by 1 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement at a time of worldwide recession.
In short, of course this country is suffering from the effects of worldwide recession; of course parts of the country and parts of our industry have been hit particularly harshly; of course there is still a long way to go to restore profitability, competitiveness and employment to the levels that we all want to see, but we must not forget or fail to acknowledge the splendid achievement of Britain's exporters in both goods and services. It remains the Government's strong resolve to enable them to continue with that good work.
In the few minutes remaining, I should like to comment on the splendidly robust speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A. Grant). I particularly liked his remarks about how the Saudis depended on oil and about how we never heard anyone say, "Poor Saudi Arabia, its economy depends on oil." Why are people so critical of us when oil, quite rightly, plays such an important part in our economy?
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to identify protectionism versus open trade as one of the major themes of the debate. We Conservatives are firmly on the side of open trade—
Mr. Woolmer rose—
Mr. Sproat: Had my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West been called to speak, he would have pointed out that shipping is one of our most important industries and that 68 per cent. of our earnings from shipping comes from cross-trades—our ships plying between two ports neither of which are in this country.
390
How on earth would we be able to continue to benefit from that 68 per cent. of earnings if our ports were closed to other shipping? How could we expect others to keep their ports open to our ships? That is a classic example of the benefits of free trade.
If Labour Members think that no other country is warning us against going down the road of protectionism, they should read the speech of Ambassador Brock to the Senate finance committee on 25 January, when he made it quite clear that if the United Kingdom went down the road of protectionism, the United States would be forced to go further down that road.
There is no question but that the true interests of this country lie far more in the direction of open trade, and that is certainly the direction in which my Department intends to go. I am very pleased indeed that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central said that right at the beginning of the debate.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered, That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 18A (Consideration of Estimates) to put at that hour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1982–83
  Question,
  That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,509,761,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in course of payment during, the year ending on 31st March 1983, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 12 and 13.
  put and agreed to.

  ESTIMATES 1983–84 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Question,
  That a sum, not exceeding £35,955,985,500, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1984, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 14, 15 and 16.
  put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the two foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. John Wakeham.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1983 and 1984; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Representation of the People Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.1 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is pure consolidation, bringing together in one measure much of the existing law on elections and electoral procedure. There was a previous consolidation into the Representation of the People Act 1949, but because of changes since then in many different Acts it is time to consolidate the provisions again.
This major consolidation brings together in one statute much of the matter that is important in this context. The Joint Committee on Consolidation, etc., Bills, to which, as always, we are greatly indebted, has considered the Bill in the normal way and is satisfied that it is pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: This is a pure consolidation Bill and a major consolidation Bill. I echo the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General and pay tribute also to the Joint Consolidation Committee, as it is time I said something about one of these consolidation Bills.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Opencast Mining (North-West)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
10.4 pm
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I hope to be objective and constructive, not emotive, in my remarks, although opencast coal mining is an extremely emotive subject these days.
I sincerely hope that in the future the Minister will consider opencast applications with caution and with greater deliberation after hearing my case against this type of mining at this time. I stress the importance of timing. The debate synchronises with a great industrial recession such as we have not seen for 100 years. That is relevant because, for obvious reasons, a recession means less consumer demand for the vital product concerned.
In my view, it is imperative that in authorising opencast site applications Ministers should seriously consider the present state of energy demand. Here I do not refer to the world scenario, as we have now moved from the oil crisis os 1973 into a period in which the recession in Britain has made its mark in reducing demand for all types of energy.
I begin by illustrating the motivation of Members of Parliament to begin with an early-day motion and ultimately to seek a debate on what I consider to be a vital matter at this time. In my case, it is because I come from the north-west.
In any opencast application, one must decide whether economic necessity outweighs the environmental upheaval. In other words, is there sufficient need for the development to take place at the cost of local harassment? I shall expand a little on what I mean by that. My early-day motion, which was signed by 35 Members, states
"that it is unnecessary for further opencast mining schemes to be embarked upon considering the huge amount of coal stocks available".
Here I declare a vested interest. The early-day motion was couched in those terms, not because I sought to protect the people whom I represent in other sectors of the mining industry and elsewhere, but because there is now a great awareness in our communities, especially those which have been victims of opencast mining schemes, of the enormous and traumatic environmental intrusions into their lifestyle and the quality of their lives that opencast mining involves. I shall pinpoint and highlight two sites, one of which is probably the largest opencast mining site in Western Europe.
The other part of my early-day motion is
"furthermore, acknowledges the growing realisation and some serious concern by the public, that opencast mining is now environmentally unacceptable as long as sufficient deep coal mine reserves are available."
I shall not dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" about deep coal mining. There are about 300 years of deep coal mine reserves. When I read the report about coal and the environment, I noted that there are at least 100 million tons of opencast mining reserves.
The Minister has exclusive authority. He says aye or nay. Regardless of the power of great nationalised industries, regardless even of the will of the House, he has the power to say aye or nay when applications are submitted. Does the nation need coal? That basic question must be answered. Can the energy needs of the nation be met? I have investigated the resources available in both opencast and deep mining. The time has come when the

393
Minister must consider calling a halt to any further new projects for opencast mining. I emphasise that I refer to new projects. I do not attempt to assess or judge how long that halt should last.
I speak with long experience of the mining industry. It is well known that opencast mining is cheap, easily available and not labour-intensive. It creates environmental problems that are now accepted. We must assess the balance that must be struck in economic, financial and fiscal terms, taking account of the National Coal Board's financial position.
I have no scruples about saying that I am fully aware that opencast mining makes a considerable contribution towards balancing the books. What do ordinary people do about the intrusion into their local environment? A proposal is knocking about in Greater Manchester which outlines a massive opencast scheme. It will cover 1,500 acres and take 13 to 15 years to mine. The reclamation scheme involves the largest pit spoil heap in Western Europe. About 850,000 tons of coal can be extracted—coal that has been spilt, is surplus to requirement or has been integrated among pit dirt and shale.
It is easy to agree that such huge, conspicuous eyesores should be removed from the landscape. There is no argument about that. It would be a great contribution to environmental improvement. Should milling continue in an area for 13 years, especially if it is a struggling area? The scheme involves the Bolton, Salford, and Wigan metropolitan authorities, and is the largest of 21 sites envisaged in a 15-mile radius of Greater Manchester.
The Minister must be acutely aware that for 250 to 300 years this part of the north west region has suffered. It has been ravaged by deep coal mining. It has undergone industrial dereliction. The first industrial revolution left its mark. There was the mixed grill of Victorian planning, careless and carefree in the way techniques were applied to win resources, whether in the textile industry, mining, the slate industry or any other industry that happened to expand in that area.
We now face the prospect of two decades of intrusion. What does it mean? What do ordinary people say? They ask questions that need answers. I must tell the House that I have never known such resentment in this part of the world—and I am talking about a whole stratum of the Lancashire region—as there is at the prospect of what could be described and what they see as almost a second industrial revolution in the area, causing tremendous upheaval and interference with their lives.
They ask why, after 250 years of disturbance, they have again to face intrusion on this scale. It is very difficult to avoid memories of old coal owners when they see a nationalised industry coming back to carry out some form of environmental rape in their area. They ask whether local opinion will ever win the day. They wonder whether Parliament takes notice of protests. They ask whether it acts on rational arguments and whether the national interest is weighed against the interference with their local interests and daily lives. They ask how safe it is to mine in this area with a 45° deg incline, one in one. They ask how safe it is in an area with this history. Right in the centre of this massive opencast site there is a vivid memory of the largest pit disaster in the British Isles. There is a sensitivity from one generation here to another where 344 men and boys died. The Minister knows that there is this closeness among the mining community. They then ask
394
whether assurances can be given that residents living within a certain distance of the proposed site will not suffer in health. They would like assurances that the tranquility of many of the old people in the area will not be disturbed and that such an extensive development will not blight house prices for younger residents.
People in the area ask whether the Department of Energy is even aware of what the Department of the Environment is doing. They wonder whether it knows that there are reclamation areas, with £250,000 schemes in this district. They ask whether Whitehall departments co-operate on matters of this kind and whether one Department knows what another is doing.
A previous opencast site developed at Atherton has a notorious history. I disagreed vehemently with the decision made at the time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The public inquiry inspector recommended against development of the site. All the authorities to which I have referred protested. It is now strongly rumoured that the board intends to come back to develop the one-fifth of the site that remains. That is not action that accords with the Queensberry Rules. It is an unscrupulous tactic.
It is strongly rumoured—there has been speculation in the local press—that use could be made of opencast sites and other mine shafts in the area for the disposal of nuclear waste. I recognise that this is a difficult question. However, with such speculation rife, predominantly in the Wigan area, I hope that the Minister will give an assurance of at least some information to arrest the fear and anxiety that exist. The Minister is respected in the House for his activities at the Department. I hope that he will be able to answer some of the points that I have raised.
10.21 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for raising this subject and for the manner in which he has done so. Hon. Members are aware of his long experience in the mining industry. The hon. Gentleman brings to the House not only his local constituency experience but a knowledge of mining, which has been beneficial to the House. The last occasion on which the House had an opportunity to debate opencast coal mining was on 19 March last year, in a debate on the report of the Commission on Energy and the Environment relating to coal and the environment, initiated by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). That debate covered many matters apart from opencast mining, and the amount of time the House was able to devote to the problems of opencast coal was therefore limited.
I start by reminding the House—it is crucial in this context—of the major conclusions of the report of the Commission on Energy and the Environment relating to opencast coal. The commission concluded that, for those badly affected, the continued effects of opencast operations can add up to a very severe diminution in the quality of life. It recommended improvements in the procedures for restoring sites after coaling has finished. It recommended that planning applications for opencast sites should in future be handled within the normal planning machinery instead of, as at present, within the framework of the Opencast Coal Act 1958. This Act requires the NCB to obtain an authorisation for each opencast site from the

395
Secretary of State for Energy, and empowers the Secretary of State to attach deemed planning consent to an authorisation.
The commission concluded also that the volume of opencast coal produced should be allowed to decline with time, and that in the meantime should not be allowed to rise above the target level of 15 million tonnes per year. The commission also recommended that a series of guidelines should be drawn up by the opencast executive of the NCB and the local authority associations defining more strictly the sites where opencast coal might be mined. It suggested, too, some of the points which these guidelines might cover.
The Government's consideration of these recommendations—this is germane to the debate—is at an advanced stage. We have held detailed discussions with the NCB, the local authorities and many other bodies which have an interest in the CENE report. There have been debates in the House and in another place. I hope that we will be in a position to reply fully to the CENE report very soon. I am sure, too, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of the feelings of many hon. Members that, when the Government's reply to the CENE report is published, the House should have an early opportunity to debate it.
I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the representations of the many Opposition Members who have attended throughout the debate. Hon. Members will appreciate that for the present I cannot anticipate the reply, although I shall try to say a few words to put the points made by the hon. Member for Leigh into a wider context.
Opencast coal, as he rightly said, is a valuable national resource. Its costs of production are of the same order of magnitude as the costs of marginal production at the NCB's best deep mines. Opencast coal makes a substantial profit for the NCB, which offsets a significant part of the board's losses on the uneconomic part of its deep-mined production. I have reminded the House before of the importance of competitively priced coal both in securing the long-term prospects for the coal industry, and in keeping down electricity costs to industry and to domestic consumers. Opencast coal, together with efficient and competitive production from deep mines, has a significance in a wide context of energy prices and policy.
It is sometimes suggested that opencast coal is in competition with deep-mined coal, and represents therefore a threat to jobs in the mining industry. As hon. Members from mining constituencies can confirm, however, the truth is much more complicated. Opencast coal is clean and can generally be used without washing. For this reason it is frequently used to blend with deep-mined coal to sweeten it, as the phrase goes, to make the latter more acceptable for use in power stations.
In some parts of the country, where deep-mined coal has a high chlorine content, the coal can be marketed only if it is blended with low chlorine coals, which are typically available from opencast sites. Some other opencast sites produce coals to special requirements for local markets, which it would not be easy to supply from elsewhere. Other opencast sites produce grades of coal that are in short supply generally in this country. I am thinking here particularly of anthracite from sites in south Wales, and certain of the prime coking coals from the north-east of
396
England. Without opencast production of these coals, demand in the inland market would probably be met by increased imports, and not by coal from NCB deep mines.
There are other cases, too, where opencasting is undertaken in order that coal be extracted before it is sterilised by other development, such as the building of roads.
As hon. Members will be aware, following the rise in oil prices in the early 1970s, and the interim final reports of the coal industry examination, the Government at that time endorsed a target for NCB opencast production of 15 million tonnes per year. The present Government, when they came to power, reaffirmed this policy commitment.
On 13 May last year I said in a reply to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) that there had been no change in the Government's policy on the amount of coal to be extracted by opencast methods but that, in the light of the recommendations of the Commission on Energy and Environment, among other things, the Government had the future opencast production under review. That remains the position, though, as I have said, the Government intend to reply very soon to the CENE report, and to include in that reply their reactions to the CENE recommendations on the future level of opencast output.
I know from what the hon. Member for Leigh has said, and from the letters that I have received at various times from other hon. Members, that hon. Members are very concerned that the views of local people—the people directly affected by opencast mining—should be taken very fully into account in considering whether an authorisation should be granted to the NCB for a new opencast site. It may be helpful if I explain the procedures under the Opencast Coal Act 1958, and how these give local people, and their representatives in both tiers of local government, the opportunity to make their views known and have them considered.
If the NCB wishes to undertake opencast mining at a site, it is required to apply for an authorisation to my Department. It is required to publish notice of its intention to apply for an authorisation for two successive weeks in a local newspaper in the area where the proposed site is located. There then follows a period of 28 days during which objections can be made to the board's proposals. It is common for one or both of the local authorities concerned to object, together perhaps with the owners or occupiers of the land, and a number of local people.
The NCB will often then proceed to discuss its proposals in greater detail with the objectors, to see whether solutions can be reached which would enable the objection to be withdrawn. But if objections are sustained from either of the local authorities concerned, or from the owners or occupiers of the land, the Secretary of State for Energy is required to convene a public local inquiry, at which all the arguments for and against the site can be advanced and examined. The Secretary of State has the discretion to convene an inquiry in other cases; and my Department considers carefully whether or not to recommend that he use this discretionary power, on the basis both of the nature and weight of objections made to the proposed site, and of a personal visit to the site by officials from the Department.
In reaching a decision whether or not to grant the NCB an authorisation for a site, the Secretary of State is obliged to take into account the detrimental effects that the NCB's proposals might have on the environment. To be fair, it is also appropriate for him to take into account the

397
opportunities that the proposed opencasting may offer to make environmental improvements, such as the restoration of old colliery land, or the creation of a void for the disposal of waste.
If I had time I would go into the details of how the NCB has done an outstanding job in seeking to restore opencast sites and new opencast developments. However, I wish to address myself briefly to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Leigh.
The hon. Member is particularly concerned about the possibility of opencasting in Atherton, in areas adjacent to the existing Millers lane opencast site. Can I say at once that I recognise the strength of local feeling on this matter. The then hon. Member for Leigh, Mr. Harold Boardman, brought this very clearly to the attention of the House on 14 March 1978. My own predecessor as parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), explained at that time why the Secretary of State had decided not to accept the inspector's recommendation that the board's application be rejected. The issue upon which the then Secretary of State took a different view from the inspector concerned the need for coal. The inspector suggested that as the date for attaining the target of 15 million tonnes per year of opencast coal production had receded, there appeared to be no great urgency. He also suggested that the NCB might be able to find other sites involving far less amenity and environmental objection.
The then Secretary of State agreed with the inspector that the coal in the site would make a valuable contribution to the 15 million tonnes a year target and to meeting local needs. However, he could not agree that there was no great urgency in the need for more sites, and the inspector's conclusion that the board might be able to find alternative sites with less environmental and amenity objection did not answer the proposition that this site was essential to the achievement of the 15 million tonnes target as, even if such sites were to become available, they would not be able to produce the coal over the same time scale.
The Secretary of State took account of the inspector's comment that if the northern boundary of the site were moved further away from the built-up area, this would achieve a substantial amelioration of the environmental and amenity damage. He therefore authorised opencast working on the southern part of the proposed Millers lane site, while refusing authorisation for the northern part of the site. Subsequently, the metropolitan borough of Wigan brought an unsuccessful action in the High Court to quash the authorisation for the site.
It might help to put the relevance of these arguments to today's conditions into perspective if I point out that in 1977–78, the financial year in which the site was authorised, the NCB opencast production was about 11·5 million tonnes. The 15 million tonne target was achieved, and indeed slightly exceeded, in 1981. NCB opencast production in the current financial year is expected to be around 14·5 million tonnes.
The present position regarding a possible extension to the Millers lane site is as follows. The NCB, in accordance with an agreement with the local authority associations,
398
has drawn up a consultation document for discussion with the greater Manchester council and the other local authorities concerned, about future possibilities for opencasting in the greater Manchester area. I understand that this document mentions that there may be a number of options for opencasting close to the existing Millers lane site, including the northern area for which an authorisation was refused in 1978.
The NCB suggests that these options should be the subject of further discussion with the local authorities concerned. At the same time, I understand that the NCB has been undertaking some further exploration work in the area.
The hon. Member referred to the apprehension that is caused in the area by this discussion of possible future opencasting. I appreciate his concern. At the same time, I am sure that he recognises the value of the NCB discussing forward plans and options with local authorities, even when those plans are still at a very early and tentative stage. Only in this way can the local authorities gain a clear, overall and long-term picture of the impact of opencasting in their areas, and have an opportunity to influence the NCB's plans at a formative stage.
I know that the local authorities attach considerable importance to this. I understand that the next of a series of regular meetings between the NCB and the local authorities in greater Manchester is scheduled for the end of March. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will bring to the attention of the local authorities before then the strong local feeling on the possibility of future open-casting in areas around the Millers lane site.
I stress again that my Department has received no application for an authorisation for an extension to the Millers lane site, or for any other site in the immediate area; nor has it any reason to believe that the NCB will shortly apply for a site. If at some future point the NCB applies for an authorisation, the procedures I have already outlined would apply, with the assurance they give that the views of local people will be considered very carefully.
I would wish to go on, if I had time, but I must just mention the point made by the hon. Member about the specific matter of his local press report on nuclear waste. I firmly believe that these alarmist rumours are wholly unfounded. The hon. Member will know, however, that nuclear waste matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
However, knowing as I do the extreme care with which such matters are handled, I should be more than surprised if there were anything behind these rumours. I shall ask my right hon. Friend to contact the hon. Member for Leigh as soon as possible to reassure him on this matter.
The hon. Member asked a question of my right hon. Friend—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY
  Hydrocarbon Development Sites
  Hydrocarbon Development Sites
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  East Anglia (School Visits)
  East Anglia (School Visits)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  16 to 19-year-olds
  16 to 19-year-olds
  British Antarctic Survey
  British Antarctic Survey
  Polar Studies
  Polar Studies
  Colleges and Polytechnics
  Colleges and Polytechnics
  Tertiary Education
  Tertiary Education
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Procurator Fiscal Service
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Departmental Forms
  Departmental Forms
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  LIST OF WAGES COUNCILS
  LIST OF WAGES COUNCILS
  Joint Industrial Councils
  Joint Industrial Councils
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Workington
  Workington
  Youth Opportunities and Community Enterprise Programmes
  Youth Opportunities and Community Enterprise Programmes
  Young Persons (Cumbria)
  Young Persons (Cumbria)
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police (Civilian Recruitment)
  Metropolitan Police (Civilian Recruitment)
  Feltham Borstal
  Feltham Borstal
  Bail Act 1976
  Bail Act 1976
  Metropolitan Police (Armed Officers)
  Metropolitan Police (Armed Officers)
  Beam-Controlled Doors
  Beam-Controlled Doors
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Trespass
  Trespass
  Attempted Murder (Bail)
  Attempted Murder (Bail)
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
INDUSTRY
  Foreign-owned Companies
  Foreign-owned Companies
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Assistance to Industry
  Assistance to Industry
  Silicon Chips
  Silicon Chips
  Computers
  Computers
  Inmos
  Inmos
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
NATIONAL FINANCE
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Trade Union Contributions
  Trade Union Contributions
  Collector of Taxes Office (Rochdale)
  Collector of Taxes Office (Rochdale)
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Retail and Pensioners Price Indices
  Retail and Pensioners Price Indices
  Wine (Duty)
  Wine (Duty)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Argentina (Loan)
  Argentina (Loan)
WALES
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Museums and Libraries
  Museums and Libraries
  Teachers (Training)
  Teachers (Training)
PRIME MINISTER
  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts
  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts
ENVIRONMENT
  Bury (Housing)
  Bury (Housing)
  Council House Sales (Manchester)
  Council House Sales (Manchester)
  Housing Starts (Manchester)
  Housing Starts (Manchester)
  Metered Sewerage Charges
  Metered Sewerage Charges
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
TRANSPORT
  Associated British Ports
  Associated British Ports
  Driving Tests (Lessons)
  Driving Tests (Lessons)
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Rail Freight
  Rail Freight
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Community (Membership)
  European Community (Membership)
  Zimbabwe (Detained Airmen)
  Zimbabwe (Detained Airmen)
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
  Antarctica
  Antarctica
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health and Social Services (Voluntary Assistance)
  Health and Social Services (Voluntary Assistance)
  Central Cervical Cytology Registry
  Central Cervical Cytology Registry
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Drug Addicts (Treatment)
  Drug Addicts (Treatment)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Geriatrics
  Geriatrics
  Operation Major
  Operation Major
  Psychiatric Posts
  Psychiatric Posts
  NHS (Consultants)
  NHS (Consultants)
  Departmental Files (Personal Information)
  Departmental Files (Personal Information)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Income
  Family Income
  Clinical Psychologists
  Clinical Psychologists
  Pharmaceutical Industry (Parallel Importing)
  Pharmaceutical Industry (Parallel Importing)
  Hypochlorite
  Hypochlorite
DEFENCE
  Police House, 91 Ampleforth Road SE2
  Police House, 91 Ampleforth Road SE2
  Falkland Islands (Meals)
  Falkland Islands (Meals)
  Expenditure (Scotland)
  Expenditure (Scotland)
TRADE
  Films (Releases)
  Films (Releases)
  Internal Air Services
  Internal Air Services
  Welwyn and Hatfield (Assistance)
  Welwyn and Hatfield (Assistance)
  Takeovers
  Takeovers
  Crude Oil and Precious Stones
  Crude Oil and Precious Stones
  Textiles (Imports)
  Textiles (Imports)
  Exports (Statistics)
  Exports (Statistics)
  World Trade (Statistics)
  World Trade (Statistics)
  Silicon Chips (Imports)
  Silicon Chips (Imports)
  Saudi Arabia
  Saudi Arabia
  Steel
  Steel
  Shipping Industry
  Shipping Industry
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Scheduled Offences (Detained Persons)
  Scheduled Offences (Detained Persons)
  Terrorism (Detained Persons)
  Terrorism (Detained Persons)
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
SCOTLAND
  Peritoneal Dialysis
  Peritoneal Dialysis
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Community Education
  Community Education
  Falkirk Royal Infirmary
  Falkirk Royal Infirmary
  Prison Department (Housing)
  Prison Department (Housing)
  Caravan Sites (Rates)
  Caravan Sites (Rates)
  Cartsburn Yard, Greenock
  Cartsburn Yard, Greenock
  Whisky Distilling
  Whisky Distilling
  Scottish Office (Manpower)
  Scottish Office (Manpower)
  Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal Project
  Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal Project
  House Building
  House Building
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Housing Associations (Sales)
  Mr. Patrick Meehan
  Mr. Patrick Meehan
  Cardiac Surgery, Edinburgh
  Cardiac Surgery, Edinburgh
  East Fife Regional Board
  East Fife Regional Board
  Lochaber
  Lochaber
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Health Centre, Viewpark-Uddingston
  Health Centre, Viewpark-Uddingston
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976
  Museums, Galleries and Libraries (Grants)
  Museums, Galleries and Libraries (Grants)
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Health Care (Expenditure)
  Health Care (Expenditure)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  School Leavers (Examination Passes)
  School Leavers (Examination Passes)
  Gaelic
  Gaelic
  Hospital (North Ayrshire)
  Hospital (North Ayrshire)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter Trans-shipments (Ipswich)
  Butter Trans-shipments (Ipswich)

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

Lord Lewin
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Terence Thornton Lewin, GCB, MVO, DSC, having been created Baron Lewin, of Greenwich in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Ironside and the Lord Hill-Norton.
Lord Ingrow
Sir John Aked Taylor, Knight, OBE, having been created Baron Ingrow, of Keighley in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Chelmer and the Baroness Macleod of Borve.

Kensington Town Hall
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: 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 will order a public inquiry into the redevelopment of the partially demolished Kensington Town Hall.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, local planning authorities have statutory responsibility for the day-to-day control of development within their areas. The policy of the Government is that individual applications for planning permission should be taken out of the hands of a local authority only in exceptional circumstances. These usually involve matters of national or regional significance. The issues related to the redevelopment of the Kensington Town Hall site are of local significance only, and call-in of any planning application is not therefore justified.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for answering that Question. Does he not agree that, even if this is not an exceptional situation, it is deplorable in that for nearly eight months now the Kensington residents and also the diplomats and tourists who use this very central thoroughfare, Kensington High Street, have been deeply affected by the tragic appearance—if not the eyesore—of the partially demolished Kensington Town Hall? With one planning appeal still waiting to be heard, building work is unlikely to commence for many months to come, so does the Minister not agree that a system whereby an owner is allowed to pull down a building many months before redevelopment planning has been agreed is seriously at fault?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the situation in this case is that the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
802
has acted all along totally within the law. It is not for the Government to make moral judgments in matters of this kind. As the noble Baroness has said, there is an application in at the moment and the public inquiry into this begins on 22nd February.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, although the noble Lord is undoubtedly right that the borough has technically acted within the spirit of the law, is it not also true that, by its precipitate action in knocking down half of Kensington Town Hall, it was in fact acting against the wishes of the local residents who they had been consulting about the redevelopment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is exactly the kind of moral argument which I said I was not prepared to be drawn into.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister subscribe to the widely believed legend that this precipitate action was to forestall action by another body? In that case, is it entirely consistent with his comment that these matters are of local interest only?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have not the least idea why they undertook the action that they did. All I know is that the action has happened. The town hall, which I visited this morning, is in a totally unsatisfactory state. Therefore, my own feeling is that anything at this stage would be better than leaving it in the way that it currently is.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, if he has not the least idea why this happened, he must be alone among the literate population of central London?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that we are straying into the dangerous area of matters of opinion, and I do not think that that is desirable.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if the noble Lord is not prepared to comment on the morality of this matter, is he prepared to consider expressing a political or even a social opinion, which is of some concern, I should have thought, to this Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that I had already done that. I do not think that it is a satisfactory state of affairs for the building to be left in the condition in which it currently is.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is it not the responsibility of this Government to know why certain things have happened and, when asked by this House why they happened, to give an answer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the responsibilities of government, so far as I know, have not changed since the noble Lord was on the Front Bench opposite. If I have acted in any way differently from the way he would have done in the circumstances, I apologise.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is this area not in fact a democracy? Are there not some electors, and is it not their right to comment on this matter in the usual manner in the proper way? What more needs doing?
Lord Skelmersdale: Exactly, my Lords. As I sought to explain in my original Answer, this is a local problem which should be dealt with in the normal, local democratic fashion. The local population are indeed pressurising their council over this particular case. As I understand it, opinions locally are very much divided as to what the council should do; but what they decide to do, as I have said all along, is strictly a matter for them.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the council, having asked the Royal Fine Art Commission beforehand for their judgment for a replacement building, then disregarded the advice given to them by the commission?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the position of the Royal Fine Art Commission is quite straightforward, I think. Its advice was sought; it was listened to, but was not in the end agreed with. It is entirely for the council, as the local planning authority, to decide the weight they should give to any views expressed by the commission, by their own electors or anybody else.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the GLC had committed this action, would the Government have taken quite so detached a point of view?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would have thought that that was a rather hypothetical question.

Student Grants
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 changes are contemplated in the system of student grants.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government are at present considering the possibility of changing from a system of student support based wholly on grants to one involving a mixture of grants and loans. There are many complex issues to be looked at, and no decisions have yet been taken.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that these proposals could create severe difficulties for many of our young people in getting to university, which means to say that the proposition could very well limit access to higher education? Ought there not to be full discussions before anything like this is implemented?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think I made it quite clear in my original Answer that this is not a proposition. I repeat that the Government are at present considering the possibility of changing. I do not think that is a proposition. Obviously, when the time comes—that is, if the time comes—there will have to be innumerable consultations; but the Government have not committed themselves to this in any way so far.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that because of the statements which have emanated from the DES and, indeed, from the Secretary of State himself, there is some consternation, not only among the 300,000-odd students and their parents but among all those who are interested in education? Ought not the Government to come clean and state precisely what they have in mind, so that there can be proper consultations and a proper examination of a proposal which is giving great concern right through the whole fabric of higher education?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I really cannot go on repeating that the Government have not yet come to any definite conclusion. When the Government themselves make up their minds what they are going to do, that will be the proper time for consulting everybody.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of people, having observed a system of grants and loans working admirably in other free Western countries, think the Government are absolutely right to consider this most seriously and most carefully, and to have consultations on the issue?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful for those remarks from my noble friend. There will obviously be consultations, and I imagine that some people will be in favour and others violently opposed.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Waldegrave plan, which was referred to in the educational press at the beginning of last month with a great many details about what was to be done with the grants system—some people would benefit, the minimum grant would be abolished, and so on—is being seriously considered by the Government, or are they going to come up with some quite different plan? Or was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary talking very freely at that moment?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords. I can only repeat once more that we are considering the possibility of a change, but the details have not yet been agreed or thought out in any way.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, this is a request for information. Did the House hear the noble Earl aright a moment ago when he said:
"When the Government have made up their mind what they want to do, that will be the time for consultation'"?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I apologise. I should have said "if the Government decide", rather than "when".
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us would regard this as putting the clock back 50 years, to where it was before the war? Would he not agree that this, together with the abandonment of the Robbins criteria, which the Government are proposing this year, would mean that higher education will become an élitist privilege, as it used to be?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that is a matter of opinion. The noble Lord is entitled to

805
express his opinion, but I do not think it is in the shape of a question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Earl for the reply he has given, particularly as he has said that everybody will be consulted. Would he please give the House an assurance that representatives of the National Union of Students will be included, because, as I understand it, they look upon the issue as being one of saving money, and they have proposals which need not be of the same type as the Government's but which nevertheless could save money, and which would be acceptable to the NUS?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I cannot give a categorical promise, but I imagine they would be consulted.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the Government undertake to issue a White Paper before taking any action? Further, could the noble Earl reassure us that they would not make a pre-emptive strike prior to full consultation?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am absolutely sure that the Government are going to consult very widely on this.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the arrangements for students' grants in this country are probably the most generous in the whole of the Western world? Is it not also a fact that many European countries operate a system of a combination of grants and loans which has operated fairly satisfactorily for very long periods of time, and that certainly the arrangements here are very much more favourable than those in the United States?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, for what he has said. This is one of the reasons why the Government are considering these possibilities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Earl is now saying that the Government are considering the possibilities of deciding between grants and loans, will he assure the House that the Government will look very carefully at the American model? Because a number of his noble friends and Members on the Cross-Benches are apparently unaware of the fact that those of us who have taught in the United States are appalled by the number of students who have to fall out because they cannot afford to keep up their loan payments.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am quite certain the Government are looking into measures which are used in various parts of the world.

