Sitting of 25 April 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BARCLAYS BANK BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Anglo-Soviet Relations
    Mr. Andrew Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Soviet relations.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We shall continue to seek to broaden understanding between East and West and to improve Anglo-Soviet relations. The recent visit of Mr. Kornienko, the Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister, to London was a useful step in this process. We shall hope to build on it when my right hon. and learned Friend visits Moscow in July.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to tell the Russian leaders, when he sees them in July, of the whole of the British people's passionate wish for peace? Will he also ask the Foreign Secretary to tell the Russian leaders not to be misled by the campaigns for one-sided nuclear disarmament, which do not represent the majority view of the British people?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He will remember that the late President Andropov said that those who believed in unilateral disarmament were naive. This Government will not subject themselves to that type of accusation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister share the concern about abuses of the Soviet postal system which mean that mail posted here for recorded delivery is not delivered and is often not returned to senders here?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that such interference is a sign of the Soviet leaders' inability to allow their people to be exposed to ideas which are not approved. The whole spirit of the Helsinki agreement should facilitate such exchanges of information.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the unhelpful editorial in Pravda recently about the decision by Her Majesty's Government, rightly, to break off diplomatic relations with Libya? What representations have we made to the Soviet Union, and what response has been received?
    Mr. Rifkind: Her Majesty's ambassador raised that matter with Mr. Kornienko, the Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister, yesterday. The reply was to the effect that what appeared in Pravda did not necessarily reflect the Soviet authorities' views and that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had not yet come to a view on the matter.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Minister agree that, at a time when almost all negotiations on disarmament are deadlocked, it is very important that the arms race is not allowed to enter a new field? Will the Minister therefore strongly support proposals for the demilitarisation of outer space, which is as much a British interest as an international one?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman will he aware that the concept of the demilitarisation of outer space is attractive. We are always willing to consider constructive proposals which might lead to that end.

    Anglo-Jordanian Relations
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Jordanian relations.
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-Jordanian relations.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): We have excellent relations with Jordan. The successful state visit to Jordan last month demonstrated the close ties of friendship between our two countries. During the visit I had talks with King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan and the Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the moderate and reasonable attitude of states such as Jordan and Egypt should be reinforced by Britain? Does he further agree that after the Israeli general election we could use their responsible positions as a basis for a new diplomatic initiative?
    Mr. Luce: I agree that the stability of countries such as Jordan and Egypt is of great importance to the middle east and to us. If it turns out that King Hussein, supported by other moderate friends in the middle east, comes forward with constructive and sensible proposals which might help to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute, I am sure that we and the European Community will wish to give them every encouragement.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the stability and common sense shown by Jordan and its leaders over the years is greatly to be welcomed? Although we may not always see eye to eye on every issue, both this country and Jordan hope that there will be opportunities for progress in the middle east in which both countries can share.
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. The success of the state visit demonstrated not only the long-standing historic ties but the important close political and economic relationship that we have with Jordan.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister agree that during her successful visit to Jordan Her Majesty was made aware of a serious impediment to any further Jordanian or other

    715
    middle east peace proposals, namely, the continuing settlement policy of the Israeli Government? Unless the British and United States Governments impress upon the Israeli Government the fact that these settlements must end, there can be no further proposals from the Arab side.
    Mr. Luce: It is self-evident that there can be no prospect of any start to a dialogue about this dispute unless the neighbouring Arab countries, the Palestinians and the Israelis are prepared to take part. It is important that during the next few months, with elections pending in Israel and elsewhere, the ground is prepared by the parties involved to ascertain whether in the foreseeable future—perhaps in the autumn—it will be possible to forge ahead with discussions about the resolution of their problems.
    Mr. Walters: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the American electoral frenzy, it is unlikely that there will be any sensible American initiative on the middle east in the coming year? Does that not make it more urgent that there should be a European initiative especially to prevent the continuing policy of settlements, which is illegal and provocative?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that elections are taking place not only in the United States but in Israel hampers the prospect of any immediate move forward. I agree with my hon. Friend also that it is important that there should not be stagnation. On 27 March the European Community meeting of Foreign Ministers issued a statement giving strong support to those parties prepared to put forward constructive proposals based on two fundamental principles — the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and the right of Israel to exist within secure boundaries.
    Mr. George Robertson: What is the Minister's reaction to the apparent desire by King Hussein to involve the Soviet Union in an ultimate middle east settlement? As no settlement in the middle east is possible without the assent of both the super powers, is this not a welcome and useful step towards realism?
    Mr. Luce: The prerequisite of any progress is that the parties should agree among themselves that there is a basis for discussion. That is the most important first stage. Clearly, the United States and the Soviet Union have an interest in that part of the world, and it goes without saying that they must both play a constructive role in the longer term if there is to be a peaceful resolution of the problem.

    NATO (Budget)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation information budget for 1983–84 is in real terms compared with those of 1978–79, 1973–74 and 1968–69, respectively; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Luce: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation information budget is assessed in calendar years. The sum allocated in Belgian francs was as follows: 1969, 46,940 million; 1974, 58,000 million; 1979, 77,200 million; and 1984, 128,000 million. Over the whole period since 1969 this represents a slight decline in real terms, compared to the Belgian cost of living index. The increase in the budget since 1979, however, has been substantially greater than
    716
    the rise in the cost of living index. This increase will help to maintain the work of the NATO information service, which we strongly support.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the improvement since 1979, but must we not do still better in view of the tremendous effort of Russia and her satellites against NATO's peaceful aims? Would it not be worth sacrificing a cruise missile, a tank or an aircraft or two to obtain the funds with which to improve NATO information services?
    Mr. Luce: I know of my hon. Friend's strong interest in this matter in his capacity as chairman of the Atlantic Education Committee. He plays an active, constructive and helpful role on that score. This is the 35th anniversary of the foundation of NATO. It is an important time to remind people, especially the young, of NATO's objective. NATO is a defensive organisation designed to defend the free world against aggression. It is important that adequate sums of money are made available to explain the purposes of NATO to the British community.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Moynihanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations on the future of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Luce: The last round of talks with the Chinese Government was on 11 and 12 April, and the next will be on 27 and 28 April.
    My right hon. and learned Friend visited Peking from 15 to 18 April and Hong Kong from 18 to 20 April. In Peking he discussed the future of Bong Kong with the Chinese Foreign Minister and with other Chinese leaders. In Hong Kong he made a statement which described our approach to the negotiations. Copies of the statement have been deposited in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Moynihan: In the light of the agreement reached and the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in Hong Kong on Friday, is there now a good prospect of reaching an agreement to safeguard the continuity of the way of life of all the people in Hong Kong, both up to and beyond 1997?
    Mr. Luce: The overwhelming desire of the people of Hong Kong is to ensure the continuity of every facet of their way of life. As a result of the discussions, there is clearly a desire by both the Chinese Government and ourselves to reach an agreement to achieve that.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister accept that, while there is broad acceptance that the future of Hong Kong must be sorted out bilaterally, the British Government nevertheless may have a duty to provide a future for the people of Hong Kong, many of whom have fled from the Communist regime? Does the hon. Gentleman further accept that there may be international dimensions to the problem, which should be considered now?
    Mr. Luce: The best way in which we can serve the people of Hong Kong is to do our utmost to reach an agreement with the Chinese Government which enables the way of life of the Hong Kong people to continue as it is now. That includes their freedoms, their legal systems and their commercial way of life. That is the best contribution that we can make, and we shall do our best to achieve it.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is not one of the main concerns of many Hong Kong people the fact that if we reach a satisfactory agreement with China it is important to obtain an assurance that it will last for a long time? Is not the important question that of durability? It is important for the maintenance of confidence in Hong Kong and for its prosperity. Did my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary press that point on the Chinese Government?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the Hong Kong question. I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend pressed this matter very strongly. As my hon. Friends knows, the Chinese Government have stated that any agreement reached should last for at least 50 years from 1997. Obviously, it is important to seek an agreement between our two Governments of an international nature that is as binding as possible. However, at the end of the day, the best guarantee is the self-interest of both Governments to achieve something that allows the people of Hong Kong to continue to flourish.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support for any effort to ensure that the agreement is reduced to writing and is capable of being recognised internationally? Many people in Hong Kong have experience of previous undertakings given in 1949 being ignored. Did not many people leave China for Hong Kong because the constitution was not respected? Have not many more people been born in Hong Kong and brought up to expect those personal freedoms which we have a responsibility to ensure are continued in best measure?
    Mr. Luce: One of the values of my right hon. and learned Friend's visit to Peking last week was that he was able to discuss these matters very fully with the Chinese and to explain to them that, while we both want agreement, it is important to understand that the Chinese people living in Hong Kong must feel that their way of life, as they know it and appreciate it, can continue, and that whatever agreement is reached gives as much assurance as possible that that will take place.
    Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to follow the negotiations carried out by the Foreign Secretary during his visit to the Far East? On a matter of this complexity and delicacy, the official Opposition feel that it would be convenient if the Government would agree to a debate on the matter as soon as possible after the Foreign Secretary returns.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to debate this important subject after my right hon. and learned Friend's return.

    Lebanon
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future intitiatives he intends taking with European Economic Community partners in connection with seeking a peaceful solution to the situation in the Lebanon.
    Mr. Luce: In their statement of 27 March Foreign Ministers of the Ten reaffirmed their hope for progress
    718
    towards reconciliation in Lebanon and their support for the early withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanese territory. The initiative for making progress towards both these objectives lies first with the Lebanese parties, but we shall continue to work with them and others to help restore peace and stability in Lebanon.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that, while both the Soviet Union and the United States have interests in the area, one of the difficulties is that the two power blocs are irresolute in the pursuit of those interests, and that perhaps what is needed there is for a third party to come in, with the agreement of each side in the dispute, to try to reconcile them?
    Mr. Luce: It is very important for the internal parties and the immediate external parties concerned to see whether they can resolve the problem themselves. It is disappointing that the Lausanne conference did not succeed, but I think that any ultimate agreement that is reached can succeed only if all the parties concerned in the matter—above all, the internal parties—find a way of reconciling their differences.
    On 27 March the European Community issued a strong statement of support for reconciliation and for the withdrawal of external forces, and we shall all work very hard to support that objective.
    Mr. Marlow: In their thoughts about the situation in the Lebanon, did the Foreign Ministers accept that there is a difference between the status of the Israeli forces in the Lebanon, who got there through military adventurism and unprovoked invasion, and the Syrian forces, who were invited to be there? The difference in status is very important to the consideration of the issue.
    Mr. Luce: It is important for all external forces to withdraw. That is the most important aspect of the whole problem. It is also important for the internal parties to the conflict to resolve their differences. It is, of course, the case that the external parties concerned came in on different bases and at different stages, but the most important thing to concentrate upon is the withdrawal of all foreign forces.

    British Diplomats
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the security of British diplomats abroad.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): Security arrangements for British officials serving overseas are kept under constant review in the light of the known threat. We take this matter very seriously. The need to do so was illustrated most recently in Athens. The tragic and senseless murder of Mr. Kenneth Whitty will be deplored by the whole House which will. I feel sure, wish to register its deepest sympathy with Mrs. Whitty and her family.
    Mr. McKay: I thank the Minister for his reply. Following the closure of the embassy and the withdrawal of the diplomats from Libya—and, I understand, the acceptance by Italy to act as our mediator in that territory—what instructions or advice have been given to the United Kingdom citizens in Libya, and what arrangements are being' made to bring them home if the situation deteriorates?
    Mr. Whitney: The House will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is to make a statement about the situation in the Libyan People's Bureau, as it called, in London and on the state of affairs in Tripoli. We have issued advice to British residents in Libya.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is there any truth in newspaper reports today that the Libyan authorities are trying to prevent the movement of diplomats out of Libya? If so, will the Government remind the Libyans that that would be a complete breach of the Vienna convention?
    Mr. Whitney: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that that would indeed be a breach of the Vienna convention. I ask the House, however, to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which is to follow Question Time.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Does my hon. Friend agree that threats against the personal safety of diplomats are to some extent an occupational hazard and that international relations should not be conducted or determined on the basis of such events? Does he further agree that the proper course is to co-operate with like-minded states in having nothing to do with those states which refuse to accept the normal standards of civilised behaviour in these matters?
    Mr. Whitney: I certainly accept that it is essential that we co-operate with all like-minded states to ensure proper adherence to the conventions. The Vienna convention facilitates, and is indeed the prerequisite of, sensible relations between individual nations.
    Mr. Healey: I understand that the Home Secretary is to make a general statement on the affair between Her Majesty's Government and Libya, but will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answer two specific questions of Foreign Office concern? First, is he satisfied that the Italian Government have sufficient personnel in Tripoli to handle the potentially massive responsibilities that will fall on Italy as the protecting power with the addition of some 8,000 British citizens to the 14,000 Italian citizens for whose interests the Italian authorities are already responsible? Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt that the Libyan authorities will allow existing British personnel and their families to leave Libya by the end of the week?
    Mr. Whitney: I believe that it will be for the benefit of the House to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who will seek to cover both the Home Office points and the Foreign Office points to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. In general, I can tell the House that we are grateful to the Italian Government for agreeing to act as the protecting power. We are hopeful that the arrangements that we are making for our own people in Libya and the advice that we have given to diplomatic personnel and to other British subjects in Libya will ensure their safety.

    Argentina
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in bilateral negotiations with the Argentine Government.
    Mr. Whitney: On 6 April the Swiss protecting power delivered our response to the Argentine comments on the
    720
    specific ideas that we put forward on 26 January. We are ready for official talks on the normalisation of relations between our two countries. Such talks cannot include discussion of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that in Paris yesterday Senor Caputo spoke in conciliatory terms about what he called a diplomatic dialogue with Britain and a policy of small steps? Will the Government now state clearly that they are prepared to enter into negotiations in the spirit suggested by Senor Caputo and on a two-tier basis, taking smaller, bilateral matters first and perhaps putting the whole subject of sovereignty on the back burner? Does the Minister agree that if the Government's response is seen to be both negative and tardy we shall risk losing the support of our European partners on this matter?
    Mr. Whitney: I do not believe that the Government's initiatives can be described as tardy or lacking in forward movement, as it was our proposals in January which initiated the dialogue that we have sustained so far. As I have said, we now await the response to our reply of 6 April. I repeat, however, that none of the talks that we have proposed can include discussion of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. McCrindle: Would there be any advantage in seeking to begin discussions on the possibility of increasing Anglo-Argentine trade, perhaps as a forerunner to the type of discussion to which my hon. Friend refers?
    Mr. Whitney: I am happy to confirm that the Government are interested in the normalisation of many aspects of our relations with Argentina, and trade would certainly be foremost among those.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there not ominous evidence that the Argentine military have not gone away, in that the Argentine Government have ordered six submarines? Would it not be in our national interest to help the civilian Government of Mr. Caputo as much as possible? What is the British content—in terms of navigation equipment and other electronics — of the submarines built for Argentina in West Germany under licence to Buenos Aires?
    Mr. Whitney: The policy of the Argentine Government on arms purchases is a matter for that Government. It is for us to ensure the security of the Falkland Islands. We very much look forward to a formal declaration by the Argentine Government of the cessation of hostilities and the renunciation of future force. I am not in a position to answer the technical part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Dr. M.S. Miller: Some of the surface equipment built for Argentina came from this country. That being so, is the the hon. Gentleman happy about the fact that the new submarines are to be built in Germany?
    Mr. Whitney: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the content of the submarines. Our own relationship with Germany has been honoured in terms of the solidarity shown by West Germany, as by our other European allies, in our relations with Argentina.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend, through the British interests section, pursuing the case of Daisy Hobson, a British citizen who has been incarcerated in Argentina for eight years, having been tried in a travesty of a case by the military junta? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that

    721
    he will pursue this case and try to ensure an early release? There are signs that the new Government will release Daisy Hobson soon. For example, she is now held in an open prison.
    Mr. Whitney: We are pursuing that case closely and hope very much that the action that is contemplated will be effective.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it the policy of the Government that any bilateral talks with Argentina will cover the Falkland Island and not the Falkland Islands dependencies?
    Mr. Whitney: Our interest is in restoring normal relations with Argentina. We are quite clear about our relationship, in terms of sovereignty, to the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Island dependencies.

    Commonwealth Countries
    Mr. Robert Banksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to improve understanding and communication between the Governments and the peoples of Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Whitney: We play an active part in the full range of Commonwealth activities. We fully support and endorse the programmes of the Commonwealth Secretariat, Commonwealth Foundation and Commonwealth Institute in achieving a greater under-standing amongst members of the Commonwealth.
    About two-thirds of our bilateral aid budget is devoted to Commonwealth countries. In addition, we continue as part of our diplomatic efforts—within our financial and manpower limitations—to do all that we can to improve understanding and communication.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that Her Majesty the Queen makes an outstanding contribution to the sense of cohesion and understanding between members of this remarkable free association? Will he pursue all avenues to improve education, student exchange and mutual aid within the Commonwealth framework?
    Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution of Her Majesty the Queen to the unique character of the Commonwealth, and to assure him that the Government will continue — within the limitations of the resources available — to encourage student exchange and co-operation.
    Mr. Spearing: Has the Minister seen recent press reports about the unsatisfactory nature of public electricity and water supplies in Grenada? In view of the fact that the Select Committee paid attention to those matters in January, and that those items are part of the British aid package to Grenada, will the hon. Gentleman find out whether there is any fault in communications between Her Majesty's Government and the authorities in Grenada?
    Mr. Whitney: I shall be happy to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to that point. I remind the House that we have contributed £1·75 million in special assistance to Grenada. We shall reply to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Grenada towards the end of May.
    Viscount Cranbourne: No doubt my hon. Friend will have read press reports in the past few days about
    722
    increasing offers of investment by the Soviet Union in the expansion of the Indian Navy. Does he feel that the remarkable increase in the power of the Indian Navy that such investment implies will increase understanding between Commonwealth nations — especially those which are members of NATO — in view of the increasing threat to the area represented by the Soviet Union's recent offensive in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Whitney: We seem to be going some way from the original question. India co-operates closely with the British Government within the Commonwealth. I assure my hon. Friend that although there might be co-operation between India and the Soviet Union there is substantial co-operation between British industries, including defence industries, and the Republic of India.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does the Minister agree that nothing will damage Commonwealth co-operation and development more than the prospective tour of South Africa by the English Rugby Football Union? Is it not time that the Government followed up their hitherto fairly tough words with an even more robust attitude to the tour so that its damaging implications for the Commonwealth games can be avoided?
    Mr. Whitney: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government have used tough words in regard to the proposed tour by the English Rugby Football Union. I hope that he will also accept that we live in a country in which individuals and societies such as the English Rugby Football Union must make their own decisions in such matters.

    South Africa (Trade)
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the political implications of United Kingdom trading links with South Africa.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is our policy that civil trade should be determined by commercial considerations. This implies neither approval nor disapproval of the policies of the countries concerned.
    Mr. Pike: As there has been little progress in making South Africa change its policy of apartheid, which is utterly unacceptable and condemned throughout the world, is it not time that the Government considered taking steps towards a full and effective trade ban with South Africa and attempted a ban on direct and indirect investment there to make South Africa rethink its policy?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has provided no evidence to suggest that an economic ban would have the effect which he obviously desires. He should also take into account the fragile economic circumstances of some countries surrounding South Africa and the devastating effect that an embargo on trade with South Africa would have on countries in the region.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in regard to South Africa? Does he agree that many countries and many right hon. and hon. Members apply double standards over South Africa, as there are many countries that have far more repressive societies than South Africa and yet they are never criticised?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the danger of applying double standards. There are many oppressive regimes in various parts of the world but I must add that South Africa is the only country, that applies a policy of segregation based on the colour of its citizens.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister consider severing trade with South Africa in commodities such as athletes, who are coming to Britain in search of pseudo-national glory and newspaper circulation?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government observe the United Nations mandatory embargo on arms sales. We do not believe it appropriate to restrict other forms of trade or to restrict the movement of individuals who wish to travel to South Africa or from that country to Britain.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that we should not take too much notice of financial interests, as expressed on the Conservative Benches, but that we should run down our trade with South Africa? Does he further agree that that aim is not achieved by building up sporting links with South Africa through allowing the British rugby team to go there?
    Mr. Rifkind: Those who have visited South Africa in recent years will have noticed that the economic impossibility of apartheid is becoming increasingly obvious throughout South African society. Today one sees the blacks playing an economic role in South Africa that is significantly different from what would have been found some years ago. It is difficult to believe that a policy of economic embargo, even if it were to be successful, would assist in that progress.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present moves by certain Labour authorities to victimise a young British citizen in pursuance of their hatred of South Africa is entirely reprehensible?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that local authorities should take into account their proper responsibilities and not seek to involve themselves in matters for which they are not accountable to their ratepayers.
    Mr. Anderson: May we applaud the Minister's willingness to tell his own side the fact of life that no other country in the world discriminates against the majority of its population on the grounds of colour? In view of our longer-term and trading interests in the rest of Africa, will he seek to discourage new investment by British firms in South Africa?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the people of South Africa, black or white, for Britain or the international community to impose an economic embargo against South Africa. Nor do I believe that it would be possible in practice to enforce such an embargo even if it were attempted.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Political Integration
    Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council proposals for increased
    724
    political integration of the European Community have been discussed; and what has been the attitude of the Government to these proposals.
    Mr. Rifkind: There has been no discussion of any proposals for increased political integration at recent meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council.
    Dr. Godman: As a score or more of British Conservative MEPs recently voted in favour of the Spinelli proposals for closer political integration of the European states, is it now Government policy to work towards closer political integration of the EEC — in other words, a united states of Europe? If a closer political integration of the EEC takes place in future, which would include Spain, how would that affect the sovereignty of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Rifkind: I understand that the vote to which the hon. Gentleman referred was a free vote among Conservative Members of the European Parliament and it is for individual Members of the European Parliament to take responsibility for the way in which they voted on that occasion. It is not the Government's policy to work towards a united states of Europe. We have made it clear that access between Spain and Gibraltar must be identical to that between Spain and other parts of the European Community when Spain joins the EEC.
    Mr. Stokes: On the question of political integration in Europe, have we had any support at all from any of our partners in the EEC over the Libyan embassy episode?
    Mr. Rifkind: I ask my hon. Friend to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He will be addressing the House shortly on that matter.
    Mr. Rogers: How does the Minister reconcile his answer that the Government are not looking towards the political integration of Europe with the statements made by the Prime Minister on her return from various summit meetings at Dublin, Luxembourg, Stuttgart and Athens, which contain specific proposals and ideas for developing political integration in Europe? Is the Minister not now fully acquainted with what the Prime Minister is doing behind his back?
    Mr. Rifkind: There are many areas in which we wish to work towards greater European unity. However, the Government have always made it clear that the concept of a federal Europe — which is what I think the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was referring to—is not something that commends itself to them.
    Mr. Forman: I understand that the prospect of a federal Europe may not be attractive to the Government, but will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what form of increased political integration the Government do favour?
    Mr. Rifkind: There are many areas of political co-operation where greater European unity can be of great value. For example, in many aspects of political co-operation over foreign policy the Community has been able to speak with a single voice. Wherever it is able to do so it carries that much greater authority than any individual Member state of the Community would be able to do on such issues. There may be other areas where closer political co-operation can be of value, not only to Britain, but to the interests of western Europe as a whole.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that at this morning's meeting of the national executive committee of the Labour party we came out conclusively against any further moves towards political integration, especially on the ground that the Common Market has cost the British taxpayer £4,000 million in the last 10 years in contributions alone, it has now gone bankrupt, and it is asking for another £1,600 million? How on earth can he get integration when the whole thing is in a state of collapse?
    Mr. Rifkind: When the hon. Gentleman refers to a state of collapse, I am not sure whether he is talking about the Community or the Labour party. Whatever problems the European Community may have in trying to achieve unity, they are nothing compared with the attempts of his own party.

    Budget Rebate
    Mr. McTaggartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he is considering for applying the funds which are due to the United Kingdom as its rebate from the European Community.
    Mr. Rifkind: The draft regulations put forward by the Commission after discussion with Her Majesty's Government provide for Community contributions to United Kingdom public sector projects, measures and schemes in the field of employment, energy and transport.
    Mr. McTaggart: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he give the House an assurance that he will seek urgently to ensure that all the outstanding funds from the European Community come to the United Kingdom, and that those funds are applied to help the people in my constituency who have witnessed their homes being flooded out twice this year already by the River Cart bursting its banks?
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our objective to ensure an early payment of these funds. The United Kingdom has submitted a list of projects to the Commission, including a number of projects in Scotland in the three sectors to which I referred. I cannot comment at present on whether the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has made is included in the projects.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend consider applying some of the funds that will be available from the rebate due to this country to help the dairy farmers of this country, who have been placed in the most impossible position by the agriculture package that was agreed in Brussels? Will he give this assurance and recognise that if he does it will be no more than the assurances that have been given to many other industries, such as steel and coal, which have been subjected to restructuring within the European Economic Community?
    Mr. Rifkind: The funds to which my hon. Friend refers, and the purposes for which they are to be used, have already been determined. As to the position of dairy farmers, a comprehensive statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We are very conscious of the genuine difficulties that will be faced by dairy farmers in the United Kingdom. However, I think that most thoughtful dairy farmers will appreciate that it was not possible for the Community to
    726
    continue in the way that had been experienced over the past few years, particularly with regard to the over-production of milk.
    Mr. Foulkes: Before deciding how to spend the money, does the Minister agree that we have to get the rebate? Does he recall that his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly assured the House that, if the money is not paid, the Government will safeguard British interests? Since it is now 25 April and the money has not yet been paid, will the Minister tell the House and the public exactly what is being done to safeguard British interests with regard to this rebate? If, as I suspect, nothing is being done, when will he be able to tell the House what is going to be done? Surely the British electorate will not be allowed to go to the polls on 14 June without knowing what decisive action the Government are to take on this important matter'?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the prime objective of Her Majesty's Government is the successful completion of the post-Stuttgart negotiations. With regard to any measures that may be taken to try to facilitate the payment of the funds to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, any action that may be contemplated will take into account the effect that that will have on these negotiations. The success of the negotiations remains our main objective.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Are these projects in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the other regions of the United Kingdom being held back until the rebate is released by the Community to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain of the detailed effects that the delay will have. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman addresses these questions to the relevant Ministers concerned with energy, employment and transport matters. We certainly hope that there will be no delay, but I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute guarantee to that effect.

    Community Finance
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he is taking within the Community to ensure the resolution of matters relating to the financing of the Community discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 March.
    Mr. Rifkind: We are continuing, in discussions within the Community, to build on the progress made at the March European Council to resolve the remaining differences and to reach a settlement that we can commend to the House.
    Mr. Maxton: The Minister has already made it clear that the negotiations will continue. For how long will they continue, and when will Britain get the money that is due to it? If we are not to receive that money, will the Minister now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about what action he will take to ensure that the money is paid?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the issues that were on the agenda for the Stuttgart negotiations have already been substantively and satisfactorily concluded. The only significant outstanding issue is that of British budget contributions. The gap

    727
    between the United Kingdom and other member states is relatively narrow, but the matters still to be resolved are important. We have made it clear that the matter must be seen as a package. There can be no agreement on or consideration of own resources or other parts of the package until the outstanding issues have been resolved.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: As Britain now has a manufacturing trade deficit of £20 million a day with the Common Market, as our contributions are now more than £2 million a day, and as we are just about to inflict grave damage on British agriculture because of the enormous problems of the continental CAP, have the Government turned their mind entirely against the possibility of once again seeking an EFTA arrangement with the Common Market?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be aware that not only have imports from the Community increased during the past 10 years but that our exports to the Community have increased dramatically, which has had a beneficial effect on employment. The Government do not believe that an EFTA-type arrangement is appropriate. We are full members of the Community. We wish to see reforms in the Community and that is what the present negotiations are all about.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Government's opposition to an increase in the resources of the Community include opposition to the latest proposal by the Commission for a loan of £280 million from Britain to cover the excess expenditure on agriculture? Do the Government accept that it would be plain daft for Britain to lend fresh money to a body that has yet to pay the rebates due to us? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will not pre-empt a decision of the House on own resources by agreeing to this loan, which must be repaid out of the increased own resources, before the House has had an opportunity to decide whether it accepts that increase in own resources?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have not yet received a formal request from the Commission for a loan such as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had entered into the minutes of the Agriculture Ministers' meeting a statement to the effect that if any overspend arose from that agricultural settlement, the United Kingdom expected the cost of the overspend to be met within the existing budgetary provisions of the Community for the current financial year.

    Community Expenditure
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the likely levels of expenditure by the Community for 1983, 1984 and 1985, respectively.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Community budgets for 1983 and 1984 provide for expenditure of about £14·7 billion in each year. The preliminary draft budget for 1985 will be published in June.
    Mr. Marlow: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), will my hon. Friend state categorically that we will not agree to any loan to the European Community this year, the effect of which would be to allow for an increase in agricultural expenditure,
    728
    which Her Majesty's Government are against, and which would also be a device for securing that our rebate would not come back to us but would be swallowed up as a loan, or at least the bulk of it?
    Mr. Rifkind: Our view remains that if budgetary problems arise later in this financial year steps should be taken to reduce expenditure.
    Mr. Deakins: In the opinion of the Government, have the problems of controlling agricultural expenditure in the Community now been satisfactorily resolved?
    Mr. Rifkind: The agriculture decisions taken some weeks ago represent an important step forward in that, for the first time, the Community took decisions that will make a material contribution towards reducing surpluses and apply other methods of controlling the disagreeable aspects of the CAP. We would not suggest that, as a consequence, the CAP will be exactly as we would wish it, but we believe that for the first time decisions have been taken that will bring agricultural expenditure under control so that it will represent a decreasing share of Community expenditure. That has been a major British objective for many years.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Government are rightly exercising strict control over most forms of public spending, the people of Britain find it very hard to understand on what grounds an increase in own resources of the EEC can be justified?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will be aware that the United Kingdom Government and almost all Governments within the Community, including the French Socialist Government, seek to control public expenditure. We have emphasised that it would be wrong for the Community to expect different criteria to apply to its own expenditure from those set by national Governments.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps I can assist the Minister by clarifying the Government's attitude to the proposed loan. The request has not been formally received by the Government, but we all know of the Commission's decision last week. Are the Government saying to the House that when that application is formally received by the Government they will reject an application for fresh money from Britain?
    Mr. Rifkind: We shall respond to a formal request from the Commission when that is received. The Government have already said that if there is overspend during the current financial year, that will have to be met by economies in existing budgetary provisions.

    Community Policies
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community colleagues for the development of Community policies.
    Mr. Rifkind: The European Council reached a large measure of agreement on new policies in March, reflecting the Government's priorities. We are pressing for the necessary follow-up action to be taken as soon as possible in the relevant specialist Councils.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say what progress has been made towards the creation of a genuinely free market

    729
    in goods and services within the Community, as outlined in the Government publication, "Britain and the European Community—A Positive Approach"?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the organisation usually referred to as the Common Market has achieved such a description in terms of its agricultural policy rather than its internal markets. The Government have given high priority to achieving a more genuine internal market, especially in insurance and service industries. Encouraging progress has been made in the Stuttgart negotiations and we have achieved broad agreement on the need for a liberalisation of trade and services, notably in transport and insurance.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister said that he was struggling through negotiations on internal budgetary discipline and a new formula. The Government have set out the grounds for an increase of own resources to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 leading to 1·8 per cent. in 1988. The deadline for the conclusion of negotiations for the entry of Spain and Portugal will be in August. As those policies are incumbent upon the increase in own resources, will the Minister say to what extent he has committed the country to such an increase to develop them?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are not committed to an increase in own resources. Their attitude remains that outlined by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: On the question of the increase in own resources, does my hon. Friend agree that the British Government's negotiating stance is that own resources will be increased if our budgetary requests are acceded to? Would it not be helful in those negotiations, and to the House, if my hon. Friend spelt out the purposes for which the increases in own resources will be used?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have said that we understand that certain arguments have been used to explain why an increase in own resources would be appropriate. They relate to the likely accession of Spain and Portugal to the
    730
    Community, to some appropriate new policies and to possible increases in the regional and social funds. I must emphasise that an increase in own resources can be considered only if satisfactory agreement is reached on the British budget contribution and if there is proper control of agriculture and Community expenditure.
    Mr. Maclennan: What progress have the Government made in the liberalisation of air transport within the European Community? Can the Minister say what prospect he sees for bringing down the unacceptably high level of air fares within the Community?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that the liberalisation of air transport is an important objective of Government policy. He will bring forward proposals later this week, to be discussed at subsequent meetings of Community Ministers.

    Outstanding Problems (Resolution)
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any new initiatives he will propose to resolve outstanding current problems between members of the European Community.
    Mr. Rifkind: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is it not true that the gap on the budget problem has narrowed considerably? As we are negotiating with countries that are friends and allies, not enemies, might not a further move be required on our part to ensure that we find a speedy and satisfactory conclusion to the problem?
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government have shown considerable flexibility on this matter. We remain of the view that flexibility is required by all parties involved. If the United Kingdom is to be expected to move on this matter, it must be even easier for the other nine member states also to move to reach a satisfactory solution.

Coal Industry Dispute
3.31 pm
Mr. Stanley Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the current coal mining dispute.
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): There are pits working normally today in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Cumbria and north Wales. That means that over 35,000 men in over 40 collieries will again today demonstrate their readiness to continue working. Allowing for holidays and maintenance work, that is a level of activity fully consistent with that of last week and the previous week, when Parliament was still sitting. Picketing continues, but it has not deterred those intent on reporting for work.
Coal stocks at power stations are at a high level for the time of year, sufficient to enable the electricity industry to meet demand for many months. The National Coal Board and the coal trade are maintaining at least limited supplies to most other major customers.
The chairman of the NCB has made it clear that the board, for its part, is ready to continue discussion of the industry's long-term problems and how best to achieve the restructuring necessary to realise the high-volume low-cost industry which is the board's aim. It is a matter of regret to all those who want to see the industry resolve its present difficulties that the National Union of Mineworkers has not attended any of the recent meetings of the industry's consultative committees, including the joint meeting today of the Coal Industry National Consultative Council and the Coke Oven National Council.
I understand that the national delegate conference of the NUM decided last Thursday to amend its rules so that no more than a simple majority would be required to carry a motion in a national ballot concerning industrial action but that the opportunity of consulting the union's membership through a ballot on the present dispute was again forgone.
Mr. Orme: The reply that the Minister has just given to the House is totally unsatisfactory. The real responsibility for the dispute lies with the Government. The dispute is about jobs, the survival of whole communities and the future of a vital industry, yet after seven weeks of a major coal strike the Government have taken no action to reach a solution.
I should like to ask the Minister the following questions. To what extent are the Government subsidising the NCB to hold out against the strike? How much taxpayers' money is being used to fund the fight against the miners, money that would be better spent keeping pits open and jobs intact? What is the extra cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of the increased use of oilburn and nuclear power to generate electricity? How is that being paid for? What are the effects of the dispute on important sectors of manufacturing industry? How can the Minister justify the closure of Cortonwood and Polmaise collieries? How can the closure of those modern pits advance the interests of the industry? Where do they fit into Mr. Ian MacGregor's picture of so-called uneconomic pits?
How do the proposals made in the press yesterday by Mr. MacGregor differ from his original plan to sack
732
20,000 miners and close 25 pits? What efforts are the Government making to achieve fresh negotiations that would put aside the closure plans and result in a plan for the coal industry agreed by both unions and management?
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not present to answer my final question. He and the Minister have obligations to the coal industry. Will they now assume those responsibilities and sort out the energy policy for this energy-rich country? That policy must be based on long-term planning, as opposed to short-term financial targets, and must recognise the importance of coal as a fuel for the future.
Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the future for coal, which is primarily within the hands of the industry itself. The future for coal has been underwritten by this Government and their predecessors, inasmuch as large volumes of taxpayers' money have gone into the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to subsidy. I remind him that about £1 billion is going in each year from other workers through their taxes to sustain this industry, and that there is investment of £2 million a day. That is an extremely high level of investment.
It is because we have provided very substantial sums of money that the industry can look forward to a viable and high-production future. That objective is fully shared by the board, and it has been widely recognised within the industry. That is why 40,000 miners are today working for the future of the industry. I very much hope that there will be some response to the view that, given these consultative committees, the NUM should join in these discussions.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that every day last week up to 300 flying pickets from Yorkshire invaded the tiny port of Glasson Dock in my constituency despite the fact that most Lancashire miners would like to work unless and until a national ballot votes that they should all strike?
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. Pickets are in attendance throughout the coalfields in an attempt to deter those seeking to go to work. It is the Government's objective to see that they have that right and to ensure that that right is preserved.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman support Mr. MacGregor's recent statement that no miner will be forced to accept redundancy? If that is an honourable intention, and if the 20,000 miners whom Mr. MacGregor intends to make redundant all refuse to accept redundancy pay, how will he be able to close the 25 pits?
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the NCB will determine how the redundancy scheme will operate, and he also knows full well that the NCB has made the offer genuinely. It intends to see that this year, as last year, there are no involuntary redundancies in the programme.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tragic dilemma of those miners, particularly in Wales, who wish to safeguard their excellent labour reputation by continuing to work in the present difficult circumstances? Will he give them the consolation of assuring them that the Government's commitment to the coal industry remains entire?
Mr. Shaw: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that the commitment to the Point of Ayr development is just as strong.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why will the Secretary of State not take the positive step of summoning a meeting of the chairman of the board and the president of the union with one item alone on the agenda—"Plan for Coal"—and how it can best be implemented?
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, given the present position in the industry, the board and those who work in it have the capacity to resolve this issue. Clearly, the NUM is split on this matter. It is not feasible for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that somehow this can be resolved by a wave of the wand from outside.
Mr. Andy Stewart: As the Nottinghamshire miners have voted to continue to work, and have shown that they will continue to do so, is it not time that the NCB implemented the new wage proposals that have been on the table since last year? Out of respect for those miners who voted against a strike, it would be only right if they received the increased pay award.
Mr. Shaw: I note what my hon. Friend says, and the House will be aware that the Nottinghamshire miners have been forthright in their acceptance of their duty to work for the future of their industry. The matter of payment is one for the National Coal Board.
Mr. Alec Woodall: The Minister has just made great play about the large stocks held by the Central Electricity Generating Board—enough, he says, to keep the electricity supply going for the next few months. is he aware that a few weeks ago an appeal was made to the officers of the Yorkshire area of the NUM by the British Steel Corporation at Scunthorpe for 16,000 tonnes of coal to be released to keep that steelworks open? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the coal required is high quality coking coal, the coal that is produced at Cortonwood, but the National Coal Board cannot supply those 16,000 tonnes of coal for Scunthorpe? This is where the dispute started. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will tell Mr. MacGregor to withdraw the closure notices and bring this silly dispute to an end?
Mr. Shaw: No, I shall not give any assurance on that, because, as the House should know by now, the National Coal Board runs its business and it is not the business of the Government to intervene. As to the hon. Gentleman's question, I am glad that arrangements have been made to ensure supplies to the Scunthorpe steelworks. However, as I think I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, consultative procedures can be initiated on Cortonwood if the NUM is willing to do so.
Mr. John Hannam: Will my hon. Friend refute the unfounded allegations made by Mr. Scargill on "The World at One" yesterday that in some way the Government have broken the terms of "Plan for Coal" of 1974? Is it not the case that the Government have upheld their agreement by investing in the coal industry throughout the years and that it is the NUM that has broken the agreement by preventing the agreed closure programme of the uneconomic pits?
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. Investment is one of the important factors in "Plan for Coal", and the amount invested is far higher than envisaged. The productivity
734
increase of 4 per cent. per annum that was aimed at has not been achieved, and it was only last year that we achieved a 4·7 per cent. increase. The reduction in capacity was expected to be about 3 or 4 million tonnes per year, but less than half that has been achieved. My hon. Friend is right. The Government have kept their promises in terms of "Plan for Coal."
Mr. Alexander Eadie: For how much longer will the hon. Gentleman deceive the House and the country that this is just a local dispute, when 80 per cent. of the miners are on strike? Are the hon. Gentleman and his Government prepared to do something constructive? Why do they not call a meeting of the tripartite inquiry, over which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could preside, to try to bring an end to this dispute through conciliation rather than confrontation?
Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman is after conciliation, why does he not advocate a national ballot on this issue?
Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed number of pit closures is smaller than the number of pit closures carried out by the Labour Administration? Is not this strike nothing to do with pit closures and everything to do with politics? Is it not a disgraceful fact that Mr. Scargill, as head of the National Union of Mineworkers, refuses to negotiate?
Mr. Shaw: It is a fact that the president of the NUM has drawn his own conclusions as to what the dispute is about. It is equally incontrovertible that the future of the industry is critical, but the people who are being most damaged by what is going on are the miners, and the future of the industry is at stake.
Mr. Martin Redmond: How does the Minister equate Mr. MacGregor's recent statement about his willingness to phase in the colliery closures programme over a longer period with the Prime Minister's statement, made on two occasions to the House, that the closure programme is being scheduled? Would not the country be better served on this occasion if the Prime Minister went back to the corner shop?
Mr. Shaw: The chairman of the National Coal Board has made it clear in the consultative committee—it met again this morning — that he is prepared to discuss matters with those who are concerned with the long-term future of the industry and that the restructuring of the industry is an essential part of those discussions. Those discussions have been held with several unions in the industry. So far, the National Union of Mineworkers has refused to be a party to them.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the gravest consequence of the strike is upon our steel industry and those who work in it whose jobs depend on coal, and upon our coal miners whose jobs depend on supplying the steel industry? Does he agree, further, that it seems apparent that the National Union of Mineworkers and its leadership are quite prepared to see the steel industry sacrificed upon the altar of Arthur Scargill's political ambition?
Mr. Shaw: I understand fully my hon. Friend's concern with the steel industry. So far the arrangements are very tenuous. They have been made to try to maintain some supplies of coal into the steel industry. It must be recognised that this is a very fragile arrangement arid that the future of the steel industry is clearly at risk.
Mr. Jack Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that the Central Electricity Generating Board, as a result of the dispute, is buying oil at a cost of £15 million a week to the taxpayer? In view of the fact that we are being told constantly that there are sufficient coal stocks to last until the autumn, is not some deception being practised at the moment?
Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear that there are sufficient stocks available to carry us through well into the autumn and for many months after that. Of course, oilburn has to be done where supplies of coal are restricted. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if proper precautions were not taken.
Mr. Rob Hayward: Is not it unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) did not include in his comments some encouragement to the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, Mr. Scargill, to meet Mr. MacGregor, as he has been invited to do?
Mr. Shaw: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has heard my hon. Friend's observations. The fact remains that the president of the National Union of Mineworkers has his own view of what the dispute is about.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Mineworkers desires an end to the strike on reasonable terms? Is he aware, further, that the union's representatives will not negotiate at consultative meetings but will insist on conciliation meetings, which are quite different and are laid down under the nationalisation Act? Will the Minister now persuade the chairman of the National Coal Board to invite NUM representatives to meet him? It appears that Mr. MacGregor has asked every reporter and every pundit on television and radio, but has not contacted officials of the NUM. Will the Minister put pressure on the chairman to invite NUM representatives direct so that they can negotiate under the conciliation machinery?
Mr. Shaw: The National Union of Mineworkers knows full well that there are consultative meetings which involve all the unions in the industry and that they meet regularly. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been several such meetings in recent weeks. He will also know that the National Union of Mineworkers has declined to attend. The discussions are available. The chairman of the National Coal Board has reiterated his willingness to see full union representation round the table. The National Union of Mineworkers can send its representatives if it wishes.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Has my hon. Friend any information about the cost of the private armies that are marauding round the north midlands trying to persuade fellow workers not go to their places of work? What are their rates of pay, and who is financing them?
Mr. Shaw: I have no information of the kind described by my hon. Friend. I remind him that the miners themselves are losing substantial amounts of money. It is absurd that other people are trying to prevent them from resuming their earnings.
Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware that miners, too, are losing money? Is he also aware of the remit that MacGregor was given when he was appointed
736
by the Prime Minister? He has ratted on his remit. Therefore, is not the best way out of the dispute to sack MacGregor and get someone else into the chairmanship who will negotatte with Arthur Scargill?
Mr. Shaw: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has always expressed on Welsh coal matters. But he is quite wrong on this issue. He is quite wrong when he suggests that the remit has been reneged upon. The remit given to the chairman of the National Coal Board was virtually identical to that given to his predecessor and concerns the future viability of the industry. If the hon. Gentlemen is really concerned about that, he should be working now to achieve that structural viability.
Mr. Tony Favell: Would the Minister agree that it is all very well for Opposition Members to talk about negotiations but that there is little point in Mr. MacGregor negotiating with Mr Scargill until he knows whether Mr. Scargill even has the confidence of his own members? Does he agree that until such time as a national ballot is held, Mr. MacGregor cannot know that?
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. It was demonstated here today that about 35,000 miners in the industry are working — [Interruption.] — that about 35,000 to 40,000 miners are working in the industry. [Interruption.] The fact remains that, until a national ballot is held, the president of the union does not know precisely what his people really want.
Several Hon. Members rose——>
Mr. Speaker: Order. Although this is a private notice question, in view of the interest by hon. Members with mining constituencies and others I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is it not clear that, despite everything that the Government and Mr. MacGregor have said, they have totally failed to persuade a vast majority in the NUM to accept—[Hon. Members: "How do you know?"]—as evidenced by the fact that a national overtime ban has been going on and that 80 per cent. of the miners are involved in industrial action. Is it not clear that the Government and Mr. MacGregor have totally failed to persuade NUM members that it is right to go for a massive policy of pit closures?
Despite all the assurances by Ministers, is it not clear that the Government cannot maintain the energy supplies needed by industry? Is it not also a fact that support by the transport unions shows that many millions of people in Britain recognise that the miners, by their action, are safeguarding the nation's future energy supplies?
Mr. Shaw: I hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman's last statement is consistent with his previous statement. A 4 per cent. reduction in production or output is required of the industry in the next year. That can hardly be stated to be a massive reduction in the industry's capacity. With a £2 million investment per day there is no suggestion of a major cut in resources to the industry.
Mr. Benn: That is not correct.
Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman must get the facts right. If the coal industry is to have a future it must produce volume priced according to the market and not just according to what is in the ground at the time.
Mr. Frank Haynes: When will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and admit that Ian MacGregor

737
is doing this Government's dirty work? Bearing in mind that Ian MacGregor has already announced 20 pit closures, will the Minister say whether, if he gets away with those 20 closures, another 20 will close?
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, after the discussions about the future of the coal industry, there is agreement that contraction must take place. There can be no question of retaining every single pit. We now require acceptance that, if that objective is not reached soon, the prospects for the British coal industry in terms of competing with world supplies are remote.
Mr. David Young: Does the Minister recognise that, apart from the political ping-pong, we are talking about a national asset, the jobs of people and the future of industry? When will the Minister stop looking as detached as an undertaker at a funeral? When will he intervene to bring the two sides together?
Mr. Shaw: It is absurd to suggest that we are not directly concerned with the industry's future. This Government have done more than most of their predecessors to demonstrate that determination by increasing investment and by ensuring that the industry has redundancy terms which are better than any other industry has had.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Minister explain why this Government are prepared to ensure that marginally uneconomic oilfields receive money from the taxpayer as a result of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Act which went through the House in the last 12 months, whereas marginal pits which are likely to last much longer cannot receive the same assistance to keep them open? Is it not a nonsense to spend £850 million currently on the strike together with the £500 a week that it costs to police the strike in the Midlands? Will the Minister look at the long-term aspects? Does he agree that this winter we started with 53 million tonnes of coal in stock, that we shall start next winter with less than 30 million tonnes in stock but that we shall be better placed then than we were in 1972 and 1974?
Mr. Shaw: No, Sir.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sad fact is that the people who will be hit hardest by the strike are likely to be the miners? Is that not because the leader of the NUM is seeking to pursue his political ends in that action? When the miners have been balloted nationally, as they should have been, they will show that they fully understand that position. Will the Government show that they fully understand the anxiety in communities direly affected by the pit closures by pursuing the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to establish an NCB industry company to do the type of work that the British Steel Corporation (Industry) Ltd. did after the closure of steel plants?
Mr. Shaw: I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but the characteristics of the coal industry are vastly different from those affecting the steel industry, in which large plants were sited in isolated communities. We are dealing with a more widespread issue. For many years, a traditional method has been established to deal with that issue.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Can the Under-Secretary of State tell the miners in my constituency, especially those formerly employed at Bogside, how much credence they can place on Mr. MacGregor's view on rephasing pit closures when at Bogside there is a clear sign of industrial vandalism on the part of management? On 12 April when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) met him, Mr. MacGregor had not taken the trouble to read the report on the events leading to the cessation of production at Bogside. How much credence can the miners in my constituency give to the attitudes of a man who is paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to disregard what is happening to vital national assets?
Mr. Shaw: I fully understand the position to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have discussed that problem together. The fact remains that the NCB did not take any action conducive to the loss of that pit.
Mr. Douglas: That is not true.
Mr. Shaw: That statement was made after a thorough examination of the position, and I am satisfied with it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will electricity prices be raised to fund additional oil purchases by the Central Electricity Generating Board?
Mr. Shaw: That is not a matter involving this question. [Interruption.] I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but that is a matter that the CEGB will, no doubt, consider in due course.
Mr. Robert Adley rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of balance, I shall call the hon. Member, although he has not previously sought to intervene.
Mr. Adley: Pursuant to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member closed more than 250 pits in six years and that about 60 pits have been closed during the past six years?
Mr. Shaw: I can confirm that several hundred pits were closed during the period of the Labour Administration whereas many fewer—about 30—were closed during the period of the last Conservative Government.
Mr. Orme: I underline the central point made by my hon. Friends: Mr. MacGregor is carrying out Government policy. Consequently, will the Government intervene, as the Prime Minister did in 1981, to bring both sides together to reach a solution to this problem? A solution can be achieved if the Government have the will to do so.
Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is grave disarray within the union. He must equally be aware that attempts to invite a national ballot of the union membership have not been acceptable to the union leadership. The union must look at that position. For its part, the NCB will be looking for discussions about the industry's future, which the chairman has today reiterated his willingness to have.