H-Bomb Tests at Christmas Island
2.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 the Answer given on 25th October 1982 (col. 390) by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Viscount Trenchard, on the subject of H-Bomb tests at Christmas Island was inaccurate and whether they will now conduct an inquiry into the increasing evidence that many British service personnel have suffered injury and premature death as the result of their presence at nuclear weapon tests.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Answer given on 25th October 1982 was accurate. It remains true that only a few claims have been made to the Ministry of Defence alleging that servicemen who participated in British H-Bomb tests at Christmas Island have suffered from ill effects. In view of the publicly expressed concerns, it has been decided to conduct a health survey of all relevant British personnel. This was announced on 12th January 1983. However, it is still considered that no one who participated in any of the British atmospheric nuclear tests was exposed to significant health risks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, but is it not the case that, within a short time of this negative Answer being given, the Government changed their mind and decided that they would after all look into the matter and have a survey? Is it not therefore the case—I am not suggesting any personal turpitude so far as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is concerned—that perhaps he was not adequately briefed on that occasion?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, the Answer which my noble friend Lord Trenchard gave on 25th October last year was, as my original Answer said, accurate. Regarding the decision to undertake a health survey, it is tragically the case that about one in five of the male population of the United Kingdom at the present time dies of cancer, so there will be some thousands of people who, understandably, will be able to question whether there is a link between the disease and the tests. The problem is to determine whether or not the incidence of cancer among test veterans is significantly different from the incidence of the disease among those who did not participate in the tests. The announced health survey will be designed to solve this problem. But I must repeat that the measured radiation exposures of personnel in the tests clearly indicate that no significant health risks were run.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Government's response in setting an investigation forward is typical of the sensitivity of democratic Governments, unlike that expected in totalitarian countries?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if he has not already done so, will the noble Lord clarify one item in the

807
Question? Have there been any premature deaths of service personnel? Will he answer that question?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to that, so far as we know, is, No, and by that I mean No in the sense that there are no deaths which can be connected with the tests. As to whether personnel who took part in the tests have died prematurely, there were some 15,000 personnel and nobody could possibly answer that question.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is not the Minister rather prejudging the survey's findings in his reply? Will he not accept that the fact that the Government are setting up a survey, which I am sure we all commend, is a recognition not only of the public's concern but of the Government's concern on this matter? Will he recognise also that the tests which took place on Christmas Island in 1950 indicate in the time of the H-Bomb that there is a much greater incidence of danger now with nuclear weapons? Will the Government take those aspects into account in respect of civil defence, and also make the findings public in due course?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that in no way would the Government be wishing to prejudge the outcome of a survey which they have been very ready to undertake. In order that both Houses of Parliament, and indeed the general public, will be able to make up their minds, I can certainly respond to the noble Lord's other question and say that the results of the survey will be published.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, in order to save injuries and premature deaths, the Government are now prepared to support the abolition of all nuclear weapon tests, including those underground, which are now under discussion?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Ministry of Defence looked with great care into the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, raised, at the time when he raised it, and that even the then Minister of State looked into the details? Would he also agree that it is at the moment at the very least premature to give any inference that there is any connection between the complaints, based upon the incidence of cancer in a few of those who took part in the tests, and the tests themselves?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I most certainly confirm that my noble friend, when he replied to this Question on 25th October, looked into this matter with very great care. I repeat that, so far as we can see, the tests were conducted safely and there are adequate data for the survey which are available from existing records. But, of course, there would have to be reconsideration if wholly unexpected results came up.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Minister of State agree that almost all those who are informed and concerned about this matter believe that the Government are to be congratulated on so quickly
808
announcing a full inquiry, and that the formulations of the Minister of State in describing its terms of reference and the plans for publication of its findings are warmly to be commended?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in view of the successful claims prosecuted by Australian and American service personnel, the Government have very little alternative but to institute a survey, and will he say when the report is to be expected?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the conclusions which the noble Lord draws from cases of which I am not aware seem wholly unjustified, if I can draw a logical conclusion from those two parts of my reply.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the second part of my question? When is the report expected?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the inquiry will be conducted as swiftly as possible.

Lesotho: South African Raid
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 have taken concerning the South African invasion of Lesotho, a fellow member of the Commonwealth.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we supported Security Council Resolution No. 527 which condemned the raid. We also expressed our views directly to the South African Government through their Ambassador in London. In Maseru last week my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development donated £5,000 to the fund set up for the relief of the victim's families.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord very warmly indeed for that reply, and will he accept that its contents will give a great deal of satisfaction in both political and non-political circles? May I ask him whether it is the case, as I believe it is, that last week in Lesotho at the summit meeting to which he referred, the British Government put their name to the communiqué which stated that:
"the conference called for the immediate cessation of such interference"—
referring to South African interference? When an incident of this nature occurs, in which an alien country—that is, South Africa—invades a fellow member of the Commonwealth and leaves behind over 40 people dead, do the British Government take any different action from that which they have been taking against other aggressions in other parts of the world? What do they in fact do?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, they support the Security Council of the United Nations and support the United Nations General Assembly. That is what we do, and that is what we did on this occasion. We supported both resolutions—Resolution 527 of the Security Council and Resolution 101 of the United Nations General Assembly. I am delighted to make that crystal clear to the noble Lord. As regards the question on the conference communiqué which the noble Lord put to me, we certainly condemn all external interference which has adverse effects on the economic development of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference region.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this raid took place just for fun or to wipe out terrorists? If the latter, can he say whether we are also condemning the presence of terrorists on the other side of the border?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we deplore attempts from whatever quarter to achieve solutions through violence. We have made clear that one of the essential preconditions for lasting peace in Southern Africa is progress within South Africa towards a form of Government based on the consent of the South African people as a whole. That is the general context in which I am answering this Question today.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will give massive encouragement to everybody all over the world—human beings of different skins and different blood mixtures—because they will know that the Government of this island is still paramount in preserving the rights of ordinary people against the most vile régime, far more vile than that of the Soviet Union, that we have ever had to deal with—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: People know full well that, even if they cannot agree with the communism of the USSR, they are not picked on because of the colour of their skins. That is why our Government can win with their attitude.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we strongly believe that each country must be allowed to decide its own future, and the relations between states in the area should strictly adhere to the principles of non-use of violence and non-intervention in internal affairs.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister tell his noble friend on the Back-Bench that women and children, not to be classed as terrorists, were among those killed in Lesotho? May I just press him one stage further in his answers to me? Will there be any further action taken after the resolution of the Security Council? Do Her Majesty's Government propose to suggest any action following that resolution which might prevent the South African Government from perpetrating similar aggressions in the future?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord may have noticed that Article 4 of the resolution requests the Secretary-General to enter into immediate consultations with the Lesotho Government and the United
810
Nations Agencies to ensure the welfare of the refugees in Lesotho in a manner consistent with their security. This matter is now in the hands of the Secretary-General.

Transport Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Farming
3.11 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie rose to call attention to the impact of modern farming methods and financial pressures on the future of the land and the rural communities of the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It relates to agriculture, which may be no surprise to your Lordships. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for withdrawing his Motion in order to discuss it along with mine. I know that he will have something extremely useful to say.
Agriculture—farming—has been very much in the news. Many people are interested in it and have strong views about it. Recently a number of books have been written about it, one by Richard Norton Taylor, a distinguished journalist, whose book rejoices in the name Whose Land Is It, Anyway? That is not perhaps calculated to enhance its sales among the members of the Country Landowners' Association. Nevertheless, the book is full of interesting views. Anything which causes one to think is very good. Therefore I commend this book to noble Lords, even though it may cause apoplexy in certain quarters. Another book, written by a member of another place, Mr. Body, is called Agriculture: the Triumph and the Shame. So far as I can see, Mr. Body has a number of interesting things to say. He is a direct descendant of "Featherbed" Evans.
At this stage I wish to discuss what is happening in agriculture and food production. We are at a most extraordinary stage; we have achieved surpluses of food within the European Economic Community. Food is available to everybody and we are disposing of the surpluses on the export market. That is a considerable achievement. I am certain that the people of Poland would welcome such a situation in their country instead of the appalling shortages which give rise to queues for up to three hours in order to do the household shopping.
This most incredible achievement is due to the technicians, scientists and farmers. In 20 years it has raised productivity in this country by 150 per cent. Consumers are able to buy their food for 21 per cent. of their weekly available wage instead of for 32 per cent. of their weekly available wage as was the case 10 years ago. This achievement is not wholly understood or appreciated in the country generally. The consumer still seems to think that the farmer is getting an enormous price for his products and is living in the lap of luxury while he, the consumer, is paying ever-increasing amounts for his food. But the opposite is the

811
case. We must give enormous credit to the technical achievement which has produced this result.
If I may give another figure, home production has risen in the last 10 years from 66 per cent. of the food which we could grow in this country to 76 per cent. Had this increase been repeated throughout the country we should be in a very much better economic state than we are today. The common agricultural policy has, of course, cost money. It costs a total of £8,300 million, of which Britain pays about 20 per cent.
Having pointed to our farming achievements, today I want to look at what we are doing for the future of the land, by which I mean the fertility of the soil. We have plenty of examples of immense dangers. People of our age who campaigned in the Western Desert and came across evidence of the North African civilisations know that for many years North Africa was the granary of Rome. It is now a desert. And the deserts in Africa are growing. We know that the soil of the prairies of America is as nothing in fertility compared with what it was when it was first broken up after many thousands of years of grazing. We are aware of the dust bowls which were created there in the 1930s. We are also aware of the immense achievements of Chinese agriculture. China is able to feed its enormous population because the soil is cared for in a way which I wish could be emulated elsewhere.
We are aware of many other things which can happen. For example, when the potato was introduced into Europe it was thought that it would solve the problems of Ireland. The people of Ireland grew the potato in ever-increasing numbers until it was overdone. Along came disease and the most appalling famine. We know of the tremendous efforts which have been made in Britain to build up our soil in a climate which is not 100 per cent. favourable. Excellent work was done by our forbears. Aberdeenshire was described by travellers in the 17th and 18th centuries as a blasted heath, unequalled in misery. Aberdeenshire, however, was made into one of the most fertile and productive parts of Britain. A great deal of work and thought was put into the care of the land. Over the years, this built up the fertility of the soil and left each successive generation better off.
Although the great high priests of modern farming have put up the yield of wheat from an average of two tonnes to three tonnes per acre and although some of them can grow nearly five tonnes of wheat per acre, the system has sprung from compulsions which I do not believe have done us any good. At one time, if you had high rents you had high farming. You had high farming because of a rotation system which improved and maintained the quality of the soil. Now there are pressures which force people to go for very high yields. I am talking of the cereal farmer. Again let me say how skilful the cereal farmers are. They have chosen to go for a system of monoculture and have had to back it up with an immense application of chemicals: sprays, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides—suicides! It goes on and on. They kill everything.
From one weekly edition of the magazine Animal Farming I have taken out the advertisements which relate to chemicals. Noble Lords can see that there are
812
some 20 pages of advertisements. One of the advertisements says:
"Commando is now eating behind the enemy lines. Commando kills. What cereal weed could survive when the harrier strikes?".
They are couched in a language which I doubt represents the right kind of attitude at the end of the day; I doubt it. The achievements are great, but when one gets inputs of anything up to £60 an acre in various chemical sprays, then I believe we should examine carefully what we are doing.
One of the great phrases in modern farming is, "You must get a good burn". To me that appears to be quite the wrong thinking, the burning of something like 6 million tonnes of straw—what is 1 million back or fore? That cannot be a good thing to do. Surely this should he incorporated into the soil, to add its goodness and build the humus instead of being burnt in order to dispose of the pests which the system of monoculture farming is bound to encourage. I know that biological control becomes impossible, but if one starts relying on sprays to cure diseases, the people around you who are farming in a different way may suffer.
I have a fertile farm based on stock and for years I scattered the good seed on the land and it was fed and watered by God's almighty hand, as the children's hymn says. I sprayed it lightly once with a herbicide, shut the gate and then harvested—and we achieved good harvests. But when people started to grow winter barley all around, all the diseases on earth arrived and I had to spray because the people around me were doing so. I am not saying that we must go backwards, but that we must look at what we are doing.
Are the Government really satisfied that the method of control is working as well as it should do? It is done by BASIS, which is the trade association. They are meticulous, and various headlines appear when they place sanctions on chemical firms which have broken the rules. I would like to go further and have us look at the much longer-term effects to see whether we can deal with this matter. Obviously one cannot go back in time. The fact is that this high input method of producing grain, which is going into surplus, is actually doing us harm.
Secondly, I want to look at the financial pressures. In this country at the turn of the century, 90 per cent. of the land was owned by estates and let to tenants; only about 10 per cent. of land was in the hands of owner occupiers. Today, something in the region of 60 per cent. of the land is in the hands of owner occupiers and only just over 30 per cent. let to tenants. The landlord-tenant system really did work rather well. It has done a tremendous amount to enable people to climb the farming ladder. But today the landlord-tenant system cannot survive as we have known it because it is under severe pressure in a whole wealth of ways—mainly because of Government legislation which practically forces the landlord to farm his own land if he is considering the capital value, or indeed is realising the true value of his land. He does not always want to do it and does not always do it very well, but he does it because of pressures. This Government should be looking at the question of making it a very reasonable matter to let land. I will not go further into this because I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will be doing so. I am certain that it is

813
practically impossible to climb the farming ladder at the moment. This state of affairs cannot be good for the health of the farming industry.
We have a new landlord coming into the business; the pension funds and insurance companies are buying land. I do not know whether we should do away with the dukes and substitute pension funds. Certainly my party has never spoken well of dukes; David Lloyd-George once described dukes as being more expensive than a battleship and just as dangerous. I am sorry that the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, is not in his place because, as a Scot, there is no question but that the Buccleuch estates have been a model of what one should have in a landlord-tenant association. Long before any Government scheme, for example, they were operating a lime subsidy which, shared between the landlord and the tenant, was good for both. The Government would do well to look at that today. I noticed the other day that since the lime subsidy was abolished the optimum use of lime has fallen by about 1 million tonnes below the desired figure.
One could look at many figures. It is interesting to look at one in particular. Farming is said to be prosperous because this year its net income has risen to exactly half of what it was in 1975. This is taking real figures, and it is not a very happy state. When one looks at farm overdrafts, and this is money borrowed only from banks, they stand at just on £4,500 million. The total contribution made by agriculture to the GDP is only £4,500 million. The total gross output is in the region of only £7,000 million. When one is borrowing nearly the whole of one's gross output, that cannot be a healthy figure.
The banks, in looking at the so-called total value, including land, and saying that it was a small proportion, were not being realistic. Money is being borrowed on good security but with no prospect of its ever being paid back. Interest rates have done an enormous amount of harm to agriculture in general—certainly in the case of the farmers of Denmark, who are going broke in very large numbers. According to the Danish Commissioner to whom I spoke the other d;ay, nearly all these cases are due to high interest payments on improvements they have made.
In these cases we have to look at our structure and at how things are progressing. We have a saying in Scotland,
"If you have poor land, you should plant factors because they thrive anywhere."
The factors of today are replaced by the big estate agents. Among them are very confident people who know their job, and they do their job well. But is the job they are doing good for agriculture? Their job is to get the big customers. The big customers are the pension funds and insurance companies who know little about agriculture. They are looking for a safe bet for their money, and for a reasonable return combined with capital appreciation. The job of the big estate agents is to find the farms and to put them together. They are thinking only in terms of money and are competing with each other to get the business. Therefore they are pushing up the rents to an extent that a prudent landlord letting his own land and looking to the future would never do. It is that factor which drives people into monoculture and into the
814
continuous production of cereals, which is actually making the best and cheapest use of money and shows the highest return on capital.
I think that we should look at the size of the farms. The tendency today is bound to drive towards bigger and bigger units. I do not think that the bigger units show any advantage. Certainly the figures from the north of Scotland and the east of Scotland college show that there is no advantage over 1,000 acres. In fact, they show that the chap who gets on best is the fellow doing well on 100 acres and that he is the fellow who will survive.
When we see large amounts of land taken into hand—eight big tractors and eight tractormen on 4,000 acres of good, arable land, which is the sort of thing one can see—then we are on to my third point, which is the point about the countryside itself. The countryside itself is again of great interest. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is down to speak, and he will no doubt be pushing a conservation point, which is of immense interest to many people who have a right to be interested in the land. But I think that when we look at conservation we should be thinking of the countryside and perhaps of conserving the people there more than the wildlife—at least that is my point of view and I am a conservationist as regards wildlife. But all of us know glens, Glen Esk, the back of Bonar Bridge and so on, where the population has fallen to an extent where it is not a viable population any more. We have to look at this as a problem, and one that is entirely different from the problem the CAP set out to cure.
In the days of Commissioner Hallstein the objective was to get people off the land and into factories in order to raise the general wealth of the population—the classic approach. It is a curious thing that that has been enormously successful in Europe. The working population in the country has fallen by 11 million people. That is a lot of people and, funnily enough, it is the exact size of the unemployment problem in the EEC today. I do not suggest for a moment that we can move all 11 million people back into the countryside. That is obviously impossible, but I suggest that we ought to look at the problem in an entirely different way and look at the social side as well as the productive side.
I think that if we do that we shall begin to regenerate the countryside. The only way one can regenerate it is by getting people back there. We should look on small farms with favour. We should have legislation that makes it more profitable to let farms in reasonably sized units than in big units. We should be looking to encourage all sorts of industry, small industry, in the countryside. Even if it loses money and costs a big subsidy it will be worth it at the end of the day.
We ourselves have 3½ million unemployed and I see in the Government White Paper on expenditure that they expect it to cost us £4,910 million in support, simply in cash paid out. I think we should spend such sums of money on the countryside, on the promotion of jobs for people living in the countryside to keep the place viable. We have made tremendous achievements, but I think that great dangers face us. In fact, it might be said that we are riding on the back of a tiger; we are riding it with great skill but we have no idea

815
where that tiger is taking us. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for initiating what is a very wide-ranging debate this afternoon. The terms of his Motion quite correctly highlight a number of points which are of concern to all who have an interest in British agriculture—and to many who do not. I thought that it might be helpful if I were to give the Government's view at the beginning of the debate and then reply at the end of the debate, should I have the leave of the House, to any questions which any noble Lord may see fit to put. I thought that it might also be helpful if I were to give some general information on the state of British agriculture, which could act as a background to the debate.
It may seem trite to say so, but it is a fact that British agriculture is a very important national industry. Its net product—that is, its total output less the inputs and depreciation—was worth about £3,300 million in 1981—which is 28 per cent. more, in real terms, not in money terms. than it was in 1975. The figures for 1982 will be published shortly, but it is already clear that there has been a further increase mainly as a result of a good cereals harvest, to which the noble Lord referred.
One consequence of these figures is that our self-sufficiency has been increasing steadily, and we now produce, as the noble Lord said, some 60 per cent. of all our food needs. Of the temperate foodstuffs—that is those which we can grow ourselves—between 1975 and 1977 we produced 65 per cent. of all our needs. We now, some four years later, produce about 75 per cent. of all our needs. That is not only a substantial figure, but a remarkable rate of increase.
These are impressive figures for our densely populated islands, and they help to ensure considerable security of supply for our consumers. In a hungry world—and the world is hungry—this is a real advantage. And one does not have to look very far afield to see the consequences when agriculture is less successful. One has to remember in times of surplus, when criticism becomes fashionable, what happens to prices and to supplies in times of shortage. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to Poland. I would refer your Lordships back to the 1976 potato shortage—that was a good example of what can happen at times of shortage. The sugar shortage of 1974–75 is another. In agriculture, supply and demand are never in equilibrium.
A strong agriculture benefits the balance of payments. For example, the increase in our self-sufficiency in food since 1979 alone is worth approximately £1,000 million a year to our balance of payments. That is just the increase since 1979. And our exports have increased. Between the early 1970s and last year, our exports of food increased from £300 million to some £2,500 million. In the 1960s, food was responsible for 30 per cent. of our nation's import bill. Now it is only 12 per cent. Ten years ago we were a net
816
importer of some eight to 9 million tonnes of cereals. This year we have been a net exporter—of probably some 2 million tonnes. It is right—and good—that the products of British agriculture, like those of any other industry, should find their way into other countries against international competition.
British agriculture is, of course, an important employer. Approximately 630,000 people are directly engaged in farming, and let us never forget that a similar number of jobs are at stake in industries which depend on agriculture, either by supplying it with its requirements, such as fertiliser, machinery, buildings and so forth, or by processing and distributing its products.
The worries about the common agricultural policy, which everyone recognises, and its surpluses encourage some people towards the simple options of saying that we should curtail agricultural production in this country. To them I would say: is it right that, when we in this country still import food which we can grow ourselves, we should deliberately seek not to fill that gap, but let others do so? Is it right so to curtail ourselves, and yet to permit our competitors to expand? And at our expense? Is it right that, notwithstanding the problems of distribution, which must still be overcome, in a world where the population has increased by 50 per cent. since the end of the war and is anticipated to rise by another 50 per cent. in the next 20 years, we should say: "We have enough"? Is it right that at a time of fearful recession, we should deliberately seek to restrict a major industry, and so pull down with it all those upon whom the industry depends and who are dependant on it? And deliberately seek to curtail an industry which has built up a substantial export trade when the exports of other industries, because of international conditions, are suffering so severely?
My Lords, the agriculture industry is important to the economy as a whole. It is also highly efficient, one whose strategic value to the nation should never be underestimated, especially at a time when that particular advantage is not being required. In all circumstances, a thriving agriculture is in my judgment good for the nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has referred to increased yields and there have indeed been some impressive achievements. For example, between 1971 and 1981 wheat yields increased by some 33 per cent. and milk yields by some 20 per cent. Over the same period the output per person employed in agriculture has increased by some 33 per cent.—an achievement which, were it transposed throughout the whole economy, would have staunchly strengthened our industrial and competitive position. The industry is becoming more and more efficient, partly because of its record of technical innovation, which is based on substantial research and development, partly because of high levels of investment, partly because of unparalleled good industrial relations, and partly because of the enterprise and entrepreneurialism of our farmers. In other words, the industry is not only making a significant contribution to the national economy but is also setting a very considerable example to other industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, paid tribute to these achievements, but he qualified his praise a little by

817
questioning some of the technical implications of modern farming methods. I do not blame him for that. We are all, in every industry, apprehensive of new techniques. It is natural to fear the unknown. In all industries many view with alarm the advance of the computer and the micro-chip. They do in agriculture too. But these techniques open up a whole new exciting future for us. They advance the capabilities of man—they do not replace them. They ought to be welcomed as an asset, and not feared for their potentialities.
One may regret the advent of these new methods and new practices, if one's idea of industry, or of agriculture, is a romantic one in which there is no change, where life goes on as it used to and demand remains as it always did. But we cannot put the technological clock back. We cannot seriously opt back for a pastoral agriculture and deny to ourselves and to mankind the benefits reaped from research and knowledge and innovation. Life does go on, and we must accept change. If we do not, others will, and we quietly and all too easily slip behind. But, for every technological advance forward there is a price to pay. And it is up to us—society, Government, call it what you will—to check and to watch these changes to make sure that the benefits of change outweigh the penalties of change.
The noble Lord referred to chemicals. Do we know, he said, what we are doing to our land? I would answer him by saying: look at medicine and at the wonders by which new chemicals have helped doctors and mankind. Do they know what they are doing? The answer to both questions is, "Usually; but not always". Anything new, anything human contains an element of the unknown. The fear of the unknown must not blind us to the advantages of the known. But the unknown must be checked, rigorously and constantly.
Farmers are now becoming more selective in their use of chemicals and are not just sousing their crops as a sort of corporate insurance policy. But the Ministry of Agriculture has instituted its own checking mechanism. It is a requirement of the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme that, when manufacturers submit data on their products, they must provide information on their residues and on their decay. There is a project at Boxworth Experimental Husbandry Farm where the long-term effects of pesticide use on both the soil and the environment under intensive cereal growing systems is being studied. The Weed Research Organisation has already done work on commonly used herbicides, which has shown that these chemicals have no long-term residual effects.
The noble Lord suggested that biological control might be an alternative to chemical control. Sophisticated biological control techniques have been used extensively on protected crops, but their application to field crops is more difficult.
Then there is the problem of straw. Five million tonnes are burnt annually, because there is at present no alternative use for it. Not only does this appear wasteful, but it is an environmental irritant. Straw ought to be not just a waste product, but a valuable resource in its own right. There are many possibilities and many people are trying to find uses for it. In trying to encourage this, I have recently convened the first of what I hope will be a series of meetings of those
818
involved—farmers, manufacturers, the pulp industry, research people, representatives of the Departments of Industry, Energy and the Ministry of Agriculture—to see whether a better and more concerted approach can be made to the alternative uses of straw. There are a number of possibilities, but I am bound to tell the noble Lord that the effect on the humus of returning straw to the soil is very marginal.
In all this advance, everyone questions whether science is not in fact becoming the master of man as opposed to his servant. Research, technology, call it what you will, must be channelled for the benefit of man and must not be permitted to propel him, like a rocket, from the rear. And, as everyone, metaphorically speaking, grips the handrails as we go forward, they ask: what is happening to our landscape, to our wildlife? Conservation is important. But conservation is not preservation. We cannot preserve our history or our countryside like a fossil from the past. But we can, and we must, conserve that which is good and ensure that it has a place in the life of the country in the future.
This has become a matter of deep concern to a large proportion of the British public. The Government have recognised this and, for the first time, have introduced an Act to try and recognise the problem and to regularise the result. I have no doubt that history will show the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to have been a major step forward in protecting both the wildlife and the landscape of our unique countryside. The whole ethos of the 1981 Act was the "voluntary approach" to conservation. Farmers and landowners have been the guardians of our countryside for generations. The countryside is today what it is because of them, and their forefathers. The integration of agricultural development with conservation is not, and need not be, an insoluble problem. Profitable farming and the needs of conservation are not mutually exclusive goals. Land may be a personal possession but it is also a national asset and, because of that, and because of the conflicting demands which are made upon it, we have to understand the nature of the interests of others.
As a result, the Ministry of Agriculture, through the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, is now advising farmers and the conservation agencies on how best to help conservation. The Farming and Wildlife Advisory Groups have increased in number—and I may say stature—over the years. These are groups of farmers who are anxious to ensure conservation and who want to encourage others to do so too. Over the last seven years, there has been a sea-change in the attitude of farmers, as well as that of the public, over conservation.
Of course, the Wildlife and Countryside Act was a compromise. It was bound to be. Not all interests will have been fully satisfied. I dare say none were. By the nature of the game that was an impossibility. But the whole rationale behind that Act can be summed up in two words, compromise and understanding. And it is these two qualities which must seek to guide all of us who are involved in the countryside in the future. It is true, of course, that, if pursued to the bitter end, the interests of agriculture would be in conflict with the interests of conservation. But life is lived by human beings and, in most people in the countryside, there is

819
an admixture of the interests both of agriculture and of conservation. But there are people with determined views at each end of what might badly be called the agriculture/conservation spectrum. I must say quite openly that they do not do their cause, nor that of their fellows, any good.
I deplore farmers who deliberately plough up an area which they know contains material—whether it is scientific or scenic material—which is of deep interest to others, especially when this is done quickly and deliberately before the conservation argument can be considered. They not only bring disrepute on to themselves but, worse, they tar with the same brush all the other members of the agricultural community, who are thereby assumed to think, and to wish to act, likewise if given the opportunity, but who in fact, on the whole, wish to see a harmony of effort between agriculture and conservation. It is the selfish who get the publicity and who shatter the entente cordiale for everyone.
In the same way, I deplore those who pursue the conservation argument with a dedication born of determination rather than of consideration. I deplore those who, before the ink on the Act was even dry, said, "It will not work", who have done their best to see that it will not work and who are already demanding more legislation because they think that their interests need to be more protected. To those I would say: "Let the wine in the bottle settle. Stop pulling the cork out once a month and having a lick to see what it tastes like. Give it time to mature and to condition—and so to condition others".
The countryside is made up of country folk, some in villages and some in remote areas. Some are owner-occupiers, some are tenants, some are landlords. Whatever they are, they all have a love and a knowledge of the land. There are those—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is one of them—who are concerned about the future of the landlord/tenant system. I share the widespread concern at the general decline in the system which has served British agriculture so well over the years.
There are, of course, many factors which have contributed to the decline of the tenanted sector, not all of which can be effectively influenced by Government policy. Nevertheless, my colleagues and I have been carefully considering possible ways of infusing new life into this area. But any changes which are made must be changes which will last and which will benefit the system as a whole. This is because agriculture is a long-term business which relies heavily on confidence in the future on the part of farmers. To be effective, therefore, any changes which are introduced must be seen by the farming industry not only to be sensible but also to be likely to be long-lasting.
Any changes must bring mobility into the market. More farms to let need to come on to the market. The present system, which is widely cherished for its security, is fine for those who are in, but not so fine for those who are not in and want to get in. There must be something wrong with a system, as well as being anachronistic, which encourages landlords to take their let land in hand when it becomes vacant, and so
820
farm larger units at the expense of aspiring young men who do not want to own land but merely want to be permitted to till its surface. Landlords must be encouraged, and not discouraged, to let their farms when they become vacant. And this needs adjustment both to the fiscal system and to the tenure system which the agreement reached between the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association acknowledged.
Of course, the role of the pension funds and other financial institutions as owners of agricultural land periodically comes under fire, as it did today. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to it delightfully by asking whether it was good to see the advance of the pension funds and the demise of the Dukes. (I should remind the noble Lord, that Earls have long since had it!) Some preliminary results of research into this suggest that the financial institutions do buy agricultural land, but that their total holdings amount to only some 2½ per cent. of the area of crops and grass in Britain. And it is interesting that the majority of this land—more than 70 per cent. of it—is, in fact, let.
The country has always benefited from the diversity of people who are prepared to invest their time and money in land ownership, and I am sure that the financial institutions will continue to do so. I have a sympathy with the implications of concern which lay behind the noble Lord's observation that anonymity or impersonality of land ownership can be socially undesirable, and that the structure of village and country life can be seriously upheaved if farmers are to be replaced by managers. I merely say to the noble Lord that this has not happened in the past where churches and universities have often been substantial and successful landowners; and there is no reason why it should happen in the future, providing, of course, that landowners recognise the problem and take steps to ensure that it does not.
The decline of population in the rural areas as a whole is, though, a very real problem. It can certainly be argued that the very increases in productivity which have been made possible by larger units, and the acceptance of new techniques, have in themselves contributed to the depopulation of rural communities. On the other hand, it must be recognised that such improvements in productivity were essential if the livelihood of our farmers was to be preserved and our competitive position maintained, and that without a healthy agricultural industry there can be no basis for a healthy rural community. The decline, if not of the rural population certainly of the agricultural population, has been going on ever since the first whiff of mechanisation.
For many years, therefore, a major objective of farm support policy has been to secure the continuance of agriculture in the less favoured upland areas, which is where the greatest risk of depopulation and decline occurs. Special assistance to these areas of the United Kingdom has existed for many years, even before the Community's less favoured areas directive was introduced in 1975, with its declared objective of maintaining a minimum population level in these areas by ensuring that farming activities were economically able to continue. In addition to enhanced rates of capital grant, farmers of beef cattle and sheep in less favoured areas of the United