Libyan People's Bureau (Shooting Incident)
4 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the events of the last week arising from the shooting incident in St. James's square.
At 10 am on 17 April, a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan people's bureau. The police were fully in control and there were no problems of public order. Without any warning, shots were fired from an automatic weapon from a window on the first floor of the bureau. Twelve people were injured and were taken to hospital, including a woman police constable, Yvonne Fletcher, who, as the House knows, died shortly afterwards. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to be associated with the message of deepest sympathy that I sent to Yvonne Fletcher's parents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The police acted immediately to cordon off the area and to evacuate nearby buildings. They have since maintained a protective watch on the bureau and controlled movements there. I should like to pay tribute to the police for the exemplary way in which they have handled this difficult position throughout, with great skill and patience.
I should add that at 8 pm on 20 April a bomb exploded in the luggage collection hall at Heathrow airport, injuring 25 people. Inquiries into that further incident are continuing. It is not yet clear whether it is connected with what happened in St. James's square.
The murder of WPC Fletcher from inside the Libyan people's bureau was a barbaric outrage. It was, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made clear in his announcement on 22 April, a wholly unacceptable and unprecedented breach of British law, international law and the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.
After the shooting took place, we immediately asked the Libyan authorities to instruct those inside the bureau to leave the building and to allow it to be searched for weapons and explosives. That request has been repeatedly refused by the Libyans.
In the face of that Libyan refusal, we proposed to the Libyan authorities three things as a basis for terminating diplomatic relations by agreement: first, that all current occupants of the people's bureau and all other Libyan diplomatic staff in the United Kingdom should leave the country in safety; secondly, that our own diplomatic staff should leave Libya in safety; and thirdly, that we should be satisfied that all weapons and explosives were removed from the Libyan people's bureau, and that its buildings in the United Kingdom were no longer capable of being used as a base for terrorist acts.
The Libyans did not accept those proposals. Instead, they in effect suggested that the outrage of 17 April should simply be put on one side. Colonel Gaddafi proposed a Libyan commission of inquiry, to come to the United Kingdom and inquire into the facts, and for any Libyan implicated to be put on trial in Libya. We regarded that response to the flagrant abuse of diplomatic immunity and the murderous attack on WPC Fletcher as wholly inadequate.
740
We therefore decided to break diplomatic relations forthwith with Libya, with effect from 6 pm on 22 April. We informed the Libyan authorities that all their diplomatic staff in London and anyone else in the Libyan people's bureau in St. James's square have until midnight on 29–30 April to vacate their premises and leave the country. They are free to leave at any time before then, if they wish, and we are making arrangements for their safe passage out of the country, but we will not permit them to remain beyond Sunday night. It is at that point that any diplomatic immunity expires.
The police will satisfy themselves that anyone emerging from the bureau is not carrying arms and explosives with them when they leave the premises, and then that the premises are safe and secure. I should add that the police view is that, without the co-operation of those in the bureau, it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained that would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder.
We have informed the Libyans that the staff of the British embassy will be withdrawn from Libya by midnight on 29–30 April, and we look to the authorities there to fulfil their obligation to guarantee their safe departure. We have also made it clear to the Libyan authorities that we hold them responsible for the safety of the British community in Libya, to which we have attached the highest importance throughout. We have exercised our right to designate a protecting power to look after their interests. We are most grateful to the Italian Government for agreeing to undertake that task, and the Libyan Government have agreed to that. In London, the embassy of Saudi Arabia will act in a similar way for the Libyans.
I should also inform the House of the action that I have taken on other Libyans in this country or who wish to travel here. I am looking carefully at any evidence that the presence of any individual here is against the national interest, and I am not hesitating to use my powers of removal where it is. Two Libyans have been deported since the shooting. Libyans who wish to travel here from Libya will, for the time being, have to apply for visas in neighbouring states. Their applications, and those from Libyans elsewhere in the world, will have to be referred to London, where they will be thoroughly and carefully examined. Applications for entry from those already holding extant visas will similarly be scrutinised with great care, and I would advise those people to reapply. Those measures will ensure that in the coming months only in the most exceptional circumstances will Libyan nationals be admitted to this country.
I share the national sense of anger at the tragic death of a young policewoman and at the gross abuse of diplomatic immunities that caused it. We have made every effort to resolve matters peacefully and by mutual agreement. The attitude of the Libyan authorities has made it impossible for normal relations to continue. We shall continue, as we have throughout, to observe scrupulously our obligations under the Vienna convention, but what has occurred clearly raises serious questions as to the adequacy of the convention, its operation and enforceability. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will now review these matters and consider whether to put forward in the international community proposals for changes.
Hon. Members will appreciate that, until the Libyans who are going have gone and British embassy staff in

741
Libya return home, the position remains delicate. But we could not conceivably countenance with equanimity the outrage that we witnessed in London last week. We are responding to it firmly, but in accordance with international law. Libya for its part must now accept its clear responsibility for the protection and safe return of our staff in the British embassy and their families.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I offer our deep sympathy to the family and fiancé of Yvonne Fletcher. She died on duty, and we pay tribute to her and to all the police who have been involved in the tense vigil at St. James's square. We offer our sympathy also to all the those injured in the St. James's square atrocity and in the bomb outrage at Heathrow airport last Friday.
The whole nation feels a bitter anger at the prospect that the murderer of Yvonne Fletcher will escape the justice that should properly await him. However, I believe that most people understand why that outcome seems inescapable. Faced with the calculated flouting of all standards of decency in international behaviour in their own territory, the British Government—above all others—must demonstrate the importance of upholding the rule of international law, even in the most repugnant circumstances. That means abiding strictly by the terms of the Vienna convention.
It is proper and necessary that, in their conduct in this odious position, the British Government must have the utmost concern for the repercussions of what they do upon the lives and safety of the British diplomatic mission in Tripoli, their families and the many thousands of other British nationals in Libya. Of course, we are especially concerned about the predicament of Mr. Douglas Ledingham and Mr. John Campbell, who have been held in Libya for several days without charge. Does the Home Secretary have any information about their safety and whereabouts?
The House may not wish to pursue certain matters at this sensitive time, when the position in St. James's square is still so fragile and before our mission in Tripoli has arrived home safely. However, after the weekend deadline has passed, hon. Members will require a further statement from the Home Secretary—certainly not later than next Tuesday. It is then that searching questions may most appropriately he put about whether this crisis could have been prevented or avoided, about how weapons of the sort used in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher found their way into the people's bureau and about the conduct of the negotiations with the Libyans.
One question that must be asked now is why, three days after the St. James's square shootings, was luggage allowed to be left for hours in the luggage reclamation area of terminal 2 at Heathrow airport, where luggage from a Libyan flight was known to be kept—and that after the recent bombings in London and Manchester? The security at Heathrow seems to have been negligent to the point of culpability, and there must be an urgent inquiry into it for the sake of all travellers.
There is one supreme matter on which the whole country is united. Britain will not tolerate warring factions from other lands using our cities as their private battlegrounds. Britain stands absolutely for upholding the rule of international law, which is the only safeguard for order in a dangerous world. It is because Libya has made
742
an ugly mockery of the rule of law that everyone joins in condemnation of these unacceptable violations of civilised behaviour.
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentlemen for his expressions of sympathy and for his tributes to the police. I also entirely agree with him that the importance of upholding the rule of international law in these matters is paramount, and that we expect the Libyans to do that, just as we are doing it ourselves. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in handling these matters, it is appropriate — and, indeed, essential — to take account of their repercussions in Tripoli.
We have protested vigorously to the Libyan authorities concerning Mr. Ledingham and Mr. Campbell, and we shall continue urgently to seek their release.
Extra precautions were taken at Heathrow after the incident in St. James's square, but the right hon. Gentleman would be mistaken if he believed it possible to cover all contingencies. Since the explosion, even further precautions have been put into operation in regard to the handling of baggage. The examination and consideration for which he has asked are taking place through the Department of Transport, the police, the British Airports Authority and the airlines.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's sentiment that warring factions cannot be allowed to fight out their battles in the streets of London.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: While I fully accept—as does the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—that no possible action could be taken other than that which was taken, will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in relation to the proposed review of the Vienna convention, it is essential to distinguish between the necessary protection of diplomats of law-abiding countries throughout the world and the need at the same time to avoid the Vienna convention being used merely as a cover for terrorism or murder?
Mr. Brittan: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the review will need to take those aspects of the matter into account. But, as I made clear, one should focus not only on the convention and its provisions but on its enforceability.
Mr. David Steel: In his statement the Home Secretary used the phrase that diplomatic immunity would expire on Sunday night. Will he tell the House what happened after Mr Adem Kuwiri and his three colleagues accredited in the Libyan people's bureau were replaced by the so-called revolutionary student force on 19 February? Were any of those students subsequently given diplomatic accreditation and, if so, when and why? If not, is there any reason to believe that accredited diplomats were in the building at the time of the outrage?
Mr. Brittan: Since the so-called revolutionary committee took over, that have been no additions to the diplomatic list, and none of the people concerned has been accepted, so in no sense was that the case.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be asking about the presence of diplomats in the building. We do not know exactly who is in the building at the moment, so I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Peter Blaker: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) in welcoming the Government's intention to review the Vienna convention. Is not one of the most important matters to be considered the rule which makes it impossible to verify whether diplomatic bags are carrying weapons? Will the Government consider raising that matter with our colleagues in the European Community, whose interests must be identical to ours, with a view to making proposals in a wider forum?
Mr. Brittan: My right hon. Friend has raised one matter which will no doubt be considered. At the moment, the Vienna convention—which, I remind the House, is not only an international obligation but is enshrined in our domestic law by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964—states quite clearly that the diplomatic bag shall not be opened or retained.
Mr. James Molyneaux: In view of the long-standing Libyan support for Irish terrorists, will the Home Secretary consider the desirability of further extending the scope of the prevention of terrorism legislation? Will he be good enough to invite his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to alert and explain to Irish-Americans the dangers of supporting any branch of international terrorism?
Mr. Brittan: We have, of course, comprehensively reviewed the prevention of terrorism legislation in the new legislation which has now reached the statute book. The House will, of course, be familiar with the fact that in introducing that legislation we made provision for the first time for its extension to international as opposed to Irish terrorism. I hope that the House will feel, in the light of what has occurred, that that was a wise provision.
Mr. Dennis Walters: The whole House would wish to associate itself with the tribute paid by my right hon. and learned Friend to the performance of my constituent, WPC Fletcher, and the warm expression that he has sent to her family. She died, performing her duty, as a result of an intolerable and gross crime. Does not that also bring to light the need to review, as quickly as possible, the whole question of diplomatic privileges and rights, which have frequently been abused in the recent past?
Mr. Brittan: The examination of the Vienna convention, its operation and its enforceability, will cover the matters that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Dr. David Owen: I warmly associate myself with all the tributes paid to the bravery shown by the police, to the parents of Yvonne Fletcher and her friends, and to those injured in the bomb outrage.
I fully accept the actions that the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to take, but will he agree that the real questions now have to be answered by the Foreign Secretary? Some very serious questions need to be asked, going right back to 2 September 1979, when the Libyan people's bureau was first established.
It has been well understood for some years that Colonel Gaddafi has been fostering terrorism worldwide. There have been disturbing reports, one of which occurs in today's Washington Post, about the Government having been informed that an attack was likely to take place. Those issues need serious investigation. I understand that the Home Secretary is not able to answer them today from
744
the Dispatch Box, but can we have an assurance from the Government that there will be an independent inquiry into all events since 2 September 1979, and that as much as possible of the result will be published so that the House and the country can judge the conduct of affairs during the four years?
Mr. Brittan: I should make it clear to the House that I am speaking for the Government as a whole today and am ready to answer questions relating to all aspects of the matter — even questions which would in other circumstances be answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. As I know that the matter has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and by others outside this House, may I say that the breaking off of diplomatic relations is a very serious step? Since the war, it has been taken by this country only in relation to Albania, Uganda and Argentina.
The House might like to bear in mind, when considering the allegation of tardiness in our response, that the United States embassy in Libya was burnt down in December 1979 and that it was not until 1981 that diplomatic relations between Libya and the United States were suspended, and not even broken. In Paris, two Iraqi agents from the embassy shot dead a police inspector. Those agents were expelled but the mission was allowed to continue. It is for those reasons that the international press today regards our response to what happened in the streets of London as a robust one.
With regard to the events in this country since 1979, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the House might like to know that in 1980 three Libyan dissidents were murdered on the streets of London, but at that time there was no proof of the involvement of the bureau. None the less, its secretary and two other members were declared persona non grata and had to leave the country. No clear link was established between last month's bombings and the Libyan people's bureau. None the less, apart from the four people who have been charged and whose trials have yet to take place, I have ordered the deportation of six Libyans. What has now occurred is different in kind, amounting to a wholly unprecedented outrage and requiring this response.
Dr. Owen: Is the Home Secretary now prepared to answer——
Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the House, I think that one question is sufficient.
Dr. Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order afterwards, in fairness to the whole House, as many right hon. and hon. Members wish to ask questions.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Did the Foreign Office pass to the Metropolitan police the advance warning received that there could be a violent reaction if the original protest march went ahead? Was it a police decision or a political decision that the "wait and wear down" strategy should be terminated without result when it had so often worked in the past?
How will the police satisfy themselves that no arms are taken out of the mission if they may not examine the bags? Is my right hon. and learned Friend now prepared to allow the police, if in future they suspect that similar murder

745
weapons are being brought into this country in diplomatic bags, to impound the bags at the port of entry pending application to a magistrates court for a search warrant?
Finally, in view of the Libyans' undoubted connection with the IRA, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it plain that the murderer of that British police officer will be expected to face justice elsewhere if not in this country?
Mr. Brittan: I am afraid that I could not commend to the House the change in the law suggested by my hon. Friend, as it would be in breach of the Vienna convention and, in the absence of international agreement, would not be possible.
With regard to an advance warning, Libyans came to the Foreign Office protesting about the demonstration to take place the following day and speaking in terms of not being responsible for the consequences. My hon. Friend and the House should know, however, that such language has been repeatedly used by the Libyans in that context. The House should also know that what was envisaged was not a march but a demonstration. In a free society, I do not have power to ban demonstrations. That, too, is a factor that the House will wish to take into account.
As for whether the decision to end the "wait and wear down" strategy was a police decision, all decisions taken have been co-ordinated. I remind my hon. Friend of my statement that it is the view of the police that, without the co-operation of the people in the bureau, which has been in no way evident, it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained which could sustain a criminal charge in court for the murder.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is an abuse of the Vienna declaration and the rules of diplomatic immunity to use the diplomatic bag for the import or export of weapons? I accept that he cannot order diplomatic bags to be opened, but will he give an assurance that, through X-raying or other means not involving opening the bags, he will ensure that no weapons are imported in diplomatic bags, as he well knows occurs, and that no weapons are now exported to Libya in that way?
Mr. Brittan: The legality of X-raying is in question and the overwhelming majority of states have not adopted such practices. Clearly, that is one of the questions that will be raised in the review. It is certainly an abuse of the Vienna convention to use the diplomatic bag for the purposes to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but it is a feature of the convention to provide that various forms of behaviour are breaches of the convention but not to provide any way to prevent such behaviour or to deal with it when it has occurred. In addition to the doubtful legality of X-raying diplomatic bags and the fact that it would be contrary to the practice of the overwhelming majority of states, I am advised that any such scanning without opening or detaining the bag, which is plainly not permitted, would be likely to be of very limited value in determining their contents.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the review of the matter that he will be conducting later, the right of foreign nationals, warring or not, to demonstrate in our streets should be considered?
Mr. Brittan: I am not sure that that is a matter for the review of the Vienna convention, but those who, in the
746
context of recent events, have doubts about the rights of foreign nationals to demonstrate in our cities may wish to consider whether they would have regarded it as appropriate to ban dissidents from eastern Europe from demonstrating outside the Soviet embassy when Afghanistan was invaded.
Mr. Ron Brown: As every effort must be made to prevent further bloodshed, why was the Libyan political attaché prevented from meeting two hon. Members on Saturday—myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart)? Is the Home Secretary aware that it has been alleged that the Foreign Office took the view that it would simply muddy the waters if Back Benchers became involved? Is that the case?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in suggesting that the gentleman concerned was prevented from seeing the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. That would indeed be a breach of the Vienna convention and we should not be a party to that. What happened was that the Libyan diplomat concerned and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend were advised that, as we were engaged in extremely delicate negotiation at that stage in an attempt to resolve the matter peacefully, it was not felt that a meeting of that kind would be conducive to the resolution of the matter.
Mr. Michael Mates: When the immediate aftermath is over and the thugs who perpetrated this outrage are gone from our shores, will my right hon. and learned Friend return to the House and give us full details of the ammunition and the weapons, which must surely be found, used in the murder of WPC Fletcher? Is he aware that some of us will wish to speak more fully when the time is ripe not only about the searching of persons? Will he give an absolute assurance that nothing will leave the Libyan people's bureau which could have been used to perpetrate that outrage?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend combine that——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Mates: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course it is important, but other hon. Members wish to take part.
Mr. Mates: Finally, will my right hon. and learned Friend, in concert with his colleagues, ensure that action taken pending the review of the Vienna convention, which will take many months if not years to amend, will be concerted, allied action to show that, convention or not, behaviour of this kind simply cannot be tolerated by democratic people?
Mr. Brittan: On the last point, I welcome the opportunity to make it clear to the House that we have raised this matter with our friends in the international community and that in response to our points many of them have expressed their support for the action that we have taken and their horror at what occurred. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent personal messages to certain Heads of Government. Action most certainly has been and will be taken in the international forum.
With regard to the more specific assurance sought by my hon. Friend, he will appreciate that the Vienna

747
convention applies and is currently part of our domestic law. Therefore, to my deep personal regret, I cannot give the assurance in the form that he seeks.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Home Secretary comment on press reports that there were warnings from intelligence sources about the possibility of such an incident at the Libyan people's bureau? Was any such warning given and, if so, what action did the Government take?
Mr. Brittan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the practice to give details of intelligence matters of that kind. I will say, however, that no specific information that would lead us to believe that such an incident would occur when it did was in our hands before the event.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his handling of the affair throughout. Is he at all concerned that there may be incendiary or explosive devices within the building, timed to explode after the Libyans have left?
Mr. Brittan: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. The point that he has raised is one which the police have well in mind.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science with a view to ensuring that Libyan students in this country are genuine students?
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. As I have mentioned, those who are here will find that we reserve the right to consider the question of their status.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Four years ago, some of us raised during Question Time the issue of the abuse of diplomatic bags. We were informed that the use of electronic scanners was being considered. Where does the Home Secretary get the information that scanners are no good at discovering whether the bags contain ammunition and guns? I grant that it may be less easy to find out about other matters, but surely guns and ammunition show up on modern electronic scanners?
Mr. Brittan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I spoke not lightly but on advice when I said that without opening the bag or detaining it—which is not permitted under the convention—such scanning is likely to be of very limited value in determining the contents.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I deplore diplomatic terrorism, but does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that most of the middle east-related disturbances on our streets are caused by students from certain middle eastern countries? Does my right hon. and learned Friend have plans to screen the Libyan students who are still here, with a view to removing those who have close connections with Colonel Gaddafi's regime?
Mr. Brittan: Removing students who are here would have to be done in a responsible way. I have outlined what I believe to be the right approach. I am considering carefully any evidence that the presence of any individual in this country—whether whether or not he is a student—is against the national interest. Where I have reason to believe that it is, I shall not hesitate to use my powers of removal.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) deliberately evasive? Is it not true that an American satellite monitored a transmission between Libya and London requiring those at the people's bureau not to react passively to any demonstration? Was that information communicated to the Government before the demonstration took place?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman may call my reply evasive, but he knows perfectly well that in replying as I did I was following the practice of Ministers in all Governments on such matters.
Mr. George Walden: Many of us welcome the news that Britain may pursue some revision of the Vienna convention, but will my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must be realistic about this matter? Some 140 or 150 countries are involved, and the process may take not months or years but a decade. What are we to do meanwhile? Urgent collective action on a European basis is required. This is a matter for political will rather than for negotiation among 140 countries over a decade in the hope of improvements.
Mr. Brittan: I did not say that it was. I said that we would look not only at the question of the adequacy of the convention but also — this is relevant to my hon. Friend's question—at its operation and enforceability. When that has been reviewed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will consider whether to put forward proposals for changes in the international community. The way of proceeding which my hon. Friend—with his experience in these matters—has suggested will be one of the possibilities which my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to consider.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The tragedy of the killing of the young policewoman took place at a time when 10,000 policemen and policewomen were being used in our coal fields to arrest nearly 1,000 miners for a breach of the peace——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: I am coming to the point.
Mr. Speaker: But it is wide of the subject.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that when this tragic death occurred, Libyan demonstrators were being escorted to the picket line by a few policemen and policewomen at a time when every man and dog in the country seemed to know that a breach of the peace was likely to occur? Is the Home Secretary aware that many people in my constituency believe that the Government are operating double standards and have different priorities for different sets of people?
Mr. Brittan: I think that the vast majority of people in the country as well as of hon. Members will regard the hon. Gentleman's remark as not only irrelevant but distasteful.
The truth is that what occurred——
Mr. Skinner: It could have been avoided.
Mr. Brittan: The demonstration was wholly peaceful, and the policing of it presented no problems whatsoever until the unprovoked shooting took place.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a duty to protect the further business of the House, which is an Opposition day. I propose to let questions on the statement run for a further seven minutes before I call the Front Bench spokesman. I hope that during that time, if questions are brief, I may be able to call all those hon. Members who have been rising.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully commend and support the actions of the Government and of my right hon. and learned Friend, and the bravery and courage of the police. Would my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what support we have had from the EEC and the Commonwealth for our action against Libya, and what action the rest of the civilised world will take to ostracise Colonel Gaddafi and his dreadful regime?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend will appreciate that responses are not always immediate, especially when a tragic event occurs during a holiday weekend. We have received expressions of support from the United States—very strongly—and from Australia, Canada, Belgium and Norway.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm reports that, for many years, Libyan representatives in this country have flatly refused to adhere to diplomatic protocol — for instance, by not having an embassy or an ambassador, and strongly resenting having diplomats? If that is so, why must we extend diplomatic immunity to the Libyans?
Mr. Brittan: The position is not entirely as my hon. Friend has outlined. The Libyan embassy began to call itself a people's bureau in 1979. Discussions with the Libyan authorities made it clear that the essential functions of the mission would remain unchanged. The same thing happened in many other countries, which took the same view as the United Kingdom of the essence of what was going on.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): We have already heard Colonel Gaddafi threaten the safety of British citizens in Libya in retaliation for any steps that the Government may wish to take in this country. What can the Government do to ensure that such blackmail will be less effective in future than it may have appeared to be in the past?
Mr. Brittan: As long as we maintain international relations, and as long as substantial numbers of our fellow countrymen — for good and proper business or other reasons — live in other countries, there can be no guarantee that events of this kind will not occur. Fortunately, they have been extremely rare. The international community has invariably condemned them, and appropriate action has been taken. However, if my hon. Friend thinks that any guarantee can be provided—unless everyone stays at home—I am afraid that he is mistaken.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: While the whole House must endorse the Government's action and understand the inhibitions on what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon, does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that the concern shown, both nationally and in the Chamber this afternoon, suggests that it would be helpful to the Government if Parliament could be fully involved in the investigation of what has happened in this
750
dreadful case? Specifically, will he consider the desirability of setting up a special Select Committee to report on what might be done?
Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note that suggestion.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that in 1896 the London police did not hesitate to enter the Chinese embassy, there to rescue Sun Yat-Sen, who had been kidnapped and held there against his will. That being the case, many people are deeply disturbed about why the British Government have failed to take action against this so-called embassy for so long when it appears to be a place for terrorist operations and is now a haven for a murderer, which murderer will go scot free. As none of this was envisaged by the framers of the convention, why is it so sacrosanct?
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has asked why it is sacrosanct. One reason which he as a lawyer would, I should have thought, respect is that it happens to be part of our domestic law.
Mr. John Butterfill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while many British people welcome the contribution to academic life that genuine foreign students make they are heartily sick of the activities of those who are not? Many of them seem to have as their primary purpose political activity, some of it subversive and, as we have now seen, some of it downright murderous. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making it a condition of entry for foreign students that they confine their activities to the pursuit of their academic studies? Will he make it a condition that they be expelled if they involve themselves in political activity?
Mr. Brittan: There is a difference between political activities and violent activities. I assure the House that, if there was any suspicion that students were engaged in violent or subversive activity, they would not be admitted and that if there were any reason to believe that they were admitted without such suspicion and such suspicion subsequently arose, they would be required to leave.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the fact that, next Sunday, when the Libyans emerge from the bureau, there will be two categories of people—those with diplomatic immunity and those with none? Is there any reason why he could not instruct the Metropolitan Police to investigate, search and question those who do not have diplomatic immunity?
Mr. Skinner: They would if they were miners.
Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend will recall what I have said about the police's view of the prospect of sustaining a criminal charge. He will take account of the overriding need to get rid of a dangerous presence in the country and, above all, he will take account of the important and essential aim of securing the safe return of our diplomats and their families in Libya when pursuing that suggestion.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the sensible way in which he has handled this extraordinarily delicate situation? Does he believe that there is a case, in

751
the longer term, for amending the Public Order Act 1963 to give him and the Commissioner the same powers to control static demonstrations as to control marches?
Mr. Brittan: We are examining that. As my hon. Friend, with his knowledge of these matters, knows there is a review of public order legislation and the issue of the control and regulation of static demonstrations is certainly one of the aspects of that review.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the calm, determined and responsible manner in which he has carried out negotiations? Can he assure us that, on the expiry of diplomatic immunity, no precipitate action will be taken by the Government so as to make it certain that our nationals in Libya are not imperilled?
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal observations. I deeply hope that this matter can be ended peacefully and that no more problems of that type arise. I am anxious that the people in the bureau and other Libyan diplomats should leave the country, that our people should return safely from Libya and that it is possible to ensure that the premises are safe. Those are our objectives. We shall continue to try to achieve them in a calm and measured way.
Mr. Speaker: Point of order, Dr. Owen.
Dr. Owen: My point of order is more related to the procedure of the House. I wish to ask another question of the Home Secretary, if he would not mind, as he has widened the statement to cover the responsibilities——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will fully accept that to use a point of order as a method of asking an additional question is very unfair to other hon. Members.
Dr. Owen rose——
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to do that.
Dr. Owen: Further to that, if the Home Secretary comes to the House to answer questions relating to his handling of the siege, I do not think it unreasonable to expect that he would not answer detailed questions relating to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. He then implied, generously, that he was prepared to do so, and it is reasonable that we should be able to probe him on some of those matters. He has already widened his statement to the issues to which I have referred but did not ask about in detail. My request is legitimate in that, when you, Mr. Speaker, intend to ask the spokesman for the Labour party to speak again, it is not unreasonable on some of these issues that some of us may be asked—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I judge from the reaction of the House that this is not a doctrine that would be generally acceptable.
Dr. Owen: Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of Parliament, please do not abuse points of order by seeking to raise a second question, which, I think the whole House would agree, he has no right to do. He has the same rights as any other Back Bencher and I cannot allow any further points of order on this matter.
Dr. Owen: Further to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be on a different point of order; I shall not allow the right hon. Gentleman to raise a further point of order on this matter.
Dr. Owen: I am just questioning the extent of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is the extent of your ruling that no second questions should be asked by anyone other than those speaking from the Labour Opposition Front Bench? If that is so, we should have it clarified.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that what I said has been a convention of the House for very many years and that that is the present position.
Mr. A. J. Beith: You have just said, Mr. Speaker, that it has been a convention of the House for many years that on no occasion will a second question be taken from anyone other than the Opposition Front Bench. There are cases, which could be cited, of your predecessors doing precisely that for my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the Leader of the Liberal party, for the Leader of the Social Democratic party and for others. As to the matter of fact, I hope that you will define your ruling in such a way as not to deny what has happened for many years and has been seen widely reasonably to reflect the existence of other groups in the House with points of view to put forward.
Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No.
Mr. Skinner: I was going to give you some help.
Mr. Speaker: I can deal with it—I do not need any help. Very frequently right hon. and hon. Members disagree with the answers that they have received or, having heard the answers, would like to expand on the questions. If I were to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) I should have to accede to it for the leader of every other minority party in the House; I think that that would be utterly unacceptable to Back Benchers.

Security Services
4.43 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failings of the security services revealed by the Bettaney case."
The case is specific and its importance is beyond dispute. It is the latest and one of the worst in a long series of cases that reveal failings in the security services. It shows that vetting procedures failed to identify a potential defector at a senior level in the security services and that search procedures that would have revealed his activities were not carried out. Those procedures are still being relied on and the people who failed to operate them effectively are presumably still in post. That makes it the more urgent that the House should have the opportunity to consider the method.
It has been announced that the Prime Minister has referred the matter to the Security Commission. That gives added reason for an urgent debate. If the House had been sitting when the conviction of Bettaney occurred we should have expected the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House announcing the reference to the Security Commission. That is what she did when, for example, the Prime case was referred to the Security Commission. The right hon. Lady would then have been questioned on that statement and hon. Members would have had an opportunity to draw attention to those aspects of the matter which they felt the Security Commission should consider. It would also have been an opportunity to question whether a routine reference to the Security Commission is an adequate response to a case of this gravity and to question whether the commission is adequately constituted to reflect the range of concern.
The Prime Minister could have made that statement today, but she did not do so. Therefore, the commission has embarked upon its consideration without reflecting the concern that exists in Parliament. It is for those reasons that the House should have an opportunity to voice its opinions and concerns, and it should be able to do so urgently.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failings of the security services revealed by the Bettaney case.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Discharge of Radioactive Material (Control)
4.47 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate further the discharge of nuclear material from existing and future nuclear reprocessing plants and other establishments.
I want to make it clear to the House at the outset that this subject is intensely boring. Nevertheless, it is also an area of great concern both to environmentalists and to those who wish to secure a safe future for the nuclear industry. My Bill's objective is statutorily to regulate discharges of liquid nuclear waste into the sea. In particular, it will affect operations at Windscale, currently known as Sellafield. That plant is recognised as being responsible for 75 per cent. of the entire radiation dose received by the European Community from all nuclear installations.
At present, discharges of radioactive material into the water or the air are controlled by the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Discharges and disposals must be authorised under that Act. Control of discharges from nuclear power stations, reprocessing plants and nuclear fuel manufacturing plants in England is exercised jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Authorisation of waste discharges is given by the relevant Departments, subject to conditions on the amounts of radioactive substances which may be released.
Current legislation does not specify discharge limits. Nevertheless, the Department of the Environment's guide to the administration of the Act says that authorisations for liquid wastes are kept under regular review, in keeping with ICRP recommendations. The ICRP is the International Commission for Radiological Protection, and it issues guidelines only. Its guidelines are based on what is referred to as "dose limitation criteria". It should be said that they are surrounded by unending controversy as they represent only the maximum dose safety limits. They are not regulatory, merely advisory, and are under increasing attack from scientists throughout the world.
Discharge limits, as they relate to ICRP guidelines on dosage to population, provide for doses with an upper limit — excuse the technicality, Mr. Speaker — of 5 millisieverts. In addition to that limitation, authorisations for discharges generally include a clause making specific reference to the principle that discharges should be as low as reasonably achievable. That is known as ALARA. That is usually taken to mean that a cost-benefit analysis should be applied when decisions about discharge levels are made. It is that principle which I am asking the House to reject today.
Cost-benefit analysis is an appalling basis on which to decide discharge levels when, even on the most conservative of estimates, the nuclear industry, in particular in the United States, is now held responsible for deaths and serious illness. Are we to tell the surviving relatives of those who have been lost through radiation-induced cancer that their demise was avoidable but that the costs outweighed the benefits? Surely not, Mr. Speaker.
In Cumbria, Sir Douglas Black is currently examining the incidence of radiation-induced disease. Whatever his findings — I am sure that the House will join me in

755
hoping that he finds none — that perceived risk will remain. In Cumbria we cannot afford the principle of ALARA which I have outlined.
In a recent letter from the English tourist board it was said that the great majority of people in the United Kingdom were not over-concerned about the most recent television programmes which drew attention to Sellafield discharges. Yet in its most recent correspondence to me it says that there is no direct evidence from research within the tourism industry that incidents at Sellafield have affected tourism. The responsible regional tourist board has been consulted for local views. It reports that accommodation bookings in the forthcoming season are generally equal to those of last year or have increased in Cumbria as a whole. That is a vote of confidence in Cumbria. Nevertheless, and despite those assurances, there is local concern about discharge limits.
We reject ALARA and demand ALATA—as low as technically achievable. That principle is now supported by 274 hon. Members and by the Irish Government, the closest state affected by contamination of the Irish sea. It is supported by the five Nordic nations of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, who recently carried a resolution at the recent meeting in Dun Laoghaire calling for a savage reduction in discharge levels. The ALATA principle is supported by West Germany — a partner of Britain in the seabed working party. They are now breaking ranks within the nuclear waste research body by joining the chorus of international opinion demanding an early resolution of the problem of nuclear waste discharges into the sea.
Hon. Members may recall that the International Water Tribunal, on which sits the noble Lord Cranbrook, criticised the Sellafield discharges and last year called for reductions to near zero. Since then the EC has passed a similar resolution, which will come before the Council of Ministers in due course. Trade unions throughout Britain and in Ireland have expressed their outrage at the discharges, which have in the recent past been greater in their radioactive content than the annual dump of radioactive waste into the Atlantic — itself a practice outlawed by the London dumping convention.
There is no controversy at Sellafield over whether discharges have a calculable health impact, but merely over the level of impact. If the Government are to act in a credible way which will restore people's faith in nuclear
756
technology, and which acknowledges international disquiet, it is imperative that we admit past mistakes and accept ALATA now.
The House should not construe my Bill as an attempt in any way to shackle the British nuclear industry. That is not my intention. I am saying that if nuclear power is to stay—I support its staying—the industry must be safe, and be seen by everyone to be safe. If we are to realise the level of safety demanded by the country, ALATA—the principle of employing the latest available technology in the reducion of nuclear discharges — is an absolute necessity. It is wrong for the people of Cumbria to have to carry the environmental cost of serving the nation's energy needs.
There are precedents for the discharge limits that I am seeking to legislate in my Bill. The French built at a comparable time and on a comparable scale to Sellafield, although half the size, a reprocessing plant at Marcoule in France. So low are its discharge limits that it operates in a more restrictive environment—a fresh water river, the River Rhone. Over the last 10 years it has achieved control limits nearly 4,000 times better than at Sellafield for Alpha emitters and, according to Greenpeace, more than 17,000 times better for fission products.
The Americans are planning to build a second reprocessing plant at Hanford in America. The proposed discharge levels are near zero. In Germany, plans for a large-scale reprocessing plant will also incorporate control technology which will result in the total liquid discharge figure being kept to below 1 curie a year for all emitters—approximating to one quarter of 1 millionth of recent Sellafield discharges. These countries have managed to accomplish what I and my supporters want for Britain. The measure sets the achievements abroad as our objective. I invite the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Campbell-Savours, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Reg Freeson and Mr. Frank Cook.

Discharge of Radioactive Material (Control)
  DISCHARGE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (CONTROL)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours accordingly presented a Bill to regulate further the discharge of nuclear material from existing and future nuclear reprocessing plants and other establishments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 April and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Transport
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to move the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition day is shown on the Order Paper as the 13th allotted day. I wonder whether you would care to give your guidance on the accuracy of that? I recall that on 3 April we had the 12th allotted day to the Opposition, which was halved by the Opposition's own choice, because they gave back to the Government half their allotted time. Ought not this Opposition day to be shown on the Order Paper as the 12th allotted day? Are the Government about to give the remaining half day to Opposition parties other than the Labour Party?
  Mr. Speaker: We dealt with that before the Easter recess. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I have no knowledge of what goes on between the usual channels.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's transport policy which is based on an ideological obsession with competition, profit, privatisation and reduced Government financial support and inadequate investment, which has resulted, since 1979, in higher fares, poorer services, massive redundancies, reductions in rail services and bus route miles, especially in the rural areas, and a serious deterioration in road and rail infrastructure; notes that a policy of privatisation and competition has reduced the United Kingdom merchant fleet by 500 ships, and is creating greater uncertainty in our ports, waterways and aviation industries; affirms that the provision of a comprehensive efficient and integrated transport system at prices which do not unreasonably constrain demand cannot be provided by reliance solely on market forces; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to pursue those policies which meet the essential needs of a modern developed economy.
  In the motion we condemn the Tory Government's ideological obsession to sweep away the public controls, standards and democratic accountability of past transport policies in the name of competition and user interests which in reality is a pursuit of monetary objectives to reduce public financial support. Four years of Tory transport and economic policy, followed by a mass of transport legislation, have produced fewer services and higher costs to the user and taxpayer, and a deliberate policy to increase transport unemployment. The main beneficiaries have been the plunderers of public assets at knock-down prices.
  This is the first comprehensive transport debate that the House has had since 1977 when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) returned from the United States with bold new ideas for transport policies for Britain of car sharing, trial areas and deregulation to replace the public service meeting public needs with competition and profit for private interests. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield — later to become the first of the Government's four Secretaries of State for Transport—
  758
  in that debate attempted to indict the Labour Government for their inactivity in transport policy which he believed was detrimental to the transport user's interests.
  It may be useful at the beginning of the debate to compare the four years of Labour Government, which the then Opposition spokesman the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was condemning, with the four years of Tory Administration and their effects on the public transportation system. I seek to use an impeccable and impartial source for my comparison—the Department of Transport's publication on transport statistics. I shall look at the total picture of transport in the country and then make some comparisons for similar periods within the individual sectors of the transport industries.
  In the total picture, one finds that passenger journeys by rail increased during the last four years of the Labour. Government by 47 million. The following four years of Tory Administration led to a massive decline in passenger use of rail totalling 118 million. On the bus side, we witnessed what has been a continuing decline over a considerable period — certainly since before 1979. Passenger journeys by bus in the four years of Labour rule declined by 700 million. In the four years of Tory Administration, with their new competition and transport policies, something like 1,000 million passengers were driven off the buses. However, revenue support for transport policies has doubled from £410 million to £835 million. Thus, in the four years of Tory Administration the user in the country has been paying a lot more for a lot less, and has been paying more as a taxpayer.
  As to those employed in the transport industries, in the four years of Labour Government, employment in the transport industries increased by 6,000 extra jobs per year. Four years of Tory Administration produced a reduction of 30,000 jobs per year in the transport industries—a total of 120,000 jobs. It is clear that the user and the employee are considerably worse off as a result of the Government's policy.
  One benefit of the policy which has often been put forward in the House is the development of the competition of inter-city coaches with British Rail. Indeed, it was the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield who, with great publicity, waved off the new venture into privatisation of coach services called "the British Coachways." It was to collapse within 12 months. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State for Transport has not been discouraged by the fact that the private sector has not been able to offer the new private services that were predicted. Indeed, he is now overruling the traffic commissioners whose judgments have often been used to maintain the public interest, as defined in public legislation. The traffic commissioners, in judging applications for private competitive coaches, which want to operate only in profitable times and on profitable routes, have ruled against them when they have considered that this would undermine the general cross-subsidised rural and urban transport that has been a common feature of public transportation in the country. Not to be outdone by that, the Secretary of State for Transport is now considering further the possibility of overruling the traffic commissioners' judgment about the provision of minibuses in the London area.
  It is interesting to note that in some cases those judgments, after the decision of the Secretary of State to overrule the traffic commissioners, were eventually taken

  759
  to the courts. Regarding the evidence of the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport, the Law Lords said:
  "There was a marked difference between the detailed examination of the issues in the commissioner's decision and the inspector's report and the almost barren disposal of the material in the Transport Secretary's decision letter."
  That will come as no surprise to those of us who are used to facing him across the Dispatch Box or in Committee. The Secretary of State is rarely concerned about evidence; he is concerned with his ideological obsession to introduce competition at any price.
  It is not surprising that the aviation and shipping industries, which have been welcomed into the Department of Transport—I hope that they will soon be joined by the waterways industry, which has an important role in a comprehensive transport system—have begun to fear the Secretary of State's policy, which will mean facing domestic and international competition. The Governments of most countries play a supporting part in protecting and advancing the interests of their aviation and shipping industries.
  All aviation routes are negotiated by Governments in bilateral agreements, and all decisions on routes affect airports and aviation policy. As the Opposition said in 1981, in proceedings on the Civil Aviation Bill, it was clearly nonsense to expect that the Civil Aviation Authority could deal with all the problems of regulation and control in the aviation industry and that the Secretary of State could stand aside from the important issues involved. Since the Civil Aviation Act 1980, Secretaries of State have constantly intervened in the provision of international and domestic routes. In some cases, the Secretary of State has intervened to overrule CAA decisions which, in the case of British Midland Airways, will only increase the problems caused by the Government's ceiling on flight movements at Heathrow.
  The Government's declared policy for the privatisation of the aviation industry will undoubtedly mean a difficult decision for them. They wish to sell British Airways at the best possible price, with the many routes in its network, but at the same time they are suggesting that there should be an optimum size for aviation companies in competition and that the Secretary of State can arbitrarily pinch routes from British airlines. If that happens, British interests will be undermined, especially bearing in mind the competition from international airlines, and more aviation unemployment will follow.
  The Government's obsession in not protecting British industries is most savagely seen in shipping. As an island nation, Britain needs its fleet. British seamen were welcomed as heroes during the Falklands affair, but since 1979 a fleet of 1,200 ships has been reduced to 700—the industry predicts that it will decrease to 400 by 1986—which means the loss of two British ships for every week since the Government came to power. Our great British merchant fleet has been reduced to one third of its size since the Tories came to power, 30,000 seafarers' jobs have gone, and they face wage cuts from Budget proposals to cut overseas allowances. Today only one third of British goods are carried in British ships.
  The Government's ideological obsession is reflected in their attitude to the threat of competition. When the threat comes from flag-of-convenience ships, which represent 30
  760
  per cent. of the world's fleets and which are growing because they offer tax havens, cheap crews, unsafe vessels and unfair competition, the Secretary of State, only response is to say that he believes in competition and to assure us that he will use his port state controls, as agreed in the Community, to enforce international safety standards.
  However, I have given the Secretary of State examples of where his Department's inspectors have failed to carry out their obligations under the agreement. In one instance a ship that was passed as safe by the Department's inspectors was stopped from leaving a German port because it had more than 30 faults, mainly with its lifeboats, rudder and compasses. To be fair, the Secretary of State apologised for misleading me when he said that he thought the vessel was safe after the inspector released it, but he was not prepared to act in that case.
  The Russians provide 5 per cent. of the world's ships. The Secretary of State is now prepared to consider proposals for new merchant shipping legislation to counteract the threat of the Russian menace, but there is no such response to the flag-of-convenience ships, which pose the main threat to our fleet. The Minister with responsibility for shipping has visited Norway many times to discuss protection, but the measures taken by the Norwegians to protect their fleet from outside competition have been at the direct expense of British ships and British seamen's jobs in the North sea, even in the area of our drilling operations. The conversations and discussions have produced little action or change.
  The link between our great land transport industries and the sea is our ports, which have an excess capacity of about 50 per cent. in both conventional handling and containerisation. Although 20,000 jobs have been lost in the ports since 1979, the Government's response was to sell the British Transport Docks Board at a loss to the taxpayer, on a proper evaluation, of between £25 million and £30 million, to say that all ports should be private and to threaten an attack on the National Dock Labour Board's schemes because of the belief that a high cost of wages was involved.
  I warn the Secretary of State that if he proceeds along that road and avoids his responsibility to take decisions under present legislation—he has given notice that he divests himself of the responsibility for making a decision on whether Falmouth should add to the capacity for containerisation—he will be fuelling the fires for an industrial dispute of a considerable size in our ports.
  Mr. Tim Smith: That is all very negative stuff. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed since the Government sold shares in Associated British Ports, how successful that company has been?
  Mr. Prescott: Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not know about the performance of the British Transport Docks Board before it was privatised. If he goes to the Library and examines its profit or productivity record—however he wishes to measure it—he will see that it always had a fair measure of success. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not from a port area — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should go to the Library as I suggested. He has shown his ignorance on the Floor of the House, but he might improve his performance by looking up the facts before he intervenes.
  The motion states that there has been a deterioration in transport, so I must justify that statement and attack the