821
Kingdom are entitled to substantial headage payments.
Together, these measures are estimated to provide over 50 per cent. of the average income of full-time farmers in the areas concerned. This is a powerful antidote to depopulation pressures. But many of these areas cannot exist by agriculture alone, and indeed it would be wrong to blame agricultural policy for the wider social and economic problems which face our rural communities. Other measures, which are aimed at giving new life to rural communities and at broadening the base of the rural economy, are now being promoted by the Government.
The socio-economic advisers of the agricultural development advisory service at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are giving considerable advice on the diversification of farm businesses. They also know of the help which is available from non-agricultural bodies. Tourism on farms, for example, is now worth around £100 million per year, and as many as 16 per cent. of farmers are involved in it in one way or another.
The Ministry of Agriculture also works closely with the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, which has that curious name "COSIRA". This will increase and diversify farm income as well a create alternative employment in rural areas. The Development Commission has set up a pilot scheme for grant aiding the conversion of redundant farm buildings for craft or light industrial use. They are continuing to do a great deal to bring new life to the rural parts of England by various programmes, including the establishment of small advance factories and workshops. COSIRA's staff are giving considerable help to a large number of existing small firms in rural areas.
I do not think it can be fairly said that our technical progress has been achieved only at the expense of the long-term health of the land or of the countryside generally. But the fact is that unless we have a healthy countryside we will have a depopulated countryside. A healthy countryside can best be achieved by seeking to reconcile the various interests in a way which allows our agriculture to remain productive and efficient. The answer cannot be to impose restrictions on new technology or on the organisation of farming, because the inevitable effect would be artificially to engineer, and in the long-term probably wrongly, one of our largest and most efficient industries. This would be bad for the economy as a whole, just as it would be bad for British agriculture. The best way must be, within broad limits, so to set the scene as to encourage people to want to live in the countryside because of what it has to offer—because of the livelihood, because of the way of life, because of the privilege that man can work with nature. Fortunately, the countryside still has much to offer.
4 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, my noble kinsman has done a great service to this House in raising this subject on behalf of his party, and there could be no more complex a subject, no more complicated a subject and no more important a subject than the one that he has put before us today. I have only one quarrel
822
with him—that he has said almost everything that I wanted to say, and, if I am to keep your Lordships' attention at all, then I must say it again in slightly different terms and perhaps in a slightly different order.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave us a masterly resumé of the situation. He went through so much information and gave us such a large picture that I do not know how much more can be said in the debate today. However, we look forward to hearing what eveyone has to say. One point upon which I agreed with him very much was the question of food and population. We all know that the population has gone up by 50 per cent. and looks like going up another 50 per cent. We also know from the figures that we have had from various bodies, such as the FAO, that anything up to 1,000 million people are on a diet below starvation level. As the noble Earl has said, to suggest a cutback in food production anywhere is not something to which we should be looking forward.
I should like to deal first with the second point made by my noble kinsman, the structure of the land. I should like to give your Lordships my own experience over the last 55 years, which paints a picture of just what is happening. I was born, as was my noble kinsman, in the centre of Aberdeenshire. My father farmed a 300 acre farm and it must have been quite a good one, because he brought up a family of six, educated them all and gave them all farms—the girls as well. That farm is now amalgamated with a neighbouring farm. The neighbouring farmhouse has been sold and two of the cottages that my father built have been sold. I should like to tell your Lordships the story of those cottages. They were built when the first housing subsidies were introduced in 1923–24. After they were built, my father met Lord Aberdeen—the present Lord Aberdeen's uncle—and he said, "We will need to decide who owns these cottages. I have paid a third, you have paid a third and His Majesty has paid a third". Lord Aberdeen was a very astute man, and he said, "Well, Mr. Mackie, we will cut out His Majesty first". That was the type of relationship that existed between the tenant and farmer in those days and, like my noble kinsman, I regret that it has passed. I do not know whether we will get it back again, but it was a system that worked well.
The farm that I started on—a 220 acre farm not far from where I was born—has been amalgamated with two small farms which were not really viable units. However, the point is that one was farmed by the joiner and the other by the blacksmith. Now they have both gone and left the area, and there is no joiner and no blacksmith in the area. That is a tragedy. I left there in 1930 and my father took a farm of 500 acres in Kincardineshire. A year later, we increased it to 700 acres. My son is now farming that 700 acres and he has taken the neighbouring farm of 300 acres as well, making it 1,000 acres. He is farming not quite the same system as my noble kinsman described, but he has a lot of houses to let, and naturally they are not let to farmworkers.
In 1947, along with two brothers-in-law, I took 1,000 acres in Lincolnshire which consisted of four farms of about 200 to 300 acres each. By the time we gave up that business 21 or 22 years later; we had increased it to 2,700 acres—amalgamating nine farms.

823
Since then, I have given up a lot of my farming interests, and fortunately, when we sold Lincolnshire and our other units, we managed, though not from any moral point of view, to split them into five units. I now farm 500 acres in Essex—22 miles from here—and frankly I am a lot happier with one farm and looking after this with my younger son than I was when I had what is called "a farming empire". However, I must admit that I am casting an envious eye on a 250 acre common that may come up to let next year. As my noble friend Lord Woolley said, a leopard cannot change his spots.
I think I have given a fair picture of what has been happening over the last 50 years, and more so over the last 30 years since the end of the war, although of course, as my noble kinsman said, many of the units are much larger than those that I farmed; indeed there are some units of 20,000 acres in this country. I do not think that there is any real pattern as regards how it has happened, except that there has been a completely free market in land.
I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has to say about a completely free market in land. If one looks in the farming papers one will see farms advertised in six lots, four lots, three lots, and so on. They are selling off houses, portions of land and everything else, and that is the more so around villages and near towns. In my own village there were two nice 150 acre farms. Since I went there 25 years ago they have been broken up and the houses and cottages have been sold, along with some of the land,—to commuters. Some of the land is just sitting doing nothing. I have great respect for estate agents and it is they who advise the sellers to take this action. Of course, there is a free market in land, but I do not think that this is good for farms around towns and villages.
As has been said. many people are worried about the situation and about the size of farms and the number of farms that have been amalgamated. John Cherrington wrote an article in the Farmer and Stock Breeder the other day, deploring the situation but not giving a solution, except to say that they could control it in Denmark and France. The French system is very complicated, but the Danish one seems to be fairly straightforward. Mr. Huw Watt, who gave an excellent paper at the Oxford Farm Conference, also deplored the situation and wondered what could be done. However, he was insistent that whatever was done must be done by fiscal and not by statutory methods. I do not think that we can get any real progress here without some statutory method.
My noble kinsman remarked that he was saying things that would make Dukes squirm. The only Duke who was here has left and I do not think that he was someone you could make squirm very easily, anyway. I am now going to mention land nationalisation, which will probably make a lot of people squirm. Way back in the Government before 1910, the then Minister of Agriculture, Lord Ernle, who I presume was a Liberal—was proposing some kind of land nationalisation. Last week we had a debate on marketing and I looked through the list of speakers and saw that there was to be a maiden speech by the noble
824
Lord, Lord Northbourne. That rang a bell. I went to the Library and looked at his father's book, which was written in 1939 and published in 1940. Observing how Lord Northbourne saw the situation then, in my view he saw what was coming. In a way, it is a rather longwinded book, but it is very interesting indeed, and it gives a picture of the situation. It is entitled, Look to the Land. But on the question of land nationalisation he says:
"For the same reasons the land must be the king's; that is to say, held by the king in trust for the people, and administered on his behalf by his Government. This is the right kind of 'nationalization'. The case for the nationalization of land is as strong as the case for the nationalization of anything and everything else … is weak".
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said 43 years ago, and to a certain extent I think that that stands today. But the only thing that would worry me is how we administer the management of the land, not the farming—that I would never suggest. But there is a case for some nationalisation of land. I am concerned about the enormous number of institutions which have bought land over the last few years, a trend which looks as though it is to continue, and I doubt whether it is a good thing. We might be better with some nationalisation of some description to maintain tenant farming.
The second point was the whole question of monoculture. I am afraid I have to admit to it because, as my noble kinsman said, the financial pressures force one into it, but I am not at all happy about it. We all know about the Norfolk four course rotation; many of you may also know of the seven course rotation in the east of Scotland. That has stood for many years.
Perhaps I could tell your Lordships a story about that. A friend of mine was giving his father and mother their golden wedding party. Like all Scots farming people at the end of the last century, they were married on Hogmanay, because the only holiday farm people in Scotland had was New Year's Day. At the party was the father's brother, the best man at his wedding 50 years before, who suddenly announced "George, you think you have been married 50 years. You are wrong. You have been married 51 years". George said, "Arthur's son has the marriage lines". Arthur pricked up his ears and said, "Yes, of course I have", and went to get them. But the brother said, "He can produce any marriage lines he likes. I was ploughing the lea at the back of the stable the night you were married. It is in turnips this year—seven sevens are 49 and two is 51". The marriage lines were produced. The couple had registered the marriage in the year after they were married in the New Year, and the careless registrar had given the same date to the marriage and the registration. So the old seven course rotation in Aberdeenshire was more accurate than the marriage lines. However, that illustrates what we should be trying to do today—to get back to something like that.
Today hundreds of thousands of acres are without stock at all, probably very much more. We come to the question of these acres and the burning of all the straw. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned a figure of 5 million tonnes. I think it is nearer 6 million tonnes and it adds up to a tremendous amount of oil converted into fuel. We push on nitrogen; I know any amount of farmers who push on up to 200 units an acre and spend £50 or £60 an acre on sprays, all of which,

825
whether we like it or not, contain a lot of poison. Quite frankly, we do not know where this is leading us.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to Boxworth and ADAS, and said that a lot of research was being done to make this as safe as possible, but I still doubt whether we know. Many people have been at it for a long time and they see no reason why they cannot carry on, as long as the plant breeder is prepared to produce better varieties for this kind of farming, the chemist produces more and more sprays to combat the every increasing diseases, and the fertilizer manufacturer produces plenty of nitrogen at a reasonable price. I do not know, but my instinct suggests that we cannot go on. We have to get back to better balanced agriculture and better balanced farming, where we put back into the soil what we take out, in the shape of farmyard manure.
I was rather surprised at the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, using the phrase "putting back the straw". I do not think that my noble kinsman meant to put back the straw; he meant to put it back as farmyard manure or, to use the more common word, muck. I am perfectly certain that you will then get results which you would not get by just putting back straw alone.
Of course, I am not suggesting that we should not use some fertilisers. I think that a modicum of fertilisers should certainly be used and, of course, assisted by a rotation, with a cleaning crop and a build-up of humus by a pasture rotation, about which I have been speaking. This will not be easy to achieve without major emphasis being placed on the price factor of our produce, so that we have a shift from cereal production to stock. Quite frankly, I maintain that we ignore it at our peril.
This brings me to the changes in the countryside which have been mentioned by the two previous speakers. I think that the change has been quite radical in my lifetime. I have only to think of the village life in the small parishes in Aberdeenshire in the mid-1920s and the situation as it exists today. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, larger farms with no stock and mechanisation have reduced the population as well as the farming community. One can easily look for examples here. When I came to Essex in 1953 we had a very mixed farm with poultry, pigs and dairy cows and were employing about eight men; today we are employing only three. That gives a picture of the depopulation of the countryside. Of course, houses have been sold and let and there has been a distinct change in the rural population, especially where I live, where we have a tremendous number of commuters, retired people, and so on, and a few who work in what local industry there is.
As my noble kinsman and the noble Earl has said, it would be very difficult to go back. We shall not see the situation that I knew 50-odd years ago, but we must do something about it. Whether or not we can return to small farms I do not know. But if an Oxford University survey is correct, than a return to smaller farms would give a man/land ratio five times greater than that on larger ones. That is a very high figure. I have not seen the actual particulars of that, but if it is so there is a very strong case for getting back to smaller units, as my noble kinsman said. Of course, light
826
industry in the countryside would help, as would the use of redundant farm buildings for new industry in the countryside, although I would rather see them filled with stock.
Much more could be said. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said quite a lot about the environment, which is very important indeed. I do not want to go into that; there are plenty of people here today who will open up that subject. I believe that this debate should do a lot of good and show what is happening in the countryside, and I hope that the powers-that-be will take note.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has been kind enough to refer to the Motion that I was intending to move next week, and it is clear that we shared the idea that an agriculture debate would be timely. Therefore, I welcome his Motion today because it gives me the opportunity to say some of the things that I would have said next week. I was heartened by the firm note struck by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and I hope to follow him in the same key when I say that the salient point I wish to make is that, whatever the impact of modern farming methods and whatever the financial pressures, the future of the land and the rural communities of the United Kingdom depend upon the prosperity or otherwise of British agriculture.
Taking that as my standpoint, I believe that it is a simple truth that we should grow as much of our own food as we reasonably can. I am not suggesting that we should grow bananas on Ben Nevis, to quote Mr. Body's words, but I am suggesting that we should remain true to the vision of that great Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, who was the architect of the Agriculture Act 1947, which had as its goal (and I quote from Section 1):
"a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimum prices consistent with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital".
I do not think we should be at the mercy of foreign suppliers, the vagaries of international politics and the accident of climate for basic supplies of food which we could grow ourselves; and I think it would be sheer folly to put ourselves at their mercy through a deliberate act of policy. In social terms, the well-being of rural areas revolves around agriculture. Though the numbers of those engaged in farming may have dwindled, as we have heard already, they are still the heart of a rural community. If agriculture decays, then rural communities deteriorate, population falls, services are withdrawn and neglect and hopelessness take over from care and pride. For jobs depend on an agriculture that is making money circulate.
It is not only those who are directly in farming whose livelihood is at stake with the changing fortunes of agriculture. There is a multitude of businesses and professions who know that the amount of business they transact goes up and down with farming. But, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has reminded us, it is not

827
only in the rural areas that employment is attached to agriculture. Each man in farming produces food for 50 of his fellow countrymen. But he does more than this: he produces the raw material for a much larger section of commerce and industry to work on. Food processing, distribution, retailing and everything that happens to food from the time it leaves the farm gate to the time the housewife takes it home from the shop provide an income for people in our towns and cities who may never have been on a farm in their lives; and now something like 10 per cent. of our total United Kingdom workforce rely for their jobs upon the productive capacity of our farms.
Then, if we look at conservation, there is no doubt that a thriving and efficient agriculture is an essential condition for the conservation of the countryside. Anyone who thinks otherwise equates conservation with dereliction. Conservation requires careful and positive management, painstaking maintenance and a good deal of money. Farmers who were not thriving would not be able to afford it, and farmers who were not efficient would make a hash of it.
May I now turn to some of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has raised. He referred to the drive to produce high yields of grain, and he gave us what I thought was a timely warning about the possible consequences of high chemical inputs to achieve this. He also referred to the present grain surpluses. Critics of the CAP point out that the CAP has encouraged grain production at a level higher than that of consumption within the EEC, and that the surpluses then have to be disposed of on the world market at the taxpayers' expense. This is true, but at world level the margin of production over consumption of grain is slim. In 1960 it was 1·68 per cent., and it was still only 2·4 per cent. in 1981—just one week's world supply.
What these figures demonstrate is that though world production of grain has about doubled in the last 20 years, world consumption has kept pace. What is more, in six of the last 12 years world grain production fell short of consumption, the last occasions being as recent as 1979 and 1980—two consecutive years. This can happen again. The Australian wheat harvest this year was a mere 55 per cent. of what it was the year before, due to drought. In Britain we had a drought in 1976. Corn yields shot down and, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers reminded us, you could not buy potatoes that year if you wanted to.
The output of grain in the Soviet Union fluctuates wildly. During the last seven years production has swung from 140 million tonnes to 240 million tonnes, and back last year to 175 million tonnes. Over the last three years the Soviet Union has been importing each year nearly 40 million tonnes, which is about 20 per cent. of the total world trade in grain. Is it too fanciful to suggest that the peace of the world may lie within the silos which store the surpluses from the West's fat years?
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raises questions relating to land tenure. He is right to do so in this kind of debate because the shape and structure of land tenure lie at the heart of any nation's agricultural performance. The noble Lord seems to criticise a lack of policy on land tenure in this country. So far as the
828
ownership of land is concerned we seem to have been following a clear policy. From the early 1900s the noble Lord's party, under Lloyd George, initiated a system of taxation which was expressly designed to break up large holdings of land, and this policy has been adopted and adapted by subsequent Governments, all of whom have either pursued it actively or, at best, consented to it, so that now we have a totally different pattern of ownership—and the noble Lord has referred to this.
In 1900, 80 per cent. of our farmland was tenanted and 20 per cent. farmed by owner-occupiers. As the noble Lord told us, now only about 40 per cent. is in the hands of landlords and about 60 per cent. is owner-occupied. But who now are the landlords? The private landlords are getting fewer and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out, the institutions are gradually taking their place. The process was examined in great detail by Lord Northfield's committee, which, by and large, gave the institutional owners a good report. I do not think that this afternoon I can add anything to the findings of the noble Lord's committee except that the committee emphasised that the primary role of institutions in agriculture should be as long-term investors in let land, and not as farmers.
I was glad to hear what both the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. and my noble friend said about tenancies, because one of the consequences of the change in the pattern of ownership which I have just described has been many fewer farms to let. Like every industry, agriculture needs new blood. Now no young man can afford to buy a farm without incurring a debt that will shackle him for the rest of his farming career with such a load of debt that his business can never prosper. The traditional way in for the new entrant was by means of a tenancy. Now, thanks to an extremely inept piece of legislation in 1976, very few private landowners and by no means all institutions will let.
The industry awaits with impatience an amending Bill on the lines of the agreement between the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association which takes fully into account the criteria which my noble friend Lord Ferrers has laid down this afternoon. I will not disguise my disappointment that the Government have not so far been able to find parliamentary time for it, but the Minister's assurance that he will introduce it at the earliest opportunity has given confidence for the future.
Fiscal changes that remove the tax disincentives against letting will also be needed. This task has been tackled by the present Government, who have made a start in the right direction; but there is more to do. Those of us who were born in the country and who live there, know that the farming community is the most independent, most hard-working and thriftiest section of the population. They are indeed the salt of the earth, but they are becoming fewer and fewer; and the noble Lord is right in warning us of the consequences of this decline and of their effect upon the economy of the rural areas.
It is very tempting, therefore, for nations to look to the kind of farm policy that encourages people to stay on the land. But one of the main criticisms of the CAP is that the price-fixing system, which does just that, is

829
leading to excessive production., It is also tempting to say—and our thoughts have been pointed in this direction already this afternoon—"If you want more people on the land, you must restrict the size of holdings". There are those who advocate such a policy for this country. The first stumblig block is when you talk in terms of acreage limitation. A farm business growing a high-value crop on 20 acres in the Fens can have an annual turnover that exceeds that of a hill farm of 2,000 acres. The second difficulty is that there is very little up-to-date research—and I mean up-to-date, because techniques have been moving so rapidly—upon which to base a policy geared to an optimum economic size of farm.
There are those who advocate control over farm size through the tax system. This has already been tried, and dropped. When capital transfer tax was introduced, it discriminated against farms over 1,000 acres, but the folly of doing that was quickly recognised, and in 1978 the 1,000-acre limit was abolished. I do not propose to be drawn into a debate on land nationalisation, other than to ask the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to look at some fairly robust things that were said about that subject in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. However, in reply to another question posed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I would say that I believe firmly that attempts to control who may farm, and how much he may farm, do not serve the best interests of farming. The quite extraordinary complications of the efforts to control farm size in France and Denmark, and their crippling effects—in particular, at the moment, in Denmark, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie referred —do not set an example that anyone here would wish to follow.
I have emphasised that a healthy agriculture is essential to the well-being of the rural economy, but I echo my noble friend Lord Ferrers in saying that agriculture alone cannot solve the problem of the diminishing population in rural areas. Hope lies in bringing other jobs to the countryside, and local planning authorities must encourage, not prevent, the setting up of new businesses in rural communities. I join my noble friend in paying tribute to the work of the Development Commission and COSIRA to this end.
Finally, I should like to return to my main theme. The success of British agriculture is one of the bright spots in the gloom of the present depression. The facts and figures relating to this performance have been quoted fully by my noble friend, and I shall not repeat them. Suffice it to say that British agriculture is providing us with the very model of a successful home industry, and until recently no one would have doubted that producing more food was among the more praiseworthy human activities. After all, it is better to eat than to go hungry; better to be able to eat your own food than run the risk that other people will not let you have theirs; better to have the countryside looked after than abandoned. All those things are possible only if agriculture is thriving and efficient.
A few years ago that would have been looked on as a blinding glimpse of the obvious. However, in the 1980s it has become fashionable to argue that we should grow less food, not more; that the preservation
830
of a particular landscape pattern should take precedence over efficient farming; and that whatever other countries may do to ensure that their agriculture is thriving and efficient, the United Kingdom should revert to a cheap food policy, dependent on imports. The phrase "bumper harvest" has been used in the press as a term of criticism, as though scarcity was somehow better than abundance.
The production of surpluses is a real and very complex problem to be faced. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. As I earlier tried to indicate, surpluses are not bad in principle; they are good. Joseph knew that in ancient Egypt. There is in the Old Testament a vast store of wisdom which we would do well to dip into from time to time. We may not have had many lean years in Europe in the last three decades, but surpluses are an insurance against their return. Moreover, the surpluses that we have amount to so little in terms of the number of days' supply that Joseph would probably have criticised them for being too small, not too big.
There is, too, the vexed question of what to do with surpluses in a world where hunger and famine and death from malnutrituion stalk over so much of the face of the earth. This baffling problem is probably the most crucial that faces the statesmen of the world, for unless it is solved catastrophe looms ahead. Only slightly less baffling are the problems of how the EEC's common agricultural policy now operates, leading to overproduction of some commodities, to distortion of trading patterns, and to an unevenly spread and excessive burden on some members of the EEC.
However, these problems are curable, and could be resolved by the creation of a more sophisticated system of financial support. Agreement among the 10 member countries will be extremely difficult to obtain. It would be a great pity if it took an out-and-out trade war with the United States, and its dire consequences, to give the impetus needed for CAP reform.
All these problems are daunting, and I offer no easy solution. What I can say, however, is that there is nothing about them that should divert us from our pursuit of a thriving and efficient agriculture. Rather do they reinforce our duty to keep our agriculture in good shape. We owe that duty to our land, and to our rural communities. I cannot believe that we would be serving them or, indeed, mankind in general if we made it our objective to grow only one ear of corn or one blade of grass where two grew before.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I have to start my speech with a potential apology. I have this evening at 6.30 a meeting, that has been long arranged, which I have to attend, and unless noble Lords who are to follow me speak for a long time, I might not be able to return in time for the end of the debate. I hope that the debate goes on long enough for me to return, but if it does not, I offer my apologies, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I assure them that I shall read with interest what I say, if I am not here to listen to it—
Several noble Lords: What they say!
Lord Walston: What they say; I beg your Lordships' pardon. What one says oneself is always more interesting. Good sense, as well as courtesy, demands that I read what they say.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for enabling us to have this debate. It is a long time since we have had a debate on agriculture; if anything, it is overdue. Certainly those speeches to which we have already listened have shown that the debate is well worthwhile. I would make only one criticism at the moment of anything that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said: and it is in relation to what he said about monoculture. From my experience I do not believe that there is such a thing as monoculture in this country. Even in the heart of the grain belt in East Anglia, where I live and farm, I have never come across any example of it whatsoever. The most specialised cereal producers have quite a wide variety of crops which they fall into a rotation, and the risks of monoculture as it is known in other parts of the world, to my mind, is completely non-existent.
Although I am speaking from the Benches of the SDP, I am not in a position to enunciate the agricultual policy of my party because we still have not yet come to final conclusions about this. We are very close to it.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Walston: Obviously, noble Lords are awaiting with anticipation what we have to say about it. They will not have to wait for very long; but I think that I may say without undue arrogance that I am hopeful that a large part of what I say today will be reflected in the policy of my party in the next few weeks.
My Lords, there is in north Norfolk, not very far from Norwich, a small village with a small and very old church which is dedicated to St. Walstan—in those parts the patron saint of farmers. I am afraid I can claim no descent from him. Apart from anything else, he spelt his name differently. But he is apparently an admirable patron saint and probably is responsible for the fact that (if not Norfolk alone) East Anglia as a whole is the leading area in the United Kingdom for agricultural advance. I say that without fear of contradiction even from the noble brothers, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord John-Mackie.
But I am afraid that there is a great danger that farmers today are looking for a new patron saint. Their new patron saint is "St. Scargill"—and there were indications that even the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, are looking on him as their patron saint. As I understand it, Mr. Scargill's philosophy is that if you are a coal miner you have a God-given right to produce as much coal as you feel inclined to produce, regardless of whether the consumer wants to buy it or would rather buy his fuel elsewhere, and regardless of the price of consumption. That is a policy to which none of us who is not a coal miner would subscribe, any more than we would subscribe to a policy which says that those who produce deep freezers have the right to produce as many deep freezers as they wish, regardless of their cost; regardless of the number imported from Italy or Japan and regardless of the price that you have to pay for them; and, if more deep freezers are produced than
832
can be consumed in this country, it is the Government's duty to store them at considerable expense and possibly to give them away eventually to the third world.
My Lords, that is not a policy to which any of us would subscribe. We must be very careful that we do not put forward a policy of agriculture which is based on the same premises. I believe—and I have said this before to your Lordships—that the common agriculture policy is a perfectly sound basis on which to work but that it should become a "common food policy" under which the Community states how much food—and that is a matter for wide and severe argument—it wishes to be produced at home within the Community, and that for that quantity of food a remunerative price should be paid. If farmers wish to produce more, it is up to them to get whatever price they can for it on the open market, on the world market. That is the basis which we should follow, and I am very glad to say that it is now beginning to be adopted by the Community itself.
There has been a lot of talk in the past about standard quantities, about quotas, about quantums; but the in-word at the moment is "thresholds"; and now the Community has laid down thresholds on a rolling five-year average for the various main commodities. That is a very substantial advance and one for which we should be thankful. I hope that the noble Earl in his reply, whether I am here to listen to it or not, will tell us that it has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
My Lords, I have two criticisms of the methods adopted by the Community. The first and the most serious is that, even for those commodities which are today in substantial surplus, instead of gradually reducing the quantity which is required from the Community producers in this rolling five-year programme, they are gradually increasing it. To my mind, it cannot make sense, when you have already more than you can economically make use of, to undertake to buy a still greater quantity in the future. My second criticism is this. For this policy to have the desired effect of putting farmers on notice that in the years ahead they will be getting lower prices on average for what they produce, that smaller quantities of the main crops will be needed from them, this must be widely promulgated and widely understood so that they can react.
So far as I have been able to find, from inquiries among many farmers, no farmers realise this at all. They cannot tell you, and, indeed, I cannot tell you, what the target threshold quantity is for the year 1986 or the year 1987. But, my Lords, that should be widely known. It is not surprising, even if those figures were widely known, that farmers do not realise the full implications of this because of the curious way in which this policy was expressed. I have here a Community document concerning this matter which is the beginning of the proposals for the price review of the current year, where it is written:
"The Commission proposed a series of measures for putting into practical application the principles outlined in the memorandum, Guidelines for European Agriculture, and in particular the modulation of the price guarantees through the introduction of guarantee thresholds in a multi-annual framework with measures for the participation of producers if these thresholds are exceeded".

833
I am sure that your Lordships understand what is meant by that, but if you could put yourself in the position of the ordinary farmer in Aberdeenshire, Yorkshire, Norfolk and even in Cambridge, I do not believe that many farmers in those places would really understand what it is all about. So that the two things that are really necessary are to promulgate the thresholds on a five-year rolling average, to reduce those thresholds by a very small amount annually, until such time as world prices and Community prices come closer into balance and to make sure that farmers know what it is all about. The result of that, if it really is put into effect—and it can be, with determination and common sense—will be that eventually less food will be produced but there will be no surpluses to distort world trade.
While it would not be right at this stage to embark upon a discussion concerning world trade, it is something to which we have to give increasing attention. One asks first of all, what is going to happen to the marginal farmers? By "marginal", I do not necessarily mean the farmer on bad land, on marginal land; for it may be marginal because he is not awfully good at it himself, or because he was good or has grown too old, or because he is short of capital, or because his holding is too small. There are a lot of reasons for it. But what is going to happen to him? That is something which, with your Lordships' permission, I shall deal with a little later.
Now I should like to turn to the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, concerning land ownership. I am a firm believer in the landlord and tenant system. I believe that it is the right one for agriculture. We have prospered under it in the past and the growth of the owner-occupier I believe is harmful to agriculture. Two entirely separate skills are needed: the skill of the farmer and the skill of the landowner. It is very rare that one finds those combined in one person. A great deal of capital is needed. If the farmer has that amount of capital, let him use it in other ways, extending his own operations, rather than becoming his own landlord. I should like to see a reversal of the present trend.
One suggestion which has already been made is that of the CLA and NFU which merits very serious consideration. I believe that—with certain modifications perhaps—it should be implemented. I was interested to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that he felt exactly the same. One of the differences between the noble Earl and myself—and there are several differences between us but this concerns the present argument—is that for the past four years I have been in Opposition and he has been in Government. He has been a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture. If he believes that this is a good suggestion, why has he not done anything about it? Why have his colleagues not done anything about it? I think that we are entitled to an answer to that question.
In anticipation of the answer, I would say that I would hope that it will be a favourable answer and that in addition to term tenancies there must also be considerable fiscal measures to benefit not all landowners but those who really make an occupation
834
of it, who are themselves professional landowners, not simply those who have a 1,000 acres or 10,000 acres as part of their portfolio. I am not talking about those people.
Here I tread on more controversial ground: I believe also that a national land trust should be set up. That would be a body which would be empowered to buy from willing sellers—there would be no compulsion—their estates and their lands. The trust would administer them as landowners with full regard not only to the interests of agriculture but to the interests of the environment, the town dwellers and the country as a whole. That I believe eventually would find as much favour among the estate owners of the present day as the National Trust does for the owners of historic houses. It would be a means of preserving the estates which have been in families for generations in a manner which will ensure their continuation and will not simply pass into the maw of the institutions where it is part of the portfolio, and when there is an opportunity to cash in on a large and substantial capital gain it would then be sold. Such a trust will make a very big difference—it can make a very big difference if properly administered—to the care of the whole environment.
This leads me on to the third point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and that is the general quality of rural life. In part this is aesthetic, and aesthetic matters are purely subjective. Whatever we may feel about the beauties of the countryside, none of us would dispute that there are certain buildings which have outlived their purpose but which are lovely and which should be preserved. There certainly are very few people who would dispute that the planting of trees, whether they be shelter belts, spinneys, copses or larger pieces of woodland, enhances the beauties of the countryside, even though they may not add to the immediate revenues of those who actually plant them. This is something which we would all like to see happen and which I believe under a national land trust one would see more frequently than under any other system.
Also there is this vexed question of access to the countryside. This is increasingly demanded by townspeople and by those who live in the villages but who are not themselves farmers or landowners. I have already referred to the marginal farmers who will be hit under the system that I have proposed to your Lordships by this squeeze in profits. Here they have a very significant part to play because they can become the guardians of the environment. They can look after and enhance the flora and the fauna and they can give access on their farms to picnickers, to hikers, to those who wish to ride and others who want to enjoy the amenities of the countryside. For that they should and they will be paid. Therefore, their diminished income from their farming activities will be enhanced by the payment they get for making available to the non-farming community—particularly the urban dwellers—some of the privileges that those of us who normally live and work in the countryside get without really thinking about it. Similar access should be allowed by those who are still profitable farmers and possibly larger farmers.
It is not simply the countryside itself, the appearance of the countryside or access to the countryside, that matters. It is the people who live in the

835
countryside, who live in the villages and who determine the quality of life in rural areas. Too often we are seeing today young people leaving the villages because there is no work for them to do in those villages and within striking distance of them. Their places are taken by retired people and middle rank executives, who come for a short while because their firms have sent them to that area and then the executives move on. They are good and useful people but they are not the people who can be expected to have the long-term interests of the village community at heart.
Speakers have already mentioned the need for rural industries. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who did so much work on this aspect, is with us today. I am sorry that he is not speaking. Some 15 years ago I became chairman of the East Anglian Economic Planning Council. The goal I set myself was that in every village in East Anglia there should be within a radius of half and hour's travelling time a variety of work for the young people and the older people of each village. Then they could still go on living in the village where they were born and of which they were part as members of the football team or cricket team, in the pub, whatever it may be, and yet be able to choose from a wide range of activities.
The noble Earl quite rightly—and I give him and the Government credit for it—encourages this: we need to have an increasing number of rural industries, light industries and service industries. I hope that the Government will give even more encouragement and a stronger lead than they have done hitherto in encouraging local authorities to grant planning permission for that type of activity. We cannot have a healthy and a vital countryside unless we replace the jobs which have over the past decades and generations been lost in agriculture by jobs in suitable industries.
In order to make this possible, we must have not only encouragement from central Government but actual financial encouragement for various other essential matters. Public transport is an essential part of rural life. The village post office is slowly disappearing but without it you cannot have a happy community; and, above all, rural schools are being closed every day throughout the country. Without them, people who have young children will move away from the villages because there are no schools for their children. They will move to those areas where schools are round the corner. Those are specific aspects where the Government can implement the wishes that the noble Earl has expressed. I believe that in this manner villages can take on a new life and they will be able in the 21st century to fulfil the role which they fulfilled so admirably in the 18th and 19th centuries.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, your Lordships ask whether modern farming methods have had an impact on rural areas. The answer, of course, is, yes; but farming methods throughout the ages have always had an impact both on the rural and indeed on the urban scene. Who could argue, for example, that the Black Death did not revolutionise agriculture? In the conservation field, also, who could argue that farmers
836
found it necessary to exterminate the dinosaur? My case is that, although some changes have apparently undesirable facets—and certainly there are some in our modern farming techniques, including, perhaps, the worry of the surpluses mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walston—we should not oppose change, for I believe that our present farming pattern, which has been encouraged by governments of all parties, is one of the success stories of my generation.
I divide this success into two parts. First, let me look at some of the tangible benefits of modern farming methods. There has been a revolution, as has been said before, in plant and animal breeding which has helped not just the British farmer but also the third world farmer. Secondly, there has been a revolution in veterinary science, which has resulted in an improvement in animal health and care, and has led to the virtual extinction of human diseases such as TB and brucellosis. Thirdly, there has been a raising of educational standards among farmers, resulting in our ability to withstand the 1980 recession far better, I believe, than that of the 1920s.
These factors and others have resulted in increased prosperity, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers, not just for farmers, but also for the ancillary industries, the chemical, manufacturing and service industries. Most importantly, there have been vastly increased prosperity and improved conditions of work for our labour force, which has been referred to, I think, by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and which is outstanding.
It is ironical that those who criticise modern farming forget these tangible advances and stick to the intangible subjective cries of woe that our modern methods have ruined the happiness not only of the farmer but of the rural scene and of the rural environment. I do not agree at all. I see these modern methods as encouraging a desire for knowledge. Most of our young farmers now are educationally far better trained than we were—and do we not suffer from it! I know I do.
Secondly, modern farming has not destroyed the family: far from it. Farmers rank as having the lowest divorce rate—equal, I believe, with undertakers. Thirdly, farmers continue to take their social responsibilities very seriously. Even the Economist (not one of farming's great admirers) is always complaining that we are too well represented on local authorities—I wish that we were—and the same responsibility can be seen in other spheres.
Farmers continue to preserve and to keep tidy our most beautiful countryside and anyone who does the journey regularly, as I do, from here to Anglesey or from here to Scotland by train will see this. It is natural as we get older to look back and think that things were better in our youth. But is it really correct for us to say to the young farmer of today: "No more progress; get back to nature, to the pitchfork and the smock"? I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was saying just a little bit of this. Surely, as I think my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, if he looked at a modern engineering or medical journal would he not see the same, or similar, advertisements as he saw in Arable Farming? I might accuse the noble Lord unfairly, but there is an element

837
of that about today, and so I hope that your Lordships will not be persuaded to put artificial statutory controls on our industry, such as the size of a holding. That would only be a bonanza for the lawyers, and land nationalisaton, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, would not solve his problems or even take away his crocodile tears.
However, I should like to see some alteration, as my noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned, in the landlord and tenant legislation because—and it is "because"—both sides of the industry have agreed it, and that is how we should go on, by agreement. I hope, too, that there will be further relaxation, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, in planning controls, so as to encourage industry and services to reinhabit our villages, if I may use that phrase. That movement, I believe, will be assisted by the modern computer and telecommunications technology. Lastly, I hope the Government will continue to support such schemes as the sheep regimé, which has done so much to help what are called our less favoured areas.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke convincingly about progress, and I am sure that neither he nor my noble friend Lord Middleton really worship the particular saint which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, suggested they did. However, perhaps I could tell him of the case of Professor Gilbert Murray who, in order to get rid of his fellow dons, is reputed to have said to them: "Anyone not believing in progress should get out". My Lords, I hope and believe that your Lordships will remain seated.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for giving me this opportunity to speak as a geologist who has spent far more years dealing with the intricacies of mineralogy and microbiology of soils than I care to remember. I have, therefore, had a great deal to do with farmers, and it has always struck me that agriculture is really man bending nature to his will.
Basically, too, farmers and farm workers are men who till the soil, sow the seed and harvest the crops, and it is a chosen way of life. No two days are similar. So their lives are indelibly and inextricably associated with the love of animals, plants and the countryside, and no matter how vicious or strong these people are who wish to do this or that to the environment, I do not think that they stand much of a chance in making a dent in the integrity and the love of farmers for their land and their animals. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, pointed out, the farmer is also not only at the mercy of the elements but at the mercy of the capricious behaviour of the micro-organisms in the soils.
As industrialisation has developed, another element has entered into the farmer's way of life; namely, Government intervention and legislation. Since the war, each ministry has provided us with food supplies which have never been bedevilled by shortages and at prices which have been the envy of Europe. Now we are involved in European legislation which —I take encouragement from the noble Earl's speech—has temporarily involved us in all kinds of chaotic
838
conditions. But from the noble Earl's speech I take great comfort that we are now back on our way home. Also, I take comfort from first-hand experience—sparing the noble Earl's blushes—that with imagination, and with the team he has around him, there is no doubt that the central part of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, about modern methods has been fully understood and pushed, if that is the right word, by the noble Earl and his colleagues.
I am sure that the noble Earl will forgive me if I quote an instance which is, perhaps, not very well-known to your Lordships; namely, the success story of biogas. The noble Earl set up a team of volunteers—and by that I mean real volunteers and not a quango—and we all had the most fascinating time assisting him in the creation of a system, and systems, of anaerobic digestion of animal and vegetable refuse. Within two years this has resulted in placing Britain in the forefront of the world in this new approach to the recycling and utilisation of farmyard materials, because when the organisms have created the biogas, which the farmer can use to run his machinery and to heat his house, the dairies and the barns, what remains is a unique type of fertiliser. The bacteria have created in this process of digestion the enzymes which are so absolutely vital for the roots of plants to assimilate the mineral matter out of the soil. So here we see the beginning of a new era of recycling materials from the farmyard into the fields and back again.
If I may continue in this vein—because I do not want to indulge in an academic lecture—we are witnessing some quite strident changes in the outlook of the farmer. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pointed out that farmers today are far more conversant with technology than they ever were in the past. Also, the young people of today are more conversant with technology than we were in our youth. Here is a point that I should like to bring out. How can we attract young people into the technology of agriculture as easily as they are attracted into the technology of the silicon chip or the computer? If we could find a solution to that, it would answer many of the points that have been made as to how to recover the interest of youth in going back to the land.
Also, I feel quite sure that this ministry will be much more receptive to any ideas or suggestions regarding the reclamation of land which has for too long remained unproductive. I will restrict myself to the roughly 60,000 acres which are called maritime lands—and may I remind your Lordships of the history of Holland and the way in which the Dutch came to England and recovered for us land from the North Sea? Why is East Anglia so fertile, why is Holland so fertile and why is the Nile Delta so fertile? It is because they contain sediments which have most recently emerged from the sea. Once the level of salt has been reduced to potable levels, all the trace elements generated by the marine organisms are contained in the soils and these are available for plant growth.
We should, therefore, look to technology to accelerate the desalination of these lands. It took the Dutch roughly half a century to get them into the right condition, but we now have methods by which we can

839
accelerate this process—not in the long term but in the short term. We can now do in one year what it took the Dutch 50 years to do, by using technologies like electro-endo-osmosis. That is a very nice piece of technological jargon. What it means is that by using electrolytic control of the soils we can make marsh water move in any way we like, particularly with salt water.
So if we take a case in point, the area between Newport and Cardiff, where there are several hundred acres of land which are exactly like the land that the Dutch rescued from the North Sea, all it needs is to remove the salt and drain it. With the use of these modern techniques, it will be possible to recover that land and the out-to-sea drainage could be made to pass through turbines, which would create the electricity which those agricultural areas would need to have greenhouses and so on. So here we have a technology which is ripe for application to lands like that.
I now turn to the example of a young man called Allan Cooke, who has developed and proved a substance which he calls Agrosoke, which would convert the sand dunes into fertile soils. All one has to do is to level the sand dune, sprinkle it with Agrosoke, cover it over with more sand, and some manure and water, and one has a fertile soil. He has proved this and has received a massive order from the Government of Abu Dhabi. This is a material which could be made to work for us. But, more particularly, it could be made to work in arid areas of the world.
However, it is the principle which I wish to establish; namely, that what Mr. Cooke has done is to follow in theme a long train of research which started some 40 years ago in Cardiff when Professor Quastel invented a compound called Krylium which imitated the fertility of volcanic soils. This was a remarkable compound because it would break clay down into the most beautiful tilth. But could Monsanto Chemicals who produced this compound persuade the farmers to use it? No. In those days they were far too conservative, but thanks—I say this unashamedly—to the present Ministry, farmers today are far more receptive of new ideas. So what we see is a whole train of substances. Agrosoke, for example, could be used in the sand dune area between Merthyrmawr and Port Talbot. One would then have beautiful fertile land in an area which is the climatic equivalent of Holland.
Look at what that would mean in terms of the production of food but, more particularly, in terms of employment. A remarkable example of employment is that which has been created by the Central Electricity Generating Board at the Drax power station in the North of England. They are supplying electricity to ponds in which eels are being grown by the thousand, and also to 20 acres of glass under which tomatoes are grown on a vast scale. But the important point is that that very simple, imaginative exercise has created work for over 60 people in an area of intense unemployment.
Without labouring any further examples of this kind, the question which is uppermost in my mind is how we can relate these scientific innovations to the labour force. In other words, how can we bring back young people to the countryside? This, to my mind, is the service which innovation should give to Britain.
840
While thinking along those lines I was reminded of those unsung heroes of the war, the Land Army. I do not think it would be too frivolous of me to suggest to the noble Earl, because I am sure he could do it, that it would not be a bad idea if we had a new Land Army, with these civilian soldiers being paid for by the sideways translation of money from social security to the Ministry of Agriculture. Then one would have a force of intelligent young people who could be as enthusiastic about going into agriculture as about going into an electronics factory. They could be employed to carry out the massive operation of recovering all the waste land which we have in Britain. This would close the gap to which the noble Earl referred of about 20 per cent., or something like it, between what is not and what could be a complete era of home grown food.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said that this is a significant period for agriculture. I believe he was quite right in saying that. A considerable debate is going on. both in this country and internationally, about the current agricultural system. I thought it was a pity that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who spoke for the Government, managed to avoid mentioning two of the most significant things, one in the national and the other in the international field.
First, nationally, there is the book to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred. Written by Richard Body, it argues a very strong case, from the point of view of those sitting on the Benches opposite, for removing public subsidies from agriculture, for decreasing very considerably the amount of food produced in this country and for importing food cheaply at world market prices rather than at EEC prices, which, on the whole, are a good deal higher than world market prices, thus saving a great deal of public expenditure, which I understand noble Lords opposite are always keen to do, except on defence. That would reduce the price of food for the people of this country. Given this, I imagine from his political point of view, sound advice which came from a member of his own party, it was a great shame that the noble Earl did not have time to deal with the argument.
Internationaily, the Government have been involved, with the rest of the Common Market, in a major argument in the GATT talks on trade about the dumping by the EEC of food surpluses on world markets and the consequences for international trade in general and for exports from the United States in particular. Those of us who were at the Oxford Farming Conference to which my noble friend Lord John-Mackie referred heard a very clear threat from a recently retired member of the Reagan Administration who was responsible for agriculture in that administration. This was the threat of a trade war between the United States and Europe because of the EEC's policy of subsidising the surpluses which it produces and then dumping them on world markets at a cost well below the cost of production. In the argument which took place there and in the public debate since, the Americans have had rather the better of the argument with the Europeans. They have been

841
able to say that although it may be true that they subsidise some of their own agricultural production, just as the EEC does, so far they have resisted subsidising the dumping of their own surpluses on world markets. This the CAP clearly has not done. Indeed, so far as I can see, it is designed to do exactly the reverse.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spent some considerable time on the statistics of increased production in agriculture over recent years. Indeed, the statistics go back for some time. The noble Earl is quite right that productivity, both per acre and per person working in the industry, has increased very substantially. But again at the Oxford Farming Conference a senior representative of the food processing industry, where similar gains in productivity and efficiency have not been so noticeable, made what I think is a fair point, and I hope that the noble Earl will comment upon it: that had the food processing industry (this argument would apply to almost any other industry one can think of) had guaranteed markets for many of its major products, the input of technical and other advice, paid for by the state, which agriculture has, a capital grants system covering almost every conceivable capital development which it is possible to imagine in the industry and special support for those parts of the industry which need it, the food processing industry could have achieved just as remarkable strides in productivity and output as has agriculture. I would suggest that the same would be true, or pretty well true, of any other industry in this country.
While, therefore, I do not deny that the achievements have been considerable, it is important for noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, made much the same point—at least to bear in mind that this has not been done by the kind of industries which I understand they are all very keen on: that is, by industries standing entirely on their own feet, with no state interference, with no public money to feather-bed or prop them up. In fact, the reverse has been the case. It has been a remarkable demonstration of the effectiveness of the state working with the industry, of state support and of a good deal of state control and state guidance as to the direction which the industry should take. I say to noble Lords opposite that that ought to be given at least a share of the credit, although I would not expect them to give it all the credit.
Unusually, I suspect, for me and, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I agree with a great deal of what he said. He expressed the anxiety which I certainly have—for example, about the spiralling increase of inputs into intensive cereal growing, where the higher the demand the more input there is of fertiliser and the greater the vulnerability of the crop, it seems, to attacks by pests and disease. I was sorry that the noble Lord did not express some of the concerns which conservationists have—perhaps because he does not very often feel in tune with those concerns. I believe it would be fair to mention some of them to the noble Lord.
For example, the increase in field size by the removal of hedgerows, which was the major concern of conservationists some years ago in this country, has led directly to a number of these problems. There has been some interesting research undertaken by the
842
Game Conservancy Council, which is not in my view particularly pro-conservation in many of its attitudes, which shows that fields much above 30 acres in size remove the cover in which predators overwinter, and therefore increase very dramatically the likelihood of attacks by pests on crops in the field. Thus the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, may have more in common with conservationists than he may imagine.
Another point that he did not mention was the question of price support. These higher inputs are justified partly because they increase the yield and partly because of the increased efficiency when capital equipment such as combine harvesters or dryers are used. But they are also justified because of the system of price support, and my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned this. It is a vital factor. In other words, this process is being manipulated by the Government or the Common Market determining the prices of particular products and in particular the balance between, in this case, cereals and livestock. That is something which concerns many people in agriculture and equally in conservation.
I wish to touch on one particular matter of concern from the conservationist's point of view. It is the question of the development of marginal land—of heathland, of moorland, of wet lands, and of unimproved grass land, et cetera. The very robust and bullish approach which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lords, Lord Middleton and Lord Stanley of Alderley adopted, seemed to imply that that sort of process should continue at about the same rate as it is at the moment. All the evidence is that that is what is happening. To take just one particularly vulnerable habitat, which is one of desperate importance to conservationists in this country and which also shows tremendous gains from an agricultural point of view as far as the individual owner or farmer is concerned, there is the question of wet grass lands, the RSPB recently issued a report, Land Drainage and Birds in Engand and Wales, which states that every remaining ornithologically important wet grass land in England and Wales is now threatened by a major land drainage scheme or is actually in the process of being destroyed by such a drainage scheme.
This process, taking what to agriculture may be marginal land but which to conservationists is land of essential importance is continuing apace. We know from studies that, even in the Ministry of Agriculture's terms, the cost benefit analysis which is undertaken on these schemes, whenever it is subjected to independent scrutiny—which the Ministry of Agriculture ensures is as infrequently as is humanly possible—it becomes clear that there is no benefit, even in the very modest terms in which the department has to justify its expenditure to the Treasury, which I believe is a 5 per cent. return.
One of the provisions which a sensible agricultural policy for this country should make, and which would be one of the ways of answering the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has expressed, is to halt the process of intensification of marginal land, whether it be moorland in the uplands or wet land in the lowlands. So far as I have been able to gather in corresponding with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on this subject, the only argument put forward from an agricultural point of view is that it is important to the

843
whole of the agricultural industry that the new technology should be taken up by the people farming these marginal lands. That seems to me to be a fairly absurd suggestion.
In a letter dated 14th January, the noble Earl actually stated that it was important to the competitiveness of the agricultural industry that the new technology should be taken up by farmers of these marginal lands. I do not believe that the new technology is dependent on people ploughing up a few thousand acres more of moorland or draining one of the half dozen or so remaining wet lands in the lowlands of England.
The other argument is a more telling one so far as the individual farmer is concerned. It is that some classes of farmer would be left as the poor relations of the industry. The noble Earl said that they would be persuaded to take up the technology which would be critical to their continuing livelihood. This is a circular argument. The Government are in fact saying that they can give development aid for the development of marginal lands, for ploughing, for drainage, and what have you. That is the only form of agricultural support available to somebody who currently has livestock grazing on lowland grass land, for example. The Government are saying that one can obtain this public money and can take advantage of the new technology to develop the land, and destroy conservation interests completely—because there really are no half measures or compromises in cases of this kind—but that the recipient will benefit as an individual farmer.
This can only be done because the grant is available, yet it is perfectly possible, and possible under the common agricultural policy, for a government to give agricultural support to ensure that livestock farming in such areas is profitable and provides a reasonable return to the individual farmer, instead of giving grants for the area to be destroyed. I should like to know from the noble Earl why the Government are so determined not to do that. It seems to me that it must be in the interests of the industry in the long run. It really is crazy to be pouring public money into converting marginal lands to produce more products of which the Common market has a surplus and which are causing the international problems that I mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in his aside about conservation, suggested that there was some conflict between what he wants to see in agriculture and what conservationists want to see; that conservationists are in some way "anti-people" and are going to decrease employment. All the measures he suggested, such as support for smaller farms and more support for livestock farming, are exactly in line with those which conservationists wish to see in agriculture and which conservationists are, on the whole, pressing for more strongly than any of the organisations representing agriculture. If the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will join the Small Farmers' Association, if he is not already a member, he will find that it has a great deal in common with conservation organisations in this country.
I am tempted to join the debate about tenant farmers and the future of the tenanted sector, but I will only support very strongly my noble friend on the Front Bench in saying that the only way in which
844
noble Lords opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who want to see the tenanted sector preserved, can be sure that it will be preserved is for the land which is tenanted to be taken into public ownership, as the Labour Party is quite rightly proposing. Even in this House, nobody would have the nerve to suggest that any scheme other than that one will halt the decline in the tenanted sector in agriculture. The NFU/CLA package has been criticised on this basis, and I suspect that it is one of the reasons why the Government will not legislate on it. They know perfectly well that it will not succeed in halting the decline in the tenanted sector, and there is no realistic opportunity or reason why it should do so. If we nationalise tenanted land, at least we shall preserve that land which is nationalised as tenanted land, farmed by farming tenants. If the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, is so keen on preserving the rights of tenants, I hope that, having failed with the Government with his package, he will support the Labour Party's policy, which will at least achieve a great deal more than anything which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is likely to put forward.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I do not believe that I could support their policy without having thought very carefully about how it could be financed.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I shall be happy to join in a long discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, about the way in which it could be financed. It is a useful and significant first step in the process of nationalisation of land simply because, as the noble Lord knows, tenanted land would not need to be compensated for at the same level as land owned by owner-occupiers. It would help us on the way to nationalising all agricultural land, as the Labour Party is committed to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, suggested that there was a close analogy to be drawn between the behaviour of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and Arthur Scargill. He saw him as the Arthur Scargill of the agricultural industry. There is something very appropriate about the analogy and at the same time not at all appropriate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do wish the noble Lord to do justice not only to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but also to me. I think he did not refer to me as the Scargill of the agricultural industry but as the St. Scargill. I have never myself ascribed beatification to that gentleman, but I am quite happy to have it ascribed to me.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am not up on my local East Anglian theology the the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is, and I am quite happy myself to describe the noble Earl as the Arthur Scargill of the agricultural industry, joined as he was in my view, by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. On the one hand, there is something quite appropriate about people who speak, not wearing Country Landowners' Association or National Farmers' Union hats, but with their interests at heart, speaking in the way that a good trade union leader speaks on behalf of people working in a particular industry. That is what Arthur Scargill's job is, that

845
is what he is paid to do and that is what he does, in my view, very effectively. There is something wholly inappropriate about a Government Minister taking on that role, and that is what worries me about the agricultural industry and current agricultural policy. The whole place is populated by Arthur Scargills, the whole of the Ministry of Agriculture, all the Government Ministers, the head of the NFU, the head of the CLA, et cetera, et cetera, are all Arthur Scargills. And that is a recipe for disaster, because the interests of the consumer, the interests of countries abroad, the interests of conservationists, all these other interests with whose equivalents Arthur Scargill has to do battle in his world, are not being faced up to in agriculture. All of these people are wearing blinkers and going in the same direction, and that is not a very good outlook for the future of the industry.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for giving us the opportunity to have this very interesting debate this afternoon particularly calling attention to the problems of the impact of modern farming technology on our countryside as a whole.
The three Front Bench speeches, which all commended the tremendous achievements which our farmers have to their credit in food production, I am sure will make very good reading to all my friends in the farming world. There is no doubt about it. The facts are there to record what has been done, and certainly the Mackie clan have in their own personal records added substantially to it.
Turning to the interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett which went rather less far than his very interesting speech at the Oxford Farming Conference, which I hoped we might have heard more of today he does at any rate give us a voice of the conservation lobby, although he did not go very far with it today. I would be the first to recognise that this is an extremely important element in national life today, and therefore in Parliament. It is right that it should be reflected. I am not quite sure that I can go along with his suggestion that those who spoke in support of agriculture are all Arthur Scargills someone whose actions do not all seem to me to be entirely commendable but what noble Lords are doing is to support something which has been generally acclaimed now for over 40 years as being very much in the national interest: that is, promoting a policy of full production. It is my belief that that is a policy which is very much to the benefit of the nation.
I shall make one or two points in connection with that as I go along. Dealing with Lord Melchett's point about special conservation and the measures for marginal land, I should have thought that the answer must be that each case must be taken on its merits. There are some cases where it is justified to promote a major drainage scheme if great benefits will be achieved in terms of production and if the loss in terms of the environment will not be so serious as to forbid the development. There will be others when the balance will be the other way round and where the conservation arguments will be so strong, and possibly the production benefits not all that great, that it will not be justified. In present circumstances we can really
846
expect that each case will be given a fair hearing. There is certainly no doubt that the conservationists' voice will be heard whenever there is a promotion. I was interested to notice that quite near me on the Arum estuary a large land drainage scheme which, in my judgment, would have been productive, because the land was good there, was turned down because it was thought that the environmental loss would be too serious. I should have thought that that was the answer.
If I may, I will just take the noble Lord up on one other point. He commended to us the Labour Party's espousal of the policy of nationalisation of land in order to ensure that there should be future tenancy. If he will remember the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referring to his father's experience with his landlord, Lord Aberdeen, this was very commendable in terms of the human relationship and consideration by the landlord for the tenant. No one should think that nationalisation of land would result in relationships between landlord and tenant similar to those which have traditionally existed between landlords and tenants in this country. On the whole, landlords—I do not speak as one, in fact I do not own anything now except the land surrounding my house—have a very good record. There is no doubt that, from the point of view of youngsters entering the industry, the tenancy structure is the best way in. I hope that the noble Lord will take note of that point—that the relationship with a nationalisation authority responsible for holding all land for the state would not be the same personal relationship as with individual landlords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, must admit that, as has been said several times, 60 per cent. of the landlord and tenant system has disappeared in the last 50 or 60 years and is still disappearing.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, yes, it has disappeared into the hands of owner-occupiers. Up to a point that is most commendable, and I myself have been one in the past, but the point is that there is a certain amount of land remaining. But what is happening now is that, because of the restrictions of landlord and tenant legislation, landlords, when they get the chance of getting land back into their possession, are not going to let it again, so there are less and less tenancies for young men to take up. That is a point which my noble friend on the Front Bench is well aware of and I hope that before long there may be legislation to make the position a little less tight. That would be for the benefit of everybody.
The point I wish to make at the start of the conservation argument, which has not gone very far, is that there must be an effort from Government and the conservationists to make a sympathetic and understanding relationship between conservationists and farmers, and farmers and conservationists. Any kind of campaigning or crusading spirit by the conservationists will simply arouse antagonism amongst the farmers, and that will not give us a very helpful

847
solution to our problem. We must somehow allow intensive farming to proceed and to co-exist with conservation.
I make one point on the benefits of higher production which I think was made by Lord John-Mackie. The world is a very hungry place, and the conservationists should be as aware of that as anyone else. This country, by getting the maximum production from its own land, is benefiting the world population. We are talking of some thousand million people who are either starving or seriously underfed, and any reduction that we can make in our demands on world supplies is to the long-term benefit of everybody as well as a contribution securing our own survival. We should see that the existing surpluses of the EEC and, indeed, to some extent, of the United States, as something temporary in a world scene which will eventually find better systems of distribution so that more of these hungry mouths do get a share. When those days come we in this country shall be very glad that we are getting full production from our fields.
Secondly, let us not forget that we are hard pressed to earn our living in the world, and anything we can do to produce more from our own land helps our balance of payments problems. From the figures that were so lucidly given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers it is quite evident that farmers have made a substantial contribution in this respect. So these are the reasons why Governments of all kinds, ever since 1939, have promoted policies for full production. When I look at noble Lords opposite, although the particular noble Lords I refer to are not sitting there, two outstanding Ministers of Agriculture sit on the Front Bench there—the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who made most notable contributions in this field. Why? It is because when they sat in the seat of the Minister of Agriculture they were convinced that this was something really in the public interest. I really do think that there is no need for us to apologise or to revise policies which, in the long-term, have been of very great benefit to this country. Nor can one chop and change significantly. You can make minor adjustments to policies, but you cannot make significant changes without upsetting the rhythm of production, which in farming is a long-term affair. If it goes up and down, very soon production begins to shrink altogether.
When I started farming in 1929 the scene was very much one of many farms in a condition of decay. In the early 'thirties quite a number of farms were not being farmed at all. This is the very opposite of conservation. They really were a sad scene. When I moved to the point of borrowing some money to start on my own, I suppose I was lucky enough to be able to buy a derelict farm at £20 per acre. What happy days they were! Without support from anyone, I managed to get on my own feet. It was not a day for conservation on the farm because the countryside was a very poor place then. So that is the other side of the picture. Make the farming prosperous and it is possible to make the farming countryside prosperous and look after the interests of conservation.
I would make one other point on conservation. The picture varies very much from one part of the country
848
to another. In the part of the world where the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, lives, in East Anglia, there is a very high rate of farming indeed. There we see tens of thousands of acres intensively farmed, with huge fields and with hedges gone. This is all in conformity with modern machinery and highly efficient farming. There the conservationist is going to have a relatively limited time to see what habitats can be preserved and generally what amenity can be preserved. If the noble Lord would come down to my part of the world—and I live only 44 miles from here on the edge of the commuter belt, on the borders of Surrey and Sussex—there you hardly ever see an arable field. The fact is that I live on the weald clay, and it simply is not profitable to plough the land up. Of course, it was all ploughed up in the war, when we needed every ton of grain we could get, but today it is not; it is not profitable to do so. This perhaps gives some indication that the present price levels are not all that bad.
There we have every kind of habitat, for birds and butterflies; the hedgerows are all there, to my delight; and I enjoy them enormously. There is no problem there about habitat. There are plenty of footpaths across the fields; the problem is to get enough people to walk them to keep them open. That is only 44 miles from London. The fact is that taking the country as a whole there are many parts where the habitat is not under threat from intensive farming and there is not a problem in maintaining the kind of conservation that the noble Lord and I would wish to see.
I turn, finally, to one other point about how to deal with the difficult areas. For many years—nearly 20 years—I was chairman of the standing conference for London and the South-East. Our major problem was to preserve the green belt. Before the war London and the surrounding counties had established a green belt to stop the metropolitan sprawl. The major problem is that the developer is for ever attacking the margin inside and outside. Today, if he gets planning consent the value goes up from £2,000 an acre to £200,000, or perhaps £2 million, so the rewards are very great. So he is attacking continually, and very ingenious he is.
The problem of the planning authorities is to defend this line and to keep this green belt. One of the difficulties is that most of this land is farming land, and therefore access is very limited. Although the people who live inside and out, Londoners and those on the outer rim, can have pleasure in looking at fields as they drive along, they do not have any great pleasure beyond that. In the Standing Conference we have tried to promote policies which would improve access. In Herefordshire we have promoted a very good little scheme which has brought in local people to help with the clearing of footpaths and derelict areas, with general improvement of access so that local people can the better enjoy and have access to this farmland, and move through it.
In the process—a fairly diplomatic process—we got farmers interested, too, so that they were prepared to co-operate. This removed many local conflicts that were there before, with the result that the farmers benefited, the townspeople understood their problems better and we improved access and recreation in this important area very considerably. That was substantially supported by the Countryside Commission, and