  761
  Government's policy. The Government cannot be indifferent to the pattern of transport locations. In the 1970s we pursued the idea of building roads to ports. However, now the roads go to ports which have little traffic and the expanding ports are demanding more investment in roads at a time when road improvement and maintenance are deteriorating. That was shown by the Department's independent survey, which stated:
  "Assessment of underlying trends is however more important than simple comparisons between two years. Between 1977 and 1980, the general trend was one of improvement, followed by deterioration up to 1982."
  That was improvement under a Labour Government and deterioration under a Tory Government.
  The sole response to that decline in our network and the appearance of a patchwork quilt of maintenance notices in the papers that point to this year's provisions for motorway traffic is to allow bigger and faster lorries to use our motorways, with deteriorating infrastructure and adding further to lorry drivers' unemployment.
  The Government's abdication of responsibility for the matter is shown especially by their ignoring many of the proposals in the Armitage report. The Government, compared with the Labour Government, are building fewer bypasses to deal with large lorries. That has led to local authority initiatives, in which more than 12,000 lorry bans have been documented. The latest example of local authority initiative is in the GLC's Wood inquiry, which the Government have attacked but to which they have offered no alternative other than the free access of lorries to urban areas. The Government's further response to local authority action has been to propose the abolition of the GLC and to introduce Tory quangos. No doubt those quangos will he used as the means of implementing the changes in London's roads that the Secretary of State wants to see, without the usual inquiries that are possible under legislation.
  The nationalisation of London Transport has shown us how the Government deal with the transport needs of Londoners. It was no surprise to many of us that, within days of considering the London Regional Transport Bill, the Secretary of State, in a headlined article in The Standard of Thursday 12 April, said:
  "Yes, fares will have to go up."
  The article makes it clear that there will be cuts in services, and redundancies. The consequences of privatisation were often denied in Committee. The Secretary of State even said that Tory Members would not vote against the Bill. That is untrue, as a Tory Member voted against it. The Secretary of State is not often factually correct in his approach to these matters.
  The London Regional Transport Bill will cause higher fares, fewer services and more redundancies. Tory policy will be introduced in all the passenger transport areas, where Labour's successful transport policies were regularly voted for by local electors. We have seen the comparison between Tory and Labour passenger transport areas in the different principles and policies of high and low fares. Indeed, the only reversal in the decline in the number of people using public transport has been in areas such as Tyne and Wear and South Yorkshire. The level of support given there, from 50 to 60 per cent. of revenue costs, is equivalent to the normal rates of support for European transport systems. The usual level in the United
  762
  Kingdom is about 30 per cent. The Secretary of State could learn much from a study of the 10 years of operation of the passenger transport authorities.
  When we compare the authorities with another bus transportation system—the National Bus Company—we see that a considerable decline in passengers has resulted from the policies that it has been forced to pursue, with little direct public support except what it can get from local authorities. The National Bus Company has a high fares policy. Again, when we compare Labour and Tory Administrations, the decline in passengers on National Bus Company buses of 7 million a year during Labour's period of office accelerated to 60 million a year and vehicle miles were halved under the Tory Administration.
  The Tories can say — no doubt it gives great satisfaction to the Secretary of State — that the company's profits increased from £5 million in 1979 to £40 million today. The National Bus Company, in the process of showing that profits can be made by nationalised industries, is clearly a candidate for privatisation.
  Those profits are made at a heck of a price. The desire for increased profits has proved bad for rural areas with fewer services. It has considerably reduced many thousands of jobs on national buses. The only claim in favour of a national bus policy — I assume that the Government may claim it tonight — is that there are more inter-city services, which means that lower prices must be introduced in competition on the routes between our main towns. That has been at the expense of rural services, and it has also added to the competition difficulties of inter-city rail services, which have considerable financial problems.
  It is clear that the 5 per cent. return on capital imposed upon inter-city rail services will not be achieved. When one considers that the loss in 1982 was £159 million, it is no surprise that the only routes likely to show profits, by that definition, are the east and west coast runs. The inter-city services operating cross-country in the west and the north will not be able to meet the financial targets. That might cause further threats to them and overall inter-city investment when assessments are made in 1988.
  Today the trade unions launched a demand for a hygh investment low fare strategy for British Rail. It is undoubtedly true that we have the worst-financed railway system, with the lowest level of investment in Europe. Although the level of Government investment was not good enough under Labour, in the four years of the Labour Administration it was about £415 million a year. Under the Conservatives it was reduced to £343 million a year. We should bear it in mind that Germany invests three times as much in its railways, and France spends twice as much.
  British Rail's plan in 1980 made it clear that it needed a minimum investment of £600 million a year to maintain its high investment strategy. The answers given by the Secretary of State at Question Time make it clear that some of the investments on his desk were withdrawn by British Rail. It is important for us to understand some of the reasons why an investment of £330 million by British Rail was withdrawn.
  I wrote to the chairman of British Rail to ask why, with such a shortage of investment in British Rail, he felt that he could withdraw more than £300 million for British Rail. He replied by picking out certain investments, including the five-year rolling programme for the construction of freight rolling stock of £136 million. That was cancelled

  763
  and withdrawn primarily because the chairman felt that the freight sector could not meet the financial targets that were set for it and closed Shildon.
  The rolling programme for the construction of the EMU vehicles for 1980 to 1984 is in two batches of £164 million. Some of those have already been undertaken. In his reply, the chairman of British Rail said:
  "It is clear that the Department of Transport's support for the rolling programme has waned. Indeed, the programme is running two years behind its original schedule."
  On the third area of the construction of 180 MK III loco-haul day coaches at £34 million, the reason for the withdrawal by British Rail was that it believed:
  "There was never a strong financial justification for these 180 vehicles … The timing of its investment was strongly influenced by a production gap at BREL's Derby Litchurch Lane Works."
  Those men are desperately in need of work. We are desperately in need of modern coach work. Yet, because of the new political climate and financial stringencies being placed upon British Rail through reduction in its financial support, it has been forced to reassess its investment position and prepare BREL for privatisation.
  Mr. Conal Gregory (York): The hon. Gentleman suggests that British Rail has been starved of investment, but nothing could be further from the truth. If he considers the factors involved, he will see that British Rail has asked for an external financing limit of £936 million, which was not reduced by the Government. The limit was decided by agreement. All the investment that has been requested by British Rail has been fulfilled, quite contrary to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. Prescott: I do not have time now to take up that matter, except to say that the external financing limits are not a problem for British Rail. It suffers from a lack of capital with which to carry out investments. Money comes from the Government or from fares. That is the way investment is financed. Without sufficient resources, there will be cuts.
  The hon. Gentleman's point is sound when one considers that British Rail is being forced to reduce services and maintenance on its rural network and, indeed, throughout its whole network. We have heard the Secretary of State constantly saying that there has been a cut in services of only 2 per cent. At least the cut is of not more than 2 per cent. A letter sent to me by the transport users' consultative committee for London makes it clear that
  "percentage reductions are of the order of 25 to 30 per cent., with a few at 60 per cent. Drops from 30 minutes to 50 minutes frequencies. It really is dishonest of various defenders of the policy to state that cuts amount to 2 per cent. overall."
  That statement shows the sharp edge of the policy's effect. There have been cuts in routes such as the Goole line and the Settle-Carlisle line. Such cuts are leading to the overall reduction of our rail system. Savings are being made through increasing unemployment. British Rail's PSO has been reduced to zero by the Secretary of State, so it finds savings in other ways. It does so by reducing services and employment. In the four years of Labour's period of office, the number of jobs in British Rail was reduced by 1,000 a year. That number increased under the Tory Government to 6,000 a year, and there is now a predicted figure of 10,000. According to the chairman's estimate, by 1986 there will be a loss of 60,000 jobs or a
  764
  saving of £300 million in the wage bill. Savings will be made through further mass unemployment in British Rail, and also by the privatisation of assets, which British Rail sets at about £265 million.
  The body in charge of selling the taxpayers' assets for British Rail is British Rail Investment Ltd. It sold the hotels at half their market value and it gave away hovercraft. The company concerned is now known as Hoverspeed. The original company, valued at £11 million, was given to a few people in management, about which there are few details. The chairman of British Rail Investment Ltd., which gave away the company to Hoverspeed, also sat on the board of Hoverspeed. I should have thought that that was a definite conflict of interests. BRIL is also in charge of selling Sealink. There have been low earnings and losses in Sealink that can only be detrimental to its sale value at this time. That is why I referred the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. It is a scandalous disposal of public assets. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may laugh, but if he thinks that it is satisfactory for a person to give one company's assets to a board on which he sits, I believe that many other people will not. In that case, there is a clear conflict of interest.
  The Government's policy for British Rail was predicted in Serpell. Forty-three Tory Members from the south wrote to the National Union of Railwaymen saying that they rejected Serpell and believed in a high investment policy. However, one should look at what the Government are doing. Theirs is not a high investment policy. It is in line with Serpell's recommendations. Tory Members should bear that in mind when they vote on the motion.
  The Tory Government's policy represents an ideologcial obsession with introducing competition by rolling back the frontiers of Socialism. Exposed for what it is, it is an ideological obsession with market ideology, an inevitable consequence of their monetary policy. It is an excuse to plunder the taxpayers' assets, producing disintegration of our transport, damaging our nation's competitiveness, producing fewer services at higher prices, paid for by massive unemployment, placing a greater burden on those who depend on public transport, and replacing a public service, meeting public transport needs, with competition, privatisation and profit. By voting for our motion, we shall commit ourselves to a reversal of those vicious Tory policies. We shall certainly reverse them on our return to office.
  5.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to improve the transport system of the United Kingdom.'.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has hardly made his case. He must substantiate the first word in the title of the motion:
  "Deterioration of British Transport Systems".
  What deterioration? Since 1979 total passenger mileage has increased by 12 per cent. There has been rapid expansion. Private passenger car mileage has increased by 18 per cent. It is true that conventional public transport has declined. The number of rail passengers is down by 5 per cent., and bus passengers by 17 per cent., but the Labour party must realise that transport is for the benefit of the traveller, not the operator. If travellers prefer to go by car

  765
  and can afford to do so, that is a sign of progress. More people do so every year. They are exercising their freedom of choice to do so, and I am delighted that they can. It is excellent news. I make it clear that, unlike the Labour party, we welcome it. Why do the Opposition hate car owners so much? I cannot understand it.
  Freight has also increased over the years. Equally, it has moved for the benefit of the customers. The proportion of all domestic freight going by road as opposed to rail in the early 1950s was about 35 per cent. In the early 1980s it was about 60 per cent. Over the same 30 years road freight has trebled and rail freight has halved. That is because businesses find it cheaper and more efficient to send their goods by road, yet the Opposition would frustrate that.
  The hon. Gentleman, speaking at a conference at Heathrow on 23 March, said that he wanted to bring in some form of quantity licensing for heavy lorries, which was most interesting. He also said, on a side issue:
  "Political pressure did force the Government to propose the 38 tonner despite Armitage making it clear that damage to the roads would be no greater from a 44 tonner. Clearly logic is not a sufficient counter-force to political pressure from community groups."
  Those words will be useful in the debates ahead. I shall not forget them.
  I return to the hon. Gentleman's views on road freight. Why, if road transport is cheaper and more efficient for the businesses that want to send freight, does the hon. Gentleman want to reduce road transport and restrain it with quantity controls? If it is the best form of freight transport, what is the point of imposing restrictions upon it?
  I shall give Opposition Members the answer to both those questions. They see the railways and the buses as major nationalised employers. They see the employees, heavily unionised, as a political constituency for Labour. However, it has declined, as the hon. Gentleman admitted in his speech. That is what he is worried about. Opposition Members want to protect that, so they stoop to carping at freedom of choice for the traveller because they would rather put the operators before the travellers. They are not interested in providing new jobs by keeping industry's costs down and improving services to customers. They are interested only in preserving jobs, whatever the cost to the user, and whatever the long-term costs to the public transport network, the economy and jobs.
  The motion complains about
  "competition, profit, privatisation and reduced Government financial support and inadequate investment".
  I shall examine each in turn. First, I believe in competition. It is good for travellers, good for workers and good for taxpayers. I shall take aviation as an example. British Midland now flies from Heathrow to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast with a better fares structure, improvements in frequency and a remarkable improvement in the standard of service. The result is that both British Airways and British Midland have reported significant increases in traffic—at least 10 per cent. That is the way to safeguard jobs. It has even made British Airways provide breakfast on its morning flights. British Air Ferries and Guernsey Airlines will soon start summer services between Jersey and Scotland. They are willing to compete. I see no reason to stop them.
  We are carrying those principles into Europe, too. At the next Council of Ministers meeting I shall press for more competition in air services within Europe. I see no
  766
  reason why it should cost more to fly from London to Paris than from London to Glasgow. London to Paris is a shorter distance, yet the flight costs more. Why? Because there is no true competition such as that which has been introduced on the Scottish service. If more evidence of the efficacy of competition for airline business is needed, I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the traffic across the north Atlantic.
  Let me also remind the House of the results of deregulation of the long-distance coach market. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East even carped at that because it was competition for the railways. The result has been more frequent services—700 new services were introduced between 1980 and 1983—a better quality of service and, above all, lower fares, which have fallen by some 40 per cent. in real terms on the major routes. Again, more passengers have been carried. This change has shown what competition does to help the traveller.
  I believe in privatising transport concerns. It has dramatic effects. We have privatised some nationalised industries, thereby reducing the role of the Government. The ports and road haulage undertakings which the Government previously owned have both been sold, and both have since produced far better results in the private sector. Only recently the National Freight Company announced an increase in profits, turnover and investment for the first full year of its existence, and the operating profits of Associated British Ports were up by more than a quarter in its first year.
  Last week we had a splendid sale of our remaining shares in ABP—at 2·4 times the price of the original sale only 14 months ago. That shows how an enterprise can thrive under competition in the private sector. British Airways is poised for sale in early 1985, Sealink UK Ltd. is being bid for now, Hoverspeed (UK) Ltd. is already in the private sector, and I am happy to tell the House that we shall have further plans for the privatisation of transport industries.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: What profits did British Airways make last year and the year before while publicly owned?
  Mr. Ridley: I shall be able to give the hon. Gentleman the 1983 profit figures very soon—they are about to come out but—I do not have the 1982 figure in my head. However, he will find that there has been a dramatic transformation in the profitability of British Airways since Lord King started to prepare it for privatisation.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Is not the Secretary of State really saying that a change of management rather than a change of ownership has caused this?
  Mr. Ridley: I am not saying that——
  Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman just has.
  Mr. Ridley: I did not. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said it. I do not believe that Lord King would have taken the job had he not been asked to take the company into the private sector. He is a professional manager who believes passionately that the only way to manage such a concern is in the private sector.
  I am delighted with all this, and so are the customers and workers. National Freight Company worker-shareholders have seen their original shares go from £1 to the equivalent of £5·20, and ABP shares have gone from

  767
  £1·12 at initial purchase to £2·60 this morning on the stock market—a little bit more last week when that company was sold.
  What makes the Opposition so unhappy about all this? I read in that extraordinary publication "Labour's Manifesto 1983" that:
  "Labour believes that, together with a properly enforced licensing system, a publicly-owned share of the road haulage industry is essential. It would clearly be sensible for the National Freight Company to form part of this sector; and we are examining how best to bring this about."
  I also read in the TUC-Labour party liaison committee "Transport Policy" 1982:
  "There could be resistance amongst NFC employees to the re-nationalisation of their company. It is anticipated that the NFC should form part of a public sector approach to road haulage."
  How is that from the party of workers? Is it still the Opposition's policy to renationalise the NFC? Would they take it into public ownership if ever they were to come back into government?
  Mr. Prescott: We are quite prepared to say that we believe in a strong public ownership element in the national transportation sector of our lorry industries. As we have said, the NFC could be one of the candidates for consideration. There is no embarrassment in making that point. However, it is understandable that when people have shares in these industries their attitude may be affected if certain acation were taken, but that is the reality of looking at such problems.
  Mr. Ridley: The NFC workers will not thank the hon. Gentleman for that. That is the quickest way of losing votes that ought to go to him. What about ABP, Sealink and British Airways? The employees who buy shares in those great undertakings, and who are looking forward to a more prosperous and successful time under private ownership, also want answers to those questions.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: The right hon. Gentleman may have made a slip of the tongue, but is he quite certain that the employees of, say, Sealink will be given the chance to buy shares?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework, or he would know that in deciding who should buy the company British Rail took particular account of whether the employee shares scheme was adequate.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: That does not answer my question.
  Mr. Ridley: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I have a lot more to say, and I have been interrupted for longer than I have been speaking, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Snape: The right hon. Gentleman ought to reflect that that is probably a relief for the House. As he has encouraged us to intervene, may I ask him about his letter to the chairman of the British Railways Board on 24 October 1983, which referred specifically to Sealink? Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman singularly failed to address himself to that point in reply to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). That letter stated:
  "Sealink must be made ready for privatisation as soon as possible".
  768
  There is nothing in it about shares for the employees.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not read the invitation to bidders, and he should not come to the House without doing his homework. He will find that it is stipulated there.
  I wish to discuss profits, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also seems to dislike. The Labour party cannot bear commercial success or profitability. Its whole ideology rests on the belief that the profit motive is evil, yet the NFC is an outstanding example of what private ownership, profitability and employee participation can achieve. The Labour party cannot countenance the idea that the profit motive is a force for progress. It would send the NFC back to the golden years of the mid-1970s, when it lost £31 million in 1975. There is no profit motive there.
  The motion also refers to
  "reduced Government financial support and inadequate investment".
  The private sector has been investing with great vigour, and I am amazed to see the Opposition motion trying to stop it. When I announced earlier this month the abolition of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964, which has enabled Governments to stop investment in ports, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had the temerity to table a motion — [Interruption.] — he signed a motion which said:
  "That this House … believes that such action will give the go ahead to a private company to construct a container terminal at Falmouth".
  Does the hon. Gentleman want investment, or does he want me to stop it? Again it can be seen that the Labour party's policy is to look after the interests of the registered dock workers in Liverpool, London, Bristol, Southampton, Scotland and Hull, and not, I emphasise, those wishing to ship their goods and to export and import them. The Labour party is interested only in the transport workers, not the transport customers.
  The Labour party screams for more investment in infrastructure, yet screams again when I take the restrictions off people wanting to invest in infrastructure. Private investment in ports, lorries, coaches, cars and aeroplanes has been booming, but the motion may be trying to sidestep that. The Opposition are interested only in public sector investment. I am happy to tell the Opposition what is happening to public sector investment.
  Let us take the example of roads, which are crucial for industry and commerce. We have been reversing the massive cuts in capital spending which took place before we came to power. Under Labour, between 1975–76 and 1978–79, capital spending on trunk roads and motorways—which does not include maintenance expenditure—fell by 40 per cent.—more than £300 million in real terms. That was a 40 per cent. cut, yet the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has the audacity to criticise the Government's record on roads.
  We decided to gear the programme up again. It could not be done all at once, but there have been some healthy increases since. In 1982–83 capital spending on trunk roads was more than 20 per cent. higher in constant price terms than in the last year of the Labour Government. This year we shall see a 13 per cent. cash increase, about another 6 per cent.in constant price terms, on road spending.
  We are also fulfilling our responsibilities on local authority road maintenance. We have accepted for

  769
  transport supplementary grant nearly £900 million this year — 8 per cent. up on last year — and we have accepted a local capital spending programme of £647 million, 4·5 per cent. up, which will enable local authorities to keep up with work on new bypasses and urban relief roads.
  Such roads are important not only for passengers but for freight. Transport and transport infrastructure play a central role in the economy, and if we want to see growth and regeneration I suggest that we concentrate more on making life possible for industry. The philosophy of responding to demand applies just as much to freight transport as to passengers, and jobs and prosperity depend on it just as much.
  This expenditure, by central and local government, all helps to take heavy traffic out of towns and villages and residential areas. We have opened 42 trunk road bypasses and about 30 more should be completed in the next couple of years—that is trunk road bypasses only.
  While we must have the roads, we are equally determined to reduce the effect of heavy traffic on the environment where people live. The two aims of good roads and less nuisance from traffic are compatible. We have made a much better fist of reconciling them than did our predecessors.
  We hear a lot about railways from the Opposition, and the terrible restraints on their investment, as we did this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a bee in his bonnet about railway investment. I advise him to get an apiarist to help get rid of it. It is not true, I am afraid. Since we took office, BR has invested almost £2 billion at present-day prices. In addition, it is spending £100 million per year on replacing old track with continuous welded rail.
  I have made it quite clear that my policy is to support all worthwhile investment. That is why we have approved electrification to Cambridge, to Ipswich, Norwich and Harwich and to Hastings. That is why we have approved major signalling projects—for example schemes worth £20 million in Leeds, and £28 million for the west of England. That is why in the past six months we have approved new rolling stock—some 400 vehicles—worth some £85 million. That is why the board envisages an increase in investment of about 40 per cent. by 1986. I hope that the Opposition will not talk too often about railways starved of investment. They are chasing an illusion.
  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper on transport issued by his own Government in 1977. If he has not, I urge him to do so. It is, of course, defective in parts, but there is a lot of wisdom in it. For example, on page 3 we are told:
  "The objectives — of investment in transport to support industrial recovery and the provision of adequate public transport — have both to be met from the resources we can afford. More for one means less for another … those who wish to see a significant increase in transport expenditure have a duty to say where the additional money should come from."
  I ask the hon. Gentleman: where should the additional money come from, particularly as British Rail has not been denied any worthwhile investment that it has suggested, as the hon. Gentleman knows?
  British Rail now at last has clear objectives to go with its financial target. When I wrote to the chairman last autumn I made it clear that I did not want a programme of major route closures. What is needed is a modern, efficient railway at a low cost to the taxpayer. This
  770
  depends above all on a willingness to provide a service that customers really want, and the same goes for all transport enterprises. That is the real way to a secure future.
  The railways are responding. I congratulate British Rail on its very encouraging results for 1983. It has turned a large loss into a small token profit of £8 million, for the first time. Let me quote from the annual report:
  "In 1983, British Rail demonstrated that a combination of firm management and sound business principles can, with the co-operation of a committed workforce, turn a previous year loss of £175 million into a small but, in terms of the morale of the industry, significant surplus of £8 million.
  Now that a lot more work has been done, the Board is confident, provided railway operations remain reliable. that BR will move close to the objective of a faster reduction in support."
  Finally, in perhaps the most telling of the points made, and one which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should remember, the chairman says:
  "Years of practical experience as a railway manager, rather than any particular view of transport policy, have convinced me that the less dependent an industry is on any source other than the paying customer, the more efficiently it will run. The way to prosper in any business is to satisfy the customer by giving value for money."
  Those are salutary words, from which I hope Opposition spokesmen will learn one day.
  When it comes to what the motion calls "Government financial support"—which means extracting money front the taxpayers—it must not be forgotten that the railways PSO grant at £855 million, with another £78 million from the local authorities—a total of £933 million for 1983—is an enormous sum of money.
  I recognise that public transport needs support. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that they think the more the better. We want value for money. Comparisons with France or Germany are very favourable to us—for once we seem to be doing better than they are, because we have to use very much less support.
  The Opposition measure everything by how much of other people's money is spent on it. I should hate to take the hon. Gentleman out to a restaurant for dinner at my expense. He would only look at the menu to see what item was the most expensive. If we can run public transport at less subsidy than other countries can, it is a success story, not a failure. I never understand why, in Labour mythology, any cut in subsidy must be a cut in services.Will the Labour party ever understand that it is possible to save subsidy by cutting out inefficiency, by modernisation and competition?
  Let us take the example of bus subsidies in the big cities. Some local authorities have been frankly extravagant, and I make no apology for the fact that the protected expenditure levels that I set for 1984–85 were below what the GLC and metropolitan counties wanted, but I am still protecting nearly £500 million of subsidies. That figure is higher than I would ultimately wish. It is also higher in real terms than the Labour Government anticipated in their 1977 transport White Paper. Their commitment to maintain support in real terms at £150 million a year would translate to about £300 million at today's prices. However, there must be constraints on the rate of reduction, to avoid disruption.
  What I do not recognise is the claim that fares must be kept down for the sake of it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East quoted a headline from an article in The Standard—I hope that he read the article—when I said nothing new; only that fares in London would stay

  771
  roughly in line with inflation. That is not putting fares up. That is real-term fares staying level, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Perhaps there is less between the two Front Benches than there seems. I remember 1977–78, when South Yorkshire refused to cut its spending plans. It would have received £4 million in transport supplementary grant. Instead, it got £291,000. But that was in the days when Labour Government transport White Papers explained:
  "Public expenditure will be limited for many years to come, and investment to support economic recovery must not be hampered by allowing too high a proportion to be pre-empted … Subsidy should be paid only when there is a clear requirement for it to meet social needs in transport that would not otherwise be met."
  I reject that part of the motion which criticises "reduced Government support."
  Mr. Stan Crowther: Before the Secretary of State leaves that, he will recall that the Secretary of State for Transport who imposed that £4 million fine on the South Yorkshire county council is now no longer a member of the Labour party, but is a member of the Social Democratic party.
  Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether that is praising or damning him.
  It is more in the nature of a pay claim than a serious debating point. There is a very clear need to bring bus subsidies under control. At present they are consuming some £930 million of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money—joy for the Labour party but not, alas, for those who have to pay it. If Labour Members ever want to win an election, they must one day begin to think of the taxpayers and ratepayers. They are voters, too. They are the majority of our people.
  The Labour party goes on a lot about rural bus services. Yes, they have been reduced, but that is because the customers of the bus industry are reducing at the rate of 3·5 per cent. a year. Rural bus services have declined inexorably since the 1950s, under Governments of both colours. Since 1978 rural bus mileage has declined by some 2 per cent. per annum, and passengers by some 4 per cent. per annum. That means that there is a better service.
  I believe that Labour Members should look at the innovative ideas on rural transport that are happening in some of the counties — [Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that if the decline in the number of services is 2 per cent. per annum, and the decline in the number of passengers is 4 per cent. per annum, there are more services per passenger at the end of the day.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: How can it possibly be a better service for a pensioner in a village which is perhaps more isolated than it has been for a century as a result of Government cuts in bus services? How can that be a success story?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Government do not make cuts in bus services. It is the county councils which are responsible for bus services. The county councils must use what resources they think fit to help those who need the transport.
  I was saying that Labour Members would be well advised to look at some of the innovative ideas on rural transport in some of the counties. I know that it is
  772
  exceptional, but in my constituency there is a service called the villager bus, which is a minibus sevice run by retired people who offer their services free one day a week to take people to and from the towns. It is a great success. It takes all the pensioners to the shops. In Hereford and Worcester—one of the trial areas—by deregulating and seeking tenders for uneconomic routes, the county has made real savings in subsidy, and passengers have seen lower fares as well as better services. There are also interesting experiments in Sussex, Devon and Norfolk.
  There is one other matter to which I must refer, and that is shipping. The Opposition motion is ridiculous and fails to address itself to the real problem facing this very important industry. It is not "privatisation and competition" that has reduced the British merchant fleet. There has been no change from the last Administration's policy of keeping our fleet privately owned and seeking to combat protectionism wherever it occurred round the world. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about my ideological obsession with competition and privatisation. I have made no change from the type of policy that the last Administration followed. The only ships to be privatised are those of Sealink, and they have not been privatised yet. The motion is absolute rubbish.
  I accept that the United Kingdom's merchant fleet has declined substantially since its peak in 1975. This is due to a combination of factors—the substantially higher investment in preceding years, world recession, oversupply of vessels brought about by massive world shipbuilding subsidies, and competition from emergent nations which see a shipping industry as a national must. But we still have a large fleet and one that continues to depend critically on cross-trading and therefore on open shipping markets. It is in our shipping and our trade interests to keep those markets open; otherwise our fleet will be considerably smaller than it is today and our exports will be less competitive. As the president of the General Council of British Shipping said in a speech last year, the Labour party's naive belief in protectionism and nationalisation meant that
  "we would see emerge another inefficient, expensive state corporation surviving on a drip feed of taxpayers' money."
  That is what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wants.
  I have pulled the Opposition motion to pieces limb by limb. There is nothing left of it but a naked desire to soak the taxpayers for the benefit of the transport operators. Nowhere does it even mention the traveller or the sender of goods. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) represent respectively the NUS and the NUR. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made that clear.
  I ask the House to accept the Government amendment and to reject the motion.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Ron Lewis: As is the custom, I begin by declaring my interest as an hon. Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen. It is on the railways that I intend to concentrate what I have to say in this very important debate.
  Despite all that we have just heard from the Secretary of State, the Government's approach to the railways and to transport in general has been scandalous. The Prime Minister, who is not here, attaches such little importance

  773
  to the subject that she appoints Secretaries of State for Tranport and then discards them with bewildering frequency. Often it is difficult to remember who holds office at any one time. If a straw poll were taken of the ordinary man in the street to name the present Secretary of State, I doubt whether eight out of 10 would know.
  It is no wonder that transport policy is inconsistent. It is no wonder that the pro-road bias of Department of Transport officials has not been kept in check and that the morale of loyal dedicated workers is at rock bottom.
  Last autumn there was a moment of hope. The Government spent most of the summer looking for a hatchetman to take over from Sir Peter Parker as chairman of the British Railways Board. What a pity it was for the Prime Minister that it was impossible for Mr. MacGregor to make a reality of the triple alliance by becoming chairman of the steel, coal and railways industries simultaneously, but in the end she grudgingly accepted Mr. Bob Reid.
  I have a reasonable regard for Mr. Reid's management ability. He has the advantage of being a career railwayman who knows the industry inside out. I support a few of his objectives, not least his determination to maintain the rail network at its present size. However, some questions must be answered about that commitment. I quarrel with Mr. Bob Reid about his apparent belief that by keeping quiet and not upsetting the Government or the Secretary of State for Transport, by not allowing local management to press the railways' case with their Members of Parliament or even local authorities, he will achieve the investment and revenue support needed to modernise the railway and to make it attractive for customers.
  No sensible person would disagree with aiming to give value for money, but the BRB must recognise that there are ways of measuring values other than by concentrating on how much industry is costing the taxpayer. Is it value for money to drive away passengers by continually putting up fares or even by cutting out trains, as will happen when the new timetables are operated from 8 May, if the effect is to force people back to their cars and on to congested roads? Is it value for money to close down one local freight depot after another if that transfers more consignments to dirty, dangerous, over-laden lorries? Of course it is not, but that is what the Department of Transport means by value for money. I am afraid that Mr. Reid appears to be falling for it.
  The Under-Secretary has told us many times that the Serpell report has been shelved and that the infamous network options were only illustrations, which were not to be taken seriously. We are told that there is such a cosy relationship between the Secretary of State and his officials and Mr. Reid and the BRB that the railways, like the Health Service, are safe in Government hands. The railwaymen do not think that that is true.
  Is it not surprising that the cost savings identified in the Serpell report bear more than a passing resemblance to the new objectives set for the BRB by the Secretary of State, that the decision has already been taken to put out to tender all major orders for railway equipment in line with what Serpell said? Is it not surprising that the option of privatising British Rail Engineering Ltd.—selling it off, closing most of its workshops and sacking most of the staff —is still being considered, according to the chairman of BREL, Mr. James Urquhart, whom some of us remember from when he appeared on television during the ASLEF strike a couple of years ago?
  774
  What about the mystery of bus substitution—closing rural railways and trying to persuade someone to provide a bus service? If Serpell is dead, that idea should have died with it, but a commitment to some bus substitution was part of the BR chairman's objectives.
  No one at BRB will say which lines are being considered, or whether the substitution will be a genuine experiment so as to allow the trains to run again if the bus service is not a success. No one will say who will run the buses. It is hard to see the National Bus Company doing a deal with BR, because its main interest is now to smash as much of the railway inter-city business as it can with its under-taxed, often illegally driven, long-distance coaches.
  Has that much changed since the dark days of Serpell? Has the influence of the railways' enemies on Government thinking disappeared? What is Professor Walters saying about railway electrification now, bearing in mind that he torpedoed it last time round? Where is his friend, Mr. Alfred Goldstein, who did everyone a good turn by carrying his anti-rail bias on the Serpell committee to absurdity?
  What about the other Alf, Sir Alfred Sherman, who sat on a British Rail inquiry into converting railways into roads — the most pointless study of all time — while taking money from the National Bus Company as a consultant on the same subject, an interest which he never voluntarily declared to the BRB chairman?
  Previously, Prime Ministers have been criticised for their choice of friends, but the hangers-on at Queen Margaret's court are as bad as any who went before them. The refrain that we hear from Ministers whenever we criticise the Government is, "There is no alternative " In virtually all areas of policy that is a blatant untruth, especially in relation to transport.
  I commend to the House an excellent publication by Transport 2000, the environmental organisation which commands intelligent support across the political spectrum. It has demonstrated conclusively time and again that a high-investment, low-fares strategy makes good sense. That approach has been followed by almost all the railways in Europe in recent years. France, despite having invested heavily in the train de grande vitesse, is still committing itself to about one and three quarter times as much railway investment over the next three years. West Germany, even with a right-wing Government, will be investing nearly three times as much as the United Kingdom.
  Main line electrification lies at the heart of BR's needs. The House must not be satisfied with the Secretary of State smugly sitting back saying that he is waiting for BR to jump through yet more hoops.
  Mr. Gregory rose——
  Mr. Lewis: Now we are dealing with the so-called viability of the inter-city sector; previously there had to be a line-by-line analysis; and before that, the network had to be viewed as a whole. The Government are not just moving goal posts at half-time; they are saying that in the second half the game must be played with a differently shaped ball and to different rules.
  In addition to being lectured on value for money, the House is lectured about the virtues of so-called competition. When will we have a fair competitive framework in transport? When will the Secretary of State

  775
  make heavy lorries pay for the damage they do, not just in terms of track costs—the juggernauts are still not paying their fair share of those costs—but in terms of environmental damage, pollution, noise, filth, accidents, policing, regulation enforcement and the destruction of buildings and bridges? How is it that we can cheerfully — I am not quarreling with this point — pay up for repairs to the Severn bridge, which are necessary solely because of the volume and weight of road haulage vehicles, yet deny BR relatively tiny sums for repairs to the Ribblehead viaduct on the Carlisle-to-Settle line and for a swing bridge at Goole on an important line between Doncaster and Hull?
  How can the competition be fair when the road-building fanatics in the Department of Transport justify questionable motorway schemes on the basis of a shaky cost-benefit analysis, when railway investment is subject to the far harsher disciplines of Treasury rates of return?
  Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lewis: I am coming to a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman can make his point if he catches the eye of the Chair.
  Within the past few weeks, Professor Philip Bagwell has published a book, "End of the Line? The Fate of British Railways under Thatcher". The concluding paragraph on page 180 states:
  "The millions of people who use buses or trains each day have an interest in seeing public transport services maintained and improved. The 'core of the matter' today is that the nation 'must will the means' to sustain a level of public transport services which will meet their needs."
  Transport is an area of policy in which Britain is out of step with the rest of the civilised world. Governments, not just in Europe but in the far east, North and South America, Australia and many other areas, are appreciating the benefits of large-scale railway investment. I suggest to the Secretary of State and the Government that now is the time for them to change course.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Terence Higgins: It is a good thing that we are debating transport in broad terms. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) pointed out, this is the first time since 1977 that we have had such a debate. It is curious that the Opposition have chosen one of their days to hold this debate at a time when many of the results of the railway and road building programmes are going remarkably well. Clearly, there is still room for improvement.
  I welcome the structural change in the machinery of government that enables the Department of Transport to cover air and shipping transport as well as roads and rail. That is an improvement, but it is difficult to speak in a general debate because one must cover an enormous range of subjects. I suspect that it is easier to do that from the Front Benches than from the Back Benches.
  I shall take up some of the points made in earlier speeches and set out a shopping list of matters that the Government can improve. I shall deal with each of the main transport areas briefly, but I have a general point affecting the railways and the roads involving those commuting into London. We suffer from a severe peak hours problem because of the working hours in London.
  776
  The need for capital and the congestion on the roads are exacerbated by the peak problem. No Government of any party have made any serious attempt to stagger working hours so that less capital investment on the railways is needed and less congestion occurs on the roads. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in conjunction with other Departments, will pay some attention to that matter, because a great deal must be done.
  It is extraordinary to compare the statements of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and those writing the type of heavy book to which he referred running down the railways all the time with the results reported a few days ago in The Times. The first paragraph stated:
  "British Rail emerged from years of gloom yesterday with record profits, after subsidy, and an optimistic view of the future. The railways achieved a group surplus of £8m last year, after a £175m loss in strike-torn 1982, and a £62m operating profit, the highest since BR was formed 22 years ago."
  That contrasts with the points made by the hon. Member for Carlisle.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How were those figures achieved? How many assets were sold off?
  Mr. Higgins: That is something to do not with asset sales, but with operating profits. One must take the operating profits as a whole. Much can be said also for the degree of divestment.
  There must be a team effort. I take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about investment in BR. We all know of the scandal of the Bedford-St. Pancras line. A vast investment was made and for a considerable period equipment lay idle. Only if we achieve flexibility on the industrial relations side can we justify to our constituents the investments in BR that we would all like to see. My right hon. Friend has responded rapidly and constructively, given the improvements after a strike-torn 1982 and the trauma involved. The Serpell report, to which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred, was unfortunate in many respects, but it is wrong for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, to quote selectively and out of context the changes proposed in the timetable for the southern region. The rail network is not being cut, as Serpell suggested. This afternoon my right hon. Friend gave an assurance to that effect. Certainly, in my constituency substantial sums have been invested in signalling on the Victoria to Brighton line. It is not true to say that the railways are not getting Government support.
  I cannot envisage any future for transporting coal, if, as the National Union of Mineworkers wants, we continue to subsidise coal mines that will never be economic at any level of energy cost. The union should encourage the closure of uneconomic pits in the hope that more investment can be made in the coal industry, so that total coal production and the amount of business for British Rail can be correspondingly increased. It is not in the interests of the rail industry to support Mr. Scargill in his backward-looking approach.
  Following the road congestion during the holiday weekend, it is clear that Britain has become a car-owning democracy. That creates a number of problems. The Government have implemented a substantial road-building programme. However, I am worried that future opportunities to increase the programme may be frustrated because of the delay in the preparation of road projects.

  777
  A recent NEDC report suggested that the average time for preparing a major road programme was 10 years. I hope that, rather than spending all the available money immediately on building certain roads, my right hon. Friend will devote a considerable amount to carrying through the planning and preparation arrangements. Should the economic position allow us to move ahead faster than expected, it will be necessary for the planning to have been completed. That point should be noted in the general context of the combination between road and rail programmes.
  Although more bypasses are being built, we are not undertaking the large bypasses that are needed, such as one around Worthing. The bypass planned by the Labour Government would have gone straight through the cente of Worthing. That was not a good idea. It took me 10 years to stop that absurd proposal. I hope that it will not take me another 10 years to obtain plans for a suitable bypass around the town.
  There is not sufficient co-ordination on road maintenance. The cones on every motorway are clearly breeding at an enormous rate. All too often there are hold-ups because of cones that could have been removed for substantial periods, especially during weekends. Such delays are quite unnecessary. I hope that the Department will consider whether improvements can be made to ensure that roads are not unnecessarily coned, especially when traffic is heavy.
  I wish to make three brief points about the relationship between the Department and other Departments, especially with the Home Office and local authorities. Existing legislation is not being enforced adequately. For example, the 38-tonne limit for heavy lorries approved by the House is not being enforced. Many hon. Members have been concerned about the suggestion that it does not matter if lorries are 5 or 10 per cent. over the limit. I welcome the reply given to me by my right hon. Friend that he is devoting more resources to ensuring that the law is properly enforced. Having said that the limit is 38 tonnes, nothing above it should be allowed.
  Secondly, the law about lighting on pedal cycles is not being enforced. More than 50 per cent.—possibly 75 per cent.—of cycles in central London at night do not have lights. The police clearly make no attempt to enforce the law. I hope that my right hon. Friend, perhaps through an advertising campaign, will ensure that the law is observed so that that dangerous practice ceases.
  Thirdly, the 70 mph speed limit on motorways is not being enforced. We should encourage the police to enforce the limit, and not accept the suggestion that it should be increased because it cannot be enforced. If we cannot enforce the current limit, we certainly cannot enforce a higher limit because of the problems of catching offenders.
  My right hon. Friend, in his concluding remarks, referred to shipping and extolled the virtues of competition. That sits a little uneasily with the support that the Government have given to the UNCTAD liner code provisions, which we debated during the last Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider whether that is in the interests of British shippers and shipowners.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to the international trade in shipping and the fluctuations in that. Britain operates in a competitive market and there is little we can do about that other than to discourage other countries from adopting unfair practices. The provisions in the Budget on
  778
  capital allowances and free depreciation are causing concern in the industry. In general, I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals, but the shipping industry, subject as it is to substantial fluctuations, needs other arrangements. The profits in shipping fluctuate to a considerable extent. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor will discuss that matter and take account of the representations being made by the shipping industry. I hope that they will ensure that those operating in the industry — who are also determined to ensure that competition prevails and that the industry is efficient—do not find themselves unjustifiably penalised in one of the few areas where it is possible for the Government to make reasonable arrangements.
  I fully support the idea of competition. My right hon. Friend rightly stressed the importance of transport being for passengers and those who transport goods. However, in some areas there is a real danger of establishing a private monopoly in the place of a public monopoly. Insufficient attention has been paid to the regulatory procedures that may be necessary to ensure competition once assets have moved from the public to the private sector. A monopoly in the private sector is no better than a monopoly in the public sector. Therefore, while I support the proposals for privatisation and hope that competition will be maintained, we must ensure that the benefits of competition and privatisation are obtained by those for whom the transport industry works—the consumer and those who wish to transport goods by whatever means of transport are available.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I agree with several of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I agree especially with his remarks, at the conclusion of his speech, about the merchant shipping fleet. I hope that the Secretary of State's views will not continue to represent those of his Department. I know that the Minister who is to reply to the debate has the responsibility for shipping. I suspect that he has recently seen a delegation from the Maritime League. The whole nation should be concerned at what has happened to our merchant fleet. We cannot go on trying to pretend that it is all part of competition and that we have to live with it. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Defence believes that we can live with it.
  I found the Secretary of State's speech totally complacent. It is tragic that the Government, with their huge majority, have not had the courage to tackle the real problems of pollution, congested roads, and too many private cars and heavy lorries in our town and city centres at peak times. The right hon. Member for Worthing suggested that we should be more determined about flexible hours of working. I do not think that we are likely to make much more progress in this respect than we have already. If the Government were to bring in regulations concerning the use of private cars in inner city areas, no doubt they would be unpopular for a time—certainly we should get the heavy lorries out of city centres as soon as possible and on to principal routes—but I think that after a while the public would come to appreciate the great improvement in the quality of everyday life and the greater freedom of movement. A really effective integrated public transport system could bring that about.
  I know that today is Anzac day, and it is right that Whitehall should have been closed, but the traffic round

  779
  Parliament square was chaotic. That sort of chaos happens far too often in our cities. For example, mornings and evenings it takes at least half an hour to grind one's way into and out of the centre of Portsmouth. That position, which is repeated in every town and city in the country, will get worse and worse. Some Government—it should be this one—must tackle the problem.
  A recent investigation showed that the average speed of traffic in the inner city areas of Britain—I understand that the position is similar in other European countries—is exactly the same now as it was 20 years ago. The average speed is about 8 kph. All the so-called improvements, the upheaval and loss of amenity have succeeded only in holding the position. Hon. Members may say that it could not have been held if those actions had not been taken. That is possibly an example of the market-type economics which appeal to the Secretary of State. He seemed to be eulogising them in his speech.
  The marvel of car travel is not some independent absolute to which we are all constrained to bend our wills and our policy. People's preference for cars is relative to other forms of transport. As other forms of transport change, so will their perception of car use. If public transport improves, people will use it more and cars less. That has happened in London, much though it apparently grieves the Secretary of State. It has also happened in Sheffield and Plymouth. Through the new fares policy it is happening in Oxford, and in Tyne and Wear as a result of imaginative traffic management schemes.
  I understand that the latest statistics for the travelcard scheme in London, introduced last May, show a drop of 10 per cent. in car commuting. In Newcastle, 7 per cent. of the passengers on the new metro used to travel by car. It is clear that there have been improvements. I picked those examples almost at random; there are others. Unfortunately, they are now all at risk because of the nationalisation of London Transport, the abolition of the metropolitan counties, rate-capping, and the apparently imminent deregulation of local bus services.
  Mr. Matthew Parris: Is not the hon. Gentleman's figure for Tyne and Wear a worrying indictment of the argument in support of which he quoted it? If, after the huge expense of building the Tyne and Wear transport system, it has succeeded in capturing no more than 7 per cent. of people who used to travel by car, is that really an argument in support of the hon. Gentleman's contention?
  Mr. Ross: It certainly is, because the metro has only just been extended, and I hope that it will be extended still further. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it also means that there is 7 per cent. less traffic in the inner city area.
  I am suggesting that it will be necessary to introduce regulations, but it is no use introducing regulations or a price system to prevent cars from coming into the inner city area unless a proper public transport infrastructure has already been provided. I believe that the authority was right in going ahead as it did, and I hope that the figures in the future will show even further use of the public transport system.
  While it would be niggardly not to congratulate the British Railways Board on its much improved financial position — Sir Peter Parker should take some of the
  780
  credit for that—it must be recognised that it has been achieved by substantial sales of assets, by further substantial cuts in staff — 6,000 have gone and it is planned to get rid of another 15,000—and by higher fares and shorter trains. In the south of England we are suffering considerably from the introduction of shorter trains. There have also been delays in replacement and reductions in maintenance standards, and they do not give us much confidence for the future.
  In 1982, compared with investment in railways in Italy, West Germany, France, Holland and Sweden, investment in British Rail was still lower in real terms. In fact, since 1976, investment in British Rail has fallen by 68 per cent. in real terms. That consistent decline is unique among the railway systems that I have quoted.
  At least 12 shire counties plan to spend less than one halfpenny per person per day on bus and train revenue support in 1984–85. As a county councillor, I know that they are forced into that position because of the various penalties imposed upon them.
  If the Government relax the bus licensing system, the private operators will come in and take over the most remunerative routes, and then public bus operators will be unable to continue to cross-subsidise loss-making rural services. That point was made to me only yesterday by the general manager of Southern Vectis in my area. He asked me what the Government's plans were likely to be. I appreciate that the Minister happens to know the Isle of Wight. In the Isle of Wight the only routes which pay are those running between the main towns, such as Cowes, Newport, Ryde and Shanklin. Those are the routes that would interest competitors. They would not be interested in taking over the rural routes on which we have managed to maintain a reasonable service up to now.
  Recently a young gentleman sought to set up a rural bus service in the Isle of Wight and we all encouraged him—indeed, the Vectis bus company actively helped him — but he lasted only three months before going bankrupt. I do not believe that the possibility of competition in the rural areas is anything like what some Conservative Members believe it to be.
  In 1984 British Rail had the lowest proportion of its network electrified in the whole of the six countries with which it was compared by Transport 2000. Chapter 8 of that document is particularly pessimistic when it states that the continental European rail network is developing all the time, and by comparison British Rail is being left behind in terms of technology and its ability to meet changing demand.
  Why has permission not been given for the east coast main line to be electrified? I am amazed that it has been delayed for so many years. The St. Pancras to Sheffield line is a further example, and there are many others.
  At least the idea of converting rail into road has been shown to be the non-starter that we all expected it would be. However, according to press reports a week ago, Sir Alfred Sherman wants to see double-decker coaches going into Marylebone. Yet, according to the report in which he played some part, the tunnel size limitation would not permit anything larger than a single-decker bus to get through. Sir Alfred seems to be allowed to get hold of public money and to carry out all sorts of investigations, and one wonders when he will be stopped. Are not our roads and motorways already full enough? As we all know, there are constant traffic jams, and on our radios

  781
  every morning we hear of the latest hold-up, with single-line working on the MI or the M5. Serious accidents are taking place and there are constant repairs to roads.
  I accept that there is a case for a north London coach terminal to relieve Victoria, which is not only full to overflowing, but dangerous. I do not suppose that many hon. Members use the Victoria coach station, but I use it, and my wife used it only yesterday. It may be that Marylebone could provide one of the answers, but why not have rail and coach integrated terminals? Is there not a case for that at Marylebone? Does Marylebone have to shut? We should consider the possibility of an integrated terminal.
  Mr. Snape: With regard to Sir Alfred Sherman and his plans for Victoria coach station, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that Sir Alfred Sherman lives in Gerald street. The coaches to and from Victoria coach station pass the end of the street. That infuriates him and makes him even more determined to proceed with his scheme to turn Marylebone into a coach station.
  Mr. Ross: I understand that recently Sir Alfred went on a trip to South America. It would be better for all of us if he were to go back there.
  Developments of the Bristol parkway type would surely be possible in some of the outer areas of London. The possibilities of rail and coach interchange should certainly be actively pursued particularly at our regional airports.
  As I have said before—in terms that I was obliged to withdraw—I believe that the London Regional Transport Bill is a step back to the past. Mersey rail, the Tyne and Wear metro and the west midlands system are all examples of sensible, forward-looking public transport systems. What is to be their future? Are there to be more nationalised bodies without the directly elected representatives who know and can respond to the interests of their constituents, as those of us with local government experience know so well? Public transport must continue to be administered and organised on a regional basis.
  The most imaginative investment in rail engineering now would be a firm commitment to build a Channel tunnel. Dare we hope that agreement to proceed may be reached before this year is out and the work actually put in hand?
  The final part of my speech concerns the privatisation of Sealink. I apologise to the Minister for having to call off my Adjournment debate on this—due to sciatica, not seasickness! When my colleague Lord Winstanley was a Member of this House, he once said that he welcomed interventions as he had gout and wanted to sit down as much as possible. I felt like making the opposite request and asking hon. Members not to intervene because I could not sit down.
  Sealink is vital to my constituents. Under British Rail management it has served the Isle of Wight well, although the cost of the cross-Solent services is a source of constant complaint, especially from private car owners, as the return fare for a medium-sized car with driver and two passengers is about £30 in the high season. Up to 30 September 1983, Sealink took 70 per cent. of the 6·37 million passenger movements, including 78 per cent. of car movements and 70 per cent. of commercial vehicle movements, and it has recently completed capital schemes totalling £18 million. As the Minister knows, that total would have been greater if he had not spoken to one of the
  782
  engineers on the boats serving the Ryde-Portsmouth route, with the result that replacement of those ships has not been permitted by the Government. Despite the engineer's pride in his engines, those vessels were built in 1948 and are reaching the end of their days.
  I accept that if the Government are determined to privatise Sealink we shall have to go through with it. Indeed, I accept that a case can be made for it in some respects, as "Holiday Which?" has recently shown. I see no point in opposing privatisation for the sake of opposing it, but I am extremely concerned about the outcome. The ultimate decision is, of course, that of the Secretary of State and not of the British Railways Board. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has already ruled out the possibility of a takeover by European Ferries.
  The same objection must apply to P and O. If does not, I wish to make a personal comment. I understand that the chairman of P and O is industrial adviser to the Secretary of State for Industry. Will he stand down if P and O decides to put in a bid? Trafalgar House is scarcely renowned for patriotism and has little experience in ferry operation. It is all very well having an open door to No. 10 Downing street, but I trust that on this occasion saner counsels will prevail. Sea Containers Ltd. is in a similar position. It does not operate ferries and I understand that it is not under British control. I believe that the company is based in Bermuda.
  I therefore greatly favour the idea of the present National Freight Consortium taking control, provided that the work force has every opportunity to participate, preferably in more than 20 per cent. of the equity. That is good Liberal policy and that is why I like it. I entirely agree with the structure of the National Freight Corporation. It has been a great success and it is marvellous that 2,000 shareholders turned up for the recent annual meeting at Wembley. One member of the consortium — James Fisher — is shown in Lloyd's shipping register as having an interest in Red Funnel at Southampton, which is the main opposition for the cross-Solent route. I understand, however, that it has disposed of that interest and that James Fisher now has no financial interest in any cross-Solent route.
  Although not all Sealink ships have been built in United Kingdom yards, the vast majority are of British construction. The cross-Channel RO-ROs were built by Harland and Wolff, albeit a little later than scheduled. The latest cross-Solent ferries—the St. Catherine and the St. Helen—were built by Robb Caledon at Leith. It is a tragedy that that yard had to close, but those last two ships are a credit to its work force. It is important that whoever takes over the service employs British yards to build its ships. Sealink provided one of the ferries to go to the Falkland Islands. Such a facility might not be available if companies had their ships built and registered overseas.
  For the Isle of Wight and doubtless for other routes, especially the Channel routes, it is essential that there should be continued co-operation with British Rail with through bookings, maintenance of piers such as that at Ryde, and so on. Another example is Portsmouth harbour. There must be close co-operation to avoid major maintenance problems. We must be assured of a service at least as good as that which we now enjoy. It may be costly, but it is an excellent service, running hourly and even half-hourly in the season. Will a new owner continue to run a ferry with only 10 cars at 10.30 pm when the vessel can take up to 150 cars? Will he not cancel and

  783
  make them wait for the 11.30 pm sailing? To its credit, Sealink does not behave in that way, but we must have similar assurances about any successor company. The services are profitable and can no doubt be made more so, but we must have answers to these important questions.
  We also need continual experimentation with fare structures and concessions for industry and commerce, the disabled and pensioners. Concessions to industry and commerce are essential if anyone is to manufacture on the Isle of Wight, as it costs between £60 and £150 to take a lorry there and back. It is not an assisted area, but there are some major industries in my constituency. The middle wings of Short's 330s and 360s are built in the Isle of Wight and taken across to Northern Ireland. Plessey and many other companies are also vital to our economy. The 40,000 to 50,000 island-registered vehicles enjoy a reduction of 25 to 30 per cent. in ferry tariffs according to the season. Will that continue? We certainly expect that it should. I cite the example of Wellworthy's of Lymington. Many years ago British Rail made a concession for the work force of that company using the night ferries. No doubt Britsh Rail regrets that concession, but will a successor company continue it?
  I am sorry to raise constituency matters, but the bids are out and we must seek protection now. The Secretary of State spoke as though everything was provided for by British Rail, there would be worker participation with the ability to buy shares, and so on. In fact, it is extremely difficult to get hold of a prospectus for the sale of Sealink. It is in the hands of the merchant bankers Morgan Grenfell and Co. Ltd. When I asked the chairman of Sealink for a copy, it was refused, so I do not know what is in the prospectus. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us. My local authority is thinking of applying but cannot honestly say that it is likely to submit a bid to acquire the company, and probably will not obtain it.
  I hope that the Minister will give proper consideration to all these matters when the decisions are made. I cannot support the Government amendment, which is unbelievably naive, but I support virtually every word of the Opposition motion, although it could have been worded a little better. As the alliance amendment cannot be called, I shall vote with the Opposition.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Matthew Parris: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here, I shall be mischievous and say that I am intrigued by his argument that as rural bus services are not being withdrawn as fast as the passengers are disappearing, the quality of the service is getting better. I am reminded of a bus conductress whom I once encountered on a No. 77 bus, who by the use of her little bell prompted the driver to pass a bus stop where three people were waiting. When one of the passengers on the bus asked her whether she had not seen the people waiting at the bus stop—she must have been something of a wag and an economist — she replied, "London Transport loses 10p for every passenger who is picked up. I have just saved London Transport 30p." The Minister's reasoning seems to be similar to hers.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) started his speech by saying that it is the Government's deliberate policy to increase transport unemployment. The Government's deliberate policy is to
  784
  increase productivity in public transport. If we can reduce the number of people needed to provide a service, we can give passengers an equally good service at a lower cost. Passengers, taxpayers and ratepayers will benefit from that, because it will be possible to reduce the subsidy. I agree with the Minister that although the Government must have a good deal of concern for those who are employed in public transport, our first concern is for the passengers. Public transport does not exist primarily for the benefit of those whom it employs. Primarily, it exists for the benefit of the passengers.
  The hon. Gentleman complained that, under the Conservative Government, revenue support for local bus services had increased. Elsewhere in his speech, however, he complained that in various areas of public transport, Government subsidy had been reduced. On the whole, he regards an increase in subsidy as evidence of Government benevolence. He cannot have it both ways and complain because in the case of rural transport the subsidy has increased. The subsidy has been increased for the reason that he pointed out. The number of passengers has decreased, and it has been necessary to increase the subsidy in order to maintain a service. It is churlish not to congratulate the Government on increasing the subsidy.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to gloat over the collapse of British Coachways. It is a pity that he took that attitude. The 1980 Transport Act was a success in every way. British Coachways collapsed because the National Bus Company reacted quickly and admirably to the new competition to which it was exposed and was able both to increase the number of services offered and to lower the fares. Fares have been lowered by 40 per cent. in real terms since the Act was passed.
  There has been a ricochet effect in that the railways have adopted a more competitive fare policy on inter-city routes. The inter-city saver fares are, I believe, a direct response to competition from the coaches. The 1980 Act was a great success, although it was a pity that British Coachways went under.
  The hon. Gentleman complained about the problem posed to British shipping by flags of convenience. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but he seemed to imply that the problem was a new one, whereas in fact it is older than I am. There is a serious and continuing problem to world shipping from unfair competition from ships registered under flags of convenience. I do not suppose that our Government can solve the problem alone, but Governments of all colours in all countries should do all that they can to address it.
  The hon. Gentleman complained about the level of support for public transport in this country relative to levels of support in Europe. If we are able on the whole to maintain good bus services and a good railway system on a lower level of subsidy than is provided by our European allies, that is a reason for congratulation rather than complaint. The very high level of subsidy which is required by the West German railway system is a cause for concern, not congratulation, to the West German Government. I am sure that the West German Government admires and envies what we have done in this country.
  Mr. Snape rose——
  Mr. Parris: I shall give way in a moment.

  785
  I travel fairly widely in Europe by rail and bus, and I think that we have good rail and bus systems. They are not markedly worse than, for instance, what I have found in France.
  Mr. Snape: Why, in the hon. Gentleman's view, do the West German Government subsidise the railway system to such an extent?
  Mr. Parris: I am not an expert on the German railway system, but I believe that the problem is a historical one. It is possible for a Government to find that they are stuck with a level of subsidy and that it has become politically impossible not to continue to pour money into an ever-open pit.
  Mr. Snape: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is hard to imagine that, with Chancellor Kohl in power, that reason is the correct one.
  Mr. Parris: I have great admiration for Chancellor Kohl, but it is clear that our own Prime Minister has been even more effective where the railways are concerned.
  Except for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), most Opposition Members have spoken mostly about the railways. We all use and admire the railways and wish to see the railway system maintained and improved. However, my own rail journeys have suggested to me that the principal beneficiaries of rail travel in this country are middle-class—often upper middle-class—people. They are business people, and those who commute to their places of work from the leafy suburbs. If I was primarily concerned with the poorer or more needy sections of the population, I think that I would be more interested in bus transport and subsidies to the bus system, but the Labour party seems to be much less interested in the bus system than in the railway system.
  Mr. John Home Robertson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Parris: I may be mistaken
  Mr. Home Robertson: You are.
  Mr. Parris: Many of the subsidies advocated by Opposition Members seem to me to tax the middle classes in order to provide services which are enjoyed primarily by the middle classes. That cannot be sensible.
  Clearly, I shall not become the Secretary of State for Transport or be offered a chair in transport studies at any university or polytechnic.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is too modest.
  Mr. Parris: Nevertheless, I shall deliver a little lecture about the theory of transport subsidy, even if it falls upon the desert air. I do not think that any hon. Member in the Chamber is against subsidy in principle. All three parties recognise that public transport must continue to be subsidised. The question is not whether we are for subsidy or against it.
  Why do we subsidise public transport? First, subsidy can be a means of redistributing wealth and of transferring wealth from the rich to the less well-off. It can be a means of helping the needy and those who for special reasons may lack access to private transport.
  Secondly, subsidies can be a means of sustaining the backbone of our transport system and protecting it from collapse. On grounds of public transport policy itself,
  786
  subsidy may be used in order to provide an efficient means of transporting people and goods with the speed and in the quantity which in some cases only public transport can offer. Those two strands—the redistribution of wealth and the maintenance of a transport infrastructure—are hopelessly confused in the public mind and sometimes in parliamentary debate. I wish to discuss them separately.
  Firstly, there is the question of the transfer of wealth. Why do we use public transport as and to the extent we do for transferring wealth? The reasons are historic. Many local authorities have ambitions for social engineering but the means available to them to be architects of social policy are fairly limited. South Yorkshire county council, for example, does not make foreign policy or determine the criminal law but it is responsible for the south Yorkshire passenger transport authority. Public transport is one of the few means by which ambitious local authorities have been able to effect a little social engineering. That is perhaps why the resources. interest and weight that have gone into public transport subsidy have been directed in that way by local authorities.
  The second reason for our choosing to transfer wealth as I have described is based on an illusion—the illusion that transport subsidy is an efficient way in which to redistribute wealth. The argument goes that we take 20p from a rich man and give a fare worth 20p free to a poor man. There are two reasons why that is not an efficient means of transferring wealth. First, the value lost in the process of transfer can be considerable. Value is lost because of rigidities and inefficiencies in the bureaucratic and mechanical means by which money is removed from the tax and ratepayer and the subsidised journey is delivered to the passenger.
  Secondly, value is lost because free or cheap transport might not be what the beneficiary would have chosen if he had had a choice. It might have some value to him but it might not be equal to the cost of the subsidy. If, for example, we subsidised sandwiches and distributed them free or at reduced prices throughout the capital. the sandwiches would all be eaten and enjoyed and some wealth would usefully be transferred, but it would be an inefficient means of transferring wealth because it would not necessarily be what everyone wanted.
  Mr. Crowther: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about south Yorkshire's policy. Does he accept that the beneficiaries of that policy—the public of south Yorkshire — have voted overwhelmingly in favour of it, knowing all the implications to which he has referred, in every county election since 1973?
  Mr. Parris: I accept that and that argument would take us, if I was prepared to stray from order, into a debate on financing local government. Those people are quite right to vote for that policy. Their interests lie in voting for it and it is logical and rational that they vote for it, because they are not paying for it.
  Mr. Crowther: They are all ratepayers.
  Mr. Parris: Yes they are, but 19 per cent. of the cost of subsidising south Yorkshire passenger transport executive is paid for out of domestic rates and the remaining 89 per cent. is paid for by the taxpayer and out of business rates.
  Mr. Snape: Eighty-nine and 19 per cent. comes to more than 100 per cent.
  Mr. Parris: Eighty-one per cent. Maths never was my strong point — another reason why I shall never be Secretary of State.
  The second reason why public transport subsidy is not an efficient means of transferring wealth is that it is not only the needy who use public transport. Moreover, many of the needy do not or cannot use public transport. Many of the middle classes depend more on public transport than do many of the working classes.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with some care and difficulty. I thought that he was about to suggest that we should give each poor family in the land a Rolls-Royce and that that would solve the problem.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: She has a constituency interest.
  Mr. Parris: I was not about to suggest that, but there might sometimes be a case for examining what each poor family in the land costs in terms of public transport subsidy which is directed their way and asking whether they might not prefer the money.
  I have made it clear that the transfer of wealth is not a good reason for subsidising public transport. The second reason—maintaining an efficient and necessary transport infrastructure—might be good in certain cases. Why is a transport infrastructure necessary and why can it be maintained only with public subsidy? It is necessary in the urban context because our road network is not up to carrying the volume of private motor traffic that it would have to carry if we had no public transport system in cities and towns. I do not need to labour that point, as I am sure that it is clear to everyone.
  A transport infrastructure is also necessary for environmental reasons. It does not need restating that the environment is less damaged and threatened if many passengers are carried in a small number of conveyances as opposed to a small number of passengers travelling, as is the case with private motoring, in a large number of conveyances. Public transport therefore has a less damaging impact per passenger on the environment than private transport. It will be clear that the beneficiaries of public transport in an urban environment are not solely the users. In cities, the beneficiaries include pedestrians and residents, whose lives would become impossible if the place was clogged with private cars. In terms of the environment, the beneficiaries are all those who enjoy, or live in the vicinity of, a road or railway.
  In a perfect free market system which was sensitive to needs and costs, we would be able to ensure that we extracted from the beneficiaries of public transport something like the price of the extent to which they have benefited. We would be able to charge the people whose environment had improved as a result of public transport the cost of providing that public transport. We would be able to charge motorists and residents the cost of providing the underground railways and the bus system which is necessary if motorists and residents are to continue to be able to motor and reside. Unfortunately, we do not have such a finely tuned system and it is unlikely that we shall ever achieve one. We have a fairly clumsy, imperfect and inefficient free market system and our attempts to subsidise public transport amount to no more than an attempt to compensate for the inadequacies of the free market system. That should be more widely recognised, especially on this side of the House.
  788
  Technology will eventually enable us to charge people much more specifically for the services they consume and the benefits they enjoy. I have in mind the extension of tachographs to motor cars. There will come a time when we know how often a person used his car and where he has gone in it, so that when people drive into central London we shall easily be able to record how much driving time they have used in peak hours in central London——
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Nineteen eighty-four.
  Mr. Parris: —and we will be able to charge them for it. When we can do that, we shall be able to charge a competitive price for buses and tubes, because it will be much more expensive to travel by car. [Interruption.] Those days have not yet come. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) murmurs that I have just blown any chances that I might have had of becoming Secretary of State for Transport. I shall therefore deal with a less controversial matter—my constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister has recently given people in Ashbourne in my constituency some welcome news. The Government are to commission a study into the possibility of a bypass around Ashbourne.
  Mr. Home Robertson: There is a long way to go.
  Mr. Parris: There is indeed a long way to go. It is only a first step, but it is further than we have got before. The announcement could not have come at a better time for the people of Ashbourne as, during the bank holiday weekend, we had traffic jams extending five miles out of the town in two directions. That is a perennial and worsening problem in the town. The statement could not have come at a better time. I hope that the study is concluded speedily; I feel sure that its conclusion will be that Ashbourne needs and deserves that bypass as soon as possible.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I shall not attempt to follow the attractive speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris). Instead, I shall try to return to realities rather than the mythology of a free market.
  The House must attend to the question whether we are satisfied with Britain's transport system. A mounting body of evidence suggests that there is public concern. Nearly all the transport-related organisations and interested transport bodies have expressed positive objection to the general trends in the last two or three years in transport policy. More pertinently, they have expressed worries arising out of the proposals for the future, not least of which is the Bill for the abolition of metropolitan counties and the effect that that will have on valuable transport undertakings. Therefore, the House must not be complacent and seek to follow the usual speech that the Secretary of State makes in whatever ministerial role he has. He produces the same speech whatever the responsibility that the Prime Minister unfortunately gives him.
  We must say that there is some concern about the present state of transport in the United Kingdom. It would be dishonest for Conservative Members to align themselves wholly with the policy of their Front Bench when to our knowledge they are protesting to the Government about the effect of their policies in the areas

  789
  that they represent. The most recent example is that of the Settle to Carlisle line. Indeed, Conservative Members have been more vocal than most on that topic.
  We understand that the Government have to make their case. They have to hold their corner. However, it must not blind them to the reality of what is happening in Britain. Informed opinion shows strongly that we are running our railway system on the cheap. A recent report on European railway systems, commissioned by an independent transport consultancy, shows that British Rail is locked in a vicious circle of decline. The Government's misguided attempts to save money—those are the operative words—will cost us dear in future, and certainly in the short run. Fewer passengers will mean less revenue, followed by poorer services, followed by still higher fares and the further sales of assets to try to balance the books when those assets are beginning to dry up. The sale of assets is one reason why British Rail's annual report shows it to be in the black for the moment. Let us not be bemused by that because we have not had an analysis of that balance sheet. British Rail's assets have been a source of income which it will not enjoy in future.
  Management, responding to Government policies, must cut certain services. It has to close lines and scrap some of its undertakings which need more investment. That is the factual picture. We cannot deny it, for it is there for all to see. That is the position in which management has been put. But worse than that, management is acting as agent provocateur for the Government. The message has gone out to area managements to say nothing which will embarrass the Government. The Government are doing the ordering, with the pretence that it is the management's responsibility. When management has to do such things, the consequences for Britain's economy are, to say the least, desperate.
  We must decide what kind of transport system we want in the United Kingdom. If we believe that an upturn in the world economy will produce growth, that there will be more output and more employment, we need a transport system that will reflect those efficiencies in the quicker movement of passengers and goods.
  The sad fact is that British Rail has been forced to withdraw about £600 million of planned investment because the Government refuse to give approval for it. Warnings have come in the past few years. British Rail's investment performance ceiling target for 1979 was £387 million. In 1980 it was £398 million, and that figure continued until 1982–83. The amount needed in 1982 to equal the 1979 allocation in real terms would be £569 million. In other words, between 1979 and 1982–83 there was a 30 per cent. shortfall in investment ceiling targets. The total investment in 1979 was £379 million, and in 1982 £265 million—a shortfall of 48 per cent. That is the investment figure taken from the annual report of the British Railways Board. In fact, British Rail's investment in real terms by 1982 had fallen to little more than half the low level of 1977. In 1983, British Rail expected an investment of a further £200 million. That should be compared with the target figure of £1,300 million in West Germany and £900 million in France. Even the public service obligation in Britain last year fell 12 per cent. below the 1979 figure. Britain's financial support in percentage terms of the gross domestic product is the least favourable of eight European countries, with the exception of Denmark.
  790
  It is no good the Government coming to the House with a puerile insignificant and unreal amendment to the Labour party's serious proposition today in the light of the authoritative opinion of Sir Peter Parker, a respected chairman of British Rail, in March 1980. He said:
  "High fares on British Rail are due neither to excessive wage levels, nor poor productivity, but to relatively low support from the taxpayer for railways in Britain."
  In other words, there is too little support from the Government. That was his conclusion and his considered opinion. I believe that that opinion is more acceptable to the general public and to the people who are concerned about transport than the prognostications of the Government.
  The reduction in railway jobs, as an indication of the contribution to productivity to which Sir Peter Parker referred, can be summed up in this way. In 1950, 497,000 people were employed in the British Rail network. By 1981, 166,000 employees were left—a loss of 331,000 jobs. In the last year, 6,000 jobs have been lost and, by 1985–86, another 15,000 jobs will have gone.
  In 1981, passenger mile figures were only 5 per cent. below the level of 1950. Set against over 70 per cent. shedding of jobs, from a manpower and trade union point of view this represents a contribution to productivity which is not only startling as an example of the dedication of the work force and the unions to British Rail and the desire to see it a productive and efficient undertaking, but demonstrates that it has not been matched by any investment programme to achieve the objectives of an efficient service. The nub of the problem in the decline of British Rail rests with low investment, not with manpower or with the trade unions. Those are the hard facts and figures.
  There is an abundance of evidence, comparing British Rail with other European countries, that we have a favourable record of productivity on low pay and longer working hours, but we receive far less in Government support and investment.
  Sir Peter Parker gave a warning a little less than four years ago, in an annual report, when he said:
  "The results of under investment are now showing through in the deteriorating quality of service in parts of the system. We are replacing our assets at a lower rate than any other European railway, and we are not investing in new opportunities which railways and other Governments elsewhere see as necessary to the long-term futures of their countries."
  Sir Peter Parker is a man of considerable business acumen and experience with an excellent record in British Rail. He was fighting his corner, before he was nobbled by the Government, when he made that kind of judgment. I challenge the Government to say that Sir Peter Parker's warnings were wrong. He has better knowledge of the situation than any Minister and of any advice in the Department that might come to a Minister.
  Mr. Gregory: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has referred to Sir Peter Parker so regularly. He may like to be reminded that there is a new chairman of the British Railways Board. We have not heard the hon. Gentleman say very much about that. Sir Peter Parker was also a former Labour party parliamentary candidate.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I shall ignore the last comment. However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have not referred to Sir Peter Parker regularly. I have quoted Sir Peter Parker twice only, and I have referred to the present chairman. I have suggested that he is acting as an agent

  791
  provocateur. It is my understanding that the message had gone out to regional managers not to say anything that would embarrass the Government, so I have referred to the present chairman. Indeed, I suggest that hon. Members dwell on one simple thought. Why did Sir Peter Parker go, and why did Bob Reid get his job? It was because it was more convenient for the Government. The Government were pursuing policies of fragmentation and privatisation.
  Indeed, on one subject alone there is a record of procrastination and delaying tactics on what mattered most to British Rail — electrification. If ever there was a disgraceful story about postponing investment in electrification, there has been one in the past few years. On 7 May 1981, a firm promise was given to carry out a comprehensive programme of electrification. Each time that we have raised the question in recent years, one excuse after another has been given. A comprehensive plan has been proposed, and it has been thrown back to British Rail. We asked questions about the north-east line, and were told that the information had not come in. When we asked about another line, we were told that the information was about to come in.
  The problem arose because the Government, in a doctrinal fashion, were set on two fronts. The first was the attack on the trade union movement. The Government cannot deny that. During the ASLEF strike, words were used which implied an attempt to smash that union. That union, the NUR and the Transport and Salaried Staffs Association have shed thousands of their members in cooperating with the productivity objectives of British Rail. The unions have not fought against proper management and manpower objectives in the face of increasing new technologies. Electrification can produce quicker rail travel, and that is an economy. It is also cheaper to run, and that is an economy. The energy savings that accrue after electrification are an economy, and the clean air for the travellers is a benefit. Electrification also brings profitability, which is what the Conservative party claims to want. Why is there hesitation about electrification?
  What is the state of British Rail today? Who dare mention management's struggle to maintain safety levels on British Rail, with the backlog in track maintenance and the clapped-out rolling stock? Even the 125s are now so overworked that reports are coming in of regular breakdowns. The feeder lines have been allowed to wither away. Not only is there a reduction of services, but there is a tremendous backlog in signalling modernisation. These are the facts.
  I mentioned earlier that I was concerned about future policies. The Government might listen to opinion in the House, since they have not found it convenient to express an opinion about the objections that have been raised to the proposals for the abolition of the metropolitan counties. I shall quote here not my opinion, but the opinion of people who are in the business. In responding to the White Paper on transportation, the Automobile Association said:
  "On road construction and maintenance … the Metropolitan County Councils have performed satisfactorily. It appears most unlikely that devolution will result in any benefits."
  The British Road Federation stated:
  "In many respects the Metropolitan Counties have improved upon the record of their predecessor highways authorities. There
  792
  is a danger that worthwhile schemes will be seriously delayed by the transfer of power from six authorities to 36 highways authorities."
  The British Railways board—the Government have kept this quiet—stated:
  "Devolution of structure planning to Districts will inevitably lead to an increasingly complex network of relationships. The PTEs will have to consider potentially divergent structure plans from up to 10 district councils rather than from a single County Council. British Rail engineers will now be required to liaise with each individual district council over bridge works … This will inhibit the Board's ability to reduce its staff."
  The National Waterways Transport Association stated:
  "The proposals … by removing the conurbation-wide overview of transport, will artificially fragment the local government element in transport planning. This function will be redistributed between interests whose views may well conflict, resulting in indecision, delay and increased bureaucracy."
  The Freight Transport Association stated:
  "The FTA believes that the Department of Transport consultation papers put too much reliance on the establishment of voluntary joint committees and simple voluntary co-operation between adjacent authorities. All our experience tells us that such arrangements just do not work."
  The Public Transport User Group stated:
  "We have considered value for money, and support efforts to reduce waste. We must be assured, however, that the abolition of the Metropolitan Councils and the GLC will save money. The White Paper does not give this assurance. Indeed there is evidence that costs could increase. We can foresee that the proposals … will lead gradually to disintegration and a return to the confusions of the pre-1968 period."
  In the light of that evidence, I put it to hon. Members who represent such conurbations that if the Government presume for one moment that it is right to pursue this policy and put aside all those objections and anxieties about their policy, they will rightly be charged with pursuing a dogmatic policy that is so philosophically hidebound with the past that they cannot envisage future needs. The Government will try as best they can to win the day, but I put it to seriously disposed hon. Members—not fettered by the straitjacket of the Department but thinking about the matter from their own experience—that it would be wise to take note of those comments.
  However, there is more to it than that. If we want a transport system that integrates rail, road, freight, air and port services, does not recent transport legislation conflict with the Trade Descriptions Acts 1968 and 1972? If the Government win tonight, the country will lose, because we are living in a changing world with changing technology. There has been a 70 per cent. contribution by the work force since 1950—[Interruption.] It is no good laughing about it. This is a serious matter. We are talking not about political enhancement in this place, but the quality of life and the future of people's children. Compared with European countries, Britain has made a dismal hash of its transport policies for too long. There has been too little investment, policies of expediency, policies tarnished by dogma, and too little response to what has always been the support of our institutional lives — consensus. Abrasive government is not successful government.
  As soon as the Secretary of State entered office he sought to devise how best to aggravate an already dangerous situation. He sought how best to close his eyes to reality. I ask the Minister to come to the House one day and report the worries of the British Railways Board about maintaining safety standards. We need more investment.

  793
  Europe has seen the sense of that. I hope that the Government will recognise that tonight's vote is much less important than need for them to change their mind.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Clearly many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so the briefer the speeches the fewer unhappy hon. Members we shall have at 10 o'clock.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I shall try to accede to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly speak much more briefly than the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), because I recognise that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  Throughout five years of Conservative Government, we have heard repeatedly from the Opposition predictions of the imminent end of the transport world as we know it, and we heard that story again today. In the past, and again today, the Government have been portrayed as being anti-rail, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is not the job of Government to discriminate between one mode of transport and another. The customer should be allowed to make the choice.
  As early as November 1979 The Guardian printed a story that there were firm plans to close 900 miles of the railway network. Since then, the Labour party has done its best to scare the electorate into believing that a Conservative Administration, in Whitehall or in the town hall, would have as its priority the closure of more lines and services. The Serpell report, which set out several illustrations of the effects of a variety of options, was leapt upon as a clear sign that most of the network was destined to disappear.
  The truth has been different, as the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the chairman of British Rail, Mr. Bob Reid, made clear. As he again said today, the Government do not intend to pursue a programme of major route closures. While the Opposition have prognosticated gloom and doom, the British Railways Board has adopted a different approach. It has gone on with its job of providing a better service for the customer and giving the taxpayer better value for money.
  The annual report that has just been published shows that the new management reforms designed to make BR more competitive by splitting it into five different businesses have already produced dividends. There were clear indications that there will be a better future for the railways.
  Just before the recess, the glossy book referred to by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) arrived on my desk. It is published by the National Union of Railwaymen and sets out the familiar theme of an impending end to railways in Britain if the Government's policies continue to be followed. It is interesting that there is no suggestion in its 200 pages that the union has ever been slow to embrace change, although I must say that the NUR's rival ASLEF does not escape a few sideswipes.
  The thesis of the book and of many Opposition Members today is that all that has been wrong with British Rail in recent years is a dearth of investment. All that is necessary to bring about a radical improvement is a massive infusion of money. The aim of the next Labour Government
  794
  "should be to expand the network of public transport so as to provide a minimum level of services at low prices for the population as a whole."
  No suggestion, one notes, that benefits should be measured in relation to their costs.
  Later, there is an endorsement of the option put forward by the consultants, Transport and Environment Studies, to electrify as much as 60 per cent. of the network at a cost of £3·9 billion over eight years. That suggestion takes no account of its inflationary effects or, indeed, of where the money should come from.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not say whether the Labour party is committed to such an investment or infusion of £3·9 billion. Perhaps we shall hear from his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape, i whether the Labour party is committed to that investment and where the money will come from.
  Mr. Snape: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House, perhaps by answering his own question, whether he was a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport, which recommended widespread further electrification of the railway system and, if so, why he supported that recommendation?
  Mr. Waller: I was certainly a member of that Select Committee when it considered the electrification proposal. The Committee did not suggest that there should be massive investment without conditions. It suggested that the electrification of the east coast main line should go ahead, subject to the satisfaction of some stringent conditions. I stick by that view.
  The latest report from British Rail records much better punctuality and reliability, as well as improvements in nearly all the key performance indicators and a reduction in overmanning. That contrasts with the unwillingness of ASLEF to accept flexible rostering in 1982, although the practice was widespread on the Continent.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool suggested that the unions have never stood in the way of progress Perhaps he has forgotten what happened in 1982. The shortsightedness of that policy was quickly seen in the accelerating acceptance of flexible rostering when the predicted extra money found its way into the drivers' paypackets. What a tragedy it was that that unnecessary strike cost BR almost £170 million, which could have been invested for the future in much the same way that has been suggested today.
  The motion castigates the Government for their privatisation policies. Those policies have, however, produced benefits, no more so than in the case of the National Freight Company. It has achieved vastly accelerating profits since it was taken over by a consortium of management and employees. Between October 1981, when the company was in the public sector and October 1983 when it was in the private sector, turnover increased by 12·5 per cent., trading profit by 23·5 per cent. and operating profit by as much as 58 per cent. That really was not bad, as Opposition Members may grudgingly accept, in a period of international recession.
  We have started to see some of the benefits for BR deriving from privatisation that Sir Peter Parker was looking for when he called as early as 1977 for the introduction of private capital into some of the subsidiary activities.

  795
  Although British Rail tends to hold the spotlight, we should not forget that many of our constituents depend upon buses for short-distance travel. Buses can be highly efficient in terms of land use and in reducing congestion. It is also significant that between 1971 and 1981 the number of bus conductors was reduced by 74 per cent., leading to an improvement in vehicle miles per member of staff employed.
  The fact that the National Bus Company has been a major beneficiary of the relaxation of licensing is to be welcomed. So long as NBC remains in the public sector, it is for everybody's benefit—user and taxpayer alike—that it should be run as efficiently as possible.
  One of the benefits of the 1980 Act is that it makes it easier for county councils such as Oxfordshire, Hereford and Worcester, and Norfolk to pursue a tendering approach to public transport subsidies. Just as the Government accept the need for what Sir Peter Parker called the social railway, so subsidies—I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) —will be needed for many bus services for the foreseeable future. However, I should like to see an end to cross-subsidisation, which is an economically inefficient means of allocating support. It seems to me much better that unremunerative bus services should be offered to those operators who are willing to accept the lowest subsidy, just as profitable services should be given to those operators who are willing to tender the highest bid.
  Not so happy a story is that of London Transport under the GLC. The fact that, while passenger demand fell by about 25 per cent. between 1970 and 1982, staffing remained almost constant and fares rose in real terms by 85 per cent. but that no steps were taken to deal with a scandalous level of fare evasion that any other system would have regarded as unacceptable shows that the moves taken by the Government to reorganise it and to acquire responsibility are more than fully justified.
  The latest scare story is that the abolition of the metropolitan county councils will inevitably lead to a collapse of public transport services in the conurbations. It is, likewise, a story to be firmly put in its place. I have to say that the record of local authority reorganisation a decade ago is not a good portent. I tend to be one of those to approach more changes with mixed feelings. It would have been much better to get things right the first time round.
  I must agree, however, with the consultation paper, which says:
  "Most transport functions can be carried out satisfactorily by the District Councils"
  whether they are acting separately or together, and adds:
  "re-organisation provides the opportunity to eliminate the duplication of functions."
  One of my reservations about the joint boards that would form the passenger transport authorities relates to the quality of people representing the districts. Experience suggests that appointees tend to be those least likely to succeed in their own authorities, who can be conveniently shunted out into the sidings.
  With regard to roads, reorganisation must provide the focus for a clear examination of the division between trunk and local authority roads. As the Minister of State has said, there may not be the same need as in greater London for
  796
  extensions of trunking, but many of the existing divisions between trunk and county roads result from historical factors rather than present-day movements, and they should be subject to close scrutiny.
  The terms of the Opposition's motion in relation to roads do not stand up to examination. The road-building programme has moved ahead fast, although it has been inhibited sometimes by the laborious public inquiry procedure, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred.
  My constituents hope to see a start made on the Airedale route in the next financial year. It has been held up by objections of one kind or another, and no one should be surprised at their scepticism. The route is certainly vital to the future development of the Aire valley.
  The way in which road space is allocated in cities such as London is highly inefficient. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) hinted at some of the ways of putting the matter right. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West went a little further. The logic behind road pricing is inescapable, especially as the technical problems can largely be overcome. However, as my hon. Friend suggested, the political objections remain as formidable as ever.
  The results of the Hong Kong experiment will be very interesting, but there is a world of difference between Hong Kong and London. In the meantime, I believe that there is a need to do something about the wholesale flouting of parking regulations, which artificially favours the car and therefore congestion, and makes the movement of public transport in the cities more difficult.
  If we are to believe the motion, investment in transport has all but disappeared. In fact, the Government's critical approach has produced benefits and will produce more in future. As Jim O'Brien, joint managing director of British Rail, has said—I hope that he will not be dismissed as another poodle of the Conservative Government—
  "There is no crumbling edge, investment really isn't a problem now."
  He was quoted in The Sunday Times only last month.
  Of course many improvements are needed throughout the transport infrastructure, but, as in so many other areas, throwing money at the problem would produce the greatest possible waste of resources. Choice for the customer will be more likely to flow from sensible investment based on competing modes with a minimum of interference from the Government. Although the Opposition's motion obscures rather than illuminates their own policies, enough is clear for us to know that those objectives are totally at odds with their approach.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I should like to declare a new interest, in that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), have just become sponsored by the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association.
  I am intrigued to take part in another debate with the Secretary of State. Over the years we have encountered each other in various Departments, either when he has been in government and I have been out of government, or I have been in government and he has been out of government. I remember him being the scourge of the quango, but he is now complacently reconciling his conscience with the fact that he is just about to create the London Regional Transport Board. I remember him saying

  797
  constantly in Committees on industry Bills that he would never accept that the man from Whitehall knew best. However, now he is the man in Whitehall, and it became apparent today that he is convinced that he knows best. We were not surprised at the element of consistency that emerged, which was that his old commitment to privatisation remains. He will not be surprised to find that our commitment against privatisation also remains.
  I ask the Secretary of State, apart from the doctrinal arguments for and against, to take into account the fact that the privatisation programmes that have been implemented have had some problems, to which the Secretary of State and his colleague the Minister of State should turn their attention. Problems have arisen from the sale of the British Railways Board hotels to the Virani Group and Barclay Brothers. Those people now flatly refuse to honour the commitments and obligations that they entered into when they were allowed to go ahead with the purchase. They have had to be taken to court in some cases to ensure that sickness payments were made to employees.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind that, with regard to Sealink and the London Regional Transport Board. the unions and members of the concerns to be privatised will need convincing that there will be a more adequate protection of their rights as employees—their negotiated contractual rights. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the inadequacy of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and what can be done to tighten them. He owes it to us to say what he and his colleagues are doing, faced with that blatant disregard for the protection that the House intended and that apparently the Government intended when they introduced the regulations. Alternatively, do the Government care about breaches in undertakings or rules only when they are made by what they see as the other side in industry?
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) asked why we subsidise. The Secretary of State spoke about the need for value for money. Let us bear in mind that profitability is not the sole criterion by which one judges value for money. Any motorist has only to be reminded what it would mean if £140 million-worth of freight went on to the roads instead of the railways for him to appreciate the value of having an alternative element in the transport system. It also has an important strategic role, which successive Governments have recognised.
  The industry has a strong social impact. I warn the Secretary of State that the policies that he is forwarding will lead inevitably to a decline in the services offered by the railways. The Government's policies are generating a vicious downward spiral in services. During this decade we shall see a marked fallback in the quality of service. There is a certain self-defeating logic in the Secretary of State's argument. For example, there is his approach to privatisation as a goad to greater profitability. The reality is that, if one successively creams off the sectors of an industry that are making a profit, one makes it increasingly impossible for what remains to carry out traditional cross-subsidisation. Cross-subsidisation in the railways is traditional. The old Great Western Railway used cross-subsidisation for good commercial reasons, because it needed the feeder lines to ensure that it got the business on to its main lines. It also needed them as delivery lines to local communities.
  Cross-subsidisation is not evil or uncommercial. It is not even a Socialist precedent. It has always been a fact
  798
  of life in the railways system. However, if one takes away the profitability, one takes away the capability to cross-subsidise. Therefore, one predetermines the collapse of the system or a massive rundown in it. Meanwhile, in the profitable chunks of the industry that are being sold off, the purchasers prune away at the elements that are least profitable, so that at both ends there is a diminution in the service to the public.
  That is made worse by the fact that the Government are making massive cuts in the PSO grant, which successive Governments have made to the railways to recognise the social impact to which I referred — the need to keep certain non-remunerative services in existence. Yet the Government, in their generosity, propose to cut the £855 million of PSO grant last year to £635 million by 1986. That is a cut of £220 million, at the same time as profitable sectors are being hived off. The Secretary of State should note that, if British Rail had not had the profit of Sealink alone in the past 12 months, that would have turned the profit from the British Railways Board's operations, about which the right hon. Gentleman boasted, into a loss.
  In addition to hiving off the profit-earning elements and the massive cut of £200 million in the grant to keep the non-remunerative lines open, there is the Government's proposal for the metropolitan authorities, which could deprive transport of as much as £77 million that it receives from the metropolitain authorities at the moment. The major factor that predetermines the downward spiral is this. Not only is there creaming off, a cut in the grant and a loss of support from local authorities, but the Government are unwilling to recognise, as other Governments in Europe have, that there is a need for a massive infusion of capital into the railway system.
  The Minister boasted about an increase by 1985 of 40 per cent. in investment in rail, but in 1980 the British Railways Board told the Government that by 1985 it would need an increase of 60 per cent. just to sustain its network and to keep it running. On that criterion alone, the figure about which the Minister boasts is substantially below the level necessary to sustain the system in the long term. One must bear it in mind, as the Minister smirks away, that by taking into account purely short-term considerations, the Americans have found that their railway system is now virtually beyond resurrection and salvation. Massive modernisation and renewal are essential.
  The latest plan shows only a 40 per cent. increase by 1985, yet the British Railways Board reckons that, in addition to the £200 million that will have been taken from it by then, it needs a further £170 million invested than the Government envisage. Here we have a cut in grant, inadequate provision of investment and the hiving off of those areas that are providing the profit that might enable the industry to become more efficient and to carry out its own investment.
  It is no good the Minister pretending that efficiency is purely a manpower function and that so long as we deal with the manpower problem we deal with the problem of efficiency. Paragraph 3.2 of the corporate plan states:
  "Assuming that investment in the railways were confined to existing levels, it is forecast that by 1990 some 3,000 out of the present 22,000 miles of track will have had to be closed. Before then"—
  and the Minister boasts of improving efficiency—
  "progressively severe restrictions of speed will have to be imposed because of deteriorating conditions which will make

  799
  some journeys slow and unattractive. By the same time the signalling equipment on 7,000 miles of railway will be more than 50 years old—in many cases much older still."
  Capital stock as well as manpower efficiency is essential if we are to maximise the efficiency of the rail transport system, as is efficient and expanding marketing. Indeed, in his press statement earlier this month, the present chairman said:
  "The way to prosper in any business is to satisfy the customer by giving him value for money."
  I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree entirely with that proposition, in which case he should look at paragraph 3.3 of the British Railway Board's corporate plan, which also states:
  "So, looking ahead, existing investment limitations, if continued, will lead to closure of substantial parts of the railway during this decade. Money will be diverted to patching up old rolling stock which ought to be scrapped and replaced with new modern vehicles, which in any case could be a more cost effective course of action. Unreliability caused by engineering breakdowns will increase."
  That is the consequence of the investment programme about which the Minister has had the impertinence to boast. It must be judged against the injunction from the current chairman—the Secretary of State's placeman—that the way to prosper in any business is to satisfy the customer by giving value for money.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the scenario of the corporate plan—of reduced speeds and the use of outdated rolling stock and antiquated signalling equipment—will add to the efficiency of the industry? He is offering a continuation not of investment but of make do and mend. He is predetermining that the industry will be typified by the obsolescence of its equipment. He is selling the future of our transport industry to his own doctrinal imperative to privatise everything and anything.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of British Rail, because I wish briefly to refer to the ultimate lame duck that is the least attractive and difficult responsibility of the Department of Transport—the Port of London Authority.
  The PLA is a public trust with no equity capital, but it has two quite different functions, which the last annual report succinctly described. The first is responsibility
  "for the conservancy of 95 miles of the tidal River Thames"
  and the second is the ownership and operation of
  "facilities for the handling of … cargo."
  I regard those two functions as entirely distinct. The first is an entirely justifiable activity for a public authority, but I am not sure about the second. I see no apparent reason why a public trust of this kind—indeed any public body—should be responsible for cargo handling.
  In the long run, a simple solution to the difficult problems which the authority presents to my right hon. Friend would be to dispose of cargo handling. Unfortunately, the PLA at present is making no money, for a number of reasons. The first is the very fact that it is a public trust. If it were in the private sector, it would perhaps be more profitable. The second and more important is its historical obligations.
  800
  The authority is bound by the national dock labour scheme and the Jones-Aldington agreement, which the chairman in his report describes as follows:
  "We are required to pay the costs of surplus manpower that does not accept voluntary severance; we are the employer of last resort in the event of other employers in the Port of London shedding Registered Dock Workers."
  That is an impossible burden and a totally open-ended commitment which is completely inconsistent with a commercial operation and far more akin to the provision of a social service. If the Government want to support jobs in that way, it would be more sensible and honest to do so directly rather than by requiring the PLA to do so.
  Historically the PLA has always been just about to turn the corner and make a profit, but in December 1982 the Government rightly put their foot down and announced the ending of continuing financial support. Although the accounts are not yet available, I understand that last year the PLA made a further trading loss. As no Government support was forthcoming, the only way in which it could be funded was by the sale of the Royal Victoria dock for £5 million.
  In fact, the PLA is quite big in real estate. A whole page in the report is devoted to that subject. It has leased 90 acres in docklands for the short take-off and landing airport. Wates is building 220 houses on six acres of PLA land in docklands, and another 14·5 acres are to be developed for housing. In addition, 128 workshop units are being built for small businesses. This is all commendable stuff—I am very much in favour of such activity—but I wonder whether we would not be better off if all these assets were passed from the PLA to docklands. At Tilbury there is an Asda superstore and the PLA is the landlord, and 200 homes are under construction.
  Is this really a proper role for a public trust, and has not the time come to start to sort it out? The solution is clear—to restrict the PLA to its conservancy function and to dispose of all its other activities and assets to the private sector, or simply to wind them up if no buyers can be found.
  In fact, there is nothing simple or straightforward about this, because the national dock labour scheme and the Jones-Aldington agreement will have to be tackled first. I suppose that primarily they are matters for the Department of Employment rather than the Department of Transport. However, these agreements have achieved precisely the opposite object to that intended. They have destroyed jobs, not preserved them, and by January 1983 the work force in the port of London was down to 4,400.
  There is one other inequity about this. The port rates, or dues, levied by the PLA amounted to about £9 million in 1982 and are currently the subject of an inquiry under the Harbours Act. The PLA told the inquiry, in defence of these charges, which are levied on private operators in the port of London, that it has to carry uncommercial burdens such as pension funding and surplus labour under the dock labour scheme. That may be the case, but this is the ultimate nonsense. Private operators are being forced to contribute to a social service. They are effectively being taxed if they operate in the port of London. The time has come for my right hon. Friend to put an end to that and to sort out this problem once and for all.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am glad that the Secretary of State is here, because in December he invited

  801
  the Civil Aviation Authority to produce a statement on competition policy. It is difficult to shed tears for an old Treasury man, but I am sorry for the Secretary of State, because the statement stirred up a hornet's nest. Let me give a brief summary of what has happened in aviation.
  Lord King has done a grand job and has brought British Airways into profitability. The Secretary of State is delighted about this, and said so, but he has forgotten that the company became profitable as a nationalised industry. The nub of my speech is that the Secretary of State should leave British Airways as it is. It would be delighted to have John King as its chairman and to remain as a nationalised industry.
  Lord King wants to keep all the routes that British Airways possesses. In 1971 we implemented—after a fashion—the Edwards report. British Caledonian came into existence as a stronger force and obtained some routes. While the hot heavy language of privatisation was going around, British Caledonian, led ably by Adam Thomson, thought that it would like a slice of the action. He has made his bid through his famous blue book. The breakdown that Adam Thomson would like is 60 per cent. British Airways, 30 per cent. British Caledonian and 10 per cent. the rest.
  The trouble is that that cannot be done legally without legislation. The document which the Secretary of State asked to be produced to assist him in encouraging competition has blown up in his face. Section 6 of the report, which is entitled "Consultation on Airline Competition Policy", says that the changes envisaged in section 5—the long-range scheduled routes desired by British Caledonian and others — are not a suitable vehicle to be used by the CAA. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer my question. Will we find that British Airways can be privatised but that the sharing out of the routes for competition, which the Secretary of State wants, cannot happen unless there is legislation to permit it?
  This is an interesting question. I learned about it today, as the report is almost brand new. I have asked lawyers and they say that a serious constitutional issue is involved. The exercise on which the Secretary of State embarked in December 1983 almost takes us back to the merry days of debate in 1971 when the Government passed the legislation related to the Edwards report. I hope that the Secretary of State will reply to this point.
  Something else emerges from the report. In looking for competition where it feels that that is possible, the CAA has arrogantly suggested that Manchester airport should have an airline of its own. Manchester's reply to that is "Over our dead bodies." Which dead bodies will get in the way? There is a whole range of them. First, Manchester airport does not want to lose British Airways. There is a relationship dating back to the days when BEA operated out of Manchester, and that collaboration continues to this day. Manchester airport wants it to continue.
  Secondly, the people of Manchester want to keep their airport. It is their airport and it makes more profit than Gatwick. Apart from Heathrow, no other airport makes a greater profit than Manchester and the people want to keep it. Thirdly, having lived through the management change introduced by John King, having suffered the hardship of loss of jobs, the work force of Manchester airport and of British Airways want the right to remain at Manchester. If we talk about freedom, they should be given that right.
  I am also delighted to see the Secretary of State here, because he is an old Treasury man. Part of the new
  802
  technique of producing competition and intensifying the activity in the airline service is to have feeder routes. This is why a Treasury man is so important. He can get the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and allow us to buy the available British aircraft that will be useful for feeder routes. They will satisfy the requirements of a huh airport concept, which is what the Secretary of State is after.
  The aircraft—British, I am pleased to say—are the 146, the Short 360, the 748 for short haul in the Highlands and Islands—I hope that the Secretary of State will hear this in mind, because British Airways wants to buy that — and the advanced turbo prop. Although this is a procurement problem, to get a satisfactory airport policy going the Secretary of State will need those aircraft.
  There is another small point to be made about procurement. We should buy British aircraft as far as possible. Here I pay tribute to British Caledonian, ir that it has bought the A310 and has options on the, as yet unbuilt, A320. Lord King has kept his options wide open and has taken leases on the Boeing 737. I hope that at the end of the day the Secretary of State can exercise his pressure, influence, obvious charms and obvious powers of great persuasion to get British Airways to buy part of the Airbus series, the A310 and perhaps the A320. This would bring a great sense of satisfaction to the work force and to British industry.
  I may be asked why I am always going on about buying British aircraft. The answer is partly because I used to fly them and partly because I do not want to see British industry going down the drain. We have seen cotton and steel go, and the motor car industry suffer. Here we have an industry that is supreme in the world. Do not be misled by the talk of Boeing—we produce first-class aircraft. With first-class British aircraft and a Secretary of State who has great and undoubted ability, the airline industry of Britain can be the pride and joy that it ought to be. The Secretary of State must persuade people to buy British. I am prepared to go on my knees to preserve the British aircraft industry.
  I end on a constituency note, which is not unknown in the House. Manchester airport must remain in the possession of Manchester. British Airways must be allowed to continued flying in and out of Manchester. If the CAA report is accepted and an alternative airline is brought in, as the manager of Manchester airport says, it is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Manchester is prepared to take other airlines and will welcome them, but it wants to keep British Airways.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will give me a reply, possibly in writing, on another and unrelated issue. It concerns the Manchester ship canal, which has served the north-west extremely well and is part of our transport system. We want the Secretary of State to try to keep it open as a navigation canal all the way up to the Salford docks.
  The Manchester Ship Canal Company recognises and accepts its responsibilities to dredge the canal, but this is not just an ordinary canal. It is a canalised river. It is the River Irwell, which feeds eventually into the Mersey. The Secretary of State may feel that he is responsible for the transport side, but the major feature is the water course—the river system—which needs to be maintained. It is hoped that he will get together with the Secretary of State for the Environment, because the people of the north-west would welcome his intervention in preserving this route for