849
it is being commended nationally and extended to Surrey, Sussex and Buckinghamshire, so it is being extended quite considerably.
That kind of co-operation, I reckon, is just the kind of thing we want between town and country, between farmer and townsman, so that they better understand each other's problems, so that they can better enjoy each other's company and efforts together. Teams of youngsters and older people have helped in these schemes, and they have been very successful in terms of conservation and improving amenity for the benefit of everyone. That kind of effort by the farming community and the conservation community promoted by local authorities with the commission is something very valuable, and it shows that with local effort by farmers and townsmen they can live together and there need not be conflict between conservationists and farmer, even in these days of intensive farming. I believe that with methods of this kind we have nothing to fear from intensive farming systems. Of course we have technological problems, but the very important problem of social harmony rather than conflict can, I believe, be avoided.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and perhaps I will take up a little later his remarks about derelict farms. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie for bringing the House's attention to these new pressures affecting future land use and population in the rural and upland areas of Britain in which I have a declared interest as a producer of Scotch lamb and Scotch beef.
The NFU in their excellent briefing note, which was sent to some noble Lords, including myself, for this debate, summed up the agricultural situation extremely well in the following words:
"The need for a higher output of agricultural commodities on a diminishing land base, in a period of difficult economic conditions, and with a smaller labour force, has resulted in the widespread adoption of scientific and technological advances to maintain efficiency".
The results of this policy have tended to reduce labour and aggravate the continuation of the movement of population from rural to urban areas. It is not just limited to this country. My noble friend mentioned the effects of this policy, a premeditated policy by the EEC in Europe. The areas of Tuscany and the Dordogne clearly show there are derelict farms which have now become tourist pieces and are taken over as holiday homes. To a certain degree this has happened in parts of the upland areas of Britain.
So much has been said so eloquently on this subject that there is nothing more to add to the comments and views expressed on this theme by other noble Lords. I wish to introduce what I believe is an entirely new threat to the industry and the rural population, in particular in Scotland and the more wild parts of Britain. In doing so I shall be drawing the attention of the Government to three reports which have recently appeared, produced by the West of Scotland Agricultural College at Auchincruive. These refer to the auction markets for fat cattle sales, the production and marketing of beef in Scotland and the marketing of
850
milk and milk products in the United Kingdom. I mentioned these reports in a previous debate that we had on the Food from Britain organisation.
In contrast to the findings in these reports I also wish to draw the Government's attention to the recommendations in a report which appeared in Journal No. 17 of the Royal College of Physicians in London, entitled "Obesity". It may appear that there is no direct connection between these three reports, and your Lordships may wonder why on earth they should be referred to in a debate on new technologies and the future of agriculture. I remind the House that reports from the Royal College of Physicians should be taken with extreme seriousness. Do not forget that the college has changed our lives considerably as a result of its pressures and recommendations. I came to your Lordships' House today having to wear my seat belt. I have also given up smoking as a result of its recommendations. Further, I believe I am also a possible candidate for looking in great detail at its report on obesity.
The worrying factor and why I am raising it in this debate is that the Government take these reports with immense seriousness in the sense that they actually take action on the reports that affect our lives. I have just given examples. I should be extremely concerned if the Government, having read this particular report, intend to take similar action of the kind recommended in some parts of the conclusions reached by the Royal College of Physicians.
Without going into detail I wish only to dwell on the recommendations to the Government which the Royal College is apparently making. On page 50 the following paragraph appears:
"There are a number of measures which Government could take to promote a change in the national diet".
Good heavens! They have already changed two or three areas; are they really going to change what we eat or have enjoyed eating? It continues:
"An analysis of the sources of fat in the diet shows that fat associated with meat and meat products constitutes a major source of the daily intake of fat, as do dairy products. Steps could be taken to encourage the breeding of cattle, sheep and pigs with a lower fat content, e.g. a change in the grading system of carcasses".
I have to ask: what changes in the system of grading of carcasses? There is already a perfectly good system for the grading of carcasses which was referred to in the West of Scotland Agricultural College Report and it is quite clear from the bibliography of the report of the Royal College of Physicians that its authors may not have read, or even have knowledge of, the existing system of grading carcasses, the EEC requirements for carcasses, or any literature on the subject produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Royal College of Physicians then goes on to say that,
"of the commonly consumed meats, poultry, with its much lower fat content, is to be preferred to beef, pork and lamb. The present fat content of meat products … is far too high, and a substitution … would be more beneficial to health".
I am sure that these comments are very well intentioned and quite correct from a medical point of view. The reason I am again raising them is that the whole future of the hill and upland farming is at stake if the Government take reports of this kind seriously. I am coming on to the marketing and promotion of food in a moment, because it will change our eating

851
habits, for better or for worse—possibly the Royal College of Physicians is quite right, as it apparently is in so many other matters—and it will change our diet. That will radically change the whole future of hill and upland farming almost overnight, because there will be a massive drop in consumption of beef and pork. I hope that I have got it wrong and that the noble Earl will assure me that there should be no worries on this account.
I now come to the subject of milk and dairy production of which much has been said in this report. It says that steps should be taken to ensure that milk of a lower fat content than at present marketed in Britain should be promoted. These recommendations will involve major changes for the beef and dairy producers with, as I have said, serious social consequences. These recommendations have also apparently been made without reference to, or knowledge of, the workings of the farming industry. Therefore, I would like the noble Earl in his reply to state quite categorically whether there are any intentions to pursue, as the Government have done in the past, the Royal College of Physicians' recommendations in the areas of beef, lamb and milk production.
I now move away from that report and come back, briefly, to the reports produced by the West of Scotland Agricultural College, which are obviously of a different character in that they have taken immense trouble to ensure that what conclusions they draw are based on the actual facts related to the production and consumption of beef and dairy products. The question I wish to ask the Government today follows on from my intervention last week in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Marketing Bill. I welcomed the Government's intention to assist in the promotion of Food from Britain in that it must in the end be of benefit to the producers of beef and lamb from the hill and upland areas of Britain. Nevertheless, I did ask that these promotional efforts should be based on standards of quality and consistency which are recognised by the trade and by the eventual markets of these products.
I do not believe—and this is what the reports are saying—that this particular position exists today. We are producing beef without full knowledge of the requirements of our beef markets. As producers, I think that is a serious weakness which must be adjusted somehow. I think, in particular, the term "Scotch beer, which I said earlier is the finest in the world, may need more definition than is the case at present; that is, both from the breeders of the cattle and the producers and feeders of the calves. There is not much encouragement if we look to Europe for the sales of beef. I briefly quote from the reports again:
"Comparisons of United Kingdom trends with those in other countries leave no room for complacency. In the 10 EEC countries, per capita consumption of beef and veal rose from an average of 49 lb. per year in the period 1961/65 to an estimated 58 lb. per year in 1980—an increase of 9 lb. per person. In West Germany consumption of beef and veal per person rose by 5 lb., in France by 12 lb. and in Italy by a massive 18 lb. Yet, even in these countries, beef's share of total meat consumption fell—in Germany by 10 per cent., in France by 8 per cent. and in Italy by 17 per cent."
This means that we have to target—certainly in the Food from Britain campaign and promotion—very
852
carefully the markets where British beef and British lamb are intended to be sold, both in this country and in the Common Market.
I turn again to Scotch beef, which is a quality product. It should be aimed at the discerning and more prosperous end of the market. Since Scotch beef is derived mainly from the suckler herd any expansion of beef production would not, of course, be linked with expansion of milk production. That is why I believe Scotch beef should be sold and produced at a premium. This is where we need more sophisticated technology, not in the production and in the land, but in the marketing of agricultural products. Therefore, I welcome any advances in this field. For example, in one particular area there is opportunity for the producers of Scotch beef—those farms that produce a hundred or more head a year—to get together in a form of producers' co-operative to work on an agreed standard of carcase that they intend to produce, which they can call Scotch beef and which will be recognised in the trade as such.
To take up one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Mackie about how crazy the world can be, the breed of Aberdeen Angus was show bred in order to get a very small and beautifully proportioned animal. They are now busy trying to breed it back again to make it a maximum size. That is an example of how fashions can change in the agricultural world and have very serious commercial consequences. There is no doubt about it that Aberdeen Angus is the most popular and suitable animal for the production of lean beef.
Finally, the reports from the West of Scotland Agriculture College show that only 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of cattle from Scotland fill the ideal requirements of the trade. I believe that this is an area in which there is a great deal of room for improvement which can bring added prices and added profits back again to the hill and upland areas of Britain.
I wish briefly to switch to dairy production and the promotion of milk. I want to come back again to the problem that I believe we are having with the views expressed by the Royal College of Physicians. In 1980–81, the Government agencies—and I am speaking mainly in terms of the Milk Marketing Board, which is, I think, a Government agency—spent £7,268,000 on the promotion of milk. I am not being facetious, but are we going to see a day in the not too distant future when every milk bottle will carry a Government health warning because of the fat content? That is the type of thing that we shall be moving towards if we are not careful. We have these recommendations from one section, and their report has gone to all the Ministers in the Department of Health; it has gone to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; it has gone to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne; and, indeed, it has covered the whole of Parliament. Therefore, the report of the Royal College of Physicians is putting pressure on the need to change our diet, and I have given just one example of dairy products.
There is also the question of school milk, which again the Government have an interest in promoting for the trade. Going back to the West of Scotland report on dairy products, it clearly says that the giving of school milk is for nutrition, and also that it

853
establishes a pattern and that very early on in a child's life milk becomes part of the diet. We are getting the recommendation from the Royal College of Physicians that milk is not good for us and that it is not good for children as it is presently constituted in Britain today. We must be wary of these reports because if there is going to be any change in Government policy, in production methods or in the consumption of milk, the industry needs to know a very long time ahead in order that it can handle such a change of diet and perhaps a reduction of fat in order to be acceptable to the medical fraternity.
I am really putting the case forward from these Benches as a Liberal, because unlike the Royal College of Physicians I do not see the role of the British Government as a cross between the great British nanny and a Roedean games mistress. They also encourage more physical jerks as well, as part of the national campaign that the Government should enter into. These matters should be pointed out to us as adults, and not as children. We should have a choice as regards a bottle of milk with a full fat content.
Those of us who are possibly overweight—and I include myself—should clearly be made aware of the dangers, but I still think that we should have a choice as to whether we have fatty pork or fatty meat or lean meat. The choice should be put before us. No pressures should be brought to bear by the Government and translated into action, as has been the case with seat belts and smoking, to affect that area of choice. I am saying this as a Liberal as well as a farmer, and I shall be extremely interested to hear the Government's reactions to the recommendations in the reports that I have mentioned this afternoon.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Margadale: My Lords, the hour is getting on and there are still a number of speakers on the list. Nearly all that I might have said in a very short speech has already been said much more eloquently than I could hope to say it. Therefore, I have just scribbled on a bit of paper one or two salient points which I have come across. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in what he said about the West of Scotland Agriculture College. I agree that it is a first-class set-up which is very helpful to the farming community. Anything they say should be read, digested and considered useful. I have not read their report and, therefore, I cannot comment further. I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for initiating this debate. It is nice to see two brothers, not only smiling at each other but laughing at their own jokes, too. I have two sons in another place, and although they sit on the same Benches they sometimes disagree.
I entirely agree with the excellent contributions of my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Middleton and Lord Stanley of Alderley, whose speeches combined nearly all the things that I might have said. I should like to pick up two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who initiated the debate. I felt that he was a little anxious about the contents of some of the chemicals put on the land. While our scientists do a wonderful job and have increased agricultural production enormously, we must be careful to ensure
854
that sometimes some of the chemicals put on the land do not do something that they are not supposed to do, because if they were to do so it could lead to trouble later.
The noble Lord also mentioned conservation, thinking of the human factor and the social side. I am all for conservation provided it is sensible conservation, but it must have the support of the population and the farming community—particularly in the Western Isles, where times are pretty difficult for farming. We must get them to think along the lines of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Within the last three weeks I took the chair at a meeting on the island of Islay, which I know well. The nephew of the two Lord Mackies was the guest of honour, and he made a very good speech. But if the people at that meeting had heard some of the views which have been produced by the keen conservationists, I say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the assembled company would have been pretty upset. We must get the crofters, the smallholders and the small farmers with us.
On that point, I remember that in another debate the question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that machair should not be messed about with in any way, and that to accept a grant for helping agriculture, which means in some instances ploughing up, could cause disturbance to the machair and the loss of nesting places for corncrakes or landrails, whichever one likes to call them. The corncrake is a very nice little bird, but to my knowledge it has decreased in numbers very considerably and one does not see them nearly as often as one used to. But I cannot help feeling that if the machair was ploughed up a bit it would produce more cover and edible material for them, and it would only mean that they would have to move their nesting places a very short way. Indeed, it might mean more corncrakes rather than less. That is only a guess, but it should be mentioned.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it may be a guess, but I hope the noble Lord will accept from me that it is a completely wrong guess, and that if he goes to the Western Isles and looks at areas of the machair which have been drained recently, and compares the number of corncrakes nesting there next spring with the number in areas which have not been improved in that way, he will see how wrong he is.
Lord Margadale: My Lords, the other point I want to make—a point which affects my own part of the world, the island of Islay in Argyllshire—concerns geese. At the moment geese are rather a sore point, because a great number of them eat a great deal of grass, particularly the early type, and it is impossible to grow any form of winter corn on the island because the geese stay long enough to eat it all before returning to the north.
As a farmer, my animals have experienced foot and mouth disease once, and it is a sickening sight to see. I am glad to say that it occurs very infrequently, and I hope now not at all. But the geese come every year and cost the small farmer a very considerable amount of money. I hope that a happy solution can be found whereby the geese can come in reasonable numbers

855
but not eat all the grass on which the small farmer's living depends.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Woolley: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for initiating this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, I should like to say how pleasant it is to see the two brothers batting at No. 1 and No. 3. We need some good batsmen at the top, and I think we have them today. What a delight it was to listen to the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In years past I have had to spend time trying to expound the great virtues of agriculture, but today it was a real pleasure to listen to the Minister doing this and giving us such a wide-ranging survey.
Most of what I want to say has already been very well said, and therefore I do not propose to tread already well trodden ground more than I can help. I do not indulge a great deal in looking back; I find it much more inspirational to look forward. But occasionally a glance astern is useful and justified, if it is only to see whether some of those nasty things from the past might be catching up with us again. I have heard it said that the future flies over our heads out of the past. I do not know what truth there is in that generalisation, but at least there are things that one learns over the years on which one needs to keep an eye.
I started farming in the years of depression. It was in 1925—perhaps even a little earlier than some of the speakers today—and I do not suppose that that is a record; nothing could ever be a record in your Lordships' House. It is interesting to contemplate that probably no one under the age of 60 or even 65 has any real active participating experience of agriculture before the war, and virtually before the present thinking came into being. Those were the days of laissez-faire. Those of us who experienced those days, days before there was any constructive agricultural policy, know that any attempts that had been made at such a policy had been washed away, including corn production Acts, and so on. Then we had the marketing Acts in the 1930s which were a tremendous boon, and in particular put milk production on a sound basis. They also worked very well for other commodities.
Then we move on through the war to the 1947 Act, to which reference has been made, which I have always regarded as the agricultural charter. Modern agriculture in this country has grown from that base. As the years went by it was amended and modified according to the changing conditions, because conditions are always changing. As has already been said, you cannot put the clock back and you must adapt to new circumstances. As we have already heard, agriculture has had a very good performance; in economic terms it has been a remarkable performance, and I think has greatly benefited the country as a whole and, of course, agriculture. I am quite sure that the changes have been for the better for those who work in the industry, even though they may have meant a considerable reduction in the rural population and many of the features about which we have heard today, perhaps some of which we regret; for example, changes in the landlord/tenant system.
856
That has been a very good system and I think that action should urgently be taken to improve the present position because, if not, I believe there is a real danger that the landlord/tenant system may gradually disappear altogether. That would be a great loss and I certainly do not regard land nationalisation as a good alternative. I do not think that the record of nationalised industries has been such as to commend it to the agricultural industry.
In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I was interested in his suggestion of a land trust; he compared it with the National Trust. It seems to me that they are two rather different concepts. As I understand it, the National Trust is to take into ownership areas and buildings of great national heritage value. But I would not regard the setting up of a land trust voluntarily to negotiate and purchase land as a very practical suggestion, unless the land was of some particular and special value from an historical point of view in the nation's life. However, we shall wait and see.
Overall, I think that we have a great deal to be thankful for. In our industry we have been extremely well served by the Ministry of Agriculture, which is of course now called the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I had considerable experience of it as the Ministry of Agriculture, and, although one engaged in many struggles—particularly over price reviews—I have always had a great and abiding respect for the work of the Ministry and for the work of its advisory officers. who have given great service to agriculture and its ancillary industries through the NAAS and now ADAS.
There are many sources that have flowed into the main stream of agricultural production, that have enabled us to give the sort of performance to which reference has been made today. We now face some problems; the problems that are always there, always have been. No sooner is one over one fence than one is approaching the next. That is how life goes, certainly in agriculture. The great thing is to be able to cope with the problems and not let them overpower us. So far they have not overpowered us. At the moment I believe that the main economic problem is that of the common agricultural policy of the EEC. It is not easy to find a solution to those problems. It is never easy to contrive a balance in agriculture. We cannot close down whole factories. I know that the Americans have this "set aside" policy, whereby they set aside land. I suppose that that is the nearest equivalent to closing down a factory. But it is very difficult to achieve a balance by any management processes. Eventually supply and demand cannot be resisted, and therefore one cannot ignore them. Apparently we are running up against the problems of supply and demand and we must also have regard to the international aspects of this problem.
The USA aspect has already been referred to this afternoon. In the EEC it is necessary to look at these things as flexibly as possible. It is a rather ambitious programme to try to run it in the way that it has been run with the same theoretical degree of identity for all countries, and this has led to many efforts at evasion in one way or another by different countries.

857
It may well be that for it to survive it will have to become somewhat more flexible. It may have to go to the point where different countries can, within a general policy, administer their own affairs in the way that best suits their circumstances. There would be many objections and difficulties in doing that within the general concept of the EEC, but my feeling is that unless there is some flexibility of this kind then the common agricultural policy may well be in danger of breaking itself to pieces, and indeed of causing great damage to the EEC as a whole.
We have heard about the landlord and tenant problems. One of the great difficulties, as has been mentioned a great number of times today, is the difficulty for young men to get into agriculture. It always will be difficult, because if one takes the size of the population in this country and the amount of land, the number of farms, and if one assumes that a reasonable proportion of the population will always have a desire to farm, it is bound to be difficult to meet that demand. The amalgamation of farms is rather unfortunate to the extent that it is going on. It is the result of economic pressures, and of course people will always do what it is most profitable to do. If we think otherwise, we deceive ourselves. I think that the landlords have reacted quite naturally to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
I hope that the Government will speedily bring in legislation, if not in the exact form of the NFU-CLA package then along those sort of lines, because that would ameliorate the situation. It is not easy to see an ultimate solution to this problem. If farms are bigger, as has already been said many times, one should be careful about interfering with the natural development and, by statute, limiting the size of farms, and so on. Of course, there are other ways. I have heard it said that in Germany and perhaps in other countries in Europe they have the policy of favouring the smaller farmers. We used to have something of the same kind in milk, where the first quantum of gallonage was paid for at a higher price than the remainder. I am not commending that system, but all things of this sort should be in the ring for consideration against the problem that we have of the number of people wanting to get into farming who find it impossible to do so.
As regards the capital requirement, this is extremely difficult. I do not know what one can do about that. The banks have been helpful to farming. What has been achieved could not have been achieved without the banks. Of course, they have had good collateral because they had the Agriculture Acts, which provided excellent collateral for the banks. They responded, and perhaps in recent years sometimes a little too eagerly and encouraged young men to invest rather more by loan than they could service. However, all these things are part and parcel of agriculture today. It is an industry that is going well. It is in a healthy condition. The young people in agriculture are first class, and the future is good.
I would just say one word about conservation. I agree with most of the remarks that have been made on this subject. What interests me is to see how many of the bigger farmers as well as some of the smaller ones are interested in conservation. Reference has been made to the farming and wildlife advisory groups. I was talking to the chairman of our group in
858
Cheshire. He himself is a farmer. He is an arable farmer, and he said that he had pulled out great lengths of hedges and so forth, and having done this he then became conservation minded and he has been planting up all sorts of areas; and he is now the leader of the conservationist band in the county. He said that even in the two or three years they have been going they have had more than a hundred inquiries quite voluntarily. They are not going out to try to sell this but it is passed on by observation, by farmers talking to one another, and it is going very well indeed.
It has already been said that the people who have conserved the British countryside have been the landlords and farmers. This is true. We have, of course, our areas of natural wild beauty, but for the most part this country has been conserved by those who work in it. I would entirely endorse what a noble Lord said earlier about the difference in the aspect 60 years ago as one travelled through the countryside and the aspect of the countryside today. There is no comparison. That is because agriculture has been prosperous. Of course, all sorts of things have helped us. Overall, it is a very interesting debate. I would repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for introducing it. It has been a great pleasure to listen to the excellent speeches that we have heard this afternoon.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I have listened to all these speeches with enormous interest. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who mentioned the early days of farming. I vividly remember, when my husband was Minister in 1933–34, being taken to see the two Mackies' father, Mr. Mackie. The reason was that he was so much ahead, and doing such a marvellous job in Aberdeenshire, that the Minister of Agriculture, who was also a personal friend, was taken there in order to see what was going on. I can say, with my knowledge of the Mackie brothers, that they have carried on in this marvellous way and are two of the best farmers we have in Scotland. Therefore, it is splendid that the noble Lord should have inaugurated this debate and given everybody a chance to take part.
Now many things have been said, and I am not going to repeat them because I agree with so much that so many people have said. I should like to say, as I live in an area where the landlord-tenant principle is still working successfully, how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned the Buccleuch estates. I live surrounded by the Buccleuch estates. They are marvellously organised, and are a great example of how this system has gone on for generations and is still a highly successful method.
I back up all those who have spoken about agriculture being not only one of the most important industries that we have—possibly the most important —but also having another function, and that is of providing for the people in the countryside employment as well as, I believe, happiness. I live in a small village, and I know every single person in the area very well. I consider that agriculture is vital to the

859
happiness of people in rural areas, as well as to the development of those areas.
What might happen if production were to be reduced in an area such as mine, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw? In my area we have hill farming and hill sheep and cattle. What if it were suddenly said, "That must now be abandoned because it does not pay, it is too expensive, or it requires subsidy"? If one were to say that, one would be knocking not only farmers but everyone in the countryside in a way that I believe would be absolutely disastrous. I do not see any reason why at any point such a thing is likely to happen.
I considered the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to be simply, splendid. He gave a great many statistics, which I shall not repeat though I probably looked them up before the debate. I think that what the Government are doing is proving extremely successful.
In my opinion agriculture is an all-party industry. I have found this to be so during all the years that I have been associated with it, going back to 1934, when I married a Minister of Agriculture, and when, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said, the great marketing schemes all began. Many of those schemes are still operating, such as that run by the Milk Marketing Board; and there are others, too. Agriculture has always been a vital part of our community. On both sides of politics, on the Conservative side and on the Labour side, we have had absolutely first-class Ministers of Agriculture. After the war we had Tom Williams, who was absolutely first-class; and then we had the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who was also absolutely first-class. We have had the same kind of helpful Ministers on our side, and I am sure that today we would all agree that our present Minister has done extremely well, and is being well backed up by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his assistants.
So I do not propose to take any kind of party political view. The point about this industry is that it covers the interests of the whole country, and whether or not one thinks that it would be improved by land nationalisation—personally, I do not think that it would be—we are still keen to see agriculture prospering. It has prospered, and is prospering still, though, as one or two noble Lords have said, we are rather dependent on the banks. Undoubtedly the banks are a very strong feature of our agriculture today. Nevertheless they are on our side, and we are lucky in that.
One point has not yet been stressed strongly enough in the debate. It is the fact that today we are producing more of our own food than ever before. I think the noble Lord said that it is 75 per cent. I can remember way back when we were lucky to produce about 30 per cent. of our food. We are now producing 75 per cent., and from a much smaller area. Think of the amount of land that has been taken over for urban development, roads, and all the other needs that have nothing to do with agriculture. Yet farmers have managed to keep up their production, and indeed to increase it. That is an extremely good achievement.
Many people have been talking about changes. I agree that there have been enormous changes in the
860
arable areas, but consider the hill country, the areas that are described as the "less favoured" areas, though personally I think they are best of all. In such areas one will not find an enormous change. One will find that improvement in hill land has been carried out—and I believe very successfully so. The percentage of lambing in hill areas is going up every year. The amount of cattle that we can produce is also going up. Our techniques are improving. But the look of the land is the same as it has always been; it is still as beautiful as it always was.
Reference has been made to difficulties that certain people have experienced with the conservation lobby. I would only say that I do not think we have had any trouble at all. That is not because we have not changed our methods to a certain extent. But we have got on very well with the conservationists. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said, co-operation between the conservationists and the farmers could well be brought about, and I am sure that it is very important.
It is also important that we continue to support the hill areas. I am speaking now as someone who farms in hill areas, and so I have a personal interest. But the real reason for saying that is that if there are not enough store cattle and store sheep, the people who want to fatten these kind of animals will find that there is a shortage. Today we are not being cut back in any way. Every animal that we produce on the hill land has a market. This is one of the things with which the Government have helped very much, and I should like to acknowledge that and to thank them for it.
Equally, we must not overlook the tremendous help that we have all had from the EEC. I know that there are a certain number of people who are always "knocking" the EEC, saying that it is very expensive and we do not get our fair share out of it. Here I would disagree very strongly. In your Lordships' committee which meets every Wednesday morning, we are continually discussing the EEC and the help that it has given to agriculture. It would be the greatest possible mistake if we were to pull out of Europe and suddenly try to run our farming independently. It would not work at all. I believe that that is one of the things to which our Government are today committed, and I support it very strongly indeed.
So much has been said, all of which I agree with, that I shall not delay your Lordships much longer. But I should like to stress that there are other social developments in the countryside that we should encourage. There is, for instance, the development of tourism, riding, hill walking and so on. In my area we have another development which is proving extremely useful and valuable. It is an education centre to which children can go in term time or during the holidays for a fortnight. They can go around all the hill areas and study what is going on in the sheep and cattle world. The children are all of school age. The Northumberland Education Committee started the scheme, but it is now being operated in other areas as well, and I believe that it could be developed further. Such study centres in agricultural and rural areas are valuable, and I hope that they will continue and increase.
I do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, pointed out to us about the reports to which

861
he referred, which I have not read. I do not see why anybody should dictate to us what we should eat. I was brought up on the principle that a little of what you fancy does you good. That is the motto that I would follow, and under no circumstances would I agree that children should not be given school milk. The two Mackie brothers will remember that the original school milk scheme was started by Lord Boyd-Orr and my husband, who made a tremendous analysis of the importance of providing school milk for growing children. This revolutionised the health of children.
To say now that because milk is not good for you at my age or at the age of some of your Lordships then it is not good for you when you are aged between six and 15 is, to me, completely wrong. If any doctor said that to me, I should point to these inquiries that were made many years ago. After all, children are the same and milk is the same; and if it did good then, it will do good now. One of the things which I think the EEC has said and which I support is that the organisation of the milk-in-schools scheme should continue for another five years. I think that is very important. I will say no more except that I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, and I hope very much that we shall continue to support this industry because I think it is absolutely vital to the whole country.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Baroness except in the very last point that she made. I think I have some right to do so because I, too, worked very closely with Lord Boyd-Orr many years ago. May I suggest to her that if she is concerned about the provision of milk to school children, she should speak to her own Prime Minister, who was the first, at least, to dent the principle of free school milk, rather than to Members of your Lordships' House.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I will say that I have already done so. I have spoken to the Conservative Party about this and have said how much I disagreed when they cut down the milk-in-schools scheme.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: All power to the noble Baroness's elbow! I hope that she will go on speaking so.
I do not profess to be an expert on agriculture, but having been brought up in a highly marginal farming area in the Pennines, and now living in the very rich farming area of Lincolnshire, and having at one time been a candidate in the far north of Scotland for the seat that my noble friend Lord Mackie later represented, I have had a little experience; and I am speaking simply from my experience particularly on the social side of the agricultural communities. Throughout this century the mechanisation of agriculture proceeded slowly until the Second World War. Since then it has speeded up very considerably. There has been intensified production and a continually greater use of marginal land. This seems to me to present a problem, a problem which has been touched on by many noble Lords this afternoon, but which perhaps has not been quite clearly visualised by those
862
who have been talking about the rural areas within which agriculture takes place.
If you are going to use more and more marginal land, then this in itself is a stimulation to the use of mechanised agriculture. The use of machines then reduces the number of agricultural workers. Most of those workers go to the towns because there are very few, far too few, rural industries that can offer them employment. Having gone to the towns, you then get the double problem of rural depopulation and an increasing urban demand for food, which in its turn increases the pressure for greater mechanisation and again for fewer labourers.
But there is another pressure which goes the same way because, as has just been pointed out by the noble Baroness, you also have the pressure of the loss of agricultural land, the annual loss of agricultural land (I understand the loss comes to something like 50,000 acres a year) for the use of urban development of various kinds—roads, railways, housing and so on. That is an extra pressure which increases the pace of this vicious circle. Then, at that stage, the Government seem to come in; and I want to say a word or two about the role of Government because, like my noble friend Lord Melchett, it amazes me that this Government of all Governments can support a policy of intervention in what, after all, is one of the major industries of the country and claim it as part of their policy and of their success.
Why is Government intervention in agriculture any different from Government intervention in steel? If steel had been given the kind of protection that agriculture has been given the British steel industry would be in a very different position. The figures are astounding. I know that one can use figures in respect of different years, but I am using the latest ones I have. I know that 1980–81 (this is the latest figure I have) was a somewhat exaggerated year, but in that year the Government were contributing in one way or another to the agricultural industry 166 per cent. of the farmers' net income. I accept that the Government have not done that every year, but they have contributed a very substantial percentage of the farmers' net income. It is estimated that at present the Government are using taxpayers' money to contribute £3.35 billion a year to the farming industry.
This may increase, and has increased, labour productivity in the industry. Certainly so. But has it increased capital productivity? Could not at least some of it have been used to promote those same rural industries which so many noble Lords from all sides of the House have this afternoon regretted are conspicuous by their absence? Certainly if the amount of money that has gone into agriculture had been invested—and we are talking about Government money—in any of the other major industries of this country it would have had a very extreme effect upon the future of those industries.
So we have to admit that agriculture is a very privileged industry. What follows from that? Who does it help? Does it help the farm workers? The farm workers in this country used to have wages something like 50 per cent. above the average on the Continent of Europe. Now they are below. Does it help the farmers? We have heard again of the very strong