  803
  pleasure, while sustaining adequate water resources in the region and at the same time making it available for navigation.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the wishes of the people in my area. We want British aircraft built and flown by British companies. We want those airports which have been worked successfully by local people to remain in the hands of local people. Above all, we want to know what sort of dog's dinner the right hon. Gentleman will make of the report delivered to him last week.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. David Mudd: I am delighted to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). It is refreshing these days to hear an Opposition Member making a speech which embodies the three qualities of optimism, patriotism and positive thinking about important issues.
  I am unable to agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because I intend to support the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to repeal section 9 of the Ports Act 1964 as speedily as possible. My right hon. Friend will recall that as early as January of this year I drew attention to the outmoded value of this rather dubious piece of legislation and pointed out that it had become a delaying and confusing factor in port development in that, were an applicant to succeed, he had to conjure out of thin air a formula which would be acceptable, although not defined, to a Secretary of State who had no definitions on which to base his decision. It was a miracle of crystal gazing, of double guessing and of double estimates.
  Mr. Prescott: I must point out that the National Ports Council was the body advising the Minister, and that the last Tory Administration abolished it.
  Mr. Mudd: It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to make that intervention. However, later in my remarks I shall deal with his views on the Falmouth container terminal, and no doubt he will want to challenge me about that as well.
  Mr. Prescott: There is no time.
  Mr. Mudd: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no time, but I shall be dealing with his comments about it in a moment.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking this positive decision. Having seen his positive decision in this matter, I should like him to use the same spirited independence when discussing with his right hon. Friends two other inhibiting factors or threats to port development in the United Kingdom.
  I refer, first, to the effects of the Rayner scrutiny on customs attendance at ports. It will be well known to anyone with knowledge of the port industry that an effective port depends on the speedy handling of passengers, cargo and components needed for ship repair. If the Rayner scrutiny is implemented fully, we may see a reduction in the customs presence at our ports and a corresponding reduction in the ability of those ports to answer the demands on them.
  I do not suggest that we should move away from cost effectiveness—that would be almost a heresy under this
  804
  Administration — but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether a formula cannot be drawn up whereby a realistic structure of customs planning is available but any excess of availability is paid for by the customer rather than by the taxpayer. That would be helpful to the redevelopment and regeneration of many of our ports.
  I also ask my right hon. Friend to take on board the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) about the future of the national dock labour scheme. It was introduced 37 years ago, but those covered by it have now dwindled to 13,000 in 54 ports. Since they are paid for by a surcharge of £1,200 per person employed in the ports industry, it means that British ports are coughing up about £15·5 million per annum which would be better used in the regeneration and redevelopment of port activities. When the scheme was drawn up 37 years ago, dock workers had to be protected—I do not argue about that—but the employment protection legislation now gives them that cover.
  I now take up the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who seemed to work up a fair old lather about the decision in favour of the Falmouth container terminal and hinted darkly that the end of the affair had not been heard. He appeared to suggest that industrial action would follow and that Armageddon would suddenly come upon us.
  Mr. Prescott indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mudd: The hon. Gentleman shrugs his shoulders and denies that. I am glad that he does because, if the history of the British stevedoring industry had been one of staying at work instead of finding opportunities to break away from it and to interrupt work, the British ports industry would not be in the sad state that it is today.
  I move on to discuss the future of the railways. We are now into the first year in which, in Cornwall, a decision was taken to return area management specifically to local level. The area manager has been given powers to decide his own scheduling, fares structure and timetable. He is introducing local uniforms. We are seeing the reintroduction of the livery and all that people traditionally associated with a local railway service.
  One interesting development as a consequence has been a return of passengers to Cornish railways. In 1981–82 there was a fall-off of 7·4 per cent. in the number of passengers carried on the railways of Cornwall. In 1982 that dropped to a fall of only 2 per cent. That in itself is significant because in 1982 the railways lost 8 per cent. of their productive and earning time due to industrial action. Again, perhaps there is a message here — that, if needless industrial action can be avoided, the chances are there for the regeneration of trade and development.
  I have made some specific points about the national dock labour scheme, the Rayner scrutiny report and my support for the repeal of section 9. I have offered a gentle guideline on the application of local good management, leading to public association with the railway system and increased revenue. I hope that I have made my point.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) because he talked mainly about his constituency. I declare my interest as a Member

  805
  sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen and who first joined the railways back in 1941. I have seen tremendous changes.
  We must examine how important transport appears to be in the Government's strategy. The House must be convinced, particularly after the speech by the Secretary of State, that the Government have a strategy for the future of the transport industry. Government transport policy has been enlarged to include airways, airports and ports, as well as the more traditional functions.
  Reference has been made to Mr. Bob Reid, the chairman and custodian of British Rail. He has been compared with Sir Peter Parker. I suspect that the Government do not take transport, and particularly British Rail, seriously. I am suspicious of the Government's motives. Mr. Bob Reid, as a railwayman, should have been the first choice for the job, but he was almost the last card in the pack. The Prime Minister hawked the job round almost every candidate. I suspect that the terms of reference associated with the job were not acceptable to the people who were first approached.
  Bob Reid is now the chairman, and I hope that he will move away from his former duties as chief executive. The job is different. He now controls the whole situation; he does not merely carry out the wishes of someone else as he did when chief executive. I am worried that he may continue to succumb to the whims and wishes of the Secretary of State as he appeared to when he agreed to 1986 rather than 1988 for the payment of grant.
  On 18 April 1984 Bob Reid was reported as having said that he hoped a campaign designed to change Government policies would be conducted through discussion and debate. I hope so, too. I do not want widespread strikes and discontent in the railways; I want discussion and debate. I hope that Mr. Reid will take the gag off his senior railway officials and allow them to act as advocates of the railway industry on the basis of their expertise and knowledge. They could be useful. They might even tell the Secretary of State something that could help him. I hope that Mr. Reid will encourage his officials to say what they think publicly so that the public can judge.
  I had the forlorn hope that tonight we would be told something about east coast electrification. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, so I wonder when we shall hear about that. The issue has gone on and on. If ever there was a case for looking after our infrastructure with money from the North sea electrification of the railways, this is it. That could help to put money into a permanent infrastructure instead of wasting it. Providing that infrastructure would help to employ people. It would help to keep the expert electrification teams together and prevent some North sea oil money going down the drain to pay people in the dole queues.
  What will happen to the transport responsibilities of the metropolitan authorities when they are dismantled? The Government have not said whether they will carry on the declared policies of the metropolitan authorities. For example, the Tyne and Wear authority has an excellent integrated service, which I recommend to other parts of the country. Its policy is to extend the metro system to Sunderland and out to the airport. I am amazed that it was not extended in the first place. The Secretary of State said that aid to metropolitan counties was somewhat below what was needed. I have no doubt about that.
  The Government are gerrymandering by disposing of Labour-controlled councils and replacing them with their
  806
  own quangos. Will money be found to continue free fares for old-age pensioners or for other travel concessions which were approved by the elected representatives of metropolitan authorities?
  I do not know how many Conservative Members represent areas where free concessions are given, but I know that many of the shire counties do not provide such concessions. One can appreciate the look on the face of an old-age pensioner who, on a day like today, sets out for the coast or for the shops using concessionary fares. Pensioners are now frightened that such pleasures will be taken away from them. In future there will be no public guarantee of such concessions.
  The Tyne and Wear authority has just issued a leaflet stating intended policy. I doubt whether it will be carried out when the Secretary of State is responsible for transport there. The county plans half-price travel this summer. It is experimental, but it is introduced with a heart. It provides half-price travel for people who are out of work, in receipt of family income supplement, non-contributory invalidity pensions or housewives' non-contributory invalidity pensions. The weakest in our society are being offered about 90p a week to travel anywhere they like in the Tyne and Wear area.
  That is an example of an elected authority carrying out a transport policy based not on profit and loss accounts, but on the needs of individuals who want to travel to look for work or to enjoy benefits which would be denied them without a cheap fares policy. We are entitled to know whether the Government intend to continue to support policies introduced by elected representatives.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) philosophised about subsidies. The Greater London council's action on fares reductions has been a success story. By reducing fares by 25 per cent. the GLC increased ridership by 15 per cent. and increased the money coming into the kitty. What was the matter with that?
  In discussing subsidising transport systems one must refer to the metropolis of private enterprise—the United States. The Bay and Washington areas are heavily subsidised. I note that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is smiling. He knows that the Select Committee noted the operation of that subsidy. The transport systems in Ontario, Paris and Hamburg are heavily subsidised. What is the matter with that? The controlling bodies in those areas decided that the transport systems were a necessary part of the infrastructure and that a profit and loss account did not make them that way. The authorities had to think about the part played by transport in the national infrastructure.
  I hoped that the Secretary of State would give us some news about the east coast main line electrification programme, but obviously he will not. I hope that the Minister will answer some of the fears activating the hearts and minds of people looking for transport facilities in the metropolitan counties, so that they are not denied finance—not necessarily because of the Minister's actions but through rate support grant cuts. The Government's responsibility should be to ensure that a transport infrastructure and the present concessions remain after they have completed their period in office.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: The Conservative approach to transport is to ensure that the user has a fair choice between competing modes with a minimum of state

  807
  interference. Contrary to the terms of the motion, there has been a continuing programme of investment in transport and an encouragement of the necessary infrastructure. No one should doubt the importance of transport. Businesses and consumers spend more than £50 billion on United Kingdom transport, accounting for more than one fifth of GDP. Despite the recession, transport spending has increased in the past three years by more than 25 per cent. Most transport is provided by the private sector, with a little under one fifth being supplied by the public sector.
  I shall discuss two particular forms of transport—road road and rail. The motion erroneously refers to a deterioration in road infrastructure. The trunk roads and motorways, for which the Government are directly responsible, carry 13 per cent. of total traffic and 70 per cent. — a staggering figure — of the heaviest goods vehicles. Since 1979, we have protected more than 90 towns and villages on trunk roads in England by relieving them of through traffic, with four more bypasses due to be completed this spring. When the schemes now being built are completed, 65 per cent. of the historic towns on English trunk roads will have been relieved of through traffic, increasing to 90 per cent. when the existing programme of 156 schemes is completed by the early 1990s.
  The Transport Act 1980 has enabled a freer approach to the approval of local bus services, by requiring those opposing a new bus service to prove to the traffic commissioners that the service will be against the public interest. Before that date, it was possible — in some cases this happened—for the National Bus Company subsidiary to hold the right to certain routes but, almost immorally, not to run them and to prohibit any other operator from so doing. The new legislation under this Government enables all operators to be more adventurous and competitive without the weight of bureaucratic decision which especially frightens the smaller operators. The legislation makes it considerably easier for those county councils to which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred, such as Oxfordshire, Hereford and Worcester and now Norfolk, to pursue a tendering approach to subsidised public transport to ensure a competitive market in local bus services. The 1980 Act removed the legal constraints prohibiting the local authorities from using school transport to serve the public sector. Durham and Gloucester, for example, have shown that way.
  I commend the ESCORT scheme—East Sussex co-ordinated rural transport—as as an example of how that method can be undertaken in north Yorkshire and other parts of the country. ESCORT is an experiment whereby schools, social services, hospitals and public transport are linked. In the past, schools and public transport have been identified separately, but now all four modes have been brought together in one scheme, resulting in costs decreasing by 20 to 25 per cent. on £30,000. Passenger numbers have increased, and, not unnaturally, bus fares have come down.
  Basically, we face four rather crude options with regard to rail. First, we could concrete over the rail lines and replace the system with coaches. If coaches replaced rail, they would quickly spread on to existing roads. The
  808
  burden of the congestion of coaches on other roads would be intolerable and an environmental disaster. I therefore reject that option.
  The other extreme, as apparenty advocated by the Opposition Front Bench, is to have massive Socialist railway investment on principle, regardless of whether it is economically justified. I reject that idea. A limited amount of money is available to be spent on investment, with choices such as education, the NHS, defence and job creation. Any investment in a training organisation must be serviced. It is a burden on any organisation to be saddled with unnecessary debt and interest costs from unnecessary investment. It takes no account of the available resources. I reject that option.
  Thirdly, we can cut the railway system severely until it is profitable without support. It is true that financial help can be given to those less able through their own resources to travel and to choose their mode of travel. That is not a realistic way to maintain a railway system. It would have an immensely damaging effect on rural communities, because a successful trunk rail route requires feeder services. In 1981, 39 per cent. of all households had no car. A large proportion of the 9 million pensioners no longer drive or have never learned to drive. In 1982, more than 13 million young people were below the minimum legal age for driving a car. Therefore, many millions are heavily dependent on public transport for their mobility.
  The railbus has possibilities, but studies have shown that fewer than half former rail users switched to a substitute after their line had been closed. According to Hillman and Whalley in their Policy Studies Institute paper of 1980, bus services were found to be slower, less frequent, reliable and comfortable than trains. At the general election, we promised
  "no programme of major route closures."
  That, at least, should give the railways the confidence to innovate.
  The fourth option is to maintain roughly the present network with a worthwhile and cost-effective investment. A successful railway should be efficient, reliable, clean, punctual and good value for the transport user. It should put the user ahead of the provider. It needs to meet the challenge of the 20th century, which means competition in transport.
  The competition from coaches and private motoring led British Rail to increase its fares by the lowest level for 11 years—5·5 to 6·5 per cent. In the 1983 corporate plan, BR forecast a reduction in the central Government PSO requirement to £635 million by 1988 at last year's prices. The Government have asked BR to introduce their reductions two years earlier, which will be a challenge to rail staff at all levels. It is too popular to knock BR. BR runs more trains at over 100 miles per hour than any other railway in the world.
  BR was an amorphous mass, over-large and unwieldy. My right hon. Friend referred to the sector directors in charge of marketing, standards of service, costs and so on. The great advantage is that each sector director can challenge the costs attributed to him. Is the service cost-effective? The 1983 BR plan advocated a £200 million reduction in taxpayers' support during the next five years, in addition to a significant increase in investment, concentrated on projects with a high yield. That means, for example, radio signalling, level crossings, the replacement of older rolling stock built in the 1950s and so on.

  809
  Equally important to many local communities has been the opening and reopening of stations, including the first new station in south Wales since 1942. Twelve new stations have been opened since 1979 and 19 reopened. Last October, for the first time ever, the BR chairman was given clear and comprehensive statements on Government objectives.
  Looking at the railway network, it is right to consider the many rural communities. There is no policy for major route closures. The new, lightweight rolling stock between, for example, Ipswich and Lowestoft with radio signalling is one way in which the Government's policy will be implemented. The inter-city system has become increasingly successful since 1977 and has shown itself commercially viable.
  I and other hon. Members are awaiting BR's review, especially on any decision that will help to achieve north-east electrification. That depends on BR producing a satisfactory prospectus for the inter-city sector. Electrification is in progress elsewhere on 184 route miles at a cost of £170 million. The electrification programme gives an internal rate of return of 11 per cent.
  My right hon. Friend said that investment in BR is rising. It will reach £330 million this year, which is £50 million up on last year. That means that the external financing limit will be at exactly the same level as that requested by BR.
  Overtime among rail employees remains a source of concern. It is flying directly against the industry for some railway conveners to urge no more productivity. The unions have lodged a claim for a substantial increase in pay and a reduction in working time. They must first implement the efficiency measures agreed in outline as long ago as August 1981. Only two of the six key points—variable rostering and open stations—are in operation. The sooner the other four are implemented, the healthier the industry will be. They include the phasing out of guards on some freight and passenger trains——
  Mr. Prescott: More unemployment.
  Mr. Gregory: The secondary picketing in Yorkshire and elsewhere on 28 February in connection with GCHQ, the wildcat strikes by ASLEF at Kings Cross and the left-wing political agitators in the coal dispute do not help the interests of our great industry.
  Mr. Prescott: What would the hon. Gentleman know about that?
  Mr. Gregory: The annual rate of improvement for train crews was 3·1 per cent. last year. We must encourage greater initiatives by management. There should be an extension of the experiment of telephones on trains, such as on the London-Bristol line, a trolley service for beverages, food and newspapers and some catering on all routes between major conurbations, including vending machines. Despite an income of £24 million last year, train catering made a loss of £4·9 million.
  Decentralised management, continued cost reduction, better labour relations and an improved customer service will win a viable future for the railway industry. Therefore, I urge the House to support the amendment.
  9.5 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise not to range as widely as the hon.
  810
  Member for York (Mr. Gregory). I appreciate that another hon. Member has been waiting for as long as I have to speak.
  I shall confine my remarks to the coastal shipping element of the British maritime industry. We have witnessed and experienced a history of failures and inadequacies in this area of maritime transport policies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to the decline in the British merchant trading fleet. It is a massive and debilitating decline. In 1979 there were about 1,200 British owned and registered ships, and we now have fewer than 750 vessels. A third have been broken up, tied up, sold off or transferred, and the prospects are worsening weekly. The General Council of British Shipping recently forecast that during the next year or so the British merchant fleet would be down to fewer than 600 vessels, and that by 1986 we would have only about 400 ships left in international trade.
  There are several reasons for the decline. Some of them are outwith the control of the Government, but a change in Government policy could arrest that decline, particularly in the very important area of domestic shipping. Other countries, such as France, Greece, Norway and West Germany provide positive support for their coastal shipping industries. Our Government simply offer the litany of free competition. We know that other Governments offer homilies on the need for free competition, but they do not practise what they preach or seek to preach.
  I am not for one moment saying that the Government have stood idly by and watched the British maritime transport industry decline — they have helped that decline with the Budget proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has withdrawn free depreciation and ended the tax relief on overseas earnings. The latter will badly harm the incomes of officers and crews of British vessels in the international sector.
  The incentives to reinvest in the industry have largely disappeared. So, too, has the competitiveness of British shipping. It has always been difficult to attempt to compete against flags-of-convenience shipping, with its moorings in tax havens and its systematic and often brutal exploitation of Third world seamen.
  The position today is far worse. In terms of competitiveness, Britain has slipped from being on almost equal terms with other European nations to a position at the bottom of the league. This country needs a sensible maritime transport policy. If that is not brought about, the "Red Duster" will become an extremely rare sight on the oceans of the world. It will become a collector's item. There is a thought for a maritime nation.
  Most maritime nations have some publicly owned shipping operations. Most maritime nations recognise the importance of their coastal shipping and seek to integrate it with their land-based transport system. Here in Britain, however, the Government allow a third of coastal shipping and fully 50 per cent. of our offshore supply shipping services to be run by foreign flag ships. It almost seems as though the Government are happy with this state of affairs.
  Many of our maritime communities suffer as a result of the Government's lack of concern for the coastal shipping and offshore supply industries. The National Union of Seamen and AUEW-TASS recently produced a report on those two sectors. I am not a member of either union, but I commend that report to the House as it clearly shows the

  811
  extent to which British policy over a period has been at odds with that of other nations, and it spells out the consequence of that. It states:
  "In mid-1968 according to the Rochdale Report, there were well over a hundred shipowners in the Coasting and Short Sea Tramp Sector, with nearly 700 vessels comprising over one million gross registered tons (grt.) By 1983 this was down to less than 20 owners with just over 150 vessels comprising under 300,000 grt. In 15 years, 80 per cent. of owners, and 80 per cent. of vessels and 70 per cent. of tonnage have disappeared."
  Almost all the major maritime nations, including France, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan and the United States, reserve coastal trade for their own vessels under a system known as cabotage. Britain is the odd man out. Although we do not allow other countries to operate within our railway system, and we do not allow foreign lorries to pick up and deliver goods within this country, we allow foreign vessels to trade between British ports at will. That is an absurdity.
  The report claims that about 30 vessels would be needed to replace the foreign ships involved in our coastal trade, providing about 1,000 jobs for British seafarers. It surely makes sense to transport British cargo around the British coast in British ships crewed by British personnel.
  The same circumstance obtain in the United Kingdom offshore supply industry, in which half of the 180 or so vessels are foreign owned and crewed.
  We do not have free competition in those two sectors. British vessels are not allowed to operate in the Norwegian, West German or United States' sectors. The Government's concept of free competition is of considerable benefit to other maritime nations, but of little or no help to those sectors of British maritime industry. The decline of our industry bears witness to a disastrous record. The people in our shipping and shipbuilding industry deserve much more from the Government.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: It is sad that we should begin this new series of sittings on such a negative note. The Opposition motion says nothing about the good news from British Rail in the past few days. It takes no account of the aggressive attitude of the National Bus Company and municipal operators in the bus industry.
  The motion also says nothing about the good news on motorway construction and repair, which the Opposition spokesman described as a patchwork quilt. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) went to see the 70 miles of motorway renewed every year he would realise what a good job is being done for the benefit of the travelling public. Bypasses and many other developments have been mentioned. There is a great deal of good to be said in this debate. It is a shame that we have not heard it from the Opposition.
  I want to concentrate on two issues. First, there is the plight of the disabled motorist faced with the tightening up of the regulations which affect those entitled to a disabled parking badge. In the past there was monstrous abuse of the orange badge system by able-bodied people, who used badges to get free parking in town centres. The Government rightly tackled that abuse, but I believe that they went too far — even though they enjoyed the support of organisations for the disabled — with the
  812
  result that many disabled people now simply cannot get an orange badge even though they are demonstrably in need of one.
  In my own constituency—and there must be many similar cases in other constituencies—a pregnant woman whose legs had been amputated above the knee has been denied an orange badge. People suffering from agoraphobia—who if they cannot keep a car parked in sight while they are doing their shopping are likely to have an attack and run into the road, causing danger to themselves and to motorists — have been denied the badge. Only last week I visited a man suffering from arthritis. He was barely able to walk from one side of his kitchen to the other to get a pencil to write down his name and address, but he, too, had been denied an orange badge under the new regulations.
  I support the Government in their aim of removing the abuse, but I cannot sympathise with a scheme which denies to those who are in need the chance to have a badge. I urge the Government to reconsider the degree of flexibility, ensuring that the disabled have a right of appeal—if necessary, a right of appeal to the Minister. I also urge them to consider introducing photographic passes so that it can be shown that the disabled person is the one who is using the car.
  I should have liked to devote many minutes to that all-important subject. I regret any apparent discourtesy to the many disabled people in my constituency and elsewhere who have written to me on this subject and begged me to raise the matter in the House, but time is short, and I also wish to refer to British Rail Engineering Ltd., which is the largest employer in my constituency.
  We debated BREL in January. At that time there was a threat of large-scale redundancies throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly in the rail works in my constituency. A figure of 1,200 redundancies has been put forward by the management of BREL as being likely, on current trends, to materialise by the end of the year.
  The works fell into a mood of gloom, despair and despondency. However, within a few days the management gave us the welcome news that the redundancies had been staved off for the time being. Work had been diverted from other works and found from elsewhere to enable the options to be kept open. The management of British Rail Engineering Ltd. had done what I had asked it to do. However, the effect on the morale of the work force had been severe. I appeal to the management not to indulge in creating a see-saw effect, threatening the worst and then drawing back from the abyss. It has been doing that for years, and it is not good for man management.
  Swindon is now a rundown repair and refurbishment centre, but it is capable of better things. The works are capable of new build, of producing new rolling stock and new locomotives, if the investment is provided. Swindon could also serve the west country as a regional repair and refurbishment centre. It is absurd that if a 125 engine breaks down 30 yards from the Swindon works it has to be towed to Derby to be repaired. That cannot make sense. If we want cost-effectiveness, we should look for it in areas such as that. Swindon has a pool of skilled labour and a tradition of high-class engineering. It would be a tragedy if the British Rail report ignored those facts and insisted upon some option which led to a severing of the connection between Swindon and the railway engineering industry.

  813
  I hope that I have been able to give sufficient weight to the two issues that have caused great anxiety in my constituency. With a few honourable exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), the Opposition have done nothing to contribute to the debate. There has been a negative attack on what remains a successful tackling of the problems of transport. It is not sensible for the Labour party to follow a policy of saying, "If it moves nationalise it, and if it still moves chuck public money at it." That is the type of absurdity that will condemn the Labour party to perpetual opposition.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I intend, if time allows me, to return to some of the points made by the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for York (Mr. Gregory) but I should like to start by dealing with a slightly less controversial aspect of the debate and put a couple of questions to the Minister. It is no secret—the Secretary of State is extremely proud of the fact—that the Government intend to privatise British Airways some time in the future. The Government have not told us today when that decision will be made. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman, in characteristic fashion, has virtually handed that decision over to the Civil Aviation Authority, although it is an issue for Government transport policy.
  The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to his dislike of private monopoly. His remarks could be applied to a privatised British Airways, bearing in mind the approach of the Department of Transport. The evidence is that the privatisation will occur later rather than sooner, but we should be grateful if the Minister would tell us of the Government's intentions and say to what extent he acknowledges that the Government have to some extent juggled the figures to paint a rosier financial picture of British Airways, no doubt with the intention of paving the way for privatisation.
  Evidence of fiddling around with British Airways' accounts has been presented by one of its commercial rivals. Sir Adam Thomson, the chairman of British Caledonian, strongly believes that there has been rigging of BA's finances. He and the Opposition would welcome some comment on that from the Minister. British Caledonian believes that unleashing a privatised British Airways of its present size would be detrimental to its prospects. British Caledonian has said publicly that there should be a transfer of routes between the two airlines. What is the Government's view on that? Would such a transfer need legislation — which, presumably, would have to be debated in the House?
  Another less controversial aspect of today's debate is the Government's airports policy, if one exists. It appears that the Government have no real policy on British airports. It might be controversial of me to say so, but I believe that both sides of the House acknowledge that there is some excess capacity and that, although every municipally owned airport likes to call itself international, there is a limit to the amount of international traffic around and the privatisation of the British Airports Authority is likely to reduce even further any prospect of an overall countrywide airports policy.
  The threat of privatisation is already causing concern to the British Airports Authority. It has desperately tried to find out when privatisation will take place, whether the existing BAA airports will be kept together or split up, and if they are split up who will be the lucky person who
  814
  collects the Heathrow jackpot. When the Government carry on with their sad and undemocratic policy to abolish the metropolitan county councils, what will happen to airports such as Manchester, which is run successfully by a joint committee of city and county council? Are we to have yet another quango from that former quango hater, the Secretary of State for Transport, which presumably would be created in order to maintain municipal airports which are at present—I hope all hon. Members would acknowledge—run extremely efficiently?
  In today's debate, more than one Conservative Member has said that Labour Members in particular have been more concerned with railway matters. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), in a characteristically thoughtful speech, warned us of the dangers of that approach. He said that we should have concentrated more on buses and less on railways. Indeed, he repeated the phrase that I first heard from the late Anthony Crosland—that the railways were primarily in the business of running round the middle classes and that Labour Members ought to be more concerned with bus services because more working-class people would be inclined to use them. I do not subscribe to that view. In the past, the number of middle-class commuters probably exceeded any others because of the travel-to-work pattern which went back to the 1930s, but that element of trave has diminished, or has certainly moved towards a more equal ratio than in the past.
  Like many hon. Members, I well remember the fanfares that greeted the Transport Act 1980. The then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) regarded it as a great leap forward. Indeed, on 1 July 1980, the day after the Bill received the Royal Assent his Department issued a press notice which said that the Act
  "would encourage new operators to come forward, especially in rural areas."
  In February 1983, less than three years later, the Bus and Coach Council issued a document entitled "The country would miss the bus". On page 7 of that document it said:
  "The hopes of the legislators have not been realised, because the market has invariably not justified the commercial investment"—
  that is, the hope of an improvement in rural bus services.
  What happened in 1980 was exactly what was forecast by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and other Opposition spokesmen on transport. They said that there would be a rush of operators of express services anxious to take advantage of the relaxed licensing provisions. Within six months of the Transport Act, the National Bus Company had put up its express mileage by 43 per cent. In doing so it had to destroy its principle of cross-subsidisation. Within 12 months of the 1980 Act, route mileage operated overall by the National Bus Company declined by 8 per cent.
  The Conservative party has objected to the terms of the Labour party's motion condemning the Government's transport policy. The Secretary of State asked us to justify the word "deterioration". I hope the House will acknowledge immediately that that was a deterioration in services caused by one single mistaken act in Government policy. I accept that at least some Conservative Members in 1980 felt that the passage of the Act would benefit the rural bus user, who is, after all, the sort of person in the forefront of Conservative party thinking. I have never quite understood why, but most Conservative Members

  815
  represent rural areas. Nevertheless, this Act of Parliament, which was passed by a Conservative Government, has had a severe impact on rural areas, contrary to what was forecast at the time the legislation came to pass.
  Another aspect of the 1980 Transport Act that was greeted with some fanfares in the House, and elsewhere, was the clauses concerned with the principle of car sharing. I well remember that the Opposition were abused at that time for not recognising the great leap forward that was being made by the Conservative party in relaxing the regulations, and allowing the principle of car sharing. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, had a regular column in the Department of Environment house magazine for car sharers to advertise. By the end of 1980, regrettably, there were only two advertisers, and by June 1981 there was only one advertiser.
  However, it was better than that. One south coast resort newspaper decided in October 1980 that it would establish a new classified advertisements section for this purpose only. In one case, the advertiser wished to share his car only with an attractive woman. In another case, there was an appeal, doubtless from a supporter of the Conservative party, for a car sharer to share in the cost of running a Rolls-Royce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) reflected earlier, perhaps the whole intention and thrust of the Government's transport policy was to enable us all to ride around in Rolls-Royces. I suppose that, to that extent at least, for one south coast resort they were successful.
  If they were successful in that aspect of their policy, the Government were completely unsuccessful as far as the provisions of the Act are concerned. I readily acknowledge, as do all Opposition Members, that, as a result of the 1980 Act, at least some people managed to find a cheaper method of inter-city travel. I repeat that that was not the purpose of the Act, but that was what happened. As Freddie Laker—the one-time hero of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister—found out, any such market, no matter how cheap the fares, is eventually finite, and there is only a limited number of customers to go round. The result of that Act for certain long-distance passengers is that between certain cities there has been a reduction in cost, and a greater choice in modes of travel. That has not taken place for people in the rural areas. Indeed, the reverse has happened. The introduction of express coach services has led to an equal reduction in the number of people using British Rail's inter-city services. An Act of Parliament is passed through the House with the best of intentions, but we end up—I suppose that this is the competition that the right hon. Gentleman is always so keen to encourage—with two nationalised industries in direct competition with each other, and with the user of public transport worse off.
  The Secretary of State for Transport in his opening speech said that the Labour party's love was only for those who work in the transport industries, while the Conservative party's concern was for the consumers of the industries. He said that, in the 1950s, 35 per cent. of total available traffic went by road, and the figure now is over 60 per cent. I am not sure about his figures—even he is not always sure about his figures—but that was the general drift of his remarks.
  816
  There is no arguing with the view that that was the movement of traffic between modes of transport since the 1950s. It would be surprising if the movement were different, because we know that the Secretary of State, with many of his predecessors, makes no secret of his dislike of subsidies to the railway industry. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and myself of being obsessed with providing more subsidies regardless of the likely choice of consumers. However, he did not mention—nor did any Conservative Member mention—the generally acknowledged fact that we pay a subsidy of more than £2,000 million a year towards company cars. The Secretary of State is in favour of that sort of transport. No one would object if he was the recipient of such largesse, but the vast majority of people have no such opportunity.
  The Secretary of State shook his head when I mentioned £2,000 million, but I hope that he accepts that, on motor manufacturers' figures, more than 60 per cent. of new cars are sold to companies. They are subsidised, directly and occasionally indirectly, but the Secretary of State shows no concern about that.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about the need for a modern and efficient railway service at low cost to the taxpayer. If he were a miracle worker—from our short acquaintance since October 1983 I fear that he is anything but that—the Opposition would sit back and wait to see whether such a system could work. However, Britain alone in the western world could not produce such a system. The fact that subsidies are an acknowledged part of the operation of public transport in every other developed nation leads me to believe that the Secretary of State is as inaccurate in that projection as he has been in every projection he has made since he took office.
  An article in the Financial Times on 18 April said that the Secretary of State rarely compares like with like. Under the heading "How the juggernauts have taken their toll", Mr. Max Wallace concluded his article by stating:
  "It is evident that Nicholas Ridley has been successfully reeducated in the wonderland economics of highway investment over the nine short months since he left the Treasury."
  The reason for that somewhat harsh conclusion is the damage caused to the Severn bridge. Most people would say that that damage is unlikely to have been caused by private cars. It was caused by heavy goods vehicles travelling between Wales and England. During the past few months there has been a movement of Welsh-finished steel off the railways because of a shortage of railway wagons—the hon. Members for Swindon and for York might wish to discuss this with the Secretary of State—on to the roads, which has increased the number of juggernauts using the Severn bridge.
  Successive Governments, especially this one, have said that rail investment must show profitable returns, whereas road investment should come out of revenue. But the Severn bridge is different. Its costs are supposedly isolated and its funding is supposedly on the same basis as rail funding. However, last year, the engineers who designed the bridge 17 years ago—the consultants Mott, Hay and Anderson — identified a risk of failure because of a traffic jam. The engineers' remedy was to space the flow of bigger lorries and allow private cars unrestricted access. It would have been comparatively simple to have one lane for lorries and to restrict the number of lorries op the bridge at any time.

  817
  That did not meet with any favour from the right hon. Gentleman, who does not believe in subsidies. He has said that there will be an investigation into the prospect of a second Severn crossing. In Hansard on 1 November 1983 he said that he did not accept that the heavier lorries now on our roads are part of the problem in any sense. According to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no problem with heavy lorries, but the Severn bridge is about to have more money spent on it. That is not road hauliers' money, of course. Some areas of transport receive privileged treatment when it comes to subsidies.
  The Government do not compare like with like. It is more profitable for the National Bus Company to run express services in direct competition with British Rail's inter-city services. Since the Budget, it has cost £67·50 for a road fund licence for a 45-seater coach. All that an operator must pay is the cost of the coach, the wages of the driver and £67·50 for a road fund licence. When one considers the infrastructure costs that British Rail must bear directly, it is not surprising that there has been a massive increase in long-distance coach travel and a consequential reduction in rail travel.
  The Opposition stand by the motion. The Government ought to be condemned for their failure. There has been widespread deterioration in Britain's transport systems, and for that reason I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in supporting our motion.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The House has had an interesting, if rather short, debate on a very important subject. It is important because transport has a vital bearing on our costs as a trading nation and because it touches on the quality of life for us all. It has been a revealing debate, exposing hon. Members' interests, concerns and legitimate fears and I shall endeavour to respond constructively to what hon. Members have had to say.
  The debate has also given us an insight into the Opposition's real beliefs. Their motion attacks the Government for their belief in
  "competition, profit, privatisation and reduced Government financial support."
  That attack makes clear the philosophy of the Labour party—an acceptance of loss rather than profit, a desire for nationalisation rather than the spread of ownership and wealth, and an increase in the spending of taxpayers' money, as if that were some sort of virility symbol. We reject that philosophy and that policy, as well as the thinking that lies behind it. We have good reason to do so, because of the improvements that have already flowed from our policies.
  I shall deal with the matters raised by hon. Members during the debate, but before that I shall deal with the most revealing and incredible part of the motion. It notes that
  "a policy of privatisaion and competition has reduced the United Kingdom's merchant fleet by 500 ships".
  It has been a sunny Easter recess, but it is a little early to use a touch of the sun as an excuse for such a motion. There have been no changes in privatisation or competition that affect the United Kingdom's merchant fleet. The privatisation of Sealink has not yet been brought forward. There is no relationship between the Government's policies, in the way that they have been expressed and condemned by the Opposition, and the decline in the United Kingdom's merchant fleet.
  818
  We are very concerned about the decline in the United Kingdom's merchant fleet, which has been caused by world recession and the introduction of fewer, bigger ships, the protectionism of emergent nations and their unnecessary building. The decline has not been caused by the Government, as the Opposition well know. Their reference in the motion to a declining merchant fleet shows that they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the main threat to the United Kingdom's fleet comes from flags of convenience. I remind him that the United Kingdom flag is itself a flag of convenience. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that 43 per cent. of our fleet is there because of a flag of convenience? When he is so ready to condemn flags of convenience, will he bear in mind the effect of his condemnation on that 43 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet?
  Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: I shall not give way, because of the amount of ground that I have to cover.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to Norwegian protectionism. Talks are continuing at official level. I expect progress and have invited the Norwegian Minister to visit London to discuss that progress.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to the breadth of the coverage of the Department of Transport. I welcome that, but its only disadvantage is the wide area of aspects that may be raised. My right hon. Friend referred to railway investment and particularly to the south-east coast. The Victoria signalling system will be opened next Tuesday. In mid- May the direct non-stop Gatwick service from Victoria will start, providing improvements for air travellers and taking the pressure off some of the south coast towns.
  My right hon. Friend drew attention to the tax problems of the shipping industry. I shall draw what he said to the attention of Treasury Ministers. He also warned the House against the danger of privatisation leading to a private monopoly. As I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, I shall take carefully into account his advice and comments in that direction.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) quarrels with the chairman of British Rail for allegedly preventing railwaymen from lobbying Members of Parliament for more investment. As the Government are not restricting British Rail's investment money, there is no point in lobbying Members of Parliament. It is for British Rail to propose what investment is wants, and for the Government to dispose. At the moment, apart from the east coast main line, we do not have in front of us any proposals for investment that are being held up by the Government.
  Mr. Prescott: Only the east coast main line.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman refers to just the east coast main line. I shall come back to it, but he knows perfectly well that we are waiting for the inter-city strategy, which we expect in the next few weeks.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle was disturbed about bus substitution because it originated from the Serpell committee. I assure him that that was endorsed by the Select Committee on Transport, which referred to the need for guaranteed subsidised rail services. Therefore, let us at least put that into its context and not be worried in the way that the hon. Gentleman was. The hon. Gentleman

  819
  asked when lorry and road users would cover the costs which they incur through taxation. Road expenditure in 1982 was £3,300 million and the tax raised from road users was £6,400 million. Not only do they cover costs, but they cover much more than the expenditure on the roads.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), in a thoughtful speech, underlined the Secretary of State's theme that transport is for the benefit of the customer, and illustrated the advantages of competition. He referred to widespread concern in other countries about railway losses. The House may be interested to know that so great are the losses in Japan that the Japanese have set up a commission of inquiry and have visited British Rail and the Department of Transport to discuss possible approaches to ways in which to cut their severe losses.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is anxious to get heavy lorries out of city centres. I agree with him, but the answer is not in bans, but in bypasses. The London M25 is the biggest bypass in history. It will do a major amount to improve the lot of those who are concerned about heavy lorries in the centre of London. Section 8, which we are using vigorously as a means of environmental grant to encourage the moving of loads from road to rail, is now having a considerable impact in many routes. Heavy lorries and juggernaut traffic is being taken out of the villages and towns and is going on to the railways. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman supports that.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about Sealink privatisation. From my own personal investigations I am satisfied that the ferries to the Isle of Wight will last until the new Sealink management has the opportunity of considering its future investment programme.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the building of Sealink vessels by Harland and Wolff. When I was on the Sealink vessel concerned, the management told me, "Yes, it was delayed. Yes, we did build vessels in other yards, but by God we go back to Harland and Wolff because they build so well." I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in being pleased at that.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for assurances that Sealink services to the Isle of Wight and elsewhere will not be cut. For a long time Sealink has operated on a fully commercial remit. Therefore, there is no reason why a change to privatisation should have any effect on the services operated by the management. [Interruption.] British Rail gave Sealink a remit to act commercially, and that it has done. No doubt that is what the new owners will do as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) said that he was delighted at the ending of section 9 and saw it as the opportunity to go ahead with Falmouth's container base. I hope that he will not jump with joy too soon and assume that all the fences are down. Section 9 had become a sign of Government approval and a signal to investors that, perhaps, with abandonment, they could go ahead with any investment that involved a port development where section 9 approval had been given. Investors must now make their own independent judgment, and we shall have to see what happens.
  My hon. Friend is worried by the Rayner scrutiny restricting ports developments. I understand his worry and concern. I have been involved in the problems that arose with the overtime limitations for customs at Great
  820
  Yarmouth. We were able to overcome those difficulties, and I hope that my hon. Friend will discuss with me any particular problems that arise in his own constituency.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) referred to the widespread concern, which I know exists, about the Settle-Carlisle railway line. I assure him that I and the Secretary of State are well aware of the widespread concern about the future of this line. It is now in the process of going through the various procedures that are laid down, as a result of which it will come to me and the Secretary of State for consideration in a quasi-judicial capacity.
  At present, my mind is entirely open. I have no prejudices, but I intend to visit the line, to see exactly what is involved, to meet local people and to hear their views. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. I give the same reassurance to the hon. Member for Carlisle, who insists on referring to this not as the Settle-Carlisle line, but as the Carlisle-Settle line. I understand his reasons.
  The hon. Member for Hartlepool alleged that the Government had forced British Rail to withdraw investment proposals worth £600 million. Let me set the record right. Under this Government, British Rail has invested no less than £2,000 million in its future. The Government have rejected £30 million, and British Rail has withdrawn £300 million, some of which it has subsequently resubmitted. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the whole thing in proportion. Some £2,000 million of investment has been made, and only £30 million has been rejected by the Government.
  The hon. Gentleman charged the chairman of British Rail with being an agent provocateur. I willingly defend the chairman. I do it sincerely, as he is a railwayman through and through. He clearly intends to be his own man. No one knows better than Bob Reid how the railways should be run. He is not a Government puppet. All that the hon. Gentleman has done in raising that particular canard is to show how out of touch he is with the reality of British Rail.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) raised the issue of the Manchester ship canal and its future. I should be happy to meet him to consider whether there is any positive role that I can play in connection with the future of the system. He will appreciate that this matter crosses Departments, and I am not sure that I am the right Minister to be in the lead on this issue.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) wanted Ministers to listen to railwaymen. I assure him, as I have done before, that my door is open to him and to his fellow railway-sponsored Members of Parliament if they have particular points that they want to put to me and that they wish to have taken into account. I shall write to him on his technical question about concessionary fares in his constituency.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked when British Airways is to be privatised. The answer is some time in 1985. Steps to enable that to be achieved are proceeding smoothly. He asked about route transfers. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put that matter to the CAA for it to consider. It has shown the breadth of the evidence that it has received, but it has not come out with its conclusions, and it would be wrong for us to prejudge what it may have to say. The hon. Gentleman asked whether this needs legislation. How can he speculate about the contents of a

  821
  report that we have not received? How do we know whether the CAA will recommend anything that will require legislation?
  I have covered many of the points that have been raised, and I shall write to hon. Members on any points which they feel I have missed. It is not enough to reject the Opposition's motion. We have a right to claim that things have improved, are improving and will continue to improve because of the Government's policies. I shall demonstrate that briefly with regard to three policy sectors—road, rail and air.
  On road policy, competition has brought 700 new coach services with better and cheaper services than ever before. It now costs £12 for a return to Liverpool. I rang Victoria coach station today for that information. That is a sign of a massive improvement. Hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the customers are benefiting from that service. They praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors for having made it possible under Conservative policies.
  Some £2 billion has been invested in the railways since 1979, and the British Rail chairman expects a 40 per cent. increase in investment in the next three years. The constant attacks that have been made on railway management are something that I resent, as do many Members of Parliament and railwaymen. The Opposition's continual attacks are deplorable.
  As to our policy on air liberalisation, the benefits of competition are plain for any Scottish Member, Manchester Member or anyone who uses the shuttle system to see and verify for themselves.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 247.

  Division No. 251]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbett, Robin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Craigen, J. M.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Crowther, Stan

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnett, Guy

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Beith, A. J.

  Deakins, Eric

  Bell, Stuart

  Dewar, Donald

  Benn, Tony

  Dixon, Donald

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Dobson, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dormand, Jack

  Blair, Anthony

  Douglas, Dick

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dubs, Alfred

  Boyes, Roland

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Eadie, Alex

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Ellis, Raymond

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Campbell, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Forrester, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Derek

  Clay, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Fraser, J, (Norwood)

  Cohen, Harry

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Coleman, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Golding, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Gould, Bryan

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  822

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Park, George

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Parry, Robert

  Haynes, Frank

  Patchett, Terry

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Pendry, Tom

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Penhaligon, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pike, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Howells, Geraint

  Prescott, John

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Redmond, M.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  John, Brynmor

  Robertson, George

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rooker, J. W.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lambie, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lamond, James

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Leighton, Ronald

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Litherland, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Snape, Peter

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Soley, Clive

  McGuire, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Strang, Gavin

  McTaggart, Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McWilliam, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Madden, Max

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Martin, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Torney, Tom

  Maxton, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wareing, Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Welsh, Michael

  Michie, William

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilson, Gordon

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Winnick, David

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John Home Robertson.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  NOES

  Ancram, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Coombs, Simon

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Cope, John

  Baldry, Anthony

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Body, Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Farr, John

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Favell, Anthony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fox, Marcus

  Budgen, Nick

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Gale, Roger

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gorst, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  823

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gregory, Conal

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Ground, Patrick

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Moate, Roger

  Harris, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Moore, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hayward, Robert

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Heddle, John

  Needham, Richard

  Henderson, Barry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steven

  Hickmet, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hind, Kenneth

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Holt, Richard

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Hooson, Tom

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hordern, Peter

  Parris, Matthew

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

  Pawsey, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Porter, Barry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Powley, John

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Renton, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rost, Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knox, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lamont, Norman

  Ryder, Richard

  Latham, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Jim

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lightbown, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Peter

  Silvester, Fred

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luce, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Speller, Tony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Spencer, Derek

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maclean, David John

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Major, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Maples, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Marlow, Antony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  824

  Thompson, Donald (Calder v)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Watson, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Tracey, Richard

  Wheeler, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilkinson, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waddington, David

  Woodcock, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 165.