863
tendency towards the amalgamation of farms and towards their increased size—and therefore towards reduction in the number of farmers.
We have also heard that in the mechanised farm you need larger fields for the use of machinery. What does this produce? I have seen it all over Lincolnshire. One can see the ripping up of hedges and the cutting down of trees, and as soon as the dry period comes one can see the blowing away of the top soil in clouds of dust. It is also the case that because of the protection which the industry has been given by the Government—and I am talking not of this particular Government but of Governments of all parties—the price of land has substantially risen, and is still rising; and so are rents. As a consequence, it is more and more difficult—again, as many noble Lords have pointed out—for young people to enter the farming industry. It is becoming more difficult for the sons and daughters of farmers to go into the industry.
Has it helped the consumer? I wonder how generally it is known in this country that the tax on imported wheat is nearly 100 per cent. and the tax on maize is over 100 per cent.that the consumer in this country is estimated to lose £3 billion a year simply because of the difference between world food prices and food prices within the EEC? It seems to me that the way in which Governments have protected this industry—they have protected others, but a tremendous amount of taxpayers' money has been paid into the agricultural industry—has been for the benefit largely of the giant subsidised units, and the financial institutions which own many of them, including in particular the import-intensive fertilisers and chemicals and the firms like ICI, BP, Shell and Fisons, which have made a very good killing out of the industry so protected.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, perhaps for the record he will tell us where he gets the figure of £3.35 billion assistance to industry in one year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the figure I gave was £3 billion a year. I said that the consumer is £3 billion a year worse off because of the difference between world prices and the EEC. I took that figure from the book—I think I am right here—which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, written by Mr. Richard Body, who is the Conservative Member of Parliament for the constituency next to where I live.
I was going on to summarise the effect of rural depopulation caused by the mechanisation of agriculture on the social life of the community. It means of course that as the population becomes smaller so there are fewer amenities, so there are fewer facilities—and many noble Lords have spoken of this this afternoon. The small industries disappear; but, above all, today—and this is the responsibility of the Government—what is disappearing most of all is the service industry in the rural areas. The bus services are of tremendous importance, particularly to old people, disabled people and people who have to go to hospital. The train services disappeared years ago and now the bus services are disappearing. Schools are being closed
864
down. I made a speech about this last week so I shall not repeat it now.
The rural areas of this country, the rural communities, are under a very clear and direct threat. I believe that most Members of this House would wish to do what they can to protect them, but you can only protect them if you can provide employment within the rural areas; if you can emphasise—as has been mentioned earlier this afternoon—the importance of the small farm rather than the big, massive, faceless farm, and the industries connected with farming.
Briefly, I should like to conclude by trying to broaden this debate for a moment. The noble Earl who spoke for the Government mentioned a number of international points, some of which I should like to take up. May I set the scene by pointing out that it is the Food and Agriculture Organisation which has estimated that by the end of the century an additional 200 million hectares of cultivated land will be needed to feed the population at the beginning of the 21st century. Yet, half of the world's arable land remains uncultivated. We have to face this challenge. Certainly we are not facing it by the dumping of EEC and United States surpluses on the world market. When the noble Earl speaks of the export of agricultural produce from this country, I hope that he is not referring to this dumping that has gone on which has not been for the benefit of third world countries at all but has certainly had a very bad effect on the world price system.
Nor are we facing this challenge if, as appears almost certain following the breakdown of the last GATT meeting, we wage a bitter war with the United States, which from all reports is a very real danger. I would suggest that, although there are success stories within the agricultural field of this country, we are not looking at the relationships of agriculture within this country and between this country and the rest of the world. Is it not in our interests as well as our moral duty—particularly, is it not in our interests—to help third world countries to produce more food on that unused half of the world's arable land as well as to provide food aid? I believe that food aid should be provided when there is starvation, but it is much more important to provide the means by which food can be grown in other parts of the world.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, this. When he says, as he did in his speech, "It is better to eat your own food rather than run the risk that others will not let you eat theirs", does he apply that principle to the rest of the world? If he does, then we are not going to have much tea or coffee to drink or cotton in this country. That surely is a blind argument. I am suggesting that one of the important issues in the whole planning of our agricultural system of this country should be to assist this country as a member of the world community in the methods of growing, marketing, pricing, storing, distribution and perhaps using correctly some of the fertilisers that are so badly used here. Perhaps we shall then use them more rationally. I believe that it is the case today that more fertilisers are used on the golf courses of the United States than in the whole of India.
I do not profess to be able to offer a perfect prescription for meeting these challenges. I believe the challenges are there and are recognised on all sides of

865
this House. I believe, too, that the party of which I have the honour to be a member has the right approach (I do not personally like the word "nationalisation") when it talks about the necessity for public ownership of, at least in the first instance, tenanted land as a step towards the public ownership of all land, which I believe to be the possession of the people who live in the country of which it is part.
My noble friend Lord Melchett mentioned this, and was challenged as to where the money was coming from. I have one suggestion. It is only one of many that could be made, and one that has been made for many years by some of my colleagues. There is a very good fund available for such an action, and that is the National Pensions Fund. That could be used to put under public ownership—not under public management—at least the tenanted land that is now being farmed in this country. As my noble friend said, that is the only way to guarantee that tenancy farming will continue in this country in the face of the development we have seen here, on the other side of the Atlantic and in other countries by way of the infiltration of the financial institutions as landowners.
Secondly, everything that I have said would lead me to suppose that really our agricultural policy is not planned. There is no thought or planning, and there is no vision of the future in the way in which we are going. I believe that in the interests of the people of this country, and in particular in the interests of the people of this country as members of the world community, we have to do much more thinking. We must have more debates of this kind—and I acknowledge the debt of all of us to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for having introduced this debate. We need to discuss this subject more, and to bring out the social and economic problems of the rural communities in this country. But we have also to remember that in the last resort we are a trading nation. We depend on recognising, and getting our children and grand-children to recognise, that we are also citizens of a world community.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could quantify a statement he made earlier. I think I heard him rightly. He said that there was more fertiliser used on golf courses in the United States than was used in India. I was wondering whether he could quantify that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry. The noble Lord asks whether I can elaborate further?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, could the noble Lord quantify his remark that there is more fertiliser used on golf courses in the United States than there is in India? There is a vast tonnage used in India.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my authority for quoting that, so far as I can recall—I would not be exact—is the World Food and Agriculture Organisation.
7.14 p.m.
Lord St. Just: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on
866
introducing this debate, which has covered every aspect of farming and the environment. Due to the financial pressures, traditional livestock farming has generally been replaced by arable where it is practicable. With less grass, there has been a trend towards short rotations or no break crops at all. To maintain yields, it has been necessary to rely heavily on nitrogen and chemicals for the control of weeds, pests and diseases. Continuous cereals, for example, lead to a predominance of the weeds, disease and pests which are associated with a particular crop. The materials required are derived from oil, and the future of such cropping, with the inputs required, is closely linked with the cost of energy. Recently, this has been a major cause of cost-inflation in agriculture.
The continuous "barley barons" and the large arable farmers have been responsible for substantial amounts of hedge and fence removal, with the result that the very large fields that they have created are more suitable now for one form of farming only and, for example, would be most unsuited to livestock farming should the future require a change. It seems there has been a decline in mixed farming and in the flexibility of production, which leaves our agriculture less well equipped to adjust in the future.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about financial pressures. The practice of good husbandry no longer gives the importance it should to the preservation of landscape, wildlife and access by the public. Today's farmers have to maximise production of crops and livestock first, in order to survive in business. As a result of capital taxation and cost-inflation, landlords and owner-occupiers have been forced to economise drastically on investment in agriculture. They have cut back on repairs to less efficient traditional buildings, with the result that we now notice large new asbestos or pvc-coated tin roofs and we see fewer and fewer roofs of thatch, tile or slate. Modern building materials will probably have a much longer life and therefore a good cost-benefit for the future. Financial pressures surrounding investment in buildings must have improved investment decision-making in agriculture.
The run-down of the landlord and tenant system, accelerated by legislation on succession, has resulted in a reduced influence on the future of the land by traditional estate owners. They used to stipulate the amount of ley grassland and permanent pastures retained, and they controlled rotations to a degree through the tenancy agreements. Not all these controls were for the good, but the best landlords used to have more influence on the quality of the farming and therefore on the future of their estates. In fairness, rents were probably lower but there was a better overall balance.
High rents and high interest rates have forced tenants to crop every last fraction of an acre with cash crops. Many owner-occupiers fall into the same category, having substantial mortgages to fund instead of rent. For example, footpaths are ploughed up, hedges removed or sawn off to the ground, just to make available perhaps another four furrows for cultivation. Where landlords are responsible for repairs on let farms, VAT is now an added cost that they cannot recover except by higher rents, and that therefore leads to more pressure on tenants to pursue

867
extreme patterns of farming which may keep them in business in the short term.
The high cost of working capital has reduced the beef and sheep sectors, where it costs upwards of £300 per acre to provide the stock necessary to grass it. Rent and interest charges can now easily total £80 to £100 per acre for what was a traditional form of farming in the grassland areas. When inflation was severe, there was understandable and keen interest in investment in agriculture as an inflationary hedge. This undoubtedly helped to raise land values markedly, with the result that genuine farmers were faced with an increase in the price of their raw materials of trade which did not reflect farmers' demand for land alone. It can be argued that the future of the land has been affected by the vagaries of inflation and the widening of sources from which agricultural ownership and capital are now derived. Institutional land ownership was almost unheard of 20 years ago.
I want to turn for one moment to the rural communities. I live and farm on the Wiltshire-Hampshire border, midway between Salisbury and Andover, and about four miles from Salisbury Plain. We are in a rather extraordinary position, because, while we have to the north and south of us two fairly large farms, to the east of us we have Porton, the bacteriological establishment, which marches right along one side of my estate, and on the other side, some three miles away, we have Boscombe Down, which is the Ministry of Defence airfield for testing new aircraft.
Porton has been there for a very long time. It is not divulging any secrets when I say that it was the gas school before it was the bacteriological warfare establishment. The local people mix fairly freely and easily with the various scientists and others who work at Porton. Boscombe Down has always been totally different. There, quite naturally, the people are very highly-rated engineers and scientists, together with a great many test pilots who are American as well as English. They live in a total cocoon of their own, very much as one imagines the Americans do in camps over here. A lot of the people at Porton live in two villages just up the valley. They now mix fairly well with the local population, the locals having realised that it is no good trying to ply them with extra drinks and hoping to get some fascinating information out of them, because that just does not work.
But, as in all other parts of the country, there is a tendency for the young to work in the towns and they do not enjoy their leisure hours anywhere in the vicinity; they are off to Salisbury or Southampton, though the middle-aged and older people take part in village activities. This is a problem which one hopes will not get worse, and it may improve as more and more effort is put into local amenities.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties of the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, as I used to live not far from where he does. Much has been said during this debate on the question of conservation, but I should just like to make one point. What could add more to the landscape than a beautifully ploughed field or a lovely field of wheat? One forgets that a farm, in itself, can be a very beautiful thing.
868
I must admit at the beginning that I am not a farmer. However, I spent most of my early years on a farm, my father was a farmer and I have worked on a farm, so I think that I know something about it. I want to concentrate this evening on intensive farming, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nugent. I must call him my noble friend because, although we sit on different Benches, we are friends and I hope he will remain so, even though he is sitting on the Woolsack.
Intensive farming is a method of farming which I do not think we should encourage. During the last good many months, I have been making a translation of a French book on that very subject. Its great value is that it is entirely objective. The question of emotion does not come into it at all. A thorough examination has been made of the whole system. The book occupies nearly 400 pages and every single detail has been gone into by the three authors, one of whom is a veterinary professor, another a Nobel prize winner and the last a well-known journalist. I want to concentrate not on the humanitarian side, as some of your Lordships may think, but on the quality of the products.
The products of these batteries and intensive farms are far below standard. One of the conclusions of this book is that the food we eat, when produced by this method, is not good for one's health. There is no doubt that animals farmed in this way are treated with various drugs and hormones which are conveyed to us by the meat. In fact, one drug—I am afraid that I cannot remember its name, but if anybody is interested I will look it up and write to him; I am not sure whether it is still given to calves—was definitely proved to be cancer producing.
If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to quote a little from this book a propos of the giving of hormones, which is always stoutly denied by those who practise this method. The book states:
"Everyone knows that hormones have been added, in one way or another, to calves, hens, etc. The SNIA"—
that is, the National Society for Agricultural Industries—
"says too much, even if it is correct (which remains to be verified) that foods manufactured by the enterprises which it has taken over should not contain hormones. That peremptory statement concerning the absence of hormones has one purpose: to prove that the composite foods are marvels, as it were miraculous recipes with only a sprinkling of hormones.
"The truth is quite different, and those who work in the animal food industry know that their products do not possess the 'natural' efficacity or quality which they pretend they have".
That is the decision of experts, not of an emotional Member of your Lordships' House who gets up and starts speaking on something which he does not know anything about. That is absolute fact. Owing to the bad effects which this food may have on the population as a whole, it should be made quite plain that that is not the system to use.
A great many people think that the enormous amount that is produced by this method will ease the situation of food production. In France, however, about which these authors are writing, it is quite the contrary. It has done nothing of the kind. Food is sold to the European market, not to the hungry nations. Incidentally, an enormous quantity of cereals is devoted purely to the manufacture of composite foods.

869
Those cereals are the very products which the third world nations badly need. That theory can therefore, I believe, be exploded at once. I hope what I have said will carry a little conviction, even with those noble Lords who may not be very willing to think as I do.
7.31 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, to be put in to bat at number 11 in a team of first-class cricketers is a very pleasant experience, because most of the runs have been scored by the time one gets to the crease. I can follow my noble friend Lord Margadale by saying that my prepared script has more or less gone into the wastepaper basket and that I am now left with a few notes scribbled on a piece of paper.
The three points I wanted to make have been more or less covered. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Ferrers say that he shared the concern of those who spoke after him about the landlord-tenant system in this country, which has been seriously undermined by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. A considerable amount of criticism—probably unjust criticism—has been levelled at the Government for appearing to fail to pay a great deal of attention to what has been done by my noble friend Lord Middleton and the President of the National Farmers' Union, Sir Richard Butler. That is somewhat unfair. Just because something is not being done does not mean that it is not being listened to. The present Government already have so much on their plate that they have to get their priorities right. However, I hope they will feel that next time round there ought to be early legislation on this point.
I was surprised, to say the least, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, arguing for the small tenanted farms and regretting the fact that they are on the decrease. I say I am surprised because this problem would not have arisen if the party to which the noble Lord belongs had left the landlord-tenant system intact. I hope that in due course we shall try to unravel it.
My noble friend Lord Middleton referred to taxation. This is a genuine and serious point. As I am sure noble Lords know better than I, landlords and, indeed, the larger farmers in the rural communities used to spend very considerable sums of money for the benefit of the communities and societies in which they lived. This money came out of their own pockets. It happened in the days before so much benefit was derived from the welfare state. This was a delightful thing. They looked after the old and the retired, they built almshouses, and so on. This was because they had great confidence in the fututre. They were confident that they could hand everything on from one generation to another. They believed that they could build up a business and that it would continue.
Over the last 80 years, however, taxation—first in the form of death duties, followed by capital taxation which today verges on the point of being penalistic—has done nothing whatsoever to benefit the nation or the agricultural industry. It has served only to undermine confidence. Unless this system of capital taxation, in so far as it relates to land and agriculture, is modified there is a real danger that the future
870
prosperity of British agriculture as a whole will be undermined and, with it, the thriving continuance of some of the smaller rural communities. I know that the Government are very well aware of the problem and that much has already been done to try to alleviate some of the worst aspects of it. In an adverse economic climate one cannot do too much too quickly. I hope, however, that the Government do not feel that the problem has been entirely solved. It is regrettable that it has been allowed to become quite so bad as it has.
May I mention one point which no speaker has raised. I hope that it is not entirely out of context in this debate. I wish to refer to the Rent Act 1977 in relation to the rural communities. I am very unhappy about the way in which landlords have their hands tied behind their backs when there are vacant farmhouses, and so on, in their villages and communities. With the advent of modern machinery and improved productivity, the labour requirement has necessarily been reduced. Therefore, the requirement for cottages and houses on the various farms and estates has diminished. It may be argued that if the requirement has diminished then to that extent these properties should be sold. Nevertheless, one always wants to keep, and should keep, a proportion of dwellings available for use from time to time.
For instance, it is understood that a farm worker or a horticultural worker will be provided with accommodation in which to live; and having given many years of good service, the presumption is that he should be allowed to stay on in that cottage, or another one, after he retires. Two cottages, therefore, are generally required for one job in agriculture in order to look after the old and the retired. This does not mean that these properties will always be occupied. Consequently, one ought to be able to let them. Unfortunately, however, if they are let at a reasonable, commercial rent the Rent Act provisions make it impossible for a landlord to regain possession of his property in order to house another worker. That is a rather short-sighted policy. The landlord, therefore, feels that he cannot let the property.
The shorthold tenancies legislation of a few years ago has done quite a lot to alleviate this problem. However, it has led to distress because the provisions of the Act require that after a property has been let to a particular individual for two or three years he should be asked to leave altogether. Somebody else then comes to live in that property. This seems to me to be counterproductive.
In the context of benefiting rural communities, I hope it will be thought to be desirable that, in so far as it relates to agricultural holdings, the Rent Act 1977 should be amended. Then, by means of a fair agreement between the two sides—suitably devised, duly stamped, legal, and all the rest of it, so that there is no Rachmanism about it—these properties could be fairly let to people for whatever period of time the landlord feels he is able to make them available. Then there would be no problems about such lettings. That might be a contribution to keeping rural communities in being instead of having the number of vacant houses that there are at present. My Lords, I was going to make one or two other points, but another debate is to follow. Therefore, we might be well advised to proceed.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, the lack of noble Lords on this side of the House with farming backgrounds has propelled me to the Front Bench. In preparation for this honour I have, of course, equipped myself with a clean pair of shoes. I wish only that it would be as easy to provide a short speech which did justice to the interesting and important subject which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, introduced this afternoon with his usual élan and thoughtfulness, based on his deep knowledge from a long association with the farming industry. The subject has been discussed from many angles during the course of a series of very interesting speeches, and I am not aware that there is any particular party line on this subject. This side of the House tends to be more urban in its origin, but nearly all agree it would be objective of maintaining a healthy agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke of the amazing increase in agriculture production which has been made possible by the activities of plant breeding stations, agricultural research stations and, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, mentioned, ADAS—as well as there being some extremely skilful farmers who can put all this knowledge into action. He and my noble friend Lord John-Mackie and other noble Lords also mentioned the move towards even larger farms which has been associated with this increase in production. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and other noble Lords expressed some anxiety about the height of the lowest rung of the farming ladder and about how hard it is to get on to that ladder. Some of these points are discussed in the European Select Committee's recent report on the Community's socio-structural policy. I commend that report to your Lordships but I shall take the opportunity today to make a few observations about the report.
It is said that economic pressure demands even larger farms. That happens either through amalgamation or through cannibalisation, where two or three neighbouring farmers will buy a farm and divide it up between them. But also, for decades it has been Government policy to encourage this process of enlargement in the belief that it encourages efficiency. I do not know which of these two forces—the economic force or the force of Government policy—has been the more influential; but I am inclined to agree that Government policy, which in this case has reflected received farming opinion that bigger means more cost effective, in the form of amalgamation grants and prejudice against part-time farming, and so on, has exerted more influence than has been given credit.
Some observers of the farming scene have long been concerned at this trend, for they have certain doubts about the value of the large farm. I agree with that even though—or perhaps it is because—I myself have for many years farmed a comparatively large number of acres. The doubt arises because, although the large farm may be impressive, looking agri-business, it is capital hungry and requires a steady high return on investment, whereas the small family farm—probably working older equipment and not having to find wages, and where farming is a way of life as much as
872
it is a business—is more resilient because when the pinch comes it can accept a lower return.
I happen to think that the common agriculture policy is not very costly for what it provides. Expenditure on it is always in imminent danger of getting out of hand. It teeters on the brink but so far disaster has been staved off. In any case, critics of the policy should have a care when alleging that it is anyway only an expensive prop for inefficient peasants, when it may well be that it is the supposedly efficient large farms which really need propping up. Many noble Lords voiced this concern about the reducing number of farms, and if there is something to this opinion, and farmers and landowners as well as the Government rethink the way in which matters have been going, that should in time have a profound effect on farming and on the vigour of rural communities, which ought to be to the benefit of farming and farming areas.
I will now say something about the effect of farming on the landscape because this question has attracted several mentions this afternoon. It is true that the pursuit of cheaper and more convenient production has led to enlarged fields. Speaking as a westerner, the impact of this has been most noticeable in the purely arable areas of the Eastern Counties, some of which look extremely bleak—some look bleaker than ever. I think that Lincolnshire, or at least the lowland areas of Lincolnshire, always looks a bit bleak. However, I find it impossible from where I live in South Wales to agree with the laments about the look of the countryside. Certainly in order to accommodate tractor and harvester I and my neighbours have removed hedges and trees, but those that remain seem to point up the beauty of our sharply rolling fields rather than conceal it as they did before.
Of my neighbouring counties, to my eyes there is not a more romantically beautiful site to be found than where the treeless chalk downs sweep down to meet the wooded Somerset clay and Meare and Stour Hill. That is a landscape created and maintained by farming. To me, the other neighbouring counties of Hereford, Glamorgan, Shropshire and Gloucestershire —which are all heavily and profitably farmed—remain in their own ways some of the most beautiful places in the world, and full of alluring habitats for all kinds of creatures. The tragedy here of Dutch Elm disease caused more change to the countryside than any measures taken by modern farming. All in all, I do not fear for the landscapes in these areas.
Where modern farming has produced a bleak landscape, it has been mainly in the Eastern Counties. I have been told that the commission in Brussels is at this moment considering what they call an environmental impact assessment, and how it can be integrated into all aspects of policy making, including farming. That is quite a thought, if it can be made to work. An assessment of this kind would perhaps take in the appearance of modern farm buildings—many of which are very ugly, though luckily they are not as permanent in their construction as the old ones. But quite as objectionable. I find, are the hideous houses which have been thrust so insensitively into previously attractive towns and villages. That may be another subject, but one does need to look at the landscape as

873
a whole. Planners are far from having made a very good aesthetic job of townscape and I think it would be wrong to believe that they would always do the best thing for the countryside. Nevertheless, I do not think that planning control should be entirely absent from the countryside, though there is certainly plenty of room for argument about how it might be exercised.
Thinking along the lines that the noble Lord promulgated about the effects of modern farming, I am concerned about the impact of heavy machines upon the soil structure, although in my area we have learned in the last 20 years to be more prudent in their use when we go on the land with them. Then I remind myself that few machines have the compacting ability of a dairy cow pressing all her weight upon a few square inches of hoof. This is not exactly a new problem but is one which the onlooker to the countryside might not be aware of. We are having to take steps to improve our compacted fields, though, because carrying the increased number of cattle per acre exacerbates the problem and, in the end, self-interest will require us to overcome this and to combat this penning.
For the same reason I really do not know how worried one should be about monoculture, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie, though I think that there is room here for a certain amount of argument about terms. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said he did not think that there was any such thing as monoculture. I have got news for him because in my part of the world it is not economic to practise any other culture but the monoculture of grass. It does very well, but the problem is to know what to do with it. On some sandy or brashy soils it is possible to practise a kind of hydroponics using the soil to act only as a matrix for the roots of the crops, which are sustained by chemical fertilisers. But I must say that on just the sort of soil where one would have thought this method might work the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who, I think, farms on Cambridgeshire chalk, finds that it pays to have a rotation, so perhaps my noble friend Lord John-Mackie might also find that rotation pays. I do not think he need be worried, however, because I remember 10 years ago going to see a farm where the farmer had grown a crop of Pioneer barley on the same field for 33 years. It looked extremely healthy and for all I know he is still doing it. My conclusion is that one may be able to get away with monoculture, in which case it may not he doing any harm at all. Alternatively, the land will rebel, it will become uneconomic and the weeds and pests will get you, too. I think only time can tell and perhaps this is the nub of the problem which we face.
There is always so little time. It is no longer accurate to speak of the march of technology. It has broken into a double. Hardly has one technique become established or put forward than it is being replaced by another. There tends to be a lack of accumulated practical experience to draw upon when one is in trouble. If I see a peculiar effect which I think a certain chemical is having on a crop, there is no saying that I will be able to find anybody who can tell me for sure what the trouble is. That is not disturbing in itself. A listener to "Gardeners' Question Time" will often hear technical questions which even the sages on that programme cannot quite find an answer to. Many
874
gardeners, as well as farmers, are only too ready out of curiosity to try what is new. So I do not think it is only financial pressure which drives farmers into the unknown.
What can be disturbing, I agree, is that frenetic sense engendered by drug and chemical firms, and even by certain farming magazines, that one must keep up or suffer the ignominy or poverty of being left behind. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was suggesting that perhaps the Government might intervene in some way over the rash of vastly technically complicated chemicals which keep being put on to the market. But I think it is really up to the individual farmers to take a relaxed attitude and to discriminate between what is only novelty and what is genuine advance.
I am not sure that I accept that there is a pressure to increase production at any cost and that that is leading to bad farming. There tends to be an assumption that the higher the output the greater the profitability, but it is my observation and it is the view of the Ministry that when the margin narrows the production eventually reduces. I think there may be something to be said for the approach that lower inputs may well leave acceptable margins without the extra hassle and cash involved in producing the very highest yields. However, in preaching that theory, one is up against a very long and honourable tradition where to have the highest milk yield or the highest crop yield or even the largest vegetable marrow has always commanded respect from one's neighbours.
One must expect that farming is going to see even greater changes than it already has. New techniques of breeding, of genetic engineering, of being able to squeeze more and more out of every acre, will have a big effect on farming economics. There are artificial sweeteners such as isoglucose; there are developments in microbiology, which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred to. We may begin to eat meat made out of textured processed cereals, and that will affect the western and upland areas which at present produce our meat. It is already possible to produce milk direct from herbage without the medium of the cow. If these processes begin to take over from the present ones, that will have a dramatic effect not only upon farming but also upon the farming community and upon the landscape, which depends on farming to retain its present aspect or it will return to scrub. I think it behoves us to keep an eye on such developments and I hope and believe that the industry will have the ingenuity to adjust to the changes which these developments will present to it as and when they come.
7.59 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder if I may, with the leave of the House, answer some of the points which have been put to me. I have had the privilege of making a speech earlier and therefore, so far as is possible, I will answer those points that have been made. If I may, I will say at the outset that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that very often people think that the moment a hedge or a tree is cut down that is a bad thing. But of course all plants and all crops have their life and to cut a tree down is not necessarily bad. Very often it exposes the beauty of others that still