  Division No. 252]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ancram, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Gow, Ian

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Baldry, Anthony

  Greenway, Harry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gregory, Conal

  Body, Richard

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hannam, John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harris, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nick

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Heddle, John

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Henderson, Barry

  Cockeram, Eric

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Hickmet, Richard

  Con way, Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Simon

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cope, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Dicks, Terry

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Holt, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hooson, Tom

  Durant, Tony

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

  Farr, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Favell, Anthony

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Forman, Nigel

  Hunt, John (Ravensboume)

  Fox, Marcus

  Hunter, Andrew

  Franks, Cecil

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  Jessel, Toby

  Gale, Roger

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Key, Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  825

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lester, Jim

  Ryder, Richard

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lightbown, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lord, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luce, Richard

  Silvester, Fred

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Speller, Tony

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Spencer, Derek

  Maclean, David John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Squire, Robin

  Major, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malins, Humfrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Marlow, Antony

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Moore, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Waddington, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Neubert, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steven

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Waller, Gary

  Osborn, Sir John

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Watson, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Watts, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Parris, Matthew

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Whitfield, John

  Porter, Barry

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Powley, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wood, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Woodcock, Michael

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Yeo, Tim

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Renton, Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Barnett, Guy

  Beith, A. J.

  826

  Bell, Stuart

  Kennedy, Charles

  Benn, Tony

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lambie, David

  Blair, Anthony

  Lamond, James

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Boyes, Roland

  Leighton, Ronald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Caborn, Richard

  McGuire, Michael

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Campbell, Ian

  McKelvey, William

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McNamara, Kevin

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Madden, Max

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clay, Robert

  Martin, Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Maxton, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Meacher, Michael

  Conlan, Bernard

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Michie, William

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Corbett, Robin

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Craigen, J. M.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Crowther, Stan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Park, George

  Deakins, Eric

  Parry, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Patchett, Terry

  Dixon, Donald

  Pendry, Tom

  Dobson, Frank

  Penhaligon, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Pike, Peter

  Douglas, Dick

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Prescott, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Radice, Giles

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Randall, Stuart

  Eadie, Alex

  Redmond, M.

  Eastham, Ken

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Ellis, Raymond

  Robertson, George

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Rooker, J. W.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fisher, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Forrester, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Foulkes, George

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Skinner, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Snape, Peter

  Golding, John

  Soley, Clive

  Gould, Bryan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Stott, Roger

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Strang, Gavin

  Haynes, Frank

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tinn, James

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Torney, Tom

  Howells, Geraint

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Wareing, Robert

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Weetch, Ken

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Welsh, Michael

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Wilson, Gordon

  John, Brynmor

  Winnick, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  827

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. John McWilliam and Mr. Austin Mitchell.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  828
  That this House welcomes the steps Her Majesty's Government is taking to improve the transport system of the United Kingdom.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Trade Union Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Orders of the Day

  Trade Union Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  10.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have not selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal party.
  Mr. King: This is, I hope, the final stage of the Bill in this House. It was carried on Second Reading by a majority of 169. I recognise that we may not have the same majority today as I believe that my earlier expectations will be fulfilled. When asked what I thought would be the attitude of the Liberals and Social Democrats, I made the rash forecast that they would probably vote for Second Reading and against Third Reading. I intend to claim a little money from some of my hon. Friends, as I believe that that prediction will prove to be correct.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Wait and see.
  Mr. King: I do not know how else the alliance can explain the force of its reasoned amendment. Nevertheless, we shall wait and see how the voting goes on this occasion. Naturally, I hope that alliance Members will stick to the consistency of their Second Reading vote.
  The Bill has been very fully considered by the House. It has received 120 hours consideration—more than 100 hours in Committee. Notwithstanding the shouts of outrage that preceded the Bill and accompanied its earlier stages, the House will note that the Bill has completed its stages in this House without a guillotine and without any serious change in content. There has been a lot of talk, but I am sure that my hon. Friends who had the pleasure of serving on the Committee will agree that we heard precious little convincing argument and few convincing reasons for changing the content of the Bill. Anyone who studies the provisions in the Bill will understand why that was so. In the final analysis, it is difficult — as the Opposition have found—to argue against democracy and giving the members of a trade union a proper say in the activities of the leadership of their union and a right to decide whether the union should take strike action. Members of a trade union have rights, and the Bill seeks to ensure that they should be able to enjoy them.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: I wish to speak briefly, so I shall not give way.
  Opposition Members failed to persuade any member of the Committee who was of a fair and impartial frame of mind—I say that in as fair and independent a spirit as I can — that there was any reason why trade union members should not have the right to a fair and secret ballot to elect the principal executive committee of their union or why they should not be consulted before strike action was taken. Can there ever have been a time when
  830
  it would have been more difficult to argue that point? I doubt whether any Opposition Member would seek to argue it now.
  Who can seriously deny the justice of a periodic ballot on the political fund? Could anyone seriously maintain that the result of one ballot held 70 years ago—the truth has now been revealed—is adequate justification for the existence of a political fund? Who could seriously maintain that if a political fund is to have credibility and validity, it will not be in a much stronger position if it is supported by a vote of the membership of the union taken more recently than 70 years ago?
  On Second Reading, I said:
  "It is still the case that most union leaders are elected by votes cast, often by a show of hands, at branch meetings held away from the workplace, despite all the evidence"—
  reinforced by Donovan—
  "that branch meetings on average are attended only rarely by more than 7 per cent. of members.
  It is still the case that some of the largest trade unions use the block vote system of election despite all the evidence that the effect is to distort the result of elections and to hide the fact that"
  the votes of six people can be converted into a card vote of 300, 400 or 1,000.
  "It is still the case that most unions refuse to hold secret ballots before strikes and rely on rowdy open-air meetings which are a travesty of democracy."—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 157–58.]
  The House knows from recent debates on the Bill that, in accordance with the manifesto, I had discussions on these matters with representatives of the Employment Policy and Organisation Committee of the TUC. The House will know that, in addition to our discussions on the political levy, very strong representations were made to me that we should amend parts of the Bill in the interests of a better understanding with the trade union movement.
  I do not apologise for not being and not having been prepared to change the essential elements of the Bill. I know that I carry all of my right hon. and hon Friends with me when I say that I am not prepared to sacrifice the proper and democratic rights of union members. Opposition Members have another difficulty. I pay credit to their endurance in Committee and on Report, although I can give no credit to the quality of their arguments. They tried to establish that the Bill represents a massive interference or upheaval in the existing rules and regulations that guide and bind the conduct of trade unions. It is designed merely to establish the elementary principles of secret ballots and democracy which should be found in all unions and is already welcome and found in some. It is designed to establish those minimum standards within, as far as possible, the existing rules and procedures of trades unions.
  The House will know that the Bill represents the third step in our step-by-step approach towards what we believe is a fair and proper balance in the rights and responsibilities of trade unions and the circumstances of their members. We have already taken steps to protect an individual's rights if he wishes not to join a union. The full impact of the second step that we have taken in regard to the closed shop has yet to take effect, but, from November this year, no closed shop will enjoy legal protection unless it is supported by the overwhelming majority of those who work in it. That will be a major step forward in the protection of individual rights. We have also taken action clearly to define the rights of pickets and the limits of secondary action. The Bill sets out the further stages which

  831
  define the rights that we believe belong to trade union members and establishes what we believe is a fairer balance in those rights and responsibilities.
  I do not doubt that some Opposition Members will try to argue that the Bill represents an assault on basic trade union freedoms and rights. It represents some assault on some trade union leaders who have exercised power without reference to their membership — often to the great disadvantage of that membership and the trade union movement. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will listen to this point instead of mimicking away in a rather frivolous way, as I think he will understand it. Does any Opposition Member think that what is happening at the moment is helpful to the image of the trade union movement? Does anyone think that there is anything in this Bill which is half as damaging to the good name of proper and responsible trade unionism as the type of behaviour that we are seeing throughout the country and which is being condoned by trade union leaders?
  I hope that more trade union leaders and the party that claims the closest affiliation with the trade union movement will play a rather more active part in propagating a sensible balance of responsibility and respect for the rule of law and a recognition of the rights of individuals within trade unions who choose to work, as is illustrated by the present situation. That should be respected and encouraged. Those trade unions which accept the spirit of the legislation should recognise that in the long run they have much to gain and little to fear from a public recognition that their leadership is properly and democratically elected in a secret ballot and that industrial action is taken only with the full support of their members properly established through a secret ballot. That will command far greater credibility and respect and in the long run be far better for union members than the sort of behaviour that we see now and that Labour Members are seeking to support.
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: How often will Mr. Scargill have to be re-elected under this legislation?
  Mr. King: He will have to come up for election every five years as a principal member of the executive committee with a casting vote, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He may like to check that, but he must distinguish between the structure of different trade unions.
  In the final analysis—this has come clearly out of the meetings in Sheffield — the people who have the vote will determine the conduct of the trade union. We have thought about the matter carefully. It is the people who vote who finally determine the policy of their trade union, and the principal executive committee must be properly elected. It is in the interests of the trade unions and their authority that they are seen to be properly elected.
  The Bill, the third step in our step-by-step approach, contains provisions which will improve the position of trade unions. Above all, it will give the unions back to their members. As I said on Second Reading, I am confident because I know that every proposal in the Bill is not some new startling revelation, never before realised by the trade union movement. Each of the proposals is already part of the constitution and practice of those trade unions which recognise the importance of more efficient
  832
  democratic procedures. We are seeking to bring the rest of the trade union movement up to the better standards of those which adopt those principles.
  The Bill has illustrated clearly the gulf between the Government's view — which opinion polls show is widely shared in the country — and the Opposition's view. The Labour Opposition talk about the voluntary approach, but they believe, and showed during their term in office, that the role of law was to bolster the power of trade unions even against their members. We believe that the law should protect the whole community — employers, employees, union members and non-union members alike — from the abuse of industrial power. The Bill makes a further important step forward in getting that balance right. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State referred to the Second Reading, and to the consideration that has taken place since then, but hon. Members will remember that one very important incident is what took place at GCHQ. For a Secretary of State, in a Government who, by a unilateral act, deprived peaceful, law-abiding civil servants of the right to be members of a trade union, to talk about abuse of power, and to suggest that that happens only on this side of the House, shows what a one-sided view the Secretary of State has about the matter. He knows perfectly well that the present Government, without saying anything about the matter when they were elected, proceeded unilaterally to deprive trade unionists of an important civil right on that occasion, yet they present the Opposition and the trade unions as anti-democratic and somehow interested in the abuse of power. There has not been an action so redolent of anti-trade union hostility, and of the capricious use of arbitrary power, in the history of this country since the last war in regard to industrial relations matters.
  It is, of course, the knowledge that this is the Government who unilaterally deprived trade unionists of their rights at GCHQ which gives the lie to the notion that somehow this is a Bill to advance the rights and interests of trade union members. The Government like to portray the leaders of the trade union movement as some sort of power-crazy barons who do not have to maintain their position in power by regular elections and who are there without any democratic backing or structure. I say, as I said to the Secretary of State on Second Reading — I think it bears saying again — that the trade union movement needs no lessons in democracy from the Conservative party, a party which has not shown itself addicted to the practices of democracy in its own internal functioning, and is not well placed to lecture others about it.
  Indeed, if democracy and the election of people to positions regularly every five years is such a good idea, why is it confined to those organisations which are classified as trade unions by the certification officer? Why does not the National Farmers Union get a touch of this democracy, for example? As Conservative Members know, if the Bill were extended to cover the NFU, there would be a great cry from the NFU: "What business is it of yours to tell us how we run our affairs?". The Government would listen to that cry very carefully.
  What the House must know is that this is not some way of inducing democracy in trade unions but that the

  833
  Government were put in an awkward situation when an amendment was proposed in Committee, and on Report, which stated that, if trade unions, under the very system the Government proposed, said that they did not want the Government's proposals for the constitution, they should be allowed to vote against them. What did the Government do? A Government that wanted trade unions to be controlled by the members could have given trade unions, on a ballot of all their members, the right to opt out of this legislation if they wanted to do so. But the Government voted that down, and used their massive majority in the House to deny that right to trade union members. That one act puts paid to the notion that the Bill is concerned with giving rights to trade union members.
  Mr. Winnick: When it comes to a lack of democracy, is there not yet another illustration of what is happening in the real world? What sort of democracy is there for the people who work on the The Observer, the journalists and other staff, when their paper is being sold over their heads, simply because the present owners, Lonrho, do not like an article carried by the editor? Why should Mr. Maxwell be allowed to take over the newspaper without any consultation with the staff? Is that not an illustration of a lack of democracy which exists in our society?
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the selective use of certain principles by the Government. The Government are all for democracy when it comes to the internal workings of trade unions, but they are totally against any democracy at the work place. This is so not only in the case of The Observer, although my hon. Friend's point is well taken. It applies also to the Vredeling proposals, where the Government threatened to veto for the entire European Community elementary steps towards industrial democracy at the work place.
  Why is democracy good for trade unions but bad for employers? Why are the Government so anxious to confer rights upon trade unionists in their capacity and function within the union, but consistently deny them rights in their relationships with employers? The answer is that they are for employers and against trade unions. That is the beginning and end of our understanding of the wisdom of this part of the Bill.
  The Secretary of State skipped quickly over part II, which relates to pre-strike ballots, and made an oblique reference to the miners' strike. He knows as well as anyone that if the Bill were law today it would make no difference to the strike. The only effect that it would have would be to entitle the National Coal Board to sue the National Union of Mineworkers for damages, and since the NCB has already made it clear that it will not do that under the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982, what difference would this Bill have made? It is completely irrelevant, even for the Government's purposes, and I am surprised that the Secretary of State was so politically stupid as to bring the miners' strike into this debate. He skipped over it quickly, but he knows that the Bill, which he said would make such a difference to British industrial relations, would make no difference to a strike which he tried, for reasons of political prejudice, to bring into the debate.
  When one examines part II, one wonders why the Conservative contribution to industrial relations will be to deprive people on official strike of legal protection but to confer it upon people on unofficial strike. That must strike
  834
  us as odd. Not only do we give a practical incentive to workers in dispute to go on unofficial strike, but we confer special legal privileges on them which we deny to people on official strike. One need not be too bright — even Conservative Members should recognise it—to work out that the result will be the most massive practical and legal encouragement to unofficial strikes in the history of industrial relations.
  Part III reveals the real wickedness of the Government. It has nothing to do with industrial relations but has much to do with politics and with the Conservative party's desire to minimise the financial resources that the Labour party has at its disposal in conducting its work as a party and in carrying out its functions as Her Majesty's official Opposition. The Conservatives have decided that it would be a clever idea to put the Labour party in difficulty with the trade unions by causing ballots to be held between now and the next general election in all trade unions as to whether they continue to have political funds. Their hope is clear: that some trade unions will decide not to continue their political funds. They say, "What is wrong with that? Should not people be asked regularly about the contributions made by them or in their name to a political party?"
  That would be a convincing reason if the Conservative party applied the principle generally. If the Secretary of State says to me, as I believe he did, "Why should not trade union members be asked regularly whether they wish to contribute to a political party?", I am entitled to ask him, "Why should not shareholders of a company be asked regularly whether they want the assets of the company to be contributed to a political party?" Will the right hon. Gentleman get to his feet now and tell me the difference between trade union members being asked regularly and shareholders of a company being asked regularly?
  Mr. Tom King: The difference is that shareholders must be asked every year whether they wish contributions to be made. What is more, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—this argument is not new, because we have been over the ground in Committee—that the directors of a company are liable to criminal law if they fail to disclose to their shareholders that such a donation has been made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be suggesting that trade unions should be under a similar obligation.
  Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State is right. We went over the matter at length in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was not there for most of the time, so this is all new to him. That is why it is important that he hears it from me, as he did not before. It is important that he understands these matters. To suggest that there is a parallel in the law between trade unions and companies is ridiculous. I shall tell the Secretary of State what the legal position is at the moment. The trade unions are the only organisations in this country that have to create a separate political fund when they want to contribute to political organisations. Every other organisation, whether a limited company or a voluntary society, can use its general fund for political purposes.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I shall not give way just now, as I should like to educate the Secretary of State.

  835
  Trade unions are the only organisations specially selected to be required to have a political fund. That political fund can be established only by a ballot of all the members of the organisation, and every single member can opt out of that contribution. No other organisation in British society has been so specially regulated and controlled by law — trade unions have been thus controlled for 71 years, since the Trade Union Act 1913.
  Over that whole period, the only restriction introduced for companies was that they have to report every donation of over £200 in the annual accounts the year after they make it. All they have to do is disclose. To pretend that somehow that obligation to disclose is parallel with a legal requirement to acquire the consent of the membership and to allow each member to dissent shows that the Secretary of State has no capacity to understand the elementary rules of logic, never mind the elementary principles of language.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with two points? First, does he apply the same logic to, for example, the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which strikes me as an exact parallel with companies? Secondly, will he deal with the problem that I faced when I voted for the general secretary of my trade union? I asked why he did not state on the trade union membership card that there was a political levy. The reply that I received said that that would be discrimination, as it would show which members were paying and which were not. I looked at my card and found that written on it by hand, in red ink, were the words, "excluding political levy". Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with both points?
  Mr. Smith: I do not know what those points have to do with the debate, but I am happy to offer my thoughts on them. I have not studied the constitution of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, but, as Ministers sometimes say, if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I shall be glad to look into that.
  On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I think that he is pretending to be a trade unionist for the purposes of his intervention. He should take up that matter with his trade union. If he is still worried about it, he should have a chat with the Secretary of State, who assured some doubting Conservative Members that that was all taken care of as a result of his new agreement with the TUC. The hon. Gentleman should not complain to me, because the Secretary of State is satisfied about all that. He has an agreement with the TUC that will deal with that worry, so the hon. Gentleman should not ask me that question. He should ask the Secretary of State. His answer will be that it is all covered by the deal that he has made with the TUC. Far be it from me to cause disharmony in any quarter on that matter.
  Mr. Tom King: I take it from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that he is putting the full authority of his position, with all his right hon. and hon. Friends, behind ensuring that every trade union member has the free and effective right of choice of contracting out if he does not wish to pay the political levy. That is the position of the TUC. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman support it?
  Mr. Smith: I do not know why I am asked to give special endorsement to the legislative requirements of the Trade Union Act 1913, which has been on the statute book for 71 years, and somehow has to be revalidated by special endorsement. I am flattered that I have the capacity to do that, but I must decline the opportunity to state the obvious again and again. The Secretary of State knows full well that the TUC has agreed to require union members to observe the requirements of the statute. I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in saying to some other people, including his colleagues in the Government, that it is wrong that people should be deprived of their rights as those at GCHQ were.
  Why must trade unionists observe the law scrupulously while the Government unilaterally change the law and skip out of their obligations any time they choose? What example is it to others in the community when the Government, having entered into agreements with trade unionists over many years, suddenly decide one fine day that by an Order in Council they will unilaterally change the terms of employment and perhaps cause the people affected—this is still to be tested—to be dismissed from employment to which they have loyally adhered over many years? What example is that to employers? What way is that to treat loyal trade unionists?
  Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the powers we used specifically recognised the overriding priority of national security. Those powers were specifically retained on the statute book in the legislation carried through by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that excuse was exploded in the earlier debate. The powers that the Government used do not proceed from the employment legislation of the previous Government but from an Order in Council which the Conservative Government introduced in the last Parliament. It is under the powers of that Order in Council that the rights of trade unions were taken away. It has absolutely nothing to do with employment legislation.
  That legislation prevented such workers from going to an unfair dismissal tribunal, but the Government have changed the contract under the Order in Council, and that gives them the right to terminate employment. I am surprised that the Secretary of State is so ill-informed on one of the important features of his own Department. It is unfortunate that he should be so behind on what takes place in the House of Commons.
  To some extent we forgive the right hon. Gentleman for not knowing about this Bill, because he did not attend the Committee, but when he strays into GCHQ he ought at least to read the debates which took place in the House of Commons, which he will find illuminating and helpful in carrying out his duties.
  The right hon. Gentleman has distracted me from dealing with part III of the Bill. The Government have now attempted to frustrate the finances of the Opposition party. That has not been done before in British politics. There has always been a consensus that political parties would not intervene in this area, but that has now ended.
  When the Labour party has the opportunity to legislate on such matters, the very least that it will require is that all companies will need the special approval of their shareholders that a political fund be established, out of

  837
  which—and only out of which—contributions can be made to the Conservative party and others, including the SDP, which receives company contributions from time to time. The Labour party does not.
  Our other requirement will be that that political fund will allow people to contract out. It is for consideration whether shareholders only will be allowed to contract out or whether the net should be cast wider so that employees who are genuine members of the company have a say.
  The Conservatives have opened this up. They are happy to see trade unionists uniquely restricted, yet are prepared to allow companies to be encouraged to carry on political contributions without any legal restraint. They will have only themselves to blame when a Labour Government legislate to bring equity into this area.
  Mr. Rowe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has constantly said that trade unions are uniquely singled out. However, as was mentioned in Committee, a whole category of other organisations with privileges under law are bound by that law as a quid pro quo to establish a political fund or to deal in some other way with their political activities. I am referring to charities, of which there are a large number, and which are bound by the law to establish themselves in some other way if they wish to engage in political activity.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must know that charities do not have political funds. They are required by law to be non-political in the exercise of their functions, so that puts an end to any parallel. To try to draw a parallel between charities and trade unions, when it is staring us all in the face that the parallel is between trade unions that contribute to the Labour party and companies that contribute to the Conservative party, defies logic. That parallel is clear for anyone to see.
  Conservative Members should understand that only diehard Conservatives committed to the financial progress of the Conservative party can support this proposition. The vast majority of people cannot see the equity or justice in special restrictions on trade unions when no such restrictions have been put on companies.
  Mr. Roger Gale: On Second Reading, I asked a question that I asked again on Report. I ask it once more, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take this last opportunity to answer it. Why, if more trade unionists did not vote for the Labour party in the last general election than did, does he assume that this is a raid on Labour party funds or that most trade unionists would wish to contribute to the Labour party only?
  Mr. Smith: On all the previous occasions when the hon. Gentleman asked this question, I could not understand its relevance, and I am not sure what its relevance is to what I am now saying. I am trying to deal with what the Government propose in the bill by way of legal restrictions on trade unions. They are trying to increase such legal restrictions on political contributions. That must be self-evident, even to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I have been trying to point out the unfairness of increasing the restrictions on trade unions while doing nothing about companies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has that point now, because it is the third time that I have told him this.
  Once again, the chairman of the Conservative party has not taken part in the debate on part III. In the Committee
  838
  sittings, the chairman of the Conservative party, who in his spare time is a Minister, was instructed by somebody not to appear when the Committee dealt with part III, which concerns political contributions by trade unions. Somewhere in the recesses of the Conservative party or the Government, it was thought unseemly for the hon. Gentleman to take part in the debate on the restrictions of the activities of trade unions. I dare say that he took his salary as a Member of Parliament, although he did not appear in session after session of a Committee in which he was charged with responsibility for the Bill. We could not keep him in his seat when we discussed other parts of the Bill, but when we came to part III, he was not there. He was not allowed to speak on it in Report either, and—surprise, surprise—he is not allowed to speak tonight either. The Under-Secretary has come along to give us yet another rendering of his definition of trade unions when he comes to wind up.
  The Under-Secretary got GMBATU wrong before, and we have other questions that we shall put to him now about how he would describe other trade unions, and other sets of initials for him to puzzle over when he winds up. If he gets too bored with answering the questions, he cart pop up to Annabel's and have a friendly chat with the barman.
  We should expect the Minister of State to wind up this debate, as he played a prominent part in Committee. My hon. Friends who sat on the Committee will agree that at least two thirds of Ministers' time in Committee was taken up by this Minister. The Secretary of State was hardly there at all, so he does not know who was and was not there. Perhaps he needs to be told that the Minister of State was assiduous in his attendance when the Committee discussed parts I and II. There was not a day on which he did not appear, and there was not a day on which he did not speak.
  Suddenly, when we came to part III, the hon. Gentleman was prohibited from attending the Committee by some other power. I give him the credit of thinking that he would have liked to attend, but someone else told him that it was unseemly for him to do so. I say that that person, whoever he or she may be, has a greater sense of decency than some other members of the Government. It may have been a stroke of mercy to deprive us of listening to the Minister of State, but there was a conscience ticking away in the background that knew that there was something wrong about this part of the Bill and something unseemly, even indecent, about it. That is the truth of it, and it has been perceived by people as the debate has gone on.
  There is something underhand, unseemly and wicked going on if a political party with a large majority tries to raid the financial coffers of the party in opposition. There is something deeply unsettling, almost unconstitutional, about it. People have noted that as the debate has gone on. If the debate had done nothing else, it has alerted the country.
  Two factors will change public opinion. The GCHQ affair and part III of the Bill will alert the country to the double standards of the Conservative party. When the Labour party is in a position—it is not that far away—to introduce some equity, the Conservative party will have only itself to thank.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): If the majority of the people feel that there is something unsettling in part III,

  839
  it is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not moved immediately to enforce a system of contracting in. That is what the majority of people expected. It is the patient decision of my right hon. Friend to live out a one-year or two-year trial period with the TUC which the majority of people may find unsettling, rather than what appears in part III.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) gave us his usual clever advocate's speech. If I found myself charged with illegal picketing, I should ask him to defend me. He would do the job extremely well. I heard the same speech on Second Reading, on Report and again tonight on Third Reading. But if people read the Hansard report of this debate—it is probably unrealistic of us to assume that anyone reads Hansard reports of debates that take place after 11 o'clock at night—they will come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of posturing on the Third Reading of the Trade Union Bill.
  Everyone must realise that if the strike in the coal industry develops further, it is likely at some stage to cause a radical change in our trade union law which will go beyond any of the provisions in the Bill — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes a comment about democracy. That is at the heart of the issue. Everyone must look at what is happening in the coal industry and think that that is a total negation of democracy. Most areas voted against strike action and for a national ballot, yet there is strike action and there has been no national ballot. The situation that has developed over the past few weeks must cause many people to wonder why my right hon. Friend has not gone further in the Bill than he has. People are distressed at what is happening in the coal industry. They cannot understand why the clearly expressed wish of the majority in the coal industry is not being effected and why a national ballot has not taken place.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: The evidence of opinion polls contradicts the hon. Gentleman. What evidence does he have to substantiate his claim? Has he studied the NUM rule book? If he has, will he say which NUM rules have been broken?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. This is a Third Reading debate and we must discuss what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Renton: I am glad that I was asked that question, because, as the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) knows, the Bill calls for secret ballots before official strikes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware that many of us would rather have in the Bill a specific provision for secret postal ballots. What has happened in the coal industry has shown that the rule book can be used and manipulated so that the wish of the majority is not effective. Most areas voted against the strike and for a national ballot. It is an abdication of democracy that steel plants such as Ravenscraig, and others in south Wales, are threatened with closure because of what is happening in the coal industry. That is achieved through a rolling strike and clever use of the rule book. No specific rule is broken, but the rule book is cleverly manipulated so that the wish of the minority succeeds.
  840
  Many of us are not happy that the police have to be used as a surrogate for the employer, instead of the employer taking civil action against illegal picketing. That brings me back to the Bill's contents. Far from being a massive upheaval, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East described it, the Bill will have to be reinforced soon because of the recent happenings in the coal industry.
  We should have liked the Bill to require secret postal ballots. Many of us expected it to contain a requirement for contracting in for the political levy, rather than for the period of grace which is allowed. I cannot help but feel that the Bill is one more step on the road to greater democracy and reform of the trade unions, but that it is likely to have to be reinforced shortly. If the present tragic strike in the coal industry continues, with such a total denial of the wish of the majority in the industry, the day will quickly come when the Bill will have to be reinforced.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you pointed out to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that his statement about the strike in the coal industry was a little distant from this matter. Therefore, I shall refrain from commenting at any length on what the hon. Gentleman said. His propositions are a perfect formula for ensuring that there will be no end to that strike and that it will escalate. I am sure that the Secretary of State is one of many people who know that that is the case. It is no wonder that he and his fellow Ministers resisted the pleas of the wild men behind them on the Back Benches for more punitive action against the trade unions than is contained in the Bill.
  As I listened to the Secretary of State holding forth about democracy, my stomach turned over. We are not, by some queer punctilio, allowed to say in the House that a statement made by another Member is a piece of hypocrisy. I have never understood the reason for that inhibition. I confine myself to saying that, if anyone else in any other place had made the speech made by the Secretary of State, it would have been a piece of nauseating stinking hypocrisy. His idea of democracy is highly selective. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out, there was not much democracy about GCHQ. Nor is there much democracy in the Conservative party, whose chairman, as Minister of State, Department of Employment, played such a large part in the proceedings on two of the three parts of the Bill. How on earth a member of a Cabinet which is bringing in a Bill to ensure that the elections that were supposed to be held next year for the Greater London council are cancelled so that the Government can appoint an unelected Greater London council can talk about democracy is beyond my comprehension.
  The Secretary of State made much of the idea of having a free ballot before a strike is called. That, too, is a piece of selective democracy. Such a proposal can be made only by people unfamiliar with what happens daily in industry. The great majority of strikes start with a piece of spontaneous indignation—for example, a row between a chap and his foreman. Girls in a shop may be fed up because the heating system has broken down on a cold winter's day. They are miserable, their hands are shivering with cold so they cannot hold their jigs properly, and, therefore, they walk out. There may be a change in

  841
  working conditions, and people walk out. In nine cases out of 10, the employer will ring the local union official, whom he knows well, and say, "Charlie, come down here. We have a bit of trouble. Give us a hand to sort it out." Charlie comes along——
  Mr. Tom King indicated assent.
  Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman nods. The Bill will stop that procedure. Charlie will not dare to come along, because — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should not copy the habits of some of his young hon. Friends on the Back Benches and constantly mutter during another Member's speech. The responsibilities of his office impose on him an obligation of decent behaviour.
  The union official will not go to the shop because that would make the strike official, and his union could be sued. When an employer telephones him and says that the union girls have come out because the shop is cold, he will say, "That is your problem, mate. Get on with it. I will not interfere, or I will fall foul of the Bill." The Bill will ensure that the majority of industrial disputes will be unofficial. I do not understand how anyone thinks that that is a contribution either to good industrial relations or to democracy.
  The Secretary of State's passion for democracy is selective in the Bill. If workers put in a wage claim for X per cent. and the employer makes an offer of half that, the workers have to decide whether to accept, to negotiate or to strike. The Bill states that before they can strike they must hold a ballot. Later, there may be negotiation and another offer may be made. The workers on strike have to decide whether to accept the offer, to continue negotiations or to return to work. At that stage there is no requirement to hold a ballot. How on earth can we justify the one without the other?
  If the Secretary of State were here, I would tell him that in my union any strike that must start with a ballot will not end without a ballot. The Government will have to put up with that. Ballots take time. It is a slow process. The Bill is a formula not only for ensuring that the majority of disputes are unofficial, but for lengthening each dispute. Charlie will not be able to employ common sense; he will have to go through the whole apparatus.
  If there is a ballot, one chap may say that he did not receive his ballot paper. He will go screaming to the certification officer and the matter will go to court. How long will that take? It is a formula to increase the incidence of unofficial disputes and to make it is virtually impossible to end a dispute as quickly as it can now be ended.
  Inevitably, in a Third Reading debate comments made on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report are rehashed. I wish to comment on something that has happened since Report. I have a piece of new material for the debate. It concerns the point made so well by my right hon. and learned Friend about the unjustifiable distinction drawn between the use by trade unions of their manifold political purposes and the use by companies of their manifold political purposes. The Secretary of State intervened in my right hon. and learned Friend's speech to say that companies have to report their political donations.
  There was much discussion in Committee and on Report about defining what campaigns a union could or could not carry out to be called political or not political.
  842
  The Fire Brigades Union is very concerned about the proposal to abolish the Greater London council because it believes that one of its effects will be to reduce fire cover in London, to reduce the efficiency of fire prevention and fire fighting in London and, incidentally, to reduce job opportunities in the fire service. The union would like to campaign against the proposal but would not be able to do so, except by its being marked as a political campaign and being subject to restriction.
  What would happen if a company or a group of companies decided to campaign in favour of the abolition of the GLC? Would that be political? I quote from The Guardian of 6 April:
  "A company which claims personal backing from the Prime Minister is to fight a propaganda campaign against the Greater London Council. The organisation is chaired by Shirley, Lady Porter, the Tory leader of Westminster City Council, who has written to leading business men appealing for donations of at least £1,000 and pointing out that they will not count as political contributions which would have to be published in company accounts."
  That seems to me to make nonsense of the intervention of the Secretary of State.
  Let us have it clear. The FBU wants to campaign for the retention of the GLC. That is political. It not only has to record and publish it, but it has to get the consent of its members to do it. But if companies want to campaign for the abolition of the GLC, they are assured by Shirley, Lady Porter—and obviously she has taken legal advice from somebody who has had a look at the Bill — donations will not count as political donations. For people who produce a Bill with those contrasting effects to get up and mouth about democracy really is nauseating.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), for the Opposition, did not seem to have many arguments against the extension of democracy within trade unions. We all need to remember that there are probably 200,000 or more shop stewards in the trade union movement who perform an often thankless job, often elected or re-elected without competition, because it is not one of the most gratifying tasks. It is rather like being a churchwarden, or a ward secretary in the Labour party or the Tory party. We are concerned not about people at that level but about people at the top of trade unions, some of whom—not all—appear to try to use their members' money to persuade their members to do things that the members do not want to do.
  One of the contrasts in the present miners' dispute is that, instead of trying for a national ballot in the way that the National Union of Mineworkers has traditionally done over the years, it is trying to avoid it this time. There is a great deal to be said for making sure that union leaders have the confidence of their members and that that is regularly expressed.
  I also believe that, whatever may happen to the political funds of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society in Eltham, where the society operates, and in other co-operative societies, bodies such as the co-ops should be treated like companies, rather than drawing an exact parallel between, say, co-ops and trade unions or companies and trade unions. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman can produce a properly thought out

  843
  policy to deal with the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, I shall take his attempted analogy between companies and trade unions more seriously.
  The argument that the Bill seeks to bankrupt or remove funds from the Labour party is absolutely wrong, as all the arguments on Report made clear. Indeed, as soon as I sit down the SDP will probably say that the Government have not gone far enough. Therefore, most of the arguments advanced by the Labour party are either ill thought out or just plain daft.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Mr. Deputy Speaker — [Interruption.] Perhaps you would like me to resume my seat while Labour Members calm down. The sooner they do so, the sooner I can make my speech and not delay their getting to bed any longer than they clearly wish to be delayed.
  As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) may know, and as some Opposition Members may know, the position of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society is rather different from that of the other co-operative societies in the United Kingdom in that it is not affiliated to the Co-operative party nationally and organises its political funds and activities in a different way. One characteristic that it shares with all the others, however, is that its rules and activities are very carefully and precisely constrained by the law.
  One of the basic co-operative principles — the Rochdale principles—is that of one vote per shareholder irrespective of the number of shares held. The method of democracy in the co-operative movement has been laid down by statute in industrial and provident societies legislation over many decades, so no new principle is being introduced here to deal with the methods of democracy in co-operative and mutual organisations. I made that clear in Committee and I hope that Labour Members will now accept that it is not a new principle.
  The question before us today is whether the Bill will improve the operation of the trade union movement and whether it is right in principle. I have no doubt that the extension of trade union members' right to ballot should be supported by the House. That is why we voted for the Bill on Second Reading. [Interruption.] If Labour Members wish to speak on Third Reading, I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing them, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remind them that their comments should be made not from a sedentary position but as contributions later in the debate.
  We believe that there is a very powerful case for an extension of the principle of one member one vote in the trade union movement. [Interruption.]
  That is the treatment that one expects from the Scargillites who are sitting on the Labour Benches tonight. The country will not be surprised to hear how these Labour Members are behaving. I shall continue my speech, although clearly some Labour Members do not wish to hear it. If any of them wish to speak later in the Debate, we shall listen to them with interest.
  It is regrettable that, having introduced a Bill extending the principle of one member, one vote to trade union members, the Government did not permit it to be improved in Committee as we had suggested on Second Reading.
  844
  For that reason, we do not feel that it is worthy of support this evening. Our arguments are powerful, and I shall outline them.
  Having embraced this principle, it is a great pity that the Government did not define its application much more effectively in the statute. The reaction of some Conservative Members demonstrates how badly wrong the Government's line has been. As the Minister said, the procedures proposed in the Bill are already in operation, in large part, in a number of trade unions. These are not violently, radically new ideas. They are not completely new to the trade union movement. It is surprising to hear some Labour Members opposing the principles that are already in practice in their own unions, and procedures already in practice in large sections of the trade union movement.
  I shall deal first with part I. It is regrettable that, having introduced the principle of electing the principal executive committee of the union, the Government have not drafted the legislation in such a way as to ensure that people such as Mr. Scargill must be periodically re-elected in the way that the Secretary of State suggested this evening that he would be. Mr. Scargill and a number of other senior leading trade union officials will not be caught by this provision, either because they do not happen to have a vote on the principal executive committee of their union or because the rules can be changed and they can waive the right to that vote. Nobody would suggest that Mr. Scargill is not influential in the affairs of his union. It seems rather ludicrous that a Bill which seeks to introduce the principle of the election of the main senior officers may not catch some of the most influential officers in the trade union movement.
  I hope that the Government will reconsider that point in another place and see whether amendments can be introduced to ensure that all the major trade union officers in the country are covered by the provisions for periodical elections, so that they will be much more closely responsible to their members than, in many instances, they are today.
  It is also regrettable that the method of election chosen for the principal executive committee is not the one that prefers postal ballots, even though it allows them. There would have to be exceptions to the general rule. Postal ballots could not be adopted in every instance. As we have suggested, there are cases that should be given exemption by the certification officer. However, we believe that such ballots should generally take place by post. An overwhelming case has been made for such provision.
  As was demonstrated on Report, even the National Union of Mineworkers, which has a long tradition of balloting which many people admire, has a system of workplace balloting which is open to abuse and manipulation and is not as correct and open to scrutiny as ballots carried out in the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication, and Plumbing Union and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers — [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members want to prolong the debate because they do not want the Bill on the statute book one minute earlier than is necessary. I know that they will remember the early 1970s when the Industrial Relations Act 1971——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his speech to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: There is a great deal in the Bill, and I can do that for a long time to ensure that the arguments are not lost and that the House has ample opportunity to debate them before this important Bill, which will have an enormous impact on the trade union movement and, we hear, on the Labour party, reaches the statute book. It will not have escaped some people's attention that, despite the Labour party's apparently fierce opposition to the Bill, we are debating the Bill's Third Reading at a late hour and not during a prominent part of the House's proceedings when the eyes of the country are on us. Many Labour Members are hoping to get away as soon as possible, having passed the Bill. I am sure that we should rehearse the arguments, which are important for the trade union movement.
  Part II deals with ballots on industrial action. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made a powerful case for opposing part II, as it will clearly cause major disruption by encouraging unofficial action. The Bill, as drafted, will encourage such action, because only official action must be balloted for if the exemptions from the law are not to be brought to bear against trade unions. Unofficial action will be able to continue without a ballot. We know from the evidence of the past few years that the majority of industrial action is unofficial. The Bill therefore does not deal with balloting for the majority of industrial action and will consequently not ensure that trade union members have an opportunity to express their views in the majority of industrial disputes. It will therefore not achieve the objective which the Government have laid down. Indeed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it will make matters worse by encouraging action which might normally have been made official to remain unofficial, to escape the provisions of the Bill.
  Part III deals with political funds and contains the most important defects in the Bill. As the House will know, it does not deal with the two major questions about political funding of parties by trade unions in Britain. The first major question is whether the system of contracting out or contracting in should be maintained. The second question which exercises people's minds is whether the affiliation to a particular party should be maintained in the way that it is at present. Other deficiencies arise, but those are the two principal areas of public concern about trade union funding of political activities.
  The Bill—I do not know where the Government got the proposal from—deals only with the existence of political funds. Until the Government came forward with that proposal, no anxiety of which I am aware was expressed about the existence of political funds. Whether there should be a political fund in a trade union was not in dispute. What was in dispute was whether people should have the right to contract in to that political fund and whether a union should be allowed to continue to use its political fund for affiliation to one party or another without reference to the full membership by a ballot. Those were the points of contention, and the Bill does not deal with them.
  In bringing forward this irrelevant measure in part III, the Government have raised the question of the funding of political parties in Britain. That has been demonstrated once again this evening in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. He has clearly taken the red rag that has been waved before him and given a commitment that a change will be made in political
  846
  funding by companies. It is right that he should do that, because it is unfair, as I said on Second Reading, that the Government should introduce legislation of this sort which will have an impact upon only one political party. II was inevitable that the Bill would have such consequences.
  A wholesale reform of the political funding system in Britain is needed. We need a package introducing the state funding of political parties and a reform of the system of company law so that political contributions are not made by companies without the prior approval of shareholders. We need other changes along the lines that have already been mentioned and provisions which we sought to introduce in the Bill, such as the long overdue provision for the reintroduction of contracting in and for decisions to be taken by the whole membership of the union as to where the political funds of the union should be spent.
  It is also regrettable that in extending democracy within the trade union movement the Government did not go much further than just the introduction of democracy in one part of our industrial scene. They should have introduced the provision, which they are clearly seeking to resist, from the EC to introduce industrial democracy. I hope that the Government, instead of resisting the fifth directive and the Vredeling directives from the European Community, which seek to introduce a modest element of industrial democracy into Britain, will change their view and realise that if they endorse the principle of democracy in trade unions, they should carry it further into all industrial activities.
  It is clear that the extension of democracy into all sections of our lives will benefit the community. In those countries that have had greater industrial success——
  Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springbum): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that you must call speakers from minority parties, but the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has hogged the show here and has pushed Back-Bench Members such as myself out of the debate. It is unfair that he should speak for longer than the Front-Bench spokesmen, when he represents only a few hon. Members in the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, fortunately or unfortunately, the length of speeches is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) must realise, this is an open-ended debate and he can make a speech, as I am sure he would wish, to keep this debate going through the night and to demonstrate to the trade union movement his opposition to the Bill. I look forward to hearing his speech, and those of his right hon. and hon. Friends, in opposition to the Bill. There is no time limit that I know of on the debate, so we can discuss this important matter at great length. It is important to the trade unions, to industry as a whole and to the country. Therefore, we must ensure that all points of view are put and that adequate consideration is given to the bill before it goes on to the statute book.
  The hon. Gentleman said that I represent only a few hon. Members in the House. That may be so, but I remind him that the Labour party received 28 per cent. of the votes at the general election and the alliance received 26 per cent., so we represent opinion that is almost as substantial as that represented by the Labour party. We have every right, which we intend to exercise, to put before the House our views on this Bill and on all legislation. I have no

  847
  hesitation in ensuring that the views of the alliance are put forward at length so that the opinion of those whom we represent is properly——
  Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) speaking to the point? He seems to be arguing about proportional representation and the SDP rather than about part III.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall decide when the hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply responding to the comments of the hon. Member for Springburn.
  The regrettable fact is that the Government, in introducing this legislation based on the principle of introducing democracy into trade unions, have not gone further and introduced it into the entire industrial sector. That reform is long overdue and I hope that in due course the Minister and his colleagues will bring it before the House. I hope, too, that we shall soon have a debate on the directives that I mentioned earlier so that the House can have an opportunity to consider the proposals of the European Community and to impress upon the Government the need to extend democracy much further than they are doing in the Bill.
  The Bill will have a profound impact upon the trade union movement. It is regrettable that the Government have not been prepared to recognise the enormous impact that the Bill will have on the trade union movement by assisting in the reorganisation and changes that will have to take place. There will be a great upheaval in the rule books of trade unions if they are to comply with the legislation.
  Even more important in some respects is the fact that the Bill will lead to substantial expenditure for trade unions if they are to comply with the legislation and ballot members on various issues in the way that the Bill proposes. It will be expensive to ballot the whole membership of a trade union in the way proposed by the Bill. There will be the cost of postage for the ballot, together with the administration of the balloting procedure and the register of the members of the trade union that will have to be kept to ensure that the ballot is carried out correctly.
  It is regrettable that the Government have not built on the proposal which they previously introduced to provide funds for postal balloting, and that they have not considered the suggestion which we have made for a trade union development fund against which the expenses that will have to be incurred by unions in introducing the balloting can be offset. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion.
  If the House, quite rightly, is to require trade unions to act in a more democratic way, it should help to provide the resources to enable them to do that effectively. We know that the resources available to the trade union movement are already inadequate for the work that it has to carry out. Trade union officials are heavily overburdened at local and national level with their responsibilities in pay negotiations, redundancies, the terms and conditions of their members, servicing the individual problems of union members, welfare and
  848
  employment problems, and the problems that arise with the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Employment and other local authority and Government Departments. Those responsibilities amount to an enormous task for trade union officials to carry out. The trade union movement, generally speaking, does not have sufficient resources to carry out that task as effectively as it would often wish to.
  In comparison with the trade union movements in other countries, our trade union movement is not as well off as it should be. If one compares trade union subscriptions in this country with the trade union subscriptions and incomes in France, in Germany or in other European countries—or, indeed, in the United States—one finds that the resources available to the trade union movement in this country are very limited. It would be right and proper for the Government to introduce a fund to help trade unions offset the substantial burden that the bill will put upon their shoulders. When the Bill comes before the other place, I hope that the Minister will look more favourably at this proposal because of the financial burden that is being put on the trade union movement, the Government should consider introducing a trade union development fund to help it meet that increased financial burden.
  It is regrettable that the opportunity available to the Government in the Bill has not been taken to extend trade union democracy in a way that will be more effective than it has been in the past, and to ensure that trade union leaders are more responsive to the wishes of their memebers by balloting in the case of industrial disputes and the election of executive committees. It is a pity that the method adopted in the Bill by the Government is not more effective than it has turned out to be.
  We very much regret that the Government were not prepared to respond to the proposals put forward by myself and my hon. Friends during the passage of the Bill. We hope that when the Bill comes before the other place the Government will respond much more enthusiastically and gain the support of our right hon. and hon. Friends there, which, unfortunately, they have not justified in this place because of the way in which they have brought the Bill back on Third Reading.
  12.5 am
  Mr. John Evans: The hour is late—it is now after midnight—and the House has just suffered a long, boring and mostly irrelevant speech by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), to which scarcely any hon. Member paid attention. Probably the reason was that most hon. Members appreciate that, while the Committee had about 37 sittings and sat for over 100 hours, the hon. Member for Stockton, South would have been lucky if he put in two and a half hours. He did not put forward one amendment. When he voted, he usually voted with the Government. It is also interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman said that the Social Democratic party would not support the Government on Third Reading, but he did not say that it would oppose the Government and vote with the Opposition against Third Reading. I suspect that one or two members of the Social Democratic party will vote with the Opposition, but the majority will be safely tucked up in bed.
  Once again the trade unions and trade unionism are at the centre of British politics. British trade unionism has had a long and proud tradition of honesty and integrity of

  849
  purpose throughout many years. It has had no history of dishonesty. There has never been any corruption in the British trade union movement that has scarred its development. It was brought about and built up by the efforts of millions of ordinary men and women, many of whom did not have much in the way of formal education. They put hours of their lives into building the trade union movement.
  The truth is that the trade union movement is not in the ownership of one or two trade union barons; it is in the ownership of about 11·5 million ordinary men and women. It is a scandal that the Tory Government and party constantly denigrate attack and sneer at the trade union movement, when British people should be proud of its great history and tradition of democracy and the fact that the British trade union movement is the proudest and most honourable trade union movement in the world.
  Throughout the past five years of Tory Government, there has been a series of denigrating attacks and legislation aimed at shackling the trade union movement. Throughout, the Tory party has been supported by the Liberal party, and of late, since it was formed, by the Social Democratic party. It always sticks in Labour Opposition Members' gullets when we hear members of the Social Democratic party, most of whom were members of the Labour party for a long time and lived off the back of the trade union movement, attacking the unions. We treat their arguments with the contempt that they deserve.
  The Bill is further evidence of the march to a corporate state by the present masters of the Tory party. The Bill is a dictatorial instruction to formerly free trade unions, railroaded through Parliament by the huge majority that the Tory party now enjoys. Unfortunately, that majority scarcely listens and never thinks about the issues placed before the House. The general principle for the overwhelming majority of the Tory party, when dealing with trade union matters, seems to be that if it attacks the trade union movement, it must be good. Tory Members do not ask important questions such as: will the Bill improve industrial relations? The answer is that it will worsen industrial relations. They do not ask whether it will reduce unemployment — the greatest scourge that now faces society — because it will not. They do not even ask whether the Bill is necessary—an important question—because if it does nothing to improve industrial relations or reduce unemployment, it is obvious that it is totally and absolutely unnecessary.
  As has been said, part I of the Bill forces a stereotype on unions when electing their executive committees. Already, every union elects its executive committee, in one democratic form or another, for periods ranging from one year to six years. There is a mixture of lay members and full-time members, and there are directly and indirectly elected executive councils.
  The Bill will go against the grain of the past 20 years with regard to union mergers, one of the features of which was to ensure that the smaller union involved in a merger had a place reserved on the executive council. That will not apply under the Bill. Once we insist that executive councils must be directly elected in the same manner, that will not apply.
  Who is to pass a qualitative judgment that, for example, the AUEW (Engineering Section) is a better-organised, better-run union that GMBATU simply because it has a different method of electing its executive council? It will
  850
  be the Minister in Whitehall. It is significant that in 1984 we have yet another example of Big Brother in Whitehall knowing best.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, part II is by far the most ridiculous part of the Bill. It will be a charter for militants and extremists who will exploit it in future. It is nonsense that ballots should be demanded only for official action but not for unofficial action. As we have argued in Committee, some interesting questions will appear on ballot papers in the years ahead.
  It is significant that the Government are insisting on the inclusion of phrases such as "breaking one's contract of employment." In Committee we asked why the Government had not gone the whole hog and insisted on writing the questions. If Conservative Members think that phrases such as "breaking one's contract of employment" will deter individuals from taking legitimate strike action, they have another think coming.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out, it is inevitable that union memberships will insist that their rule books be amended to ensure that before strikes are called off they will be balloted on whether they accept offers that union negotiators propose to accept. That will seriously weaken industrial relations and industrial activity.
  Worst of all, again as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar pointed out, union officers will in future refuse to get involved in unofficial action. That will cause astonishment to employers who in the past have always depended on union officers to end unofficial strikes. In future, as the Secretary of State knows, they will not get involved, because they will be in danger of placing their unions' funds at risk.
  Part III is the most significant part of the Bill. it is the third prong of the Tory Government's attack on the trade union movement and trade unionists. In 1980 and in 1982, Employment Acts diminished the ability of trade unions to defend their membership in industrial circumstances. This Bill is an attempt to diminish their ability to defend their members in the political context. We already have it on record that the costs of campaigns such as that mounted by the National and Local Government Officers Association last year in which it sought to defend its members against the attacks of the Government, will not be allowed to be deducted from the general fund, but 'will have to come from political funds. NALGO, like other unions in the public sector, does not have a political fund, so it will not be able to mount a campaign to defend its members.
  What is more—the Secretary of State cannot deny this — the Bill seeks to smash the link between the unions and the Labour party—a link of which we are proud, and which we shall continue to defend. This is a major example of the Tory bully-boy tactics of silencing and stifling any opposition. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we have seen these tactics with GCHQ, with the rate capping measure and with the abolition of the elections for the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The country will be amazed that there is no countervailing measure against company donations to the Tory party. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we have taken note of that, and we shall be delighted to do something about it when we return to government.
  The Bill will not succeed. Indeed, paradoxically it will politicise the unions more than they have ever been in the

  851
  past. Unions, particularly in the public sector and the Civil Service, that have never before had or required a political fund will go out and campaign among their members to get one, and to make their members fully aware that if they intend to campaign against the Tory Government, as their employer, on wages and conditions, it will have to be through a political campaign that will require a political fund. Unions that do not have a political fund will acquire one over the next two years.
  More significantly, unions, particularly the industrial ones, which have a political fund, will campaign ferociously to maintain it. Once they do so, it will strengthen the links between them and the Labour party.
  The Bill is iniquitous, one-sided and dangerous to democracy. I trust that every one who believes in democracy will deny this awful Bill a Third Reading.
  12.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): In this debate, Labour Members have not added one new line of argument, or one that has not been advanced, elaborated and rejected in the 120 hours or so of debate that we have had in the Chamber and in Committee since December last. I do not impugn the motives of hon. Members in so doing, but their attitude and this obdurate resistance is years out of date. They are resisting a tide of history, and those who read Karl Marx will know how perilous it is to do that. It is a tide that comes from the public, has been tested in every opinion poll that has been taken on the subject, from the trade unions themselves, and from the electorate less than 12 months ago.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) put forward certain superficially constructive suggestions, the principal one of which was that certain categories of union leader, as he put it, avoided facing re-election. The test that we have applied is simply whether such an official has the right to cast a vote on the principal executive committee of the union. The fact that he may for various other reasons exercise power—it may be that he has a television personality or the ability to attract attention to himself — does not alter the position that he remains the servant of his executive. Unless he has that vote—the hon. Gentleman gave the example of Mr. Scargill, who has a casting vote and will be caught by the provisions of the Bill — it is not appropriate to include him.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about permitting the use of workplace ballots rather than postal votes, which he criticised. The workplace ballot has a higher attendance and does not have the practical difficulties attaching to a postal vote. The Government do not allege that there is fraudulent intention on the part of unions and that it is their objective to rig ballots — the classic case of ballot rigging was a postal ballot that was rigged — but we have not closed our mind completely to postal ballots. As the Bill stands, we are satisfied that workplace ballots will give the highest attendance and will pose the least practical difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman alleged that the Bill failed to tackle adequately the problems associated with the funding of political parties. We know the problems of funding that afflict his party. They are the problems of credit card subscribers deciding to cancel their subscriptions. The
  852
  hon. Gentleman wants to solve these problems by putting the burden on the taxpayer because his party cannot attract the voluntary subscriptions which support the Labour and Conservative parties. It is hard to think of a more discreditable solution than that.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clark: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although his presence in the Chamber is only about four minutes old. I assume that it is some sudden rush of blood to the brain that has inspired him rather than any recollection of what has been said in the debate.
  Mr. Skinner: I wanted to remind the Minister, who did not know what GMBATU stood for when we considered the Bill in Committee, that, when it came to money for the plastic party, in 1982 the accounts of the Social Democratic party showed a drop in membership subscriptions of £155,000 but an increase in suspicious, undisclosed donations of £300,000. We all remember those cheques for £2,000 that were sent round to Social Democratic MPs.
  Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me in my argument. It is perfectly possible that the misgivings which led the hon. Member for Stockton, South to advance these arguments are that the so-called undisclosed donations may start to wither and that he will then have no other course than to legislate to impose his levy on the taxpayer.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) trailed various red herrings about GCHQ, Vredeling and industrial democracy. He did that because he had run out of argument after 120"hours or so. But when he moved on to part III, he referred to the intention to minimise the financial resources of the Labour party. These resources will only be minimised if the members wish that to happen. To say that the Government are raiding the coffers of the Labour party is preposterous. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not want to fill his coffers with money raised against the wishes of trade union members, would he?
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I should like to clear the Minister of the charge that he did anything nasty to the Labour party, because I remember the entire Conservative membership of the House going through the Lobby to keep the resources. I heard the Minister refer to taxpayers' money financing political parties. What is the golden crock which provides the £2 million or £3 million which the Tories are spending on the European campaign from Brussels? If that is not taxpayers' money, where does it come from?
  Mr. Clark: The intricacies of finance relating to the European Community have always been a closed book to me.
  Yet again the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) gave an example of a campaign which could be caught by the provisions of part III. He referred to the campaign to resist the abolition of the GLC. Yet again, I have to tell him that that campaign will be lawful and could be paid for out of the general fund. Unless it is couched in such terms as to recommend people to vote for or against a political party it is immune. I hope that that is the last occasion on which I have to enlighten the hon. Gentleman about those provisions.

  853
  The most striking characteristic of all the contributions by Labour Members is the lack of anything constructive. They simply resist all change. Their attitude is purely nihilistic. They should ask themselves whether they want unions to be perpetual oligarchies run by cliques the political motives of which rank before their concern for the welfare and conditions of their members, or whether they accept that the real health and dignity of the trade union movement should reside in their being responsive—and generally seen to be responsive — to the wishes and aspirations of their membership. Do they really want a leadership which is able to commitee a whole union to strike action without consulting members first?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked, do they accept that if a man wishes to work he has a right to express that view? Are hon. Members really content to subsist on levies drawn from those who, whether from diffidence, indolence or apprehension, do not subscribe voluntarily?
  It is plain that, if hon. Members devoted their minds to the issue in a dispassionate manner, they would welcome the Bill. They should welcome it because it contains much which, when put into practice, will allow trade unionists to go some way towards recovering that level of public recognition and responsibility which in former times they enjoyed.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 149.

  Division No. 253]

  [12.30 am

  AYES

  Ancram, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Arnold, Tom

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Baldry, Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Body, Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Greenway, Harry

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ground, Patrick

  Budgen, Nick

  Grylls, Michael

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Harg reaves, Kenneth

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Harris, David

  Cockeram, Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hayward, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Heddle, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Henderson, Barry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Farr, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Favell, Anthony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Holt, Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hooson, Tom

  Forman, Nigel

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

  Fox, Marcus

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Franks, Cecil

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Freeman, Roger

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  854

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Renton, Tim

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rost, Peter

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knowles, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Knox, David

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lamont, Norman

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Silvester, Fred

  Lester, Jim

  Sims, Roger

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Peter

  Speed, Keith

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Speller, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Spencer, Derek

  Luce, Richard

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Squire, Robin

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Maclean, David John

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Major, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maples, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Marlow, Antony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mellor, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Viggers, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Waddington, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Walden, George

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Walker, Bill (Tside N)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Needham, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Neubert, Michael

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Warren, Kenneth

  Norris, Steven

  Watson, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Watts, John

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Wheeler, John

  Osborn, Sir John

  Whitfield, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Raymond

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Parris, Matthew

  Wood, Timothy

  Pawsey, James

  Woodcock, Michael

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Porter, Barry

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Powley, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  855

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnett, Guy

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Dormand, Jack

  Bell, Stuart

  Douglas, Dick

  Benn, Tony

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Blair, Anthony

  Eadie, Alex

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Eastham, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Ellis, Raymond

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ian

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  George, Bruce

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, John

  Clarke, Thomas

  Gould, Bryan

  Clay, Robert

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Cohen, Harry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Coleman, Donald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Crowther, Stan

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lambie, David

  856

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Radice, Giles

  Leighton, Ronald

  Randall, Stuart

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Redmond, M.

  Litherland, Robert

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Robertson, George

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rogers, Allan

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Rooker, J. W.

  McGuire, Michael

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKelvey, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Martin, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, William

  Strang, Gavin

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Tinn, James

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Torney, Tom

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wareing, Robert

  O'Neill, Martin

  Welsh, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Park, George

  Wilson, Gordon

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pike, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Hayes.

  Prescott, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Sweatshops
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  12.40 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity——
  Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the official business which was distributed on the Government Benches, and to which we have received no correction, the subject was not the subject that is on the Order Paper today; it related to glue sniffing. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule whether it is proper to have a debate on this fresh subject, which has been changed at very short notice, without proper consultation with the House authorities.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): As I understand the position, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) changed the subject in accordance with the rules of the House.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the point of order was raised after the Adjournment was moved, is it not only natural justice that the time taken by the interventions of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and myself should not be counted in the half hour allocated for the Adjournment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I am bound by the rules of the House, and I cannot extend the time.
  Mr. Janner: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has sought to raise a spurious point of order to prevent the House from having even this half hour to debate this vital subject. Not only did the House have the usual 48 hours' notice, but the subject was changed even before the Easter recess. Therefore, it was at least four times as long as the usual time. I do not intend to waste any more time on that.
  I ask the House to consider the disgraceful situation created by the high unemployment, which has resulted in people all over the country accepting low wages and being prepared to work in scandalous conditions which, to a very large extent, are the direct result of Government policy. They are the direct result of the Government having allowed a situation to arise where unemployment overall is at a dreadful level, and where, in the city of Leicester, it is in real terms 20 per cent. and in parts of my constituency as high as 60 per cent.
  It is a situation in which the Government have seen fit to repeal a schedule to the Employment Act 1975 which enabled people to raise their wages above slave labour levels if others in the same area and industry were earning better wages, and in which the Government have seen fit to demand and to proclaim that they intend to repeal the wages council regulations. In addition, the Government are continually cutting the provision for the Health and Safety Executive so that the number of inspectors able to look into the problem is diminishing, just as the need for the inspectorate increases.
  This is a national problem which applies throughout the country, irrespective of the sort of people who live in particular areas or how long they have been in the country. It is a problem that affects, above all, textile industries, as indeed the problem of sweatshops has throughout the
  858
  centuries and many lands. It concerns pay and conditions, and the problem has been highlighted in the city of Leicester in a campaign by the Leicester Mercury, on which I congratulate that newspaper. The campaign has lit a spotlight in one area, the light from which should illuminate the sort of misery which is being suffered in so many parts of the country as a result of the conditions in which people are being forced to work.
  The dangerous conditions include wooden buildings which are fire traps, machines which are improperly guarded, breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and breaches of the regulations made under that Act. People are prepared to accept a disgracefully low level of wages only in conditions in which they are desperate to have any sort of work. Outworkers are more affected than any other workers. Under the headline "Outworkers 'boost' company profits", today's Financial Times states that homeworkers and outworkers are
  "contributing to the profitability and investment plans of companies using them."
  It goes on to state, however:
  "None the less, as the research makes clear, outworkers' wages and conditions are generally inferior to those of permanent staff. It says rates of pay were never higher than those for inworkers, except to some extent in the mainly distributive and retail sector where wages come under Wages Councils …."—
  which the Government propose to abolish—
  "and yet outworkers were typically not offered the benefits. such as sick pay and holiday pay, that are now standard benefits for employees."
  It is scarcely surprising that in a city such as Leicester, where the outworkers' campaign has been running for so long and where there are so many outworkers and homeworkers, conditions are worse than in many other parts of the country. That is the fault of the Government and of the conditions in which sweatshops flourish.
  Instead of taking steps to deal with the problem, the Minister has sent me the most fatuous letter to appear on my desk in 13 years of serving my constituents. As criticism of the campaign, he says:
  "It may not be in the interests of the low paid to raise their pay levels if as a result their jobs are destroyed."
  That argument is worthy of those who opposed the efforts of William Wilberforce to get rid of slavery in this country. I wish that I had time to read the letter in full, but I ask the Minister to reconsider the terms in which he saw fit to denigrate and attack the campaign by the Leicester Mercury and those of us who are trying to improve conditions in the city.
  I have a letter from Mr. Day, the principal inspector of factories in Leicester, in which he says:
  "The 3 inspectors at the Leicester Office are responsible for approximately 3,000 factories.
  It is clearly impossible for an inspectorate of that number to carry that sort of burden and to do the job in the way required at any time, least of all in present circumstances when the number of unsatisfactory premises is growing. I ask the Minister to renounce the awful policy under which resources for the inspectorate are being cut and the number of inspectors reduced. On the contrary, will he now assure the House that the number of inspectors will be increased, especially in cities such as Leicester where the difficulties are of such nightmare proportions?
  I was pleased to receive a letter from the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, as so many of these conditions exist in that and other sectors of the textile industry. We have the full support of the trade unions, not just because in a decent society the conditions achieved by

  859
  trade unions must not be undercut by what amounts to slave labour but because the unions are and always have been extremely concerned about the conditions in which people in their industry are forced to work. The district secretary, Mr. Kilsby, says that
  "there is a desperate need to appoint more Health & Safety Inspectors to carry out a special campaign to check into these Companies"—
  those not providing proper conditions. He continues:
  "During visits to these type of Companies I have observed children wandering around in the factory, which is obviously against the Factory Act and I also feel that unless something is done in the very near future there is a distinct possibility of a fire which could result in loss of life—which has already happened in a clothing factory in London."
  He wishes the campaign every success.
  As the Leicester Mercury headline puts it,
  "Fire insurance nightmare hits 40 city firms."
  It is the multiple-occupancy firms that the inspectors cannot reach, but instead of more fire officers there are fewer, instead of more inspectors there are fewer, and instead of more effort being made to deal with the problem there is less, at a time when there is the most awful unemployment and the most dreadful situations of the kind that my father fought against in the 1930s when he was Member of Parliament for Whitechapel and St. Georges. There has been a reversion to the days of sweatshops, but instead of taking the necessary action the Government are doing the opposite.
  I have correspondence from the Leicester and District Trades Council, from which I shall have time to quote briefly. It says:
  "We … support the recent moves to improve locally the fire service, and increase the number of fire prevention officers, as proposed by the Labour Group on the Leicestershire County Council. This was blocked by the Tory and Liberal groups. There have been several fires within the textile industry in Leicester recently. When will there be a major tragedy?"
  We pray to God that there will be none, but, if there is, the burden that rests upon the Minister and the Government is a mighty one. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am disturbing the Minister. I ask him to respond to this plea on behalf of all of us. Within the city of Leicester itself and then elsewhere, every effort should be made to increase the resources available.
  What do we ask the Government to do, both locally and nationally? First, we need a full national inquiry, so that the circumstances can be properly revealed. They are not easy to unveil. They are cloaked in fear—the fear of those who do not wish to lose their jobs, however wretched those jobs may be and however unsafe the surroundings in which they work.
  It is not easy to acquire the evidence. The Government should hold an inquiry in order to unveil the truth. I trust that, instead of playing down the circumstances as he saw fit to do in his letter, the Minister will recognise the reality of the problem and undertake to the House that he will do whatever lies in his power to see that an inquiry is held.
  Secondly, I ask for the resources for the inspectorates which have so far been refused, or reduced when they should have been increased. In particular, I have the factory inspectorate in mind. The city of Leicester should not have only three inspectors to look after 3,000 factories.
  Thirdly, I ask the Government to reintroduce legislation such as that which they saw fit to repeal in the schedule which gave the right to compare the wages obtained by people in the same area with the wages of those in similar
  860
  work in that area who are paid at a much lower rate. The unfair competition of slave labour is unfair to those who have jobs and are properly looked after and fully unionised, but it is especially unfair to those who work in those conditions. The Government should reintroduce the fair wages resolution, which, extraordinarily, they saw fit to repeal, even though that all-party resolution, introduced in time of war, had been retained by all parties in time of peace.
  I ask the Government to renounce tonight their intention to repeal the wages council regulations when it becomes possible, in the international arena, for them to do so lawfully. It is a vast worry that the last remaining bulwark against such exploitation in times of hardship should be removed by the Government in the name of creating more jobs by lowering the levels of pay. That is the suggestion in the Minister's letter. Paying lower wages will not create more jobs. Everyone's livelihood will become worse as levels of pay, standards of living and the level of resources made available to inspectorates gradually fall.
  I ask the Minister to treat the matter seriously. I place the responsibility squarely upon the Government and upon those who have seen fit to remove resources when they should be increased. However, within the city of Leicester this is not a party matter. The newspaper which has raised it has never been accused of being a Labour paper. Leicester city council is an excellent Labour-controlled council, but I do not know of any member of that council or any party who has opposed this view. It has the support of all sections of the Leicester community.
  Leicester has a population of only a quarter of a million people, but the fear, the worry, and the resurgence of sweatshops are national, not local, matters.
  The hon. Member for Harborough saw fit to leave the Chamber immediately after he had raised his point of order. Even with that interruption, I am grateful for having had an opportunity to raise this matter. I trust that the Minister will give a clear promise to do what is in his power to improve matters.
  12.53 am
  Mr. John Gorst: I am glad to have a few moments in which to make one or two general points about the principle of low pay. One can support robust economic policy and believe that vigorous activity produces dynamic results, without necessarily endorsing harshness in employment or the exploitation of individuals.
  If that is one's view—it is mine—it does not follow that a person who supports a tough approach to competition believes that it can be done at any cost in terms of human discomfort or individual distress, especially if they are weaker members of the community. Nevertheless, every team game must have an umpire to see that there is fair play, and similarly every economy needs a Government to act as a referee.
  The point of general principle that I want to underline is that while we are right to seek a more flexible, efficient and adaptable labour market, and while we are right to note that higher pay probably means fewer jobs, we would be wrong to dismantle the institutions or measures that exist, or should exist, to protect the disadvantaged in our work force. I think of those groups who are usually said to be disadvantaged—women and younger people.

  861
  It is extremely helpful that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has raised this subject, although, of course, I know nothing of the conditions in his constituency. He is right to insist that a better managed and more productive economy is no repayment for a society without a human face.
  12.56 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I have been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) to treat the matter seriously and have been assured by him that this is not a party matter. I shall treat the matter very seriously, but I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments would have been made with a great deal more force if he had been more careful about accuracy and had not done me the discourtesy of publishing his letter to me and my letter to him before I had even received his letter to me. It is also a great pity the he made his speech without referring to the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), who first raised this matter with me and with whom I have therefore been in considerable touch. The hon. and learned Gentleman comes late to it and it would have been much better if he had treated the matter with the same seriousness that he asks from me.
  I shall set out, first, the mistakes that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. There is no commitment by the Government to abolish the wages councils. He is clearly wrong in his letter to me. I made the matter absolutely clear, and he knows it because he was present during the debate when it was made clear that the Government are sensible enough to be examining the wages councils and to be considering their effect in reality on wage levels and the jobs that are available in the industries concerned. We said that if it emerged that the wages councils reduce the number of jobs available, especially opportunities for young people, any Government ought to take the necessary steps to protect jobs. It is quite untrue to say that we are committed to the abolition of wages councils. He has written it in a letter to me, has released it to the press and has reported it twice this evening, although he knows that it is untrue and knows that there is no such commitment, as he was present in the House when I made that absolutely clear.
  Mr. Janner rose——
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have little time and I am replying to his——
  Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having made a personal attack of that type, it is unheard of for a Minister not to give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman when I have made my second point about his comments. He also said that there has been a reduction in resources available to the Health and Safety Executive. That is not true. The resources available to the Health and Safety Executive provided by the Government are greater now than they were when the Labour party was in power. That has been the constant arrangement which we have tried to put forward and which I have fought for and believe in.
  862
  The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise a matter of grave importance in the House, but he would be listened to with greater care if he had not thrown about allegations and sought to make this a party political issue instead of the serious issue it is, which I intend to take action upon seriously and in a way in which I hope I shall have the support at least of those who take the matter seriously rather than as a matter of mere propaganda.
  Mr. Janner: Will the Minister undertake to the House that the Government will not abolish the wages council regulations?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, in case I have to say it again, will remember exactly what I said.
  Mr. Janner: Yes or no?
  Mr. Gummer: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will listen this time, he will hear what I have to say. The Government have said that they are looking at the whole question of wages councils. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman must not insist upon intervening and then from a sedentary position make remarks which——
  Mr. Janner rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He must listen to the facts, although he does not like them.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we are committed to abolish the wages councils. That is untrue; he knew it was untrue and he heard me say that it was untrue. He cannot in any way gainsay what I have said this evening.
  We have said honestly and reasonably that we shall look at the whole issue. The reason why I cannot continue with the debate which the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced is that he interrupted me and demanded that he should be able to interrupt me. Therefore, I shall reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption. We in the Conservative party are concerned to protect the wages and conditions of people sufficiently to look at legislation which has been on the statute book for a long time and which in certain areas appears — although we do not have the full advice yet—to restrict the number of jobs available and not at the same time have the effect on wages which he would wish. Any investigation of those areas in Leicester covered by the wages councils, compared with those areas which are not, does not lead to an inevitable conclusion that those covered by the wages councils are significantly better protected than those which are not.
  Having covered wages councils, may I take the other point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made? He has suggested that in Leicester there is a major problem which is paralleled in other parts of Britain. I realise that from discussions that I have had with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South, who has put to me the points which seem to be important behind the admirable campaign which has been waged by the Leicester Mercury. That paper has suggested that there are many such cases and has suggested that it will be putting evidence for those cases to those concerned.
  One must accept that two different organisations are clearly concerned. First, there is the Health and Safety Executive, since this is a matter concerning health and safety. One of the problems that we are concerned with is that the major problem of health and safety in the kind of firms that we are talking about is not the usual kind. It is

  863
  largely a matter of fire. That is not the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. The hon. and learned Gentleman recognised that, I think, in his reference to the fire hazard. That is the major problem in these industries. The hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that.
  As for the problems which normally come to the Health and Safety Executive apart from fire, there have been two complaints and those are being followed up vigorously. We understand from the Leicester Mercury that there are some 80 complaints. We have not yet had any of the evidence that the newspaper will give or claims that it will give us. I have the assurance of the Health and Safety Executive that we shall look at that most carefully when we have it, because it is our duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) made the point graphically. It is our duty to be on the side of those who are least able to defend themselves. Therefore, it is our duty to investigate this matter with the greatest care and to do what we can to make sure that the law on health and safety is enforced. That is what we shall do, and that is why the Government have increased the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive.
  That is why I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman should not at least have given credit where credit is due. Credit must be due to a Government who give more resources than did the Government that the hon. and learned Gentleman supported, a Government who did not face Adjournment debates on this subject when they were giving less money to it. If that had been so, we would take more seriously the points that he has made.
  The Health and Safety Executive is also greatly concerned that we should ensure that all those factories carrying out operations report their existence to the Health and Safety Executive, as they should. This problem exists all over the country, and it always has. Factories are set up which do not report to the Health and Safety Executive. We have been improving the relationships between the Health and Safety Executive, the fire officers and others who have knowledge of the factories, and we are seeking constantly to make sure that we have lists of them, and that they are inspected.
  The real problem comes with the wages inspectorate. A large number of these factories do not come under the wages inspectorate. For reasons that I think are lost in the mists of antiquity, when the Liberal Government arranged the areas to be covered by the wages inspectorate, those in the knitwear industry were differentiated from those who make up by sewing machine or by hand, so the knitwear industry does not have the coverage of the wages inspectorate that the other clothing industries have. This means that there is not a mechanism that would enable us to investigate the low pay involved.
  We have to look at the problem of low pay in a much wider sense. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in complaining about conditions in which people appear to be working in appalling conditions
  864
  in terms of safety or of the pay that they receive. I can assure him that there is no question of the Government dissenting from the argument that those who are offered pay levels way below what would be reasonable have every reason to complain. The problem in Leicester is that a number of vacancies appear to be advertised at pay levels above those which are claimed for some of these people, and those do not seem to be being taken up. I am looking carefully at the situation with the jobcentres concerned to see whether we can identify the truth of these allegations. One of our problems is that we have a large number of allegations, but few facts on which to work.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that this is always a difficulty when we are faced with people who may fear for their jobs and who therefore may not wish to put the allegations to us. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South and others have brought this matter to my attention, and have pointed out that one of their difficulties is acquiring facts, figures and details upon which action can be taken. We look forward to receiving from the Leicester Mercury all the details it has. I shall personally see that, so far as we have powers to act on them, we shall do so.
  The Health and Safety Executive is increasing its efforts to ensure that, through the various bodies, and the various communities and groups in Leicester who have an interest in this, we shall seek to make a more efficient and more complete list of those factories which come within our responsibility. Total coverage will never be possible. That is a fact of life that Governments of both political persuasions have accepted. However, it must be possible to have the most complete list that can be managed. In so far as our lists are incomplete, we will seek to make them more complete, and we shall certainly seek to have the resources that are necessary to see that they are inspected. Above all, we will seek with wages inspectors to cover those areas which the wages councils already cover.
  I listened with care to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about fire risks. However, that is a matter not for the Health and Safety Executive or the Government but for Leicestershire county council. I understand that the blocking of the changes advocated was only the blocking of large increases in expenditure proposed by the ruling group. Now that the control of Leicestershire county council has changed, I shall take the opportunity to discuss with the new authorities what they can do to improve, if necessary, the coverage for fire in Leicester, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for such matters brings to the attention of the authorities the hon. Gentleman's complaint and discusses with them whether some improvements can be made.
  The hon. Gentleman rather disdainfully raised one last issue when he referred to my——
  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 ten minutes past One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Competition
  Competition
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
ENERGY
  Wind Energy Evaluation
  Wind Energy Evaluation
  Competition
  Competition
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Competition
  Competition
  Contractual Health Care
  Contractual Health Care
  Water Service (Staff Promotions)
  Water Service (Staff Promotions)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Budget Rebate
  Budget Rebate
  Community Expenditure
  Community Expenditure
  Foreign Policy
  Foreign Policy
  Strasbourg (Ministerial Visit)
  Strasbourg (Ministerial Visit)
  Community Reform
  Community Reform
  Community Problems
  Community Problems
  Own Resources
  Own Resources
  Common Policies
  Common Policies
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Competition
  Competition
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
  British Nationality
  British Nationality
  Miss Zola Budd
  Miss Zola Budd
  Mr. Pieter Labuschagne
  Mr. Pieter Labuschagne
  Air Weapons
  Air Weapons
  Voluntary Organisations (Manchester)
  Voluntary Organisations (Manchester)
  Firearms Act 1968
  Firearms Act 1968
  Sir Michael Geddings
  Sir Michael Geddings
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Grenada
  Grenada
  El Salvador and Nicaragua
  El Salvador and Nicaragua
  El Salvador, Nicaragua and Grenada
  El Salvador, Nicaragua and Grenada
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Small Claims Procedure
  Small Claims Procedure
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
PRIME MINISTER
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  EC (Budgetary Agreement)
  EC (Budgetary Agreement)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Middle East Contracts
  Middle East Contracts
  Cementation Ltd.
  Cementation Ltd.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Competition
  Competition
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  COMPANIES (CORRESPONDENCE)
  COMPANIES (CORRESPONDENCE)
WALES
  Competition
  Competition
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Housing Condition Survey
  Housing Condition Survey
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Agriculture Department
  Agriculture Department
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Assistance to Farmers
  Assistance to Farmers
  Non-specialised Building
  Non-specialised Building
  Local Authority Rented Accommodation (Waiting Lists)
  Local Authority Rented Accommodation (Waiting Lists)
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-El Salvador Relations
  Anglo-El Salvador Relations
  South Africa (RFU Tour)
  South Africa (RFU Tour)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Cuba
  Cuba
  British Diplomats
  British Diplomats
  Jordan
  Jordan
  Moscow (Ministerial Visit)
  Moscow (Ministerial Visit)
  Anglo-Angolan Relations
  Anglo-Angolan Relations
  Spanish Foreign Minister
  Spanish Foreign Minister
  Washington
  Washington
  Anglo-Chile Relations
  Anglo-Chile Relations
  UNITA (Hostages)
  UNITA (Hostages)
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Anglo-Soviet Relations
  Anglo-Soviet Relations
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Grenada
  Grenada
  Anglo-Israeli Relations
  Anglo-Israeli Relations
  Anglo-Egyptian Relations
  Anglo-Egyptian Relations
  Anglo-Chinese Relations
  Anglo-Chinese Relations
  Anglo-Mozambique Relations
  Anglo-Mozambique Relations
  Anglo-Argentine Relations
  Anglo-Argentine Relations
  Kampuchea
  Kampuchea
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Torture Victims (UN Fund)
  Torture Victims (UN Fund)
  China
  China
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  General Alexander Haig (Memoirs)
  General Alexander Haig (Memoirs)
  Broadcasting Unit
  Broadcasting Unit
  Central America
  Central America
  Mr. Alan Goodison
  Mr. Alan Goodison
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Morocco
  Morocco
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Strategic Weapons
  Strategic Weapons
THE ARTS
  Competition
  Competition
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
DEFENCE
  Disclosure of Information (Investigation)
  Disclosure of Information (Investigation)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Fuel Additive FM9
  Fuel Additive FM9
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  NATO (Engagement Rules)
  NATO (Engagement Rules)
  Competition
  Competition
  National Defence Industries Council
  National Defence Industries Council
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  D-Day Landings (Anniversary Celebrations)
  D-Day Landings (Anniversary Celebrations)
  Foreign Armed Forces (Training)
  Foreign Armed Forces (Training)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Atomic Weapons (NATO and Warsaw Pact)
  Atomic Weapons (NATO and Warsaw Pact)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Patent Law
  Patent Law
  Competition
  Competition
  Chemicals (Exports)
  Chemicals (Exports)
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Cuba
  Cuba
  Unsafe Goods
  Unsafe Goods
  Counterfeit Goods
  Counterfeit Goods
  Insurance Contracts (Exemption and Exclusion Clauses)
  Insurance Contracts (Exemption and Exclusion Clauses)
  Eye Drops
  Eye Drops
  Chemical Welfare Equipment (Exports)
  Chemical Welfare Equipment (Exports)
  Small Businesses (Incorporation)
  Small Businesses (Incorporation)
  Assisted Areas (Data)
  Assisted Areas (Data)
  Local Enterprise Week
  Local Enterprise Week
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Central America (Aircraft and Vehicle Exports)
  Central America (Aircraft and Vehicle Exports)
  EC (Regional Development Fund)
  EC (Regional Development Fund)
TRANSPORT
  Competition
  Competition
  Double Glazing
  Double Glazing
  Tube Stations
  Tube Stations
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Manchester International Airport
  Manchester International Airport
  Sealink (UK) Ltd.
  Sealink (UK) Ltd.
  Passenger Aircraft (Brake Parts)
  Passenger Aircraft (Brake Parts)
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Revenue and Cost Statistics
  Revenue and Cost Statistics
  Automobile Association
  Automobile Association
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  M25 (Traffic Movements)
  M25 (Traffic Movements)
  Lorry Examinations (GLC)
  Lorry Examinations (GLC)
  Archway Road
  Archway Road
  M4 (Cardiff Signs)
  M4 (Cardiff Signs)
  Ballycastle (Coastguard Station)
  Ballycastle (Coastguard Station)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Air Misses
  Air Misses
ENVIRONMENT
  Ancient Woodlands
  Ancient Woodlands
  Dolphins
  Dolphins
  Competition
  Competition
  Domestic Property (Revaluation)
  Domestic Property (Revaluation)
  Housing Improvement Grants (Unregistered Traders)
  Housing Improvement Grants (Unregistered Traders)
  Recreational Land
  Recreational Land
  Museum Education Services
  Museum Education Services
  Toxteth (Compensation Claims)
  Toxteth (Compensation Claims)
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Merseyside Task Force
  Merseyside Task Force
  Housing Defects Bill
  Housing Defects Bill
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Enterprise Zone (Liverpool)
  Enterprise Zone (Liverpool)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  House of Commons Sittings (Cost)
  House of Commons Sittings (Cost)
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Urban Programme Projects
  Urban Programme Projects
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Roof and Wall Insulation
  Roof and Wall Insulation
  Building Regulations (Energy Efficiency)
  Building Regulations (Energy Efficiency)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Lime Street Station, Liverpool
  Lime Street Station, Liverpool
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  "Good Practice in Area Improvement"
  "Good Practice in Area Improvement"
  Greater London Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment (Evidence)
  Greater London Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment (Evidence)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Expenditure
  Agricultural Expenditure
  Agricultural Commodities
  Agricultural Commodities
  Agricultural Output
  Agricultural Output
  European Community (Agricultural Prices)
  European Community (Agricultural Prices)
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Wine
  Wine
  Milk
  Milk
  Raisins
  Raisins
  Feedstuffs
  Feedstuffs
  Beef and Cull Cow Prices
  Beef and Cull Cow Prices
  Competition
  Competition
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax (Bad Debt Relief)
  Value Added Tax (Bad Debt Relief)
  Assured Tenancies
  Assured Tenancies
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Taxation (Compound Proceedings)
  Taxation (Compound Proceedings)
  Competition
  Competition
  South Africa (Arms Sales)
  South Africa (Arms Sales)
  Benefits in Kind (Taxation)
  Benefits in Kind (Taxation)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Motability
  Motability
  Personal Property (VAT)
  Personal Property (VAT)
  British Airways
  British Airways
  VAT (Harmonisation)
  VAT (Harmonisation)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Seafarers (Earnings)
  Seafarers (Earnings)
  Tax Thresholds
  Tax Thresholds
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
SCOTLAND
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  "Priorities for the Eighties"
  "Priorities for the Eighties"
  Competition
  Competition
  Motorways (Noise)
  Motorways (Noise)
  SDA Project, Leith
  SDA Project, Leith
  16 to 18s Action Plan
  16 to 18s Action Plan
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Education)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Education)
  Health Care (Costs)
  Health Care (Costs)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
EMPLOYMENT
  Competition
  Competition
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Weekly Earnings
  Weekly Earnings
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  Rubella Vaccination
  Rubella Vaccination
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  NHS (Staffing Statistics)
  NHS (Staffing Statistics)
  Domiciliary Oxygen Service
  Domiciliary Oxygen Service
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Doctors (Dispensing Profits)
  Doctors (Dispensing Profits)
  Mental Health (Essex)
  Mental Health (Essex)
  Artificial Limbs (Contractors)
  Artificial Limbs (Contractors)
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Mr. Bryan Wade(Correspondence)
  Mr. Bryan Wade(Correspondence)
  Competition
  Competition
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Manchester)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Manchester)
  VOCAL (Liaison Arrangements)
  VOCAL (Liaison Arrangements)
  Regional Health Authorities (Retirement Costs)
  Regional Health Authorities (Retirement Costs)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Social Security (Expenditure Savings)
  Social Security (Expenditure Savings)
  NHS Consultants (Earnings Rule)
  NHS Consultants (Earnings Rule)
  Patient Care (Food)
  Patient Care (Food)
  Pensioners (Free Spectacles)
  Pensioners (Free Spectacles)
  Disablement Allowances
  Disablement Allowances
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Pay Beds (Charges)
  Pay Beds (Charges)
  Pension Fund Rights
  Pension Fund Rights
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Contraceptive Pill (Inquiry)
  Contraceptive Pill (Inquiry)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Heating Allowances (Manchester)
  Heating Allowances (Manchester)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Snuff: Substitute for Smoking
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the conclusions of an article in the British Medical Journal (vol. 283, 26th September 1981) that "the rapid absorption of nicotine from snuff confirms its potential as an acceptable and relatively harmless substitute for smoking".
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on the evidence available there are no indications at present that snuff-taking by inhalation carries any substantial risk to health.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that it accords with the Answer which her noble friend Lord Glenarthur gave me to a Written Question that there is no evidence that snuff-taking by inhalation as practised in this country constitutes a health risk? If that is so, why do not the Government actively encourage smokers who cannot kick the habit to change to snuff?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government would not wish to encourage people to use snuff. Snuff products contain nicotine which is an addictive drug, and dependence on such drugs is to be discouraged. Incidentally, according to the British Medical Journal, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and indeed my noble friend the Chief Whip, qualify as
2
daily snuffers while I, apparently, am only a virgin snuffer.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's question, may I ask—as one who smoked a pipe for more than half a century and has had to give it up—whether the Government appreciate that the use of snuff is tremendously helpful in assuaging the pangs of withdrawal if one gives up smoking? If possible, that should be encouraged if only to help people who want to give up smoking and find it very difficult to do so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, the Government continue to urge people to give up cigarettes because of the serious risk to health, but there are other preferable ways of helping people to stop. We would advise smokers who wish to give up to seek advice from their doctor.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept my congratulations to her on her virginity in snuffing? Is she aware that while the personal pleasures of snuff sniffing, as opposed to solvent abuse, seem to be negligible as she has said, this fact is likely to be exploited? There are reports by an American firm which is planning to launch on to the British market a product called "Skoal Bandits" which are sachets placed in the mouth and which have supposedly the same effect as snuff but, as I understand it, in fact produce cancer of the mouth?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware that there are plans to put this type of product, which is currently available in the United States, on to the British market. The Government are having discussions with the company concerned and are considering the possible effects on health; but I am not in a position to say what steps, if any, the Government will wish to take. That will depend on what emerges from the present inquiries.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why are Members of the House of Commons allowed to have a pinch of snuff any time they like?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I entirely agree with the gist of the noble Baroness's words, that it is most unfair.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether snuff taking is less harmful than smoking or more harmful than smoking?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought I had already answered that question.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if this is the attitude of the Government, of the Royal College and that much respected body ASH, is it not rather a killjoy attitude? Is it not a case of the best being the enemy of the good? Furthermore, might I ask her if she does not agree that the British Medical Journal article also referred to another advantage of snuff in that it does not contaminate the atmosphere of non-users?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I really think that in answer to the noble Lord I can only agree with him.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will not my noble friend agree that there is certain danger in snuff takers asking Her Majesty's Government to encourage the use of snuff, for if it becomes too popular it will inevitably be taxed?

Film Industry: Finance
2.38 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they are (a) stopping company tax incentives to invest in British films, and (b) abolishing the Eady levy on cinema seats.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the phasing out of first-year capital allowances proposed in the Budget Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is part of the overall Budget strategy. It will apply generally and not just to expenditure on British films.
The future of the Eady levy is but one of a number of matters being considered in the review of the commercial film industry being conducted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which I do not find altogether reassuring. I should like to ask him two questions. First, is there any chance that the Government might consider extending the Eady levy to cover films shown both on television and on tape? Secondly, can he give any form of guarantee that the National Film Finance Corporation will continue to be funded at the present level?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my difficulty is that both of my noble friend's supplementary questions are somewhat hypothetical, as no decision whatsoever has been taken on the future of the Eady levy. When decisions are taken the interest that he mentions will be borne in mind.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister whether the Government recognise that the real threat to the film industry which might result from the abolition of the Eady levy will arise if nothing is put in its place. In particular, does he recognise that the National Film and Television School (in which, as I am aware, he has a close interest) depends for one-third of its income on Eady and that the National Film and Finance Corporation looks to Eady for practically the whole of its resources? Finally, does he recognise that the loss of this revenue would seriously disrupt the entry into the film industry of the young talent which is essential for its future?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am keenly aware that if the "baby" of the National Film and Television School were to be dropped by Eady, so to say, it would land in my lap. Therefore I have a very keen interest in these negotiations. As I think the noble Lord will have been made aware, the Government value the school very highly. That is why the discussions concerning the future of Eady are so important.

BBC Broadcasts to South Africa
2.45 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the audibility of the BBC Overseas Service in the Republic of South Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the British Broadcasting Corporation's signal to the Republic of South Africa is less strong than we would wish. But we are satisfied that on the whole those who wish to listen to the British Broadcasting Corporation in the republic are able to do so without excessive difficulty. Steps are being taken to improve reception in East Africa, which should also lead to some improvement in South Africa.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, which I think is disappointing. Would he not agree that the Republic of South Africa should be a priority target for the BBC not only because of the differences with the South African Government that we have and that the South African press have, but also because in South Africa there are very many people in all the communities who are sympathetic towards, and are anxious to have news of, this country? Would it not be possible to resume the broadcasting in Afrikaans?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord knows, the BBC's former Afrikaans service was terminated in 1957. I have to say that there are no plans for its reintroduction. It is worth noting that broadcasts such as this on the short-wave band require the listener to have a short-wave receiver and that, generally speaking, the people in South Africa appear to prefer the VHS service of the local system.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord said that reception in Southern Africa is not as good as the Government themselves would wish, but that some improvement has been made. Can he tell the House precisely what steps are being taken towards improved reception and what are the obstacles in its way, in view of the very strong arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill?—arguments which are shared, I believe, by the great majority of noble Lords in this House to the effect that South Africa occasionally should hear the truth from the BBC.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that they can hear the BBC signals even now; but we are in negotiation with the Government of the Seychelles to build a relay station on those islands, and that relay station, though intended primarily for East Africa, will bring benefits as far south as South Africa.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, when is it hoped that that relay station might be in use, assuming that the negotiations with the Seychelles Government go satisfactorily?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I say, the negotiations with the Seychelles Government are not yet complete. I understand that they are going very well. As soon as they are completed, the construction of the station can commence; and I think that it would take two or three years to build from that time.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, with reference to short-wave, is the noble Lord aware that if people could hear the short-wave broadcasts in these places, they might be more likely to have short-wave sets? That is the first point. Secondly, I am delighted to hear about the new relay station in the Seychelles, but if it takes anything like as long as the one which was proposed for China, as far as I know, six years ago, may we hope that the noble Lord will urge that it be built more quickly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be a good thing for the station in the Seychelles to be started as soon as possible. But, of course, that cannot happen until we have the agreement of the Seychelles authorities.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if those negotiations do not succeed, could not Her Majesty's Government consider setting up a station on Ascension Island?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is already a station on Ascension Island which is one of the sources of the signals presently beamed towards that part of the world. It is some distance from South Africa, of course, and a station on the Seychelles would be considerably better.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is it not true that, unlike the Soviets, the South Africans are most anxious to co-operate to enable their people to hear the BBC—or the truth, as my noble friend and Leader expresses it; if one can equate the two—whereas the attitude of the Soviet Union is exactly the opposite?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Our transmissions to Eastern Europe and to the Soviet bloc are often jammed.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while I welcome the statement by the noble Lord the Minister that the Government are not satisfied with the signal to South Africa, may I ask whether he is aware that in many parts of the African continent and, indeed, as far afield as the United States, the signal of the South African radio service is much stronger than that of the World Service of the BBC? In view of the fact that all broadcasting in South Africa is censored and under government control, will the noble Lord assure the House that the Government will press on with their plans for giving further support to the BBC in beaming its signals to the whole of the African continent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the signals which are audible in Africa consist of, first of all, those in three African languages: Swahili, Somali, and Hausa. In addition, special programmes for Africa are broadcast in English, French, and Portuguese. Finally, the BBC's Arabic service has a very large audience in the North and North-Eastern part of Africa. So I do not think we can be accused of having neglected that continent.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, as one who habitually listens to the BBC World Service on shortwave when abroad, may I ask the Government whether they are aware that it is often difficult to sort out a relatively weak signal from among all the very strong signals that come from Eastern Europe? Would it not be desirable therefore—I am not just talking about southern Africa—for the BBC to be enabled to increase the power on its broadcasts? The content of them is admirable, but with the power that is used, they are often fairly difficult to find.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords; audibility is one of the prime features of the work that is currently going on in regard to the BBC external services. We are currently spending something like £100 million on an audibility programme and I hope that some of the problems the noble Lord has referred to can thereby be overcome.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that noble Lords in all parts of the House have been asking for more money to be spent, in spite of the £100 million, so that the excellent programmes the World Service produces can be heard? At the moment they fall upon unhearing ears.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, recalling, as I do, the debate which we had in your Lordships' House in, I think, 1982, when this matter was discussed at some length and a Motion was carried against the Government, I am well aware of the view put to me by the noble Baroness. But we have to strike an order of priorities in this matter, and I think that we have now got it about right.