875
remain and very often one forgets the amount of planting that is done by those in the agricultural community off their own bat and of their own volition.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked what was the Government's attitude about production thresholds. The application of threshold arrangements will be a matter of discussion in the context of the 1983 common agricultural policy price-fixing negotiations. We continually seek improvements in the operation of the CAP which are designed to tackle the problem of surpluses. The noble Lord asked me whether I thought that farmers should be attuned to lower prices. I would remind him that, in Brussels, it has always been the view of this Government that there should be restrictions on increases in prices for those products which are in structural surplus.
The noble Lord also referred, as did my noble friend Lord Stanley, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, to the problem of landlord and tenant. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, wanted to ask me a specific question: as we had been in government for four years, why had we not done anything about it? I think that comes pretty hard from a person who was a member of the Government which introduced the 1976 Act, which did more than anything to discourage landlords from letting their farms. But I would tell him that the reason is this. My right honourable friend said that he would not introduce legislation until there was agreement between the CLA and the NFU, and in fact they found it very difficult to come to an agreement. They eventually did come to an agreement, but the only time it would have been possible to bring in legislation was during the current Session of Parliament.
I would remind your Lordships that there has been very considerable pressure, and it has not been possible to find time in this Parliament to introduce that legislation. From the department of which I have the honour to be a Minister there are already no less than three Bills going through: the Agricultural Marketing Bill, the Pig Industry Levy Bill, the Plant Varieties Bill. My right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place said that it is the Minister's intention to introduce a Bill as soon as possible on Spanish vessels. The answer to the noble Lord's question is that there has not been time in this present Session of Parliament, but my right honourable friend has said that in his view legislation on the lines of the agreement should be introduced as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that it was his view and that of the party he represents that tenanted land should be nationalised. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said so, too. It is interesting to know, and the country will wish to know, that the Labour Party sets out with the deliberate intention to nationalise tenanted land. I wonder where they are going to find the money. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, suddenly thought of an idea. He asked: what about the National Pension Fund? I do not know whether the Government have a lot of money under the bed unused, but as far as I know they have not. I assume that the National Pension Fund is using its money in some considerable and useful way, and if it is extracted from that to purchase land that would cause a problem somewhere else. If I may say so, it
876
does show the slack thinking of people who say, "Let us nationalise this". In the end, the money has got to be found. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is that if they are going to start setting up a fund for the nationalisation of land it will require a very substantial amount of money and public funding, which in itself is inflationary.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that he thought it would be a good idea to have some form of land trust to buy the land and administer it. This, again, would cost a very substantial amount of money. He said it might be rather like the National Trust, but as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said this is a very different form of funding, because of course the National Trust very often requires endowments. Who is going to endow their land when it is taken into the land trust? I really think, with great respect, that noble Lords who suggest this substantial form of additional funding to the countryside will have to do their mathematical sums fairly clearly.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Earl would allow me, could I ask a question? He is making the general statement that additional Government expenditure for this purpose would be inflationary. Is it, then, inflationary for the present Government, according to the estimates published yesterday, to increase defence expenditure by the very large amount that they have since 1979 and apparently are going to do to an even greater extent in the future?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I simply cannot see that that has any bearing on the subject whatever. The noble Lord has asked me the question, and he must allow me to answer. How the Government fund defence is a totally different thing from how you nationalise a certain asset, whether it is a railway or land. If I may say so, it is typical of the views that are sometimes expressed by people in favour of nationalisation. They say that the principle is right and therefore the money must be found, and they do not in fact look to see how it will be found. With land having the value that it does, your Lordships will find that it is a very substantial form of funding which would have to be arranged. If the noble Lord thinks defence expenditure is unjustified, all I can tell him is that this would be additional to that.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked whether we would support the sheep meat regime. Yes, we will. I was interested in Lord Energlyn's interesting contribution with regard to the desalination of soils. I thought that was an extremely good example of how modern methods and ideas can be put to use.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a characteristic speech—characteristic of his modesty and humility—when he declared that everyone was wrong, that we are all blinkered, particularly in the Ministry of Agriculture, and that only the noble Lord was right. He went on to ask why I had not said anything about the book of Mr. Body specifically. I did not think it required me to mention it. Very well; if the noble Lord will contain himself, I will give him my view upon arguments of that kind. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that it astonishes me that he accepts arguments of the kind put forward.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl is being even more unfair than he was earlier. I do not accept any of the arguments. I do not accept the main thrust of the argument which Mr. Body puts forward. The Labour Party is committed to public expenditure going to agriculture, and for that to continue. It is Mr. Body and other people in the Conservative Party who are not.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting slant. I did not pick that up from what the noble Lord said, nor from what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said. I think he was rather in favour of that. Let me just say this on the general principle. There are those who take the view that too many people have left the land. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that, and that this was bad. He said that if there were no support there would be a return to livestock farming on pastures, the farm workforce would be higher and it would be generally an idyllic countryside. I believe there would be gross unemployment in the countryside. Incomes would drop, and the purchasing power of people would drop. If the support for agriculture were to go, the purchasing power of farmers and farm workers would drop. Villages would become depopulated and poverty would soon abound, just like the 1930s.
As to the industries which are dependent upon agriculture—agricultural engineering, the fertiliser supply industry, the chemical people, the corn merchants—what would happen to them? The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, keeps on making remarks from a sedentary position. He referred to this, and he thought it was bad that the countryside should be denuded of people. I agree with him; but if those views which were expressed in the publication to which Lord Melchett referred were pursued, you would find a devastated countryside, and that is why I would not agree with them at all.
Again, there are those who ask why we do not buy food on the world market at cheap prices. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said that it costs, I think, £3 billion. If support for agriculture was allowed to drop and if output from agriculture was allowed to drop we would have to import food from abroad. The price of food from abroad would go up and that would wreck our balance of payments. The idea of having cheap food which we can lay our hands on simply is not a fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, may have forgotten that in the early 1970s cereal prices doubled in nine months, but because we were members of the Community we were able to import grain at Community prices and not at world prices which were considerably higher. The noble Lord may have forgotten that in the 1970s the world sugar price rose by about £600 a ton. Our traditional suppliers could not supply us, but we were able to obtain sugar from within the Community. Again, in 1980–81 the world sugar price went well above the European Community price. So the world price of food is not always below that at which we ourselves can buy it. One of the staunch arguments for having a thriving agricultural industry is that we do not depend upon volatile and insecure supplies of world food.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl has not even approached the central issue which my noble
878
friend Lord Melchett and I asked. What is he arguing now? It is for Government intervention. But this Government have always said that they do not believe in Government intervention; they believe in market forces. The noble Earl is now arguing against market forces. He cannot have it both ways.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is a funny thing, but sometimes I can have it both ways. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, may have forgotten that we are members of the Euopean Community. He may have forgotten, although I cannot believe that he has, that one of the fundamental and even controversial parts of the European Community is a common agricultural price system. If we are members of the Community we are members of the common agricultural policy. That means that it is part of the Community's policy to support a successful agricultural industry. The noble Lord may disagree, but we are members and we therefore go along with being part of the common agricultural policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked whether the Government intend to implement the Royal College of Physicians' report on obesity. It is correct to say that people ought to take note of the report, but we do not intend at the moment, so far as I know, to make it illegal to drink fat milk or whole milk. The noble Lord has only to die once and if he wishes to do it by eating fat lamb, fat pork or fat beef he may do so. If he read the Royal College's report and is persuaded not to do so, it might be the better for him. If he wishes to kill himself by smoking, he can do that. But I am bound to say that in motor cars he must belt up. That will prevent him from being killed unnecessarily.
I had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, if I may say so, in one thing that he said. He said that the trouble with machines in agriculture is that they sent people to the towns where they earned more money and that they have to be provided with houses. I have always thought it a curious symptom that people go from agriculture to the urban environment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said, one then has to build more houses for them which takes good agricultural land; but the first thing that the people want to do is to get out into the country in order to enjoy it and are surprised to find that there is no more country to enjoy because it has all been made into towns. That is a fact of the curious situation in which we live. There is nothing immediate that one can do to prevent that. Many people go to the towns because of either the lure of what they thought were higher wages or the attraction of the towns. Many of them like to go to the country which is part of our heritage.
I take note of the point of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about the intensive systems of agriculture. While many people accept his view, there would be no point in the United Kingdom's directly curtailing our forms of production if we are then prepared to accept imports from other countries in the European Community which are produced by the very systems which we might have banned. What we are trying to do in the United Kingdom—and we are leaders in this respect—is to persuade the Community as a whole to accept more reasonable and more suitable forms of intensive production.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate and noble Lords have run fairly true to form. The Minister said that the Government are doing jolly well and noble Lords behind him have said that of course the Government are doing very well. We have had the wisdom of the Ministry rather than the wisdom of the Minister, but that is his job and that is what he is paid for. That is right and proper. Nevertheless, many useful things have been said. I spoke at some length on chemicals and the rash use thereof. I was, of course, accused by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, of donning my smock and running to the misty romantic past. However, that might be a little better than donning one's space suit and shooting into the unknown future without taking the precaution of checking where one is going.
I appreciate the Minister's reply that at Boxworth experiments and tests are being carried out to check the effect of pesticides, and presumably herbicides, and that a good deal is being done about that. I think that the licensing scheme, which is not a statutory scheme, works fairly well, as I pointed out. It is working, and one sees firms being disciplined. It is a useful scheme. However, I believe that we should watch what is happening the whole time. I pointed out the large number of advertisements to show the rush of stuff on to the market and the fact that as soon as chemical firms find a new chemical they rush to find out what it will kill and get it approved as soon as possible so that they can put it on the market. I may be old fashioned and I may be wrong, but many of my friends who are modern farmers, growing bigger crops of grain than the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, are a little worried about it and I think we in this House might well say that we are a little worried about it, too.
I was also fascinated by the arguments on conservation. It is obvious from the tremendous arguments in the enjoyable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it is a live and real issue. There is no shadow of doubt that we must look at it and do a lot about it because many people are asking that we do so. I do not think that there is much between myself and the noble Lord except that, on balance—it was the case in the Western Isles—the small benefits to the people there of improving the machair, and so on, should have had first consideration instead of the benefit to the wildlife, which (perhaps the corncrake included) I am assured by other experts would benefit a little from more cropping.
The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, made a fascinating speech. What might happen if his friend goes to Abu Dhabi with his magic mixture and levels out the dunes is that immediately the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be after him for destroying the desert mouse. Perhaps that is being a little unkind, but we must keep a perspective in these matters. I share the complacency of noble Lords opposite that we are doing rather well, but I do fear for the changes that are to come, in that I believe the whole situation has changed.
Noble Lords spoke about sending surplus food to the third world, but that, if I may say so, is a lot of boloney. Masses of evidence is now coming forward that the worst thing we can do, except in cases of genuine famine, is to send food aid to a third world
880
country. I have a friend, who is Speaker of the House in the Cameroons and who was Prime Minister before the two states joined up. Two American ships arrived with food and that country had the guts and the wit to send them away with the result that they are now in a position, having developed their own agriculture and protected it, of exporting food to their neighbours who have destroyed the will of their agricultural population to produce.
Talking in the broader sense as regards our obligations in the EEC, the worse thing we can do in the EEC is to export and subsidise a great deal of food on to the world market, and thus destroy the price and subject ourselves to great accusations of producing dear food when in fact that is not the case. We must find a solution to producing so much food that we have to push it out on to the world market to people who do not want it. This has been a very fascinating debate, my Lords, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Lead in Petrol: EEC Action
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to ask her Majesty's Government what initiative they are taking to persuade our European partners to agree an EEC directive requiring the phasing out of lead in petrol throughout the member states.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first I should like to say how very grateful I am to have the opportunity this evening to look again at the whole position regarding the lead additive in petrol and to be able to present some of the anxieties that are felt by so many people about the health risks involved. I should also like to say how very grateful I am to the noble Lords who are to contribute this evening. I know that it is rather late and I am extremely grateful that they have stayed for the debate. I hope to present as briefly as possible some kind of balance sheet about the present situation, and I feel quite sure that they, with their more specialised knowledge, will add the facts which I am unable to give myself.
First, it must be said that the concern felt about the dangers of using a lead additive in petrol is not a new one. Discussions about this have been going on for a very long time; campaigning has been going on for a very long time, and countless studies have been carried out over the years. As noble Lords know, the objective of these studies has been to try to assess the degree of lead additive which comes out of car exhausts, what degree of this is absorbed into the human blood, and, finally, the degree of harm caused to human beings as a result.
As noble Lords are also aware the exact degree of health risk has always been a very controversial point. It is a highly complicated subject, and many serious scientists now believe that we never shall have any conclusive evidence. But what they do agree on is that children with too high a lead level are more likely to be among those with reduced intelligence, reduced ability to concentrate, an inclination to non-adaptive behaviour and hyper activity. But as I have said, they cannot come to any agreement as to how much of that

881
is due to exposure to the lead in petrol as opposed to the lead coming from other sources. Therefore, with an issue of such great importance as the mental health of our children, and more especially the health of our children, in the inner cities, whose whole lives are so much undermined anyhow, and in view of the ever-accumulating evidence on this subject, there is every justification for looking at the whole matter again this evening to decide whether retaining lead in petrol is a risk that we should go on taking, and whether we should concern ourselves with our children's health or concern ourselves with our motor and oil industries.
I know that statistics relating to this whole issue have been flying around for a very long time and that sometimes they have been deployed rather selectively depending on which interest group is using them. Nevertheless, I will try to use just a few statistics which I consider to be non-controversial to describe the present situation in Britain regarding the lead levels as compared with other countries. Then I will put forward what seem to me to be the most relevant medical findings and finally I will suggest what options the Government have to choose from and what the public's feelings are about those options.
Your Lordships will recollect that it was the Lawther Report which gave rise to the Minister's decision in May 1981 that lead levels in petrol be reduced to 0.15 grams per litre at the end of 1985. This level is the minimum allowable under the present EEC directive, which sets 0.4 grams per litre as the top limit. Thus, within the Community countries petrol cannot be sold containing less than 0.15 grams per litre or more than 0.4 grams per litre. While that is the position within the EEC, countries outside have come to very different conclusions; indeed, several countries have found that the total elimination of lead from petrol is not only desirable but also perfectly practicable.
Russia headed the field by eliminating lead from petrol as early as 1957. Then in the early 1970s the United States decided that all new cars should be manufactured to run on lead-free petrol, and at the present time 60 per cent. of cars in the United States are doing so. The Americans appear to be proved entirely right in their decision by recent studies which show that blood lead levels in the United States fell by 36.7 per cent. in the first four years of the programme.
In Japan the present position is that only 4 per cent. of its cars now use leaded petrol. And, from the point of view of the motor industry in Japan and of the motorist, it should be noted that their industry appears to have continued to thrive, while the petroleum industry contrived to introduce lead-free petrol without incurring any kind of increased cost to the motorist.
Finally, Australia has taken the same decision to phase out lead from petrol from 1985 onwards. Thus these major countries with important powerful car and petroleum industries, have decided that the health risk caused by leaded petrol was one too great to take.
Now let me put forward one or two medical points about the harm that lead exposure does to children, and the medical view as to whether it is indeed the lead in petrol which provides the main source. In the first instance it must be remembered that the Lawther
882
Committee based their report on the assumption that there was no health risk attached to children with blood lead levels of less than 35 micrograms per decilitre. Yet, in direct contradiction to that, subsequent studies carried out in Britain, in the United States and in West Germany found a marked IQ difference between children with above and below 13 micrograms per decilitre of lead in their blood. Indeed, one study revealed as high as a seven point IQ difference. Thus these revelations would most certainly put in doubt the Lawther safety threshold of 35 micrograms. Indeed, as a result, Professor Michael Rutter, a key member of that committee, has now totally abandoned its findings and come out against the Government's present aim to lower the lead level in petrol to the proposed 0.15 grams as being an unacceptable compromise.
Thus there can be no argument that lead is a health risk to children. But, as I said, what proof is there that it is really the lead which comes out of petrol which is the main problem? After all, as we all know, lead is a multi-source problem and as has recently become very clear, much firmer measures should be taken about lead in water and no doubt also about lead in paint. However, studies trying to assess the contribution that petrol makes to the whole body lead burden indicate estimated proportions between 25 per cent. and 46 per cent.—the highest petrol lead contribution, of course, being attributed to some inner city children. So, again, these findings can hardly be disregarded; it can be argued that this percentage comes from the lead that comes from petrol.
In addition, there is accumulated evidence of the importance of lead in dust, and I do not think that there is any controversy about the finding that over 90 per cent. of all airborne lead comes from car exhausts. Perhaps at this point we should recollect the very simple fact that it is children and, indeed, people in invalid chairs who are in a direct line with the exhaust pipes of cars and who consequently are the most vulnerable to the lead which is emitted.
Therefore, from what I have said and the few statistics which I have given, I am sure that your Lordships will accept that there is a very strong case indeed for eliminating this particular source of lead pollution. For, although research cannot quantify the exact harm that lead coming from petrol causes, there is unequivocal proof of the health hazard from lead exposure generally. Therefore, the decision to eliminate this particular source of lead is based on a knowledge that our children are suffering as a result of widespread pollution by a dangerous poison, and the less of that poison there is around the less that risk will be.
As to the options before the Government, Associated Octel—manufacturers of the lead additive to petrol—have put forward one option. Understandably, not wishing to eliminate lead from petrol, they have devised a system whereby a filter which reduces the lead content in the exhaust gas is put into the exhaust system of cars. However, not only have Japan, the United States and Australia, after very serious consideration, rejected this alternative—for the reasons, first, that it does not pick up all the lead; secondly, that there is a disposal problem; and, thirdly, that this device starts to work less well when it is older

883
and there is no possible way of making motorists renew it—but, in my view, the very fact that Associated Octel have introduced this method provides certain proof that they recognise the health risk of the lead additive.
As far as the petroleum and car manufacturing industries are concerned, I understand that they have acknowledged that they could introduce lead-free petrol within a reasonable time, and the petroleum industry has indicated that low octane lead-free petrol would cost the consumer only a few pence extra a gallon. Our motor industry, ever conscious of its export business and knowing that in the United States and Japan there are cars running that need lead free petrol, would, I believe, readily welcome a date for the conversion operation to start. In addition, I believe that the manufacturing process of that conversion would cost no more than a sum equal to the recent subsidy that the taxpayer gave to British Leyland.
Finally, that other major interest group—the British public—ever mindful of environmental health risks, have made their views very clear indeed and have shown themselves overwhelmingly in support of banning lead from petrol in spite of any additional costs involved. In fact, some opinion polls that have been conducted have shown that nine out of 10 people want to see this pollution removed. Furthermore, during the past year almost every relevant national organisation has proposed to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that concern about lead pollution is justified, and most have proposed the elimination of the lead additive.
Therefore, put as briefly as I possibly can, that is how the position stands at the moment. The purpose of this short debate is to ask the Government not only to respond positively towards this particular problem, but also to respond in a particular way. In my view—and I am sure that others will agree with me—this is an issue on which all the Community countries have a common interest. Concern about the environment, the pollution of inner cities and children's health, and the fact that we sell each other's cars and petrol on a vast scale, all point to the advantage of action at European level.
Indeed, this process has started, in that last week the Environmental Committee of the European Parliament agreed in principle to a programme to eliminate lead in petrol throughout the EEC. This unanimous decision received all-party support in the Parliament. It might well become the responsibility of member states to support any such proposal put to the Council of Ministers by the European Commission. These proposals could well present a programme requiring all EEC countries to cut the maximum amount of lead allowed in fuel for cars now on the road to 0·15 grams per litre. This would, of course, bring all Community countries into line with a target already announced by our Government for the end of 1985. But, in addition and more importantly, the Community proposal would also require lead-free fuel to be made available and new cars would have to be manufactured to run on it.
Therefore, I am asking the Minister to give us some commitment that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not only
884
support such a recommendation should it come before the December Council of Ministers, but will also play a leading role to persuade his European colleagues to do likewise. For surely it must be true that in years to come it will seem incomprehensible that the phasing out of lead in petrol did not come immediately after discovery of its dangerous effects on young children. Surely we must never forget that the children most affected by this poison are those in the inner cities, who already are among the most disadvantaged of our children. Is it not—in my mind it is—a moral obligation for any present-day Government to take positive action to get rid of this poison once and for all?
8.37 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for drawing our attention to this important question. Her presentation this evening clearly shows that there is an even stronger case than that which was made many years ago in this House, for I recall as far back as 1972 taking part in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who has done so much for this cause. I must also apologise to the noble Baroness for the fact that my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley is unable to be here due to a long-standing engagement, and I am taking his place on this occasion.
After the noble Baroness's presentation, there is very little extra that I can add to which the Government ought to pay attention. There is, however, one point about which we should remind ourselves. It is: what is the lead additive in petrol for in the first place? I understand that it is to increase the acceleration of the internal combustion engine and of the motor vehicle. The main pollution and poison effect of lead in petrol is felt in the urban environment, in semi-enclosed spaces, and that is within the 30-mile limit. There is no need, there, for a rapid acceleration from zero to 60 miles per hour in under 10 seconds. Therefore, in an urban environment the lead additive in petrol is of no use to the motorist.
I also agree with the noble Baroness that there is no problem at all. As I understand it, when this question was put by myself and my Leader, my right honourable friend Mr David Steel, to an oil company, they said: "There is no problem here; we only need instructions and directions from the Government". The medical evidence for the case against the lead additive in petrol is not 100 per cent. proven, but I do not think that that is the point. The point is—and it was touched on by the noble Baroness—that people are worried about it. It is as simple as that. They are worried about their children and about the poisons being emitted from the exhaust gases of motor vehicles in cities, and lead is one of the main poisons that is emitted.
Not only is a car a lethal instrument when in motion: it is also quite lethal when stationary with the engine running in an enclosed place. It is deadly poisonous. In semi-enclosed spaces, which the cities are, the higher the buildings get the more difficult it is to get the air changes necessary. This is especially the case in Tokyo and in Los Angeles, and it is occasionally becoming the same situation in London as traffic blocks increase.

885
That is all the case is that has been put forward by the interested parties. We are not putting forward a highly scientific case, that the Government have to do it because of a, b and c. It is because they are worried. In the past, when people have been worried but have been unable to produce the proof at that moment, Governments have resisted and said, "Show us the proof and we will take action"; but in the end that proof was forthcoming. I have no doubt that it will be forthcoming so far as lead poisoning in exhaust emissions is concerned. I am sure it will be clearly proven in some years to come. But why wait that long? The Government should not be all that hesitant about taking up the recommendations of the noble Baroness, for the reasons she has given.
There is one other point that I should like the Government to consider. It is a point touched on by the noble Baroness, and it concerns the disabled. In the debate on a recent Transport Bill I suggested that in every urban environment or city there should be a special lane for cyclists and disabled people in order that they may avoid the main poisons of traffic. Those of us who have bicycled in the city, and those who use cars for the disabled, realise that they are breathing in at the direct level of motor vehicle exhausts as they travel along the road. There is a strong case for segregation. If you wish to bicycle in a city or wish to travel safely in a car for the disabled, powered or unpowered, there should be special areas in order to do this. I hope to pursue this on another occasion for other reasons besides the ones which I and the noble Baroness have put forward.
There is not much more to add to what has been said already. If the Government do not wish to take up the advice or recommendations of Professor Rutter and other members of the medical profession who have been hesitant about the conclusions reached to date and who continue to have doubts about the wisdom of ignoring the evidence that exists of lead in petrol, then the noble Lord who is to reply will have to back up his hesitation with some solid reason why action should not be taken now rather than waiting until later, when I am sure the evidence will be forthcoming to show that it is necessary as well as agreeable for improving the environment in which we all live today.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on her initiative in introducing this debate and on the advocacy she has presented. I support absolutely fully her intention to eliminate the danger to health from lead pollution. Where I disagree is that I believe that a substantial and expensive campaign is being launched on the wrong targets. As the noble Baroness has fairly said, the petroleum and motor car industries have embarked on a four-year programme, now half way through, to cut the former 0·4 per cent. content of lead down to 0·15 per cent. by 1985. I could only wish that other far more serious lead polluters were taking such progressive action.
Cars have to be adjusted. It is somewhat unrealistic to expect all current owners to jettison their cars within a short term of years, or for motor car manufacturers,
886
fighting for their existence against foreign imports, to re-jig and re-tool their production at enormous expense very quickly. It is easy for the executive car to be replaced. It probably is every two years, anyway. But the cars owned by millions of retired people, or the family man in a council house, last a long time, and to require them to be changed is to impose a serious penalty. One also has to recognise that the importation of the large quantities of crude oil we should have to import would place a substantial burden on the country.
The conservationists are adept at directing their campaigns against a group, or a firm, or an industry which suffers from a certain antipathy—in this case the love-hate relationship with the oil industry and the motor car owner. In relation to lead pollution I am distressed that what could be an invaluable campaign to lessen the danger from lead pollution, particularly to children, is being centred solely on petroleum fuel to the exclusion of other and, in my view, far more serious sources of lead pollution. I should like to see the conservationists and the health protagonists go for the prime targets and not pursue, as in my humble opinion they do, the "Slug the oil companies and the car owners" syndrome. From the quite substantial evidence from medical authorities in the United Kingdom that I have studied—and, to be honest, I trust some of the UK studies more than I trust some of the US ones—the most guilty parties are those in which the individual can do a great deal to help himself, but it is so much easier to go for a great institution than to say, "This is my responsibility".
When three such diverse inquiries as those conducted by the Department of Health and Social Services, the Director of the Technical Committee of the Clean Air Council, and the Director of Child Health at Westminster Hospital, all quite independently of one another, conclude that airborne lead is a minor—and one says insignificant—contributor, I believe that the campaigners would do a real service by widening their claims to the wider target.
The Clean Air Council express what is substantially my view. They say:
"Campaigns to remove lead from petrol cannot prevent the kind of damage to health which is attributable to lead in their bodies even if they are completely successful. The causes of lead poisoning lie elsewhere, and it is much more important to find them and make people aware of them than pretend that significant relief can come from removing lead from petrol".
I regret having to say so, but in my view to concentrate basically on this is to mislead the public into a false sense of security so that they think that by eliminating lead out of petrol they are home and dry, and they have no personal responsibility for what they can do.
Parents could do a great deal themselves. Who has not seen a child sucking a pencil? Who has not seen a child sucking the edge of his pram, his cot, or his leaden toy? A far greater contributor in many parts of the country is the combination of soft water and lead pipes. Noble Lords in Scotland, with their delightful soft water and thousands of miles of lead pipes, will know better than I do the extreme seriousness of this problem in Scotland.
In the Industrial Revolution when great industrial cities emerged—Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle and London—pipes were made of lead.

887
Many of the factories have been replaced, but vast blocks of Victorian flats remain. Hospitals, mental institutions, schools, and prisons still have old lead pipes—not to mention the plumbing in ancient castles and mansions. For years the water authorities have been trying to identify a solvent to treat water supplies and dissolve the lead. Here I think it is right to congratulate the authorities in Glasgow. Alert to the extent of pollution, which was very serious in their city, they have very energetically pursued research and made inquiries, and with no small success are still pursuing experiments to this end.
I was interested to read a report from the Plumbers' Federation, which was distributed this week with the House magazine that one obtains from the other place. The report, while admitting that the old type soldering of joints could cause lead pollution, emphasises, to console us, that it probably takes 40 years before it is significantly dangerous. My Lords, how many thousands of Victorian blocks of flats, houses, and institutions were built over 100 years ago and are still in existence, with their old lead pipes? I live in one such block of flats, and when I return from holiday, after my flat has been empty for three or four weeks, I have to run off gallons of water before the supply is clear enough to use.
Last year the Government got their priorities right. They highlighted the danger of lead pipes and introduced home improvement grants to replace lead plumbing. We should be pressing householders to protect their families by taking up the grants, remembering that every cup of tea, every boiled vegetable, every stew, and every teeth-cleaning process adds far more to the lead intake right into the body than do airborne petrol fumes. Here I should like to ask my noble friend whether the grants apply only to individual homeowners, or are they available to the owners of the vast blocks of flats? In particular, are we helping in this way the huge Victorian mental hospitals, which are miles away in the country, with beautiful clean air? In many cases they are nowhere near petrol pollution. But they still have lead pipes that are 120 or 150 years old. I ask this bearing in mind in particular the menace to health that can arise from the lead that can come from soft water that passes through lead pipes, as well as the progressive danger of lead poisoning to the brain.
The pharmaceutical industry in this country is alert to the lead hazard, but some foreign exporters are not; and I do not think that the Government are doing enough about imports. When a highly attractive cosmetic pack, made in Taiwan, aimed at the teenage market and costing only a £1, was exported to this country, it was found to contain an absolutely horrifying level of lead. Legally we could do nothing, but through the help of the media the DHSS put out very substantial and severe warnings and retailers immediately withdrew the packs from their shelves.
We import tons of tinned food. Is there any legislation that we can enforce to control the lead content of imported tinned goods? It terrifies me when I see old-age pensioners buying deteriorating cans from the "bargain bin" in some supermarket. The noble Baroness may feel that some of my opinions are a little jaundiced when compared to hers, but I assure
888
her that I am with her in wanting to see lead pollution eliminated. However, I think that the campaigners, with an expensive campaign, on which they are spending a great deal of money, should widen it, so that the individual can do something for himself. The campaigners should do this rather than merely have a slug at the love-hate relationship with oil, thinking that this might bring in more money.
The campaigners rightly say that their primary concern is the health of children. So, too, is mine, and I believe that they would achieve a very great deal if they widened their campaign to persuade individuals to take up grants for the removal of lead pipes, and also if they pressed for more to be done about food, and in particular paint. How many parents keep their children out of the area when they are sanding off old paint? How many of them hoover and hoover again until every single lead particle has been removed from the room? A child can fill its lungs with lead paint dust particles over a period of two or three days, and that could be absolutely lethal.
In Islington last year an EC blood/lead survey was conducted. Volunteers who had been exposed to petrol-lead in the notoriously heavy traffic area of Archway had blood levels typical of those to be found in any part of inner London. But two paint strippers were found to have horrifically abnormally high levels. I believe that the Government have circulated local authorities with guidance leaflets on using paint with the lowest practicable lead content. I hope that they will continue to press this message home and ensure that contractors use the paint specified.
Let us work on a wider span to eliminate lead pollution, but let us also concentrate on the really important targets, where individuals can do so much for themselves. I believe that we would then achieve more in preserving the health of our children than we would by aiming our efforts exclusively against lead in petrol.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Baroness for initiating the debate. Fatal cases of industrial lead poisoning have now been almost completely eliminated, but fatalities still occur from time to time among young children who eat items containing lead. I had only one case during my active professional career in medicine. It involved a baker who drunk warm water out of a lead pipe tap in his bakery. But to confuse things he made his morning tea in lead-lined tins in which had been delivered apples for the making of apple charlotte. We never discovered which of the two possible causes was the actual cause in that case.
However, plenty of evidence has accumulated over the past 35 years—and that is a long time—to establish the brain-damaging properties of lead at doses below those which prove fatal. No one would deny this. Controversy begins when attempts are made to define a dose of lead below which brain derangement does not occur. As your Lordships know, over the past decade there has been a progressive downward revision of recommended concentrations of lead in food and water, and the efficacy of this has been

889
gauged by measuring blood levels of lead which, of course, reflect the level of lead in the blood, not the content of lead in the body, and can be misleading.
Most adults take lead in food and drink, and from the air. Children have two additional methods of lead ingestion, eating non-footstuffs and licking their fingers. The ingestion of old paint contains up to about 40 per cent. of lead and it has been recently implicated in most serious cases. Now, because of the national agreements, lead in paint and in pencils is rigorously controlled. It is an offence in our country to market surma, the traditional eye make-up of Asian children, which contains a very high proportion of lead. Until a few years ago it was considered, as stated in a Government publication in 1974,
"impracticable and almost impossible to assess the relative pathways of lead in man".
In other words, which was the important one? Recent work, although controversial, particularly in the United States, has tended to show that petrol-derived lead is an important source of lead. The critical evidence is the substantial fall in blood-lead concentrations in school children in Omaha, in the United States, following the introduction of lead-free petrol in 1973. And it is also claimed that a reduction of urban environmental lead in Germany in 1976 followed the low-lead petrol Act.
For many years it was believed that wild plants and animals contain equal amounts of industrial and naturally derived lead. This is now shown to be false. In a remote valley in Yosemite Park, California, it was shown that the annual input of airborne lead exceeded 100-fold the lead circulating naturally in animals and plants. It was shown that 97 per cent. of the lead in the valley holes was of industrial origin.
One begins to imagine that further consideration of lead emission from petrol and other industrial sources should be considered seriously and urgently. However, attention to dietary sources of lead is as urgently needed, and the removal of lead solder used to seal food cans, the removal of lead water pipes in areas of soft acid water or the artificial hardening of the water. Attention to diet is also important. Calcium, phosphate, iron, vitamins C and D all have an important role in diminishing the toxic effects of lead.
The possibility that lead intoxication is a factor in the cause of mental handicap has by no means been eliminated. The difficulty is that, apart from the measurement of lead in blood, most of the studies have been concerned with supposedly normal children. The investigators depended on the detection of minor differences in intelligence, behaviour, educational attainment and neurological functions. It is probable that in man the measurement techniques that are available are insufficiently sensitive for the purpose for which people are trying to use them. In case controlled studies it is almost impossible to allow for the known factors that can influence children's mental attainments, many of which are so well known to us. The evidence therefore is conflicting; but if the evidence is conflicting the question is, should we really demand the evidence or should we remove a potentially dangerous substance from the urban environment? I think that we should remove lead so far as we can from the urban environment, not only for
890
children, and should progressively reduce the risk from lead in food and water.
9.4 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, this subject tends to be an emotive one in which some people take extreme positions, often not in the best interests of what they are trying to achieve. It is now generally agreed that any increase in the lead intake by the population, particularly by children, is to be avoided. How far the present average intake is producing undesirable effects is still very debatable. Some recent research tends to show that the present position may be unsatisfactory and that the uptake of lead from the air might represent more than 10 per cent. of the body's total lead intake—which, of course comes largely from food, as has already been said.
An interesting study made in Frankfurt before and after reducing the lead in their petrol, with a corresponding 60 to 80 per cent. decrease in vehicle lead emissions, showed only a small reduction in blood-lead levels. This reduction applied only to roughly half the population; in the other half there was no change. We are faced with a situation where a lot of research is extremely conflicting. I think it behoves us to keep an open mind about how serious the lead threat is today.
Certainly, the Government's plan to reduce the lead in petrol from 0.4 to 0.15 grams per litre by January 1986 is a sensible precaution. An EEC directive allowing lead-free petrol would seem to be reasonable. I am not suggesting that that should necessarily be advocated, but there should not be a ban going below the 0.15 level.
Nevertheless, this reduction that we propose will have its economic penalties. Most cars need 4-star petrol, and to maintain this octane rating will require some alterations to refineries, estimated to cost around £200 million. Moreover, there will be an increase in the amount of crude oil used in refining—about 500,000 tonnes, representing a 2½ per cent. increase. The sensible long-term approach would seem to be to design all new cars to run on 3-star petrol. When the lead in petrol is reduced to the 0·15 level, no grade problem or cost will be faced by the refiners in the production of 3-star petrol. The only penalty will be a small increase in cars' petrol consumption due to having a lower compression ratio. Comparing like with like, this would be in the region of 3 per cents.
However, if it were ever decided to eliminate lead altogether a large number of problems and costs would have to be faced. It would be virtually impossible to produce four-star unleaded petrol without an additive, and all car engines would have to be redesigned, not only to run with a lower compression ratio but because the lead additive lubricates the valves. The only solution would appear to be to resort to two-star petrol—that is, 91–92 octane fuel—which is what has been done in America. They started redesigning the engines to run on this unleaded fuel in 1970, and still only half the fuel used today is leadless, so there is a long lead time. It is worth emphasising that the reason for the change to leadless fuel was that lead poisoned the catalyst needed to conform with their exhaust emission regulations.