Regional Health Authorities: Privatisation Criteria
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

7
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the criteria used to compel regional health authorities to privatise domestic, catering and laundry services.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, health authorities are not being compelled to contract-out these services. Rather, they have been asked to seek competitive tenders, including in-house tenders, for these services and to place the work with the lowest tenderer. The Government consider that this will ensure that these services are provided as cost effectively as possible, so that any savings made can be devoted to patient care services. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will appreciate the importance of that aim.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am indeed appreciative of what she has said? The great shame is, of course, that that is not what is really happening.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Baroness is aware that the members of the Cornwall Health Authority were threatened with dismissal if they did not obey the diktats of the Ministry, notwithstanding the fact that the workers in that authority had submitted an in-house scheme which would have saved the authority no less than £500,000 a year on laundry services? That was rejected and a private firm was given the job, which made an increase and not a saving of £50,000. Is she aware that when the local health authority protested in this land of freedom they were threatened with dismissal? Would she therefore not agree that it is about time that the Government saw that their policies were properly instituted and carried out?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is referring to a newpaper article which got the whole matter quite wrong. In Cornwall tenders for laundry services were sought from private companies, and there was an in-house estimate based on a single new laundry at Poole, which was to serve most of western Cornwall. A full financial appraisal has been carried out which demonstrates that a tender made by a private contractor is the cheapest solution. The health authorities were advised to place the contract with the contractor.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in comparing private tenders with in-house costs, will authorities be asked to bear in mind that many of the overheads associated with the in-house conduct of these services will still have to be borne by the regional health authorities even though those services are contracted out?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the appendix to the circular makes it clear that a tendered price must be held to as the budget for the service in question. Only increases that would have been permitted from an outside contract would be allowable. The whole process is subject to internal and external audit.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that in a number of instances in-house tenders have been submitted and are being accepted by the health authorities?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to by noble friend for that statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the option of privatisation has always been open to health authorities ever since the National Health Service started? The main point is that it has not usually been effective, cost-effective or more effective. Secondly, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it seems to her right that private firms which submit tenders are going to be relieved of value added tax, while charities—which do invaluable work for the National Health Service and the social services—are not excluded from VAT? Does this not seem grossly unfair?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, the object of tendering and of having a cost appraisal exercise is to determine the most cost-effective way for health authorities to provide these services. Contracts will be let only where it has been established that standards would be maintained and where savings are to be made by doing so. As I said before, any revenue saved would be available for additional patient care services.
I do not think the two examples in the second part of his question are really relevant, but the story about past contracting and VAT has been a mixed one: some failures and some successes. In some cases imprecise specification of requirements and lax monitoring has and an adverse effect. The imposition of VAT on service contracts was also a disincentive to placing work with outside contractors; but this will now be reimbursed, as the noble Lord said. These points have been covered in the circular.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness on this, but since there has been great pressure in this House and in another place that charities which provide a social service should be excluded from the payment of VAT, does it not seem to her to be unfair that that should be denied but that VAT should be relieved in respect of the private companies which manage to secure tenders with the National Health Service?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I suggest that the noble Lord puts down a Question about that, because I believe it is a different one from the Question that we have been talking about today.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Baroness answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Avebury? It is very important that the overheads are taken into account when the costing is being done, but if the overheads cannot be saved then surely a wrong decision could be taken?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am still answering the question, but I will endeavour to do so. The services will be contracted out only where savings can be made by doing so. It is not

9
possible to quantify the extent of these savings yet. I do not think I am answering that question but I am giving some useful information. Recent experience shows that there are some very worthwhile savings to be made. Twelve contracts let recently will save health authorities £1½ million a year. Perhaps we might call it a day on that one.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, might I ask the noble Baroness this question. If she is not aware, ought she not to make inquiries and should not the Minister of Health also make inquiries when there is grave consternation from all the professions in the health service concerning this ramming of privatisation down the throat when it is not necessary and when it produces bad results? Why does not the Minister of Health see the secretary general of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and representatives of the BMA? Also, could the noble Baroness let me know in writing whether there are still extant documents alleged to emanate from the DHSS or from the Minister's office saying that privatisation must take place irrespective of whether it is more efficient or saves money?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, would care to read my original Answer, when I said that health authorities are not being compelled to contract out these services.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, is it true, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said, that when threatened with privatisation the existing staff offered to do the job for £¼ million a year cheaper?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Avon will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer that is to be given in another place to a Private Notice Question on the coal mining dispute. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Elton who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Libyan People's Bureau.
Hereford City Council Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee on Opposed Provisions.
Worcester City Council Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee on Opposed Provisions.

Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping: Report
3.1 p.m.
Lord Shackleton Lord Shackleton rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on
10
Science and Technology on Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping (1st Report, 1983–84, H.L.98).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last of a series of reports by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I will not say that it is the most important but, in some ways, it is the most difficult one to debate, because the language is of a kind that is almost all its own. I shall therefore have to confine my remarks to some extent to explaining what our study was all about and why we undertook it. I shall leave it to several of my distinguished noble colleagues who were members of the committee, and who probably understood the subject rather better than I as the chairman, to go into detail. None the less, this is not the first occasion on which I have had to address your Lordships about matters connected with the Ordnance Survey and, since the Ordnance Survey is very much involved in the question of digital mapping, I should like to explain how it was that we came to study these particular subjects.
First, remote sensing was identified by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in their 1982 Forward Look as one of six areas for special effort. We were also attracted by space technology, of which remote sensing is a part. I stress that it is only a part and it is not exclusively space technology. But it was the Royal Society which, above all, pressed us to consider digital mapping at the same time. Although we were a little doubtful in the early stages as to whether these two subjects, which seemed superficially so different, could be taken together, the advice proved in the end to have been very wise. Indeed it is fundamental to the recommendations in our report, if we are to get the maximum benefit and save the most money by not having too much wasted effort. Remote sensing and digital mapping are both means of collecting geographical information and handling it by means of digital computers, and we concluded that their development should be complementary.
Before going on briefly to touch on some of the recommendations of the committee—I realise that we shall be having an interruption—perhaps I may take this opportunity to apologise to your Lordships. My papers are in a somewhat disorderly state, because my office happens to be next to the Libyan Embassy and I have not been able to use remote sensing devices to see what I have there. But I should like to comment very briefly on the remote sensing side and the main thrust of our report was to concentrate on applica-tions, rather than on technology. Of course, both are important but we were impressed by the need to concentrate more on applications in the future. So far, remote sensing has been technology led—and this is perhaps not surprising.
I recommend noble Lords who wish to go more deeply into this matter to look at the first chapter of the report, where there is what I describe as a child's guide. I said that we must have a child's guide, at least for the benefit of the chairman of the committee, and I hope that it will be of value to others. I should like to take one bouquet from a colleague and friend of mine who is a professor, and who has found this report useful as an introduction to students in this subject, because it is to a considerable extent intelligible.
But in remote sensing worldwide interest at present is mainly in sensing from space and this is what we

11
chose to look at for the most part. In essence, this kind of remote sensing is an extension of aerial photography, which is, of course, included in remote sensing. Your Lordships will remember the remarkable achievements of photographic reconnaissance during the war, with the discovery of the Peenemunde rocket research establishment and many others.
For many years, aircraft have been used to photograph the earth, but now there are new scanning devices. This is where we are getting into the more difficult—indeed, almost magical—area to some people, because in addition to cameras it is possible to view the earth by means of radiation which is invisible to the human eye. This extends enormously our field of vision, if I may call it that.
Scanners can observe the surface of the earth, the sea and the atmosphere using infra red light, microwave radar or a combination of selected wave bands, including visible light. They are mounted on satellites as well as aircraft. Satellites, of course, provide a much wider field of view. They also provide regular repeated coverage and, therefore, the opportunity to detect change comparatively easily. We are all familiar with the satellite pictures used in weather forecasting, but this is only one example of remote sensing.
These new techniques mean that the amount, the quality and the scale of data available to man have increased dramatically. They open up new horizons for science, the exploitation of natural resources, environmental monitoring and, I need hardly say, defence. Our committee was not concerned with the defence aspect but of course in the background is the enormous effort by all the countries in this field on the defence applications.
May I give some examples, which may or may not be familiar to your Lordships? We can now understand to a much greater extent than before wave patterns across the oceans and follow the movement of warm and cold currents. Satellites several hundred miles above the sea can detect sea surface temperatures to within half a degree centigrade. We can identify geological formations from the lineaments of the geologists—and the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who I hope is taking part in this debate, will be familiar with this—which will enable one to make informed and ultimately accurate guesses as to promising areas for mineral prospecting. For instance, there have been examples in Western Australia of important mineral deposits being found in this way.
More important perhaps in the long run is that we can monitor the distribution, health and production of agricultural crops worldwide—an application that is obviously valuable, not least to brokers in the world commodity markets. We can also gather precise information about ice conditions in the Arctic or the movement of locusts in the Sahara.
Not only is it possible to see wider areas and new perspectives; it is also possible to observe more detail and make more use of the data which have been gathered. Whereas the human eye can observe only a few shades of grey, computers can enhance the information by differentiating the data stored at up to 1,024 different grey levels; and then, by devices such as contrast stretching and density slicing—there is a full
12
glossary of these terms in the report—the differences are made apparent to the user, differences which otherwise would not be observable. And automated analysis and automated cartography make it easier to sort and manipulate, and permit consistent and repeatable treatment of the data over periods of time. I could make the list of applications very long. I should mention that some of these applications are being made in Britain. In particular, the Macaulay Institute of the Grampian Regional Council have been pioneers in the development of this information for mapping areas of bracken and snow in the Highlands.
On the other hand, there is need for a word of caution. The committee were told by several witnesses that remote sensing had suffered from being oversold in the early 1970s and that it had not lived up to the expectations of some people. The situation was not unlike one's first introduction to computers. An initial reluctance to believe that computers can do anything is followed by an alarming confidence that computers can do everything. Only time and experience show just what computers can and cannot do. The same is true of remote sensing.
We have now reached the point where it is possible to say with certainty what some, indeed many, of the applications will be. What is needed is greater attention to these applications. The emphasis of research and development in remote sensing has so far been on technological development, but the committee recommend that the emphasis should now shift towards applications. As we said in paragraph 5.17.2:
"Successful development requires balance between both strands of development, and too much effort proportionately has gone into developing data collection platforms and too little into the systems for making the data useful"—
and, incidentally, providing so much data that it is impossible to make use of all of it. The problem of remote sensing data compression is going to confront the world. It is time, both in our national effort and in Europe, to put this right and also to put more emphasis on education and training in the disciplines which will want to exploit remote sensing.
Before I sit down, I want to say a few words about some of our recommendations, but now I must say something about digital mapping. Digital mapping involves two separate functions. First, it is the term given to the production of maps by computer based or digital techniques. We are talking about digital computers. Thus, all the map detail is entered in a computer's memory so that it can be printed out automatically, as required, in conventional map form. This has many advantages. For instance, maps can be updated easily. Almost automatically any map becomes gradually a little out of date. Maps can be printed for special purposes, with just the detail which is needed for those purposes, or their area of coverage and scale can be adjusted so that the point you are searching is not, as is usually the case, on the crack between two different maps. Those of your Lordships who occasionally go walking know how often this happens. Extra details, such as water mains or telephone cables, can be superimposed on Ordnance Survey maps to assist the public utilities. The major work of the British Ordnance Survey is on these large-scale maps. This is unique in the world. The value of

13
digitising and having a map which can be used as a planning tool, by being manipulated in the computer to display hypothetical layouts, is very great indeed.
Secondly, by extension of the first function, digital mapping includes the use of any map data held in a computer, even though these are not reproduced in map form. Such data can, for instance, be integrated with census information as a local government management tool or with medical reports as a pointer to geographically or occupationally related diseases. They can be reproduced as three dimensional terrain models or townscapes. Those of your Lordships who have visited the establishment at EASAMS in Camberley will have seen the excellent terrain work that is done there. They can result in non-graphical output such as statistical tables.
It is in the handling of spatially related or specially referenced data that the most exciting prospects and major growth can be expected. Experience of what digital mapping can offer is liable to change the use to which maps and map data are put, at first slowly and then faster, and to have a snowball effect on the demand from users. The trend is unmistakable. But the development of digital mapping in the United Kingdom depends on the extent of digital coverage by the Ordnance Survey and the Ordnance Survey for Northern Ireland. The initial digitisation of map data is a long and laborious process with a high one-off cost. Nevertheless, it must be done speedily because it is the most economic path to follow, and it must be done, in our opinion, by the Ordnance Surveys rather than independently by a number of different organisations duplicating the National Archive and wasting resources by digitising to different standards.
I should now like to touch very briefly upon our recommendations. First, on the Ordnance Survey, we recommended that the large-scale maps—that is, anything up to 1:10,000—should be completed by 1993. It will cost a great deal of money, but it will be cheap in the long run because it is the only way in which we can prevent large numbers of authorities from doing their own digitisation for their own purposes in a very uneconomic way. Turning to small-scale maps, we reckon that these ought to be completed by 1987. I should mention that these two recommendations were published in the Serpell Committee Report which was published several years ago, upon which we have still not yet had a proper reply from the Government or a decision as to the procedures to be followed.
Since I have mentioned that the Ordnance Survey ought to do this, I should like to make it clear that taking into account Government policy—we approached this in a completely non-party political way in our report—we reckon that there is great scope for work by some of the great private companies which already have experience in and have invested money in this field. I am thinking of such firms as Hunting and others. But there is still a need to strengthen the basic organisation. It is our view that the research and development capacity of the Ordnance Survey to improve digitisation and achieve the data structure most appropriate to user needs should be strengthened. We also, in passing, though Lot unimportantly, refer to the importance of some research and
14
development on the part of the hydrographer in the marine field.
Let me turn, again all too briefly, to the recommen-dations on remote sensing, about which I should like to make a general remark. This is a fledging industry with a world-wide potential. Our committee gave support to the Government's long-term strategy with regard to Government expenditure now and private sector development later, but we emphasised the public sector interest and the inability of the industry to stand on its own two feet yet, unless considerable Government money is made available. They are finding the same problem as they seek to develop their space activities and their remote sensing activities in the United States—the problem of handing it over to private enterprise at a time when it is not yet profitable to do so. Again, there are firms such as Hunting and Logica who feel able to take on some of the burden and have indeed criticised. One at least—Hunting—said that we did not give enough prospect to remote sensing and digital mapping by private firms. I looked into this aspect and found that there were more than a dozen recommendations on the subject—but at this moment the thrust must be towards the Government.
In the space sector work, our future will lie largely in co-operation through the European Space Agency. There will still be a need for some bilateral projects, especially with the Americans and Canadians. We have to face up to the possibility that there will be a growth of proprietary satellite data. Therefore we have said that, one way or the other, although we cannot afford or expect to follow the courageous and determined efforts of the French, Americans, Indians and Japanese, nonetheless we must have some kind of activity in space, and it will be in the development of certain equipment (particularly radar), the development of software, and especially through co-operation with the European Space Agency.
One question I should like to ask the Government is: when do they expect a decision on co-operation in ERS-1—that is, Earth Resource Satellite 1—which is the oceanographic satellite due to go up in 1987? It is vital that Britain should participate in what is admittedly an expensive but a co-operative project. There is some concern as to whether that will take place and I shall be grateful if the Government can tell us something about that.
In any case, cheap and readily available data cannot be relied upon in the future and the United Kingdom must have something to offer, if only as a bargaining counter. One area which we identified as being of great importance and real prospect was in the radar field.
A major recommendation was the setting up of a communications network which is essential for the distribution of data and the development of applica-tions. We took as our model the Starlink network. The Government have shown interest and we should like to encourage this. Incidentally, most of the letters that we have received since the publication of the report have provided some very valuable and sometimes well-informed criticism, although generally accepting the report's thrust.
I should like to quote what Logica said, because they are one of the most progressive firms in this area. The writer stated:

15
"I am in agreement with your recommendation that a data dissemination network should be set up. However, I doubt that Starlink is a very good model".
Here we have to consider whether we want a network of a low rating, which will basically be on telephone wires, or a network that will carry a much greater amount of material. It may be that there should be a design study, and no doubt there is one and British Telecom are looking into this aspect. I gather that a Minister has even suggested that the network could be run by industry. This is an interesting suggestion, taking into account the philosophy of the present Government, and one that should be examined. There would need to be a commitment by the Government as a customer in this.
Other recommendations—and I do not have time to go through them all—which again I hope the Government will examine include the utilisation of this information by setting up a form of geographical information centres. The suggestion that the Government should set up a committee to examine this proposal rather than try to establish a centre straight away is, we believe, the right way to proceed. They have such centres in France and in the United States, and we shall need them here. It is important to realise that the information that will be available, and which will be of great value to mankind, will be very much of a multi-disciplinary nature. It will not all be just physics and astronomy or meteorology. It is interesting that the chairman of the Imperial College of Science's remote sensing centre (and the noble Lord is due to speak later) is part-physiologist. A multi-disciplinary approach is necessary.
Another area which concerned us was the weakness in the education field at the moment, as compared with other countries. There is a Master of Science course at University College, and a number of universities, such as Nottingham, are having short courses which are made available not just to British students but also to students from other parts of the world. One of the most important values of remote sensing and these new techniques will be to the underdeveloped world. Again, a criticism of the report has been that we have not made enough of this. There is no doubt that the future profit to this country will be in selling equipment abroad and in helping the underdeveloped world. Therefore, education is quite fundamental to this.
I believe it would be right to take this opportunity to express appreciation of the generosity of the United States of America through their open skies policy. The amount of information they have made available from their Landsat satellites and others has been of very great value to the rest of the world. Now that there are proposals to transfer this to the private sector—admittedly, probably heavily subsidised—this is something that we will have to take into account in our own planning. Again, it strengthens the need for us being active in this area.
One particular proposition on which I know America is looking for help from the rest of the world concerns a second polar orbiting satellite. I hope that the Government will take into account the necessity of providing some kind of co-operation, even if it is only
16
instrumentation of a kind that we have provided for other meteorological satellites.
Finally, I should like to mention that not least of the values of remote sensing has been that of identifying people at sea and elsewhere who are in distress, and in the saving of human life. There is already a very considerable economic advantage being gained from some of these applications. In particular, there is an interesting list of advantages which have been achieved. Large sums of money have been saved. There was the example of a fleet of 15 oil tankers which were guided by satellite data to optimise their navigation of Gulf Stream currents in the eastern seaboard of the United States to make fuel savings equivalent to 945,000 dollars annually. There is a whole list of these direct advantages.
For the time being, it will be the Government to whom we will look to give a lead in this. We have identified the National Remote Sensing Centre at Farnborough as being the centre of these activities. We have made recommendations of a kind which I will not detail now but which some of my colleagues will be able to identify, and on which I hope the Government will take action. We have not made any very expensive proposals but at least there will need to be a minimum degree of Government activity. Above all, we must regard this as being an international field in which we must co-operate internationally and in which we must also play our part if we are to get the benefits. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He has introduced it in a wide-ranging speech, for which the House will be grateful. I shall refer to only three or four aspects of the report. No doubt, in addition to what the Minister may have to say in winding up this debate, the Government will in due course communicate to the House their considered reply to the committee's recommendations.
My first point, and one of considerable concern, is the scale of the resources allocated for the next three years to the British remote sensing programme. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, the committee recommends that the major effort in this field should be directed to the applications of remote sensing and to greater co-operation with the user agencies. Our evidence showed that the momentum for development will eventually be supplied by market forces; but at this stage potential users are spread worldwide and many are themselves still unaware of their prospective interest. In parenthesis, I might say that some of the uses of this new technology are unexpected, to say the least. I recently came across a report of one of these in a Californian newspaper—in this case involving the use of Landsat data. It said that the American organisation, "Ducks Unlimited", and several American agencies, have reached an agreement that will protect and restore United States waterfowl nesting areas, and that to this end,
"It will spend as much money as is needed to interpret informa-tion sent down from the recently orbited Landsat 5".

17
I am sure that this rather offbeat information will be of interest to the many conservationists and naturalists in this House.
The committee reached the conclusion that the main emphasis now has to be placed on removing the constraints to development, creating experience and market awareness, and, where necessary, giving selective support to British ventures wishing to enter the international market; for there are likely to be customers in many overseas territories. Since such proposals require some entity to take the initiative and get things moving, the committee identified the National Remote Sensing Programme Board, acting principally through the National Remote Sensing Centre. Such a programme obviously requires additional resources if it is to be effectively carried out.
But take a look at, Scientific Opportunities and the Science Budget 1983, and what do we find? In general the science budget, although there has been an increase in it for 1983, has been restored only to the level of support for science in real terms which existed in 1973–74–10 years ago. But even that is misleading, because the value of commissioned research by Government departments has fallen substantially (in the case of the Natural Environment Research Council alone by 12 per cent. of its total income) and, through the financial pressure applied by the University Grants Committee, the value of university research is estimated to have fallen by more than 11 per cent. The university science base has thus been seriously eroded, and the dual support system further undermined.
In the remote sensing field—mainly again the province of the Natural Environment Research Council—the Advisory Board for the Research Councils proposed a significant increase in its remote sensing activities in co-operation with the other research councils and the universities. After the promulgation of the science budget the only reference to remote sensing in the paper is that the existing capital support for remote sensing in the Natural Environment Research Council will have to be cut back.
Can the Minister confirm that these facts and figures are correct? If so, does he not agree that it makes the Government's claim to be promoting the national capability in advanced technology rather a hollow one? The whole of this ABRC report makes depressing reading. It begins with a bang and, after the Government have finished with it, ends in a whimper. It is standard practice to blame the Treasury for this sort of thing, but I shall not criticise my old department for doing what it conceives to be its duty. It is the Government as a whole who have to decide on the resources to be committed to science and technology.
On a specific point, the Select Committee recommended that the United Kingdom's membership of the European Space Agency should carry the main thrust of the country's effort in space; and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, alluded to that. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain firmly committed to full participation in this agency and to the Earth Resources Satellite 1 programme?
18
My second point is a rather similar one, in relation to digital mapping. I came fresh to the problems of the Ordnance Survey, of which I knew little. I was considerably disturbed by what emerged about Government policy towards it. In the first place, the Ordnance Survey is organisationally in a weak position as an extra-departmental body supervised, hitherto rather spasmodically, by a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment. It was, and still is, out on a limb. Thus, three years back it was subjected to an across-the-board cut of 20 per cent. in staff without apparently any attempt to assess its current load of work and its special needs and functions in a rapidly changing environment.
Secondly, it has been the subject of the wide-ranging Serpell report, whose recommendations, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, have not, after three years, been effectively dealt with; while a misconceived attempt to hive off some part of its production into a trading fund distracted the Ordnance Survey from its main task. Thirdly, in the face of this need to adapt to new technology, especially in the field of digital cartography, its research capability is grotesquely small in relation to that of the comparable institutions in France and the United States and, indeed, that of our own Military Survey. It is perfectly understandable therefore, with its timetable for the larger scale mapping of the United Kingdom beginning to slip, that the Ordnance Survey lacked enthusiasm for accelerating the process of digitisation in general, for digitising smaller scale maps and, in particular, for extending its interest into the field of remote sensing.
I do not blame the Ordnance Survey for these deficiencies. It seems to me that it has been placed in a very difficult position, and it is naturally concerned about its ability to maintain the national archive for which it is responsible. I make two comments on this situation. First, I was encouraged by the evidence given by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment on 2nd November last, which showed not merely an understanding of the position, but a desire to remedy it.
Secondly, the Ordnance Survey programme has fallen so far behind what is desirable, both in carrying out its traditional task and in moving into new applications—notably digitisation of small scale maps—that there is a requirement for additional resources in men and money to claw back some of the time and achievement that has been lost. Part of this expenditure can reasonably be called capital expenditure. I will not enlarge on the account by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, of our recommen-dations on all this, but I hope that the Minister is not going to tell us this afternoon that there is no money for this important requirement, either.
Personally, I was impressed by the need to push on with the digitisation of the 1:50,000 scale maps. I recall a remark made to me by the head of the American Defence Mapping Agency that for them the whole future lies with digitisation.
My last point is common to both remote sensing and digital cartography. It is the need to give more attention to the compilation of the data base, and the rapid transmission of information in digital form. Just as digitisation of small-scale maps is developing in this

19
country in random fashion, so individual transmission networks are being introduced in a piecemeal way. Co-ordination, followed by action, is needed here and to this end we have recommended the creation of a computer-based communications system for the transmission of digital data.
This should have a two-fold advantage. First, efficiency, and secondly, the building up of a user community through which applications can be developed. It is pertinent that, for these reasons, much effort in the United States is being put into the improvement of data links and data transmission between the satellites, the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the universities. The committee did not try to give a specification for such a network, which is a matter for expert study and advice, but we clearly identified the need for it. Obviously this, too, cannot be achieved without drawing on some additional human and financial resources.
One further observation. At the conclusion of his evidence to the committee, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, gave us a homily on the overriding importance of market forces as the criterion of Government policy in the field of remote sensing. I dare say that I am as convinced as Mr. Kenneth Baker of the importance of the free play of markets in general as a factor in commercial policy. But, as I indicated earlier, the whole weight of our evidence was that in the case of both remote sensing and digital mapping, whose applications are new and unfamiliar, the market was fragmented and needed stimulation and co-ordination. We also had indications that the industry is beginning to be responsive to all this and is aware of the need for the private sector to stand on its own feet—but this will take time, here and in the United States. For the lack of some central impetus I fear that our competitors, less influenced by doctrinaire considerations than ourselves, will once more forge ahead of us.
The Minister also indicated that remote sensing was not very high up on the list of Government priorities. This opinion conflicts with the view held by the research councils and the Royal Society on whose list of priorities remote sensing stands high. This seems a quite important difference of opinion, which needs resolution.
Thirdly, I would like to comment—it will have to be a very brief comment—on the impressions which I derived from our visits to France and the United States. The French, with true Gallic high technology abandon, have poured resources into their earth resources satellite "Spot" which is designed to improve the resolution of the image at least two-fold in comparison with the Landsat satellite series. If successful, this will make the French information much more valuable for the study of earth resources. It may also make possible the application of satellite information to cartography, and this would open up an important new field.
In the United States our visits to the main organisations concerned with our subjects, notably the Academy of Sciences and, forgive the acronyms, NASA and NOAA, the Geological Survey and the Defence Mapping Agency, were supplemented by an
20
interesting session with members of the House and Senate Committees on Science and Technology, by whom we were most hospitably received. I believe that this contact was a valuable as well as an agreeable one. Many noble Lords will be aware of the desire of the Reagan Administration to turn over the remote sensing and meteorological satellites to the private sector. Shortly after our visit, as our American colleagues predicted, the Congress passed a Bill preventing the transfer of the meteorological satellites from the public domain. This has had the immense advantage for the rest of the world that, under the open skies policy, this invaluable meteorological information will continue to be freely available.
On the other hand, the future of the Landsat programme is unclear. Legislation has been promoted in the Congress, but is unlikely to come to anything before the election. Bids have been invited for the Landsat operation, but it is doubtful whether without the weather satellites this is yet commercially viable—for much the same reasons, I think, as prevail in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile Landsat 4A, now, I think, numbered 5, was successfully launched last month. Landsat 4, which failed for technical reasons, has been coaxed back into partial activity, and it looks as if one more Landsat will be launched next year. Failing congressional action, that may spell the end of the programme, though my guess is that it will be continued in one form or another. The United States will not want to fall behind others in the acquisition and provision of earth resources data and the rest of the world will certainly hope that this information will continue to be as freely available as it has been in the past.
My strong impression, and it was reinforced in the course of another visit to Washington last month, is that the United States agencies would like to collabo-rate more closely and extensively with us. As I said earlier, the committee fully endorse our membership of the European Space Agency as our main effort in the space programme, but they also think that it is wise to supplement ESA membership. Bilateral or trilateral arrangements are much easier and simpler to conclude and to administer, and the United States and Canada are our natural partners in this field. But, of course, collaborative arrangements depend on mutual advantage. If there are inadequate resources behind our programme, we shall have little worthwhile to offer. In that event we shall continue to fall behind other countries in this field of endeavour, not only the United States and France, but Canada and India as well. I believe that the House would welcome the Minister's comments on this aspect of the problem.

Coal Mining Dispute
3.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement a reply now being given by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy to a Private Notice Question being asked in another place on the current coal mining dispute. It reads:

21
"There are pits working normally today in Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Cumbria and North Wales. This means that over 35,000 men in over 40 collieries will again today demonstrate their readiness to continue working. Allowing for holidays and maintenance work, this is a level of activity fully consistent with that of last week and in the previous week, when Parliament was still sitting. Picketing continues but has not deterred those intent on reporting for work.
"Coal stocks at power stations are at a high level for the time of year, sufficient to enable the electricity industry to meet demand for many months. The National Coal Board and the coal trade are maintaining at least limited supplies to most other major customers.
"The Chairman of the National Coal Board has made it clear that the board, for their part, are ready to continue discussion of the industry's long-term problems and how best to achieve the restructuring necessary to realise the high-volume low-cost industry which is the board's aim. It is a matter of regret to all those who want to see the industry resolve its present difficulties that the National Union of Mineworkers have not attended any of the recent meetings of the industry's consultative committees, including the joint meeting today of the Coal Industry National Consultative Council and the Coke Oven National Council. I understand that the national delegate conference of the National Union of Mineworkers decided last Thursday to amend its rules so that no more than a simple majority would be required to carry a motion in a national ballot concerning industrial action; but that the opportunity of consulting the union's membership through a ballot on the present dispute was again forgone."
My Lords, that is the end of the reply.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware that we are extremely pleased that the Answer to the Private Notice Question has been reported in full by him this afternoon? But is he also aware that the Opposition believe that the real responsiblity for this dispute lies with the Government—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, it lies with the Government, since it is about jobs, about the survival of whole communities and about the future of a vitally important industry. The Government so far have not intervened or done anything else towards solving this dispute, which has been going on for seven weeks.
I wonder whether the noble Earl can answer a number of questions. First of all, can he say to what extent the Government are subsidising the NCB to hold out against this strike? How much taxpayers' money is being used to fund the fight against the miners—money that would be better spent on keeping pits open and the jobs intact? Further, following his reply to me on 12th April, has he now made some estimate of the extra cost to the CEGB of the increased use of oil burn and nuclear power to generate
22
electricity? Can he also say how that is to be paid for? Is it to be paid for by the consumer or by an adjustment to the external financing limit?
Can he also say what are the effects of the dispute on important sectors of the manufacturing industry? Can he justify the closure of Cortonwood and Polmaise collieries without proper discussion? Perhaps he can say how the closure of these modern pits advances in any way the interests of the industry. Where do the closures fit into the picture of the chairman of the coal board's so-called uneconomic pits? How do the proposals made by Mr. MacGregor in the press yesterday differ from his original plan to sack 20,000 miners and close 25 pits? What efforts are the Government making to achieve fresh negotiations—negotiations that will put aside the closure plans and result in a plan for the coal industry agreed by the unions, the management and the Government in a proper tripartite arrangement?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise in the absence of Lord Ezra who is much more capable of asking the questions that need to be asked than I am. Unfortunately, he is on his way from the Midlands and has not been able to get here in time. We are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the reply. I think that from these Benches we would wish to say that we are somewhat amazed by the Government's attitude. They seem able to stand back from this important dispute and pretend that they are innocent bystanders. We would not go down the road of suggesting that this is all a diabolical plot to destroy the NUM or the trade union movement as a whole. Nevertheless, we are in a position where the most serious confrontation is taking place in one of our basic industries—a basic industry which we need to nurture for the future and which in the recent past produced Plan for Coal, which seemed to give it a viable future.
One cannot help feeling that the Government's appointment of Mr. MacGregor was a step down the road to confrontation—a step which has been matched by the confrontation from the president of the NUM. We therefore ask the Government to say at what stage they propose to act as a catalyst to bring the various sides together. Only when that is done will the country be relieved of the tragedy staring us in the face. The people posturing on both sides of the argument are at the end of the day only destroying their numbers in the industry and the needs of the electorate in this country. There comes a point when the Government must surely—although not necessarily becoming a party to the dispute—step in to see that there is movement in the intransigent position of both sides.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I ought to start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that what is going on at the moment certainly does not lie with this Government. I believe that the Government have amply demonstrated their commitment to the future of the industry. They are funding a continuing investment programme at the rate of £800 million per annum and supporting the redundant mineworker at an unprecedented level of generosity. I believe the taxpayer also deserves consideration. No one can reasonably demand that the taxpayer should continue to make grants to the

23
industry at the current rate of £900 million per annum. This is not a subsidy by the Government of the strikers. This is the taxpayers' money being spent on an industry which the Government believe should make itself competitive.
The noble Lord asked about the increase in oil burn and also mentioned nuclear power. Of course, they balance. One will cost more and the other will cost less. At the moment it is not possible to say what the cost will be. I believe that the management of the board is quite capable of conducting its own business. It was conducting normal business with the two industry unions this morning. I now understand that the board and those unions are making continued efforts to induce the NUM to rejoin their discussions. I believe that what has been forgotten in the supplementary questions this afternoon is the fact that the NUM itself cannot see its way forward to hold this ballot—a ballot which would surely simplify the situation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the onslaught on the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, saw fit to make at this delicate moment, will my noble friend say which of the figures he has just quoted indicates the number of pits being kept in operation, the number of miners being kept in employment solely because the Government have stood behind the mining industry by way of subsidy and the number of pits which would have been closed had this been a private industry without Government support? In response to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, will he ask him, in view of his highly offensive reference to Mr. MacGregor, how he would like to have to deal with Mr. Scargill?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his two supplementary questions. Of course, Mr. MacGregor was not there in any way for confrontation. He is there again to make the coal industry produce a product which is more marketable. I believe he was doing a good job towards that end before this unfortunate interruption. I cannot quantify the amount of money concerned in the way that my noble friend asks, but if I say that the average price of deep-mine coal is £45 per tonne he will realise the amount of subsidy we are giving.
Lord Taylor of Mansfield: My Lords, we have had a detailed reply from the Minister about a number of things that at the moment are taking place in the mining industry—picketing, the number of men at work, stocks of coal, and so on. Does he agree that the most important thing at the moment is for somebody somewhere to take immediate steps to get the two sides together? That is the most important thing, as I see it. We can talk about some of the other things which the Minister has mentioned—they are very important and it is desirable to talk about them—but does he agree that the most important thing is to get the two sides together, not to the consultative committee but to the negotiating table? If he agrees with that, will he use what influence he can and take what steps he can to get the two sides together?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I would not quarrel with anything the noble Lord has said; in fact, I think
24
I agree with almost every word of it. As I said earlier today, the two unions have been meeting with the NCB and are again continuing their efforts to induce the NUM to rejoin their discussions.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on the Cortonwood colliery, I understand that the local area director has offered the opportunity for a colliery review meeting—the first step in the normal review process. I understand that at the moment there has been no response to this.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend take an opportunity some time of pointing out that coal mining areas all over the world have to close mines as they become redundant or uneconomic and that the last Labour Government in this country closed 300 pits, so the proposal to close 20 pits is not a very substantial blow against the industry? Is not the proposal made in a desire to make the industry more economic and competitive, and is that desire not backed up by the huge investment of nearly £1,000 million each year in order to make the pits modern, efficient and competitive?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, yes. In exchanges in this House before, we have made it clear that the closure of pits is something which has been going on since the war when pits become short of coal. This is something which was catered for in the Plan for Coal and is something which we stand by.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister why have we faith in Mr. Ian MacGregor? If I remember rightly, years ago, the moment he put his foot into this country 20,000 men lost their jobs. Why have we got faith in him? Why can we not do the thing ourselves and try to sort it out in the proper way?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Baroness may not have faith in him but I can assure the House that the Government and I certainly do have. If I may remind the noble Baroness, Mr. MacGregor was actually educated in Scotland and went to America after that. Therefore he is actually a Scotsman rather than anything else. I am also surprised that anybody in this House could criticise someone as youthful as that for doing such an excellent job.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1955 the reason that most of the collieries were closed was that there was a big oil lobby in this country; and because oil was being bought cheaply from Saudi Arabia and Oman they closed pits to get oil? But when the oil people put up the price and coal was competitive, then we were urged by the same oil people to mine as much coal as we could to help the energy industry in this country. So it is not all cake. There were a lot of pits closed under the Tory Government as well.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I have made it clear that there have been closures under all governments since the war. If we go on to the matter of economic argument, then of course the real aim is to get the coal out of the ground at the right price so that we can sell it. There is a market for coal, but not a market for coal at any price.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that at such negotiations only employer and employee are represented? This is a matter which is of the utmost importance to the consumers of this country, and the Government ought to be there at least putting the point of view of the consumer.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we believe that the industry should settle its own problem at first instance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the courteous answers given by the noble Earl, but there are one or two points which arise from those answers.
First of all, of course one realises that management has to be capable of running its own business. But what I think we find difficult to accept is the statement that the solution does not in any way lie with the Government because in a dispute of this sort, where the whole country's economy may very well be affected at some timescale or another, we believe that the Government have a responsibility to bring the sides together for constructive, realistic discussions which will solve the dispute. Does the noble Earl not agree that at some stage the Government have a responsibility, because of their overall responsibility for the economy, to bring the two sides together to discuss the whole of the dispute and the future of the industry?
May I also ask him about Cortonwood? Basically, Cortonwood was the catalyst which caused the present dispute. According to the Daily Telegraph—which I read every day assiduously—last week, the cause of the dispute was the decision by a local manager to close Cortonwood without proper discussion, either at local or national level. Does not this show that there is something wrong within the industry, where the National Coal Board does not know what its local areas are doing, let alone the National Union of Mineworkers? In future should not the pit closure programme be discussed not on a local basis but on a national basis, so that all sides of the industry have some say? Finally, on the question of the ballot—which the Government and the Coal Board have for long created about—if the noble Earl and noble Lords opposite are so concerned about ballots, may I have their assurance that when the Bill concerning the abolition of GLC elections comes before this House they will vote against it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's questions are going somewhat wide of the parliamentary discretion. However, I am pleased to hear that he is being gently converted by the Daily Telegraph. This dispute is between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Mr. MacGregor has made clear his readiness to talk about the industry's problems and prospects, and I honestly do not think it would help the situation at the moment if I were to add to those remarks.

Libyan People's Bureau
4.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the leave of the
26
House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the events following the shooting incident outside the Libyan People's Bureau on Tuesday, 17th April. The Statement is as follows:
"At 10 a.m. on 17th April a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan People's Bureau. The police were in full control and there were no problems of public order. Without any warning, shots were fired from an automatic weapon from a window on the first floor of the bureau. Twelve people were injured and were taken to hospital, including a woman police constable, Yvonne Fletcher, who, as the House knows, died shortly afterwards. I am sure that all honourable Members will wish to be associated with the message of deepest sympathy which I sent to Yvonne Fletcher's parents.
"The police acted immediately to cordon off the area and to evacuate nearby buildings. They have since maintained a protective watch on the bureau and controlled movements there. I should like to pay tribute to the police for the exemplary way in which they have handled this difficult situation throughout, with great skill and patience.
"I should add that at 8 p.m. on 20th April a bomb exploded in the luggage collection hall at Heathrow Airport, injuring 25 people. Inquiries into this further incident are continuing, it is not yet clear whether it is connected with what happened in St. James's Square.
"The murder of WPC Fletcher from inside the Libyan People's Bureau was a barbaric outrage, which was, as my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made clear in his announcement on 22nd April, a totally unacceptable and unprecedented breach of British law, international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
"After the shooting took place, we immediately asked the Libyan authorities to instruct those inside the bureau to leave the building and to allow it to be searched for weapons and explosives. This request has been repeatedly refused by the Libyans.
"In the face of this Libyan refusal, we proposed to the Libyan authorities three things as a basis for terminating diplomatic relations by agreement: first, that all current occupants of the People's Bureau and all other Libyan diplomatic staff in the United Kingdom should leave the country in safety, secondly, that our own diplomatic staff should leave Libya in safety; and, thirdly, that we should be satisfied that all weapons and explosives were removed from the Libyan People's Bureau, and that their buildings in the United Kingdom were no longer capable of being used as a base for terrorist acts.
"The Libyans did not accept these proposals. Instead they in effect suggested that the outrage of 17th April should simply be put on one side. Colonel Gaddafi proposed a Libyan Commission of Inquiry, to come to the United Kingdom and inquire into the facts, and for any Libyan implicated to be put on trial in Libya. We regarded this response to the flagrant abuse of diplomatic

27
immunity and the murderous attack on WPC Fletcher as totally inadequate.
"We therefore decided to break diplomatic relations forthwith with Libya, with effect from 6 p.m. on 22nd April. We informed the Libyan authorities that all their diplomatic staff in London and anyone else in the Libyan People's Bureau in St. James's Square have until midnight on 29–30th April to vacate their premises and leave the country. They are free to leave at any time before then, if they wish, and we are making arrangements for their safe passage out of the country. But we will not permit them to remain beyond Sunday night. It is at that point that any diplomatic immunity expires.
"The police will satisfy themselves that anyone emerging from the bureau is not carrying arms and explosives with them when they leave the premises, and then that the premises are safe and secure. I should add that the police view is that without the co-operation of those in the bureau it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained which would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder.
"We have informed the Libyans that the staff of the British Embassy will be withdrawn from Libya by midnight on 29–30th April, and we look to the authorities there to fulfil their obligation to guarantee their safe departure. We have also made clear to the Libyan authorities that we hold them responsible for the safety of the British community in Libya, to which we have attached the highest importance throughout. We have exercised our right to designate a protecting power to look after their interests. We are most grateful to the Italian Government for agreeing to undertake this task, and the Libyan Government have agreed to this. In London, the embassy of Saudi Arabia will act in a similar way for the Libyans.
"I should also inform the House of the action which I have taken on other Libyans in this country, or who wish to travel here. I am looking carefully at any evidence that the presence of any individual here is against the national interest, and I am not hesitating to use my powers of removal where it is. Two Libyans have been deported since the shooting. Libyans who wish to travel here from Libya will, for the time being, have to apply for visas in neighbouring states. Their applications, and those from Libyans elsewhere in the world, will have to be referred to London, where they will be thoroughly and carefully examined. Applications for entry from those already holding extant visas will similarly be scrutinised with great care, and I would advise these people to reapply. These measures will ensure that, in the coming months, only in the most exceptional circumstances will Libyan nationals be admitted to this country.
"I share the national sense of anger at the tragic death of a young policewoman and at the gross abuse of diplomatic immunities which caused it. We have made every effort to resolve matters peacefully and by mutual agreement. The attitude of the Libyan authorities has made it impossible for normal relations to continue. We shall continue, as
28
we have throughout, to observe scrupulously our obligations under the Vienna Convention. But what has occurred clearly raises serious questions as to the adequacy of the convention, its operation and enforceability. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will now review these matters and consider whether to put forward proposals for changes in the international community.
"Honourable Members will appreciate that until the Libyans who are going have gone and British embassy staff in Libya return home, the situation remains delicate. But we could not conceivably countenance with equanimity the outrage that we witnessed in London last week. We are responding to it firmly, but in accordance with international law. Libya, for its part, must now accept its clear responsibility for the protection and safe return of our staff in the British embassy and their families."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement. May I, at once, from these Benches, express our sympathy to the parents of woman police constable Fletcher. It is so tragic that a promising young life should end in this way. As I have already said, we extend our deepest sympathy to her parents. On behalf of the Opposition may I add a word of sympathy also to those who were injured outside the People's Bureau in this barbarous incident and wish them, I believe on behalf of all your Lordships, a speedy and complete recovery.
We would also wish to join in an expression of admiration of our police and security forces for the courage, the coolness and the patience which they have shown. We appreciate the difficulties that confront Ministers in handling this outrage, especially having regard to their responsibility and, indeed, ours, for the safety of our courageous and level-headed ambassador, his family, and staff, as well as some 8,000 British subjects who are now in Libya. Our last wish, at this moment from these Benches, would be to add one whit to those difficulties. But there are some areas that I believe are of some public concern on which I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord sees fit to reply to them.
The Statement commences:
"At 10a.m. on 17th April a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan People's Bureau. The police were fully in control and there were no problems of public order".
I have just quoted from the Statement. Did the police authorities, or the Government, as has been reported in the media, receive prior warning that violence was likely to erupt if a demonstration took place in front of the Libyan People's Bureau? If so, what, if anything, was done about it? In any event, knowing the kind of people we were dealing with as occupants of the People's Bureau at that time, was it wise to allow the demonstration to go into St. James's Square and permit people to demonstrate in front of the building?
Secondly, why did Her Majesty's Government continue to permit a situation where, so far as one can

29
understand, we literally did not know who was in charge of the People's Bureau and who were, and who were not, entitled to diplomatic immunity? Thirdly, while noting the steps that are being taken, as recorded in the Statement, in regard to Libyans who want to enter this country as from now, but bearing in mind how much we have known over so long a period as to what was occurring with the so-called Libyan students, were sufficient or adequate steps taken by the Home Office to test their claims to enter and remain in this country as genuine students?
One notes in the Statement that,
"the police view is that without the co-operation of those in the bureau it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained that would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder".
It is reported in The Times today:
"Tripoli is reported to know the killer's identity, but he is not a diplomat".
That ends my quotation from The Times. Do the police authorities have any evidence at all to identify the murderer, and does the Statement mean that that murderer will go scot-free from these shores without any further police inquiries being made?
My last point to the Minister relates to the Statement, which we welcome from these Benches, in regard to the serious questions as to the adequacy of the Vienna Convention, its operation, and enforce-ability. The Statement says:
"My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will now review these matters and consider whether to put forward proposals for changes in the international community."
Does not the noble Lord the Minister agree that this reconsideration and these approaches to look at the provisions and revise them are of great and immediate urgency, bearing in mind the tragic conditions in which we have to carry on our international work in this world of today? Further, does he not regard it as of immediate importance to look at a convention which appears to allow arms to be carried from one country to another in what are called diplomatic bags?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all associate my noble friends with the tributes which have been paid to woman police officer Fletcher and express to her relatives our deep regret at her untimely death. At the same time, I should like to associate my noble friends with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said about those who were shot down in the street at the same time and who are now, we hope, recovering in hospital.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, three questions. First, taking one of the last points put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should like to ask him whether he is aware, as I suspect he must be, of the deep concern of public opinion that on Sunday the murderer of Miss Fletcher will get on a plane going to Tripoli and that there will be no criminal process against that individual at all. That being so, is he in a position to tell us that in view of the serious questions arising from the Vienna Convention, we shall have an early opportunity of a debate in this House on all of these matters? The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is present with us at the moment, and I very much hope that he will be able to assure us that there will be a debate in Government time, when the Government will, I trust, be in a position to give us a
30
much greater and franker account of what has been taking place than they are able to do today, with the Libyans still in St. James's Square.
Secondly, does the noble Lord, Lord Elton, recall the concern which was expressed in this House on 5th April about the bomb attacks carried out in March by Libyans in London and Manchester? Does he recall the concern which was expressed on that occasion about what was going on in this country? That being so, will he address himself to the point already put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the question of arms and explosives, which undoubtedly have been kept in the Libyan People's Bureau in London? Although no doubt some of these explosives will be returned in diplomatic bags to Tripoli in the next few days, can the Minister tell us about the form of words used in his right honourable friend's Statement that after the Libyans have left the police will ensure that the premises are safe and secure? Does it, or does it not, mean, for what it will then be worth, that the police will enter those premises and carry out any form of search?
Lastly, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches warmly welcome the Home Secretary's decision to deport two Gaddafi agents in the last 48 hours? But, in the light of Colonel Gaddafi's terrorist campaign in this country over the last four years, why have quite so many visas been given to Libyan middle-aged gentlemen, describing themselves as students, who have entered this country, when clearly their principal concern was not to carry out any form of study here? May I remind him that over the last four years the Libyan Government have supported the international terrorist known as Carlos, have supported the IRA, and have conducted a campaign of bombing and assassinations? In the light of that, why has there not been a far more rigorous approach to the granting of visas to Libyan citizens entering this country?
4.26 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to take together the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I was glad that they added their sympathy for those injured outside the bureau to our mutual sympathy for the parents and family of the policewoman who was so murderously killed. We share that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, started by quoting the Statement as saying that a small and peaceable demonstration was in progress. Indeed, it was small; I think there were about 70 people there and about 30 police controlling them. He then went on to ask whether the Government had advance warning of what was going to happen. I think it would be as well if I replied to that fairly fully. Two officials of the Libyan People's Bureau telephoned the Foreign Office on the evening of 16th April and called there just after midnight to say to the duty officer that they were concerned about the demonstration planned for the next day, regarding which they had inquired on the afternoon of 16th April. They said that if the demonstration went ahead, they would not be answerable for the consequences. I should make it clear that that last statement is a totally standard

31
Libyan line and we did not regard it as particularly significant at the time.
Although it is true that the act of calling on a person at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the middle of the night was unusual, the message was not. For this reason, after consulting members of the political department concerned, the duty officer telephoned, on instructions, both Scotland Yard and the duty officer at the Home Office to report this Libyan approach.
The Home Secretary does not have the power to ban static demonstrations. He can only agree to a request of the commissioner to ban a march. So there was no power to ban this event, and there was no indication that could reasonably be supposed to be convincing that anything unusual was going to happen on this occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then referred to people other than the diplomats, and in particular students. Your Lordships should know that apart from the Libyan People's Bureau in St. Jame's Square, they also have a hostel and offices in Ennismore Gardens and a consulate in Prince's Gate. All these have to be vacated by the deadline. The only difference between them and the bureau is that the occupants of the bureau must leave under strict police supervision to ensure safety, but thereafter the status of the buildings is equal in each case.
On the question of students, for several years extreme care has been taken in vetting applications, but it would not have been practicable to prevent any students entering. There are severe difficulties in being absolutely sure in advance that an applicant will be engaged in unlawful conduct. Nonetheless, we have been very careful on the screening, though your Lordships have seen that not all has been successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted from The Times an article which I saw. It reports that a person—or people—in Tripoli knows who is the murderer, and knows that he is not a diplomat. That is not something of which they are likely to inform us, and I cannot answer for the truth of it. But the fact is, as I mentioned in the Statement, that the prospect of obtaining, without the co-operation of the people inside the bureau, the means of securing a conviction, or even a charge, does