891
Apart from an increase in crude oil requirements by the refineries and the higher price of unleaded petrol in the USA—about 12 per cent.—there is also an increase in fuel consumption of about 6 per cent. because of the lower compression ratio. So we would have to pay something approaching 20 per cent. more for fuelling the car than we do today if we were to go down to this two-star petrol. A possible way of producing higher octane leadless fuel might be to use some other additive or an extender such as the addition of alcohol; but in spite of considerable research no reasonable solution on these lines is at present available.
There is, however, the interesting development of the lead trap silencer which can reduce lead emission by at least half, and considerably more in town driving. If this were fitted when the lead level in petrol goes down to 0·15 grams a litre it would not have to be any larger than the existing silencers and could easily be fitted to nearly all old cars, thereby reducing the lead time for it to become fully effective to perhaps two or three years. Its cost is estimated to be twice that of a conventional silencer, but its life would be double.
With the 0·15 lead level and a lead trap silencer, lead emissions from cars would be reduced to about one-fifteenth of the present level in the United Kingdom today. I cannot help wondering whether those with extreme views on this subject—and I do not think anybody has expressed any extreme views this evening—realise that the intake of lead from car emissions is only, according to the best estimates, about one-tenth of that from other sources. It might be much more cost effective and important—and this point has already been made—to tackle lead pipes in soft water areas, and to monitor more carefully emissions from factories using lead. Even with our copper piping today some of the joints are soldered, and there is quite a worry that as that solder contains lead you can get a considerable amount of lead in your water.
To sum up, I believe that the Government's policy is right, and on the present evidence there is no case for entirely removing lead from petrol. I think, however, that we must keep an open mind and see what further research produces. When it comes to spending money—and I think I have made this point—there is a very considerable cost in trying to produce lead-free petrol, not only for motorists but for industry and elsewhere, and we might well consider other things which could be done to improve the quality of life and avoid its potential degradation. There are many such things on which we should like to spend money, and I really think it is time that we considered some of these on a cost-effective basis and not emotionally concentrated on one or two.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I also should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for bringing this important subject up for discussion. My contribution will be going along somewhat parallel lines to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, but I think that the two sets of facts we will have produced are complementary rather than repetitive.
892
I believe it would be reasonable to say that the present concern about atmospheric lead is a continuation of a long story of the public health movement, which has played an important and unique part in our history over the past 150 years. Although British pioneers in the mid-19th century such as Edwin Chadwick and John Simon, the first medical officer of health for London, showed the way in sanitary reform, they faced tremendous difficulties in getting their proposals accepted. For example, in London the eight joint stock companies which in 1850 produced an intermittent water supply of extremely dubious quality, managed to avoid being taken over and grouped under a single water authority for 50 years. This they did by various intrigues such as mobilising pressure groups with parliamentary influence. In fact, in 1854 they managed to force Edwin Chadwick's forward-looking Board of Health to be dismissed, despite the opposition of Lord Palmerston, who was then Home Secretary.
It is relevant to our topic tonight that when the sanitary movement began in the middle of the last century there was no scientific proof that contaminated water was responsible for cholera or typhoid. There was a widespread belief that polluted water and disease were associated, but the bacterial causation of disease and its transmission by water began to be proved and accepted only over the subsequent half-century. At this point, it is very relevant for us to consider how lucky we are to have such an efficient water supply in London and perhaps to congratulate those who have designed it, because we are receiving a pure water supply, quietly and efficiently, despite the strike.
Similarly, although it has been known for the past 15 to 20 years or more that our atmosphere is invisibly polluted with low concentrations of minute lead particles, it is only recently that scientific observations have begun to demonstrate their effect. The poisonous effect of high concentrations of lead in food, drink, industrial dust or fumes has long been appreciated, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has pointed out to us. Legislation intended to control this is on the statute book, but there is still a need to be vigilant. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who is no longer in her place, pointed this out, and we still have further to go. For instance, as other speakers have mentioned, there are possibly millions of houses which still have lead pipes, including some in soft water districts, and it is highly probable that lead absorbed from these pipes is assimilated into the bodies of the residents. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, will be reading Hansard tomorrow, because I should like to ask her to urge her noble friend the Minister to mount the sort of campaign she suggested, to encourage householders and others to take up the grants available to replace their lead pipes. I think it is for the Department of Health to do this rather than to rely on individuals themselves.
However, it is worth remembering that lead in the air is not the only source of lead in our bodies. Lead pipes, paints, cosmetics and industrial waste have been mentioned, as well as tin cans. Atmospheric lead, of course, is not due only to emissions from motor vehicles: quite a lot comes from industrial sources, especially from small metal foundries, and from the

893
domestic burning of wood and coal. But it does appear that about two-thirds of the lead in the atmosphere—and here my information appears to be different from that of other noble Lords—comes from leaded petrol. It is amazingly ubiquitous. While, of course, the concentration is higher in towns and along main roads, it is also present in rural areas, crisscrossed as they are with roads. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has mentioned that even the Yosemite National Park contains a high level. Perhaps that is because it is a deep valley and a lot of Americans visit it in their cars. It is only in mid-ocean that the atmospheric level of lead approaches what it probably was in pre-industrial times.
While some atmospheric lead is directly inhaled, its main effect comes from ingestion after it has fallen to the ground and been incorporated into vegetables, other food products and water supplies. It is probable that about half the level in our bodies comes from petrol, but this varies from area to area. In this connection, the American study which has been quoted, showing a 37 per cent. reduction in body lead since the introduction of the lead free-petrol scheme, is extremely important.
The effect of lead in low concentrations on the intellectual performance of children is the present main cause of concern. This is an extraordinarily difficult parameter to measure, depending, as it does, on so many factors and being such an elusive quality to describe objectively. Many factors in addition to lead are responsible for variations in measurements of IQ, such as cultural, genetic or environmental influences, and it is very difficult to allow for all of these in any study of normal children, so association of blood lead level with intelligence measures may not point to a causal relationship. If associations are found, these may be because high lead levels are associated with some other factor that is also correlated with intellectual performance, pollution levels at the place of residence being the most likely. To date, most of the studies on this aspect have been carried out in America, where concern about this problem began and where there is the highest use of petrol per head in the world.
In this country, however, the Department of Health and Social Security is at present backing a new study on this problem, having had results from a pilot study published in 1981 which suggested a connection between comparatively low levels of blood lead and low IQ in Greenwich schoolchildren. The levels of lead concerned are considerably lower than that regarded by the Lawther Report of 1980 as toxic. But, as I have said, the relationship may not be one of cause and effect directly. We await the results of the larger study with interest. However, experimental studies in animals, and work using human red blood cells, have clearly shown the deleterious effects of lead in quite low concentrations on important metabolic processes which may well play a part in the development of the central nervous system and, hence, in the intellectual and behavioural aspects of young children.
For all these reasons, I feel it is right that the Government should follow the lead of the United States of America and urge the EEC to enact a new directive, bringing to an end, in a reasonable time, the use of lead in petrol. It would be wrong that this
894
country, which for so many years led the world in promoting public health measures, should seem now to be dragging its feet.
As we have heard, technological problems in eliminating lead from petrol are not insuperable. In fact, I consider that they present an interesting challenge to the ingenuity of our petrochemical and automobile engineers—one which I think many of them would be quite glad to take up. I would give a warning with this plea for eliminating lead in petrol, that other sources of body lead which have been mentioned, and which may be equally important, must also be carefully monitored and eliminated. The petrochemical and motor industries should not be the only ones which have to change outdated practices.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I join others of your Lordships in expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing this debate. I have the honour to be a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which is presently engaged in a study of lead. The commission is likely to publish its report some time after Easter. It would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate if I were now to say anything about the conclusions which the Royal Commission is likely to reach in relation to the vexed question of lead in petrol.
The Question, which is the subject of this debate, asks the Government
"what initiative they are taking to persuade our European partners to agree an EEC Directive requiring the phasing out of lead in petrol".
It has been put to me, not within this House but outside, that there is nothing unlawful in selling unleaded petrol, and that such a directive would not be necessary in order to enable the Government to pass such legislation as is here indicated. I thought it might be helpful if I touched upon a subject which has not been touched upon in our debate this evening.
The question which I seek to answer very briefly is what the legal situation is under EEC law and, in that context, what steps would have to be taken by Her Majesty's Government if—I repeat "if"—they were to decide that it was desirable to phase out lead in petrol. Under the relevant directive, 78/611/EEC, the lead content of petrol sold in member states is limited to a maximum of 0·4 grams per litre. The directive goes on to provide that a member state may prescribe a limit below 0·4 grams per litre but not lower than 0·15 grams per litre. I would emphasise that the directive prohibits a member state from prescribing a maximum limit lower than 0·15 grams per litre. There is nothing in the directive which prohibits the sale within the Community of unleaded petrol.
It follows from the provisions of the directive that United Kingdom legislation prescribing, for instance, the sale only of unleaded petrol, either immediately or after a period, would be in conflict with the directive, with the consequence that the Commission of the EEC or another member state could challenge this legislation before the European Court of Justice. There is, of course, also the possibility that somebody might seek a remedy before a court here.
It has been suggested to me that the provisions in such legislation, if enacted, would be warranted by

895
health considerations and that Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome could be invoked. This article provides that Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome and other articles relating to quantitative restrictions
"shall not preclude prohibitions … justified on grounds (among other things) of the protection of health".
It seems clear, however, that Article 36 could not be invoked in this case, for it has been established by the European Court, in Case 148/78 (generally known as the Ratti case), that where a directive made pursuant to Article 100 of the Treaty provides for the harmonisation of measures necessary to ensure the protection of health and establish community procedures to supervise compliance, recourse to Article 36 ceases to be justified. We are dealing here with just such a directive. For these reasons, if the Government desire to phase out lead in petrol by legislation, this can, in my view, only be done by agreement with the other members of the community.
It may be asked why the directive which all states, members of the community, agreed was formulated in the way that it was. It seems that the upper limit was effectively determined following the progressive reductions introduced in various member states for health reasons. The idea of the minimum limit apparently arose because it was considered that if member states prescribed maximum levels below 0·15 grams per litre they would create technical barriers to trade with members whose motor industries were geared to higher limits. Apparently 0·15 grams per litre has tended to be regarded as the lowest practical level of lead to meet current European engine technology and other technical factors.
There is no doubt that in the Community pressures have been building up, instigated in part by the European Parliament, for the adoption of a policy leading towards lead-free petrol. Evidence of this is, for instance, to be found in the recently published Third European Community Environmental Action Programme, approved by the Council of Environment Ministers as recently as December of last year, which contains the following passage:
"The Commission will study how to strengthen the measures to control pollution from motor vehicles. It will in particular study, together with interested parties, the possibility that all new cars put on the market after a certain date be required to use anti-pollution devices or fuels which considerably reduce the present level of exhaust pollution, and make appropriate proposals. It will draw up long-term guidelines for the motor vehicle sector in general and in so doing take account, inter alia, of the need for the European motor industry to meet the strict environment protection norms laid down by its major competitors such as the USA and Japan".
A year previously, in December 1981, the European Commission had set up a working group known by the acronym ERGA, which stands for Evolution of Regulations, Global Approach—Air Pollution, to consider exhaust emission limits set by an earlier directive in 1970. This directive had nothing directly to do with lead, but it seems that one of the means of reducing exhaust emission from engines is to introduce a catalyst with which lead is not compatible. This was the original reason for the policy adopted in the United States leading to the introduction of lead-free petrol. So the question of eliminating lead from petrol is not related to the direct effects, if any, of lead on health.
896
A good deal of emotion has been introduced into propaganda for the elimination of lead from petrol but the question of whether or not this is desirable is one for quiet assessment of the various factors involved on the evidence, or on such evidence as is available. Some of the factors which are involved might be summarised as follows. First, does lead in petrol itself produce a health hazard? If so, what would be the cost of its elimination? This in turn gives rise to questions relating to the oil and vehicle industries and the costs in terms of both money and energy of making the change. If lead in petrol does not constitute a health hazard, is it nevertheless worth the cost of eliminating lead on the ground that there are substantial markets such as those in the United States of America, Japan and, shortly, Australia where only vehicles capable of running on lead-free petrol may be sold?
The question of phasing out lead in petrol is not only of widespread concern but raises questions over a wide field. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for initiating this debate. When the Royal Commission's report is published. I hope that it will make some contribution to providing answers to at least some of the questions which arise.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I, too, must thank my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and congratulate her for raising this question, which has aroused a very interesting debate. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend on the excellent and comprehensive way in which she opened this debate. As my noble friend has said, there is increasingly public concern on this issue and the pressure for speedier action leading to lead-free petrol has secured widespread public support; my noble friend indicated the figures in a recently published opinion poll.
Efforts in this direction have been supported not only by environmental bodies but also by health bodies, considerable medical opinion, local authorities, and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which body I have the privilege of being president. All have urged quick steps to move towards lead-free petrol. We have also heard some very valuable medical opinions in our debate this evening.
It would seem there are three main reasons advanced for not moving towards lead-free petrol. First, there is dispute about the medical and scientific evidence available. Secondly, it is said that the change would be too costly. Thirdly, the motor industry will find it difficult to cope with the consequential problems which would arise. It is obvious to noble Lords that I have no medical or scientific knowledge. I have to rely upon information available, as I am certain do the majority of Ministers in the Departments of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Industry, all of which are involved in this question of lead-free petrol. But there would appear to be general acceptance that lead in all forms, whether in food or water or airborne, presents a health hazard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, and others have stressed various important matters other than the question of airborne lead in petrol. But it seems common sense that if all these other issues,

897
including airborne lead, present a danger, then exhaust emissions must also present some danger, particularly in conurbations with very heavy traffic.
My noble friend in her opening speech said that there was no conclusive evidence, but is it a risk not worth taking? Other noble Lords have stressed that there is nothing conclusive. But was not the situation clearly set out in a letter sent to senior colleagues on 6th March 1981 by Sir Henry Yellowlees, chief medical officer at the DHSS; a letter which has received a great deal of publicity and which was quoted in The Times in February last year? Referring to suggestions that further research was needed, Sir Henry wrote:
"it is therefore doubtful whether there is anything to be gained by deferring a decision until the results of further research become available".
Later, he wrote:
"as Chief Medical Officer I have advised my Secretary of State that action should now be taken to reduce markedly the lead content in the United Kingdom. The risk to children is now shown to be too great for me to take any other course."
Sir Henry added a footnote to the letter, which read:
"The health evidence, persuasive though it is already, cannot yet be described as conclusive. The important thing is that new evidence is accumulating all the time—and it always points in the same direction as existing evidence, so that the health case becomes steadily stronger and stronger."
We must ask why, if there is no danger, did various Governments act to reduce the high level of 0.84 grams per litre in 1972 to the present level of 0.4? It was steadily decreased. The Government themselves introduced new proposals to take effect in 1985. Frankly, from the Opposition, we congratulate the Government on that step. Moreover, following the Statement made in the House on 11th May, 1981, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, replying to a question, said the new limit was the furthest the Government could go if a possible delay of 10 to 15 years was to be avoided. He said:
"We think the need is a great and immediate one now."
[Official Report, 11/5/81; col. 350.]
The urgency to tackle the problem was reaffirmed by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, when replying to another question on 29th March last year:
"The Government chose this option as the quickest way in which to achieve the largest reduction in lead emissions."—[Official Report, 29/3/82; col. 1151.]
Those two statements would suggest to me that the Government considered this question of lead in petrol as so important that they had to move as quickly as they possibly could and that is why they put forward the proposals in the Statement made in 1981.
Therefore, we have to look at the two other reasons advanced for not moving to leadless petrol; that it would be too costly and that it would present problems for the motor industry. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, also pointed out something we all accept: that the great majority of existing engines cannot run on lead-free petrol and that planning for lead-free petrol by both the motor and oil industries would have to wait until at least all Community members had agreed.
We are grateful for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, dealing with the question of the EEC/Directive in this matter. If what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, says is correct, that lends support to the Question my noble friend has set down for debate.
That is the reason why the Government must take firm action with member states to ensure that there is some agreement. I would ask this question. If there is felt to be a serious health hazard in this country as a result of lead in petrol, surely we should not wait until there is an EEC directive on the matter. We would need to act ourselves.
The point has been made with regard to the oil industry that there is no problem. I noted that the marketing director of BP said that it would cost the companies very little to convert to lead-free petrol, and that this would add very little to the cost. I think most noble Lords would accept that the accepted reason for a lead additive in petrol is that it helps the anti-knock qualities of fuel. I will not go further into this, because I am sure the noble Lord who is to reply, Lord Lucas, as an automobile engineer, could leave most of us standing if we endeavoured to question this matter
I think we all accept that engines would need to be re-designed and that there would have to be modifications in engines if lead-free petrol was introduced. But already some British car manufacturers produce cars for sale in lead-free markets, such as the United States. This was confirmed by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, speaking in the Commons on 13th December last. Admittedly, he said that these were largely specialist or luxury vehicles, but the fact is that they are being made in this country for export.
My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs referred to the experience of other countries, and other noble Lords also went into that. She referred to the experience of the United States, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to an article in the Sunday Times on 23rd January this year, which dealt with a memorandum said to have been sent from the First Secretary for Science in our Embassy in Washington to the Department of Industry in London. This referred to new regulations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under which the lead in petrol used in older cars will be cut to just one-fifth of the United Kingdom's new target level, which will not take effect in this country until 1985. An Illustration was shown in the Sunday Times article. It said that those who are compaigning on this issue in this country would be able to cite this decision as moving to a 75 per cent. reduction in lead emissions on what the United States already has in older cars.
Certainly there would appear to be absolutely no technical problem to prevent the modification of car engines. Mr. John Wardle, spokesman for the British Automotive Parts Promotional Council, is reported in the press as saying:
"This industry has the technology; all the car manufacturers have engines which will run on lead-free petrol. We do not stand in its way; in fact it could mean more business for us."
Other noble Lords may have received, as I have, useful documents from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I readily accept what they say, that the industry will do whatever is required by Government regulation and will provide engines to run on whatever fuel is authorised. But they say quite clearly that there is no technical problem in making engines run on lead-free petrol. As other noble Lords have pointed out, what they have stressed is the cost that might be entailed. If those figures are correct, I

899
would still draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that quite a number of regulations on construction and use entail changes in car manufacture, require modifications and entail cost, but those changes in construction and use regulations are considered absolutely essential. The society states that in its view at least five years will be needed from the date of any Government requirement before new engines can be generally available. If, therefore, it is considered that action should be taken this, surely, is the reason why there must be an early Government decision on the whole issue.
Some noble Lords have referred to the exhaust filter put forward by the Octel Company. It is interesting that other literature put out by the same company appears to criticise the expressions of danger arising from lead in petrol. Nevertheless, it has been compelled to put forward its proposals for its new exhaust filter which it claims has been researched through Harwell and suggests that 90 per cent. of lead emission could be trapped as a result of this special exhaust filter.
It is noticeable in documents from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, although dealing with a number of other alternatives to lead additives, that no mention was made at all of the Octel proposal. Your Lordships may recall that on the 2nd August last I asked a supplementary question in your Lordships' House regarding the possibility of research into this Octel exhaust filter to be undertaken possibly by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and by the motor manufacturers themselves. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, replied that investigations were going ahead on a broad basis. I ask the Minister whether such research is taking place and when are we likely to have a report? If such research is not taking place into this proposed exhaust filter, why not? In any event, the claims of Octel must be thoroughly tested.
I put five questions. Would the residue of 10 per cent. lead be considered satisfactory, or would that still present a danger? How often would the exhaust filters need to be changed? What would happen to the discarded lead-filled filters? Would they still present a hazard? Would it be possible for regulations, presumably construction and use regulations providing for such filters, to be enforced? There would need to be periodic exchange of the filters if the product is to be successful. What would be the estimated cost to the motorist? I see none of those questions answered anywhere.
In May last the Labour Party, for whom I speak, following a study group of its own put forward a statement. I have already mentioned the position of the AMA which represents authorities covering nearly half the population of England. Both these bodies take the same view, that it is not a question of alternative options—either a reduction programme or lead-free petrol. Both these bodies take the view that Britain must proceed on both programmes with a date fixed by which all new cars manufactured in this country must be capable of running on lead-free petrol.
I conclude by quoting from a document which I received from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The document concludes:
"The Association's position is that the harm to children from current levels of environmental lead may never be proved conclusively. The issue at stake is whether the probability of harm is such that it is worth acting upon. We believe that it is and that to eliminate lead from petrol would be a single important step towards the eradication of the lead problem. The fact that it would be a gradual process before all cars ran on lead-free petrol makes it all the more important that a lead-free programme is introduced without delay."
That would appear to be the point in my noble friend's Question that the Government should bring pressure in that direction on other member states of the Community.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, first, I echo all your Lordships' words in regard to the Question of the noble Baroness: it is timely that we are having a debate on this matter. I want to answer precisely the precise Question: What initiatives are Her Majesty's Government taking to encourage Community member states to move to lead-free petrol? I must tell the noble Baroness—not a lot;and I want to explain as shortly as I possibly can why not. This is not to say that we totally disregard the Community or what the Community are doing. In fact the Commission have established a working group which is currently looking at all vehicle emission problems, and that includes lead gases and so on. It is due to report to the Commission in June. We have taken an active part in providing technical and other information. It is absolutely vital that any consideration of environmental standards for vehicles must take account of all the relevant issues. Those issues include need; the medical and energy implications; costs; technical feasibilities and so on. The Commission understand this and they have charged the working group with examining those issues. What the Commission do with the report or any other information when it comes out, is largely up to the Commission. Of course we would take note of the report.
A number of noble Lords and, indeed, the noble Baroness, have described the current situation. I do not think that there is really any point in my repeating what happens in various and other countries; it is sufficient to say that most of the European countries are moving down to the 0·15 gram per litre level.
It might be as well if I dealt at this stage with the most interesting question which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, raised with regard to the directive, in that it sets both maxima and minima. The noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that I do not know the legal position of Her Majesty's Government, and I am unlikely to know it this evening. However, I will certainly see that the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to that matter are communicated to him.
Frankly, the most important matters for us to have in the forefront of our minds when looking at lead emissions in the United Kingdom are two figures. First, during the 1970s, when the campaign for lead-free petrol or for a reduction of lead in the atmosphere was at it highest, we were emitting about 7,500 tonnes per year—that is an enormous amount and that is what prompted many of the studies and reports. In 1981, the levels were reduced and we came down to a 0·4 gram lead content per litre in petrol and the total emission was reduced to 6,700 tonnes. With the advent of the 0·15 gram lead content per litre of petrol in 1985—only two years off—we expect and calculate that the total emissions from then on will be at a level of something like 2,300 tonnes. This means that lead emissions from vehicles will very soon reach a level less than one-third of that which prevailed through the 1960s and the 1970s.
Added to that, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—a number of noble Lords have mentioned it and I shall touch upon the individual questions a little later—that it was in the urban environment, with its
902
dense traffic, that the danger was at its greatest. I have to tell him that that is not necessarily so. Heavy traffic on its own does not necessarily produce more gaseous emissions, because, in fact, today's generation of engines is so very much more efficient. First, they burn less fuel, so fewer exhaust gases are emitted. Therefore, because the volume of traffic in a particular area has gone up, it does not necessarily mean that the level of emission has gone up.
There is another perspective with regard to lead in petrol. The publicity given by pressure groups campaigning for the removal of lead is such that people might be forgiven for thinking that this is the major source of lead, and of course it is not. A number of noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, in a very robust speech, drew our attention quite sharply to the other dangers that are all about us. The Lawther Working Party, which was set up during the time of the last Labour Government, went into the matter at great length and their estimate at that time was that in most circumstances only about 10 per cent. of people's body lead came from lead in the air. However, they did say that most of that was derived from petrol-driven vehicles. Again, in some areas, we have achieved figures lower than the level which Lawther reported as dangerous. So great strides have been made there.
The fact is that it is no longer sensible to go on talking as if the total abolition of lead in petrol in the United Kingdom would make a major contribution to reducing the hazards of lead pollution. It might have been possible to talk in those terms a few years ago. but the amounts that I have described—from 6,700 tonnes per annum in 1980–81 to approximately 2,300 tonnes in 1985–86 and onwards—make it unreasonable to suppose that any other change, such as total abolition, would make anything other than a very small difference to the overall situation.
If we went along the road of the campaigners and got rid of it, very little would be achieved as we see the state of the art at this moment of time. In fact, I do not think that that is the point at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made a most interesting speech—and I rather wish that I could have made that speech, because it was a very good exposition of the technical state of engines and its relationship to the problem. But the industry can produce what is required. What we have to decide is whether it is cost effective to ask the motor car industry and the oil companies to produce engines that will operate on lead-free fuel. They could do it, but we do not think at this moment that it would be right to take this path. In fact, we think that it would be slightly counter-productive, in that it would close the door on a number of promising developments in engines, silencers, filters, and so on.
For example, if one goes into the lead absorbing silencer, by 1985, 1986 or 1987 there is a much better chance of that being much more effective than is currently proven, because, of course, when we get to 0·15 grams of lead per litre of petrol, at that time we are going to collect less lead, so the effectiveness of a filter or a collector will be that much greater. It becomes even more cost-effective. It means that if we find at that time that it is necessary to reduce even further the lead content in petrol, then we have the technical means to do it.

903
It is important to reiterate what my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith said about lead from other sources. Over 80 per cent. of the average person's body lead content comes from paint—the most common source of lead poisoning, particularly in children—and through water pipes, food cans, and from a great number of other areas. I can confirm that the home improvement grants are now available for the replacement of lead plumbing to drinking water taps and piping. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised the question of millions of houses, and could there be a campaign to advise people of this grant situation. He makes a good point there. I shall certainly ensure that my right honourable friend is made well aware of the noble Lord's thoughts of the need to raise a campaign.
In so far as flats are concerned, landlords can apply. There are separate rules for landlords of large blocks, householders and, indeed, tenants, but all are provided for in one way or another. I do not think that the noble Baroness would particularly want me to reiterate this evening details of the regulations, but they are available. It was the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, who raised the question of food. The position here is that the last regulations limiting the lead content of foods were made in October 1979. There is, however, a report on canned foods from the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee which was received last week. This is being considered now, and I have no doubt that a report will be made. Lead-soldered food cans are being progressively displaced by other types of containers.
It might be convenient if I quickly try to answer specific questions. I have to refute the arguments that the campaigners for lead-free petrol adduce as to Japan, America and Australia. Their use of such petrol is for totally different sets of circumstances which do not apply in this country or, indeed, in Europe. That is particularly so in Japan, and more specifically in the United States. Indeed, in the case of the United States experiment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred, there is evidence to suggest that the reduction of lead in people's blood was more marked in the country areas than in the cities, giving the lie, as it were, to the heavy congestion of traffic theory. Australia, rather naturally, because of their keen association in that part of the world with both America and Japan in trade and other relationships, followed suit; and they have a similar geographical problem in some cities.
I refute the suggestion that the proportion of 0·15 grams of lead per litre of petrol, to which the Government propose to move in 1985, is anything like a compromise. It is not. It is a sensible, calculated decision to achieve the maximum that might be currently achieved. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised a point regarding the response of the British public. I have not seen anything to suggest that the British public are up in arms or are wildly excited about this matter. We have produced some figures for the last seven or eight months, from June 1982. At the Department of the Environment (which my noble friend behind me looks after) and at the Department of Transport we have received communications, in the case of the former department
904
totalling 164, and in the other case, 117. These have been from Members of Parliament, members of the public, schools, and local authorities. To me that does not suggest that there is wide and growing pressure.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked, why have lead in petrol at all? I am sure that he listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who I think gave the best answer to that question that might be given this evening in the House. Of course, the oil companies say that there are no problems, as does the motor industry; given a sufficiently long lead-in time, and the money to overcome the difficulties, it can be done. Why do we wait? Well, I have explained. We do not think that we are waiting. We are moving in the next two years. Four years was the lead time to get to 0·15. Two years have passed. We are nearly there. It is the most practical and sensible way to move.
My noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith spoke about the cost to the car industry. But of course this is not at all a cost to the car industry. It is a cost to us who buy the motor cars. It is a cost to the housewife who goes to the shop to buy the goods that are carried in a van that has an internal combustion engine. So this is no internecine war between environmentalists and a lobby from the motor industry or the petrol industry. We the public will pay, and we have to work out what kind of payment we want to make. A figure of £371 million, I think, was mentioned earlier this evening as being the cost to the public in terms of petrol alone. We are not just talking about a few pence on a gallon of petrol. If we went in for lead-free petrol, we would spend a minimum of between £350 million and £370 million out of our own pockets in buying the new petrol, added to which there would be a cost arising from using more raw material. That would affect the balance of payments, taxation, everything. So again, that is an element that has to be brought into the equation.
I think that I have dealt with the particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. I was glad to note that he accepted that the evidence was rather complicated and complicating. He wanted, however, to go one way, despite that complication. We do not think that it is absolutely necessary.
I think that I have dealt with the questions of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, but I wish to say again that his exposition was absolutely splendid. I was glad to hear that he supported the current policy of Her Majesty's Government; and he said that we have to be very careful where we spend the money.
At the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that he would like us to follow the United States to "lead-free", and he urged us to give support to the EEC in moving that way. I do not think at this time the Government would like to commit themselves to such a move, for basically the reasons I have given.
As far as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is concerned, I have dealt with his question with regard to the public; also with that on heavy traffic areas and with the cost element. He quoted the motor industry. The motor industry can give the public anything they want; technology is highly advanced. But are we prepared to pay the price? It is not just money; it is resources, including human resources. I do not know the answer with regard to the question of changing

905
construction and use regulations so far as his list of five questions was concerned. I shall look at the construction and use regulations. On those five points that he raised, I think it would be more useful if I wrote to him after considering them properly.
I should like to conclude simply by saying that the physical effects of a move to lead-free petrol in terms of reduced quantities of lead in people's bodies would be minimal. Campaigners have made much of the argument that low revels of lead such as are normal in school children in our cities may have an adverse effect on behaviour and intelligence. We agree that that possibility has to be very seriously examined. That is why we have supported a number of studies—and some of those studies have been mentioned. They are by both Government agencies and outside agencies. These studies are specifically to watch this probem.
The first thing is to establish whether the lead levels which we now consider acceptable have significantly adverse effects, and, if so, how children can be most effectively helped. I want to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government are committed to programmes of reducing blood lead levels. I described them in food, in paint and so on. Local authorities have been splendid with regard to painting of houses and schools and so on. There is no complacency on the part of the Government. Present evidence gives no strong grounds to believe that the problems exist; but if it were to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of lead normally found in our children is affecting their intelligence, the Government would need to review the whole question of lead in the environment, not just the lead in petrol issue. It would be quite naive of us to suppose, if we went further than we are proposing at this time, that the removal of the small residual amount of lead in petrol could solve any problem of this nature, if indeed the problem exists.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  TRESPASS: CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT
  TRESPASS: CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT
  SENSORILY HANDICAPPED: HOUSING PROVISION
  SENSORILY HANDICAPPED: HOUSING PROVISION
  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS
  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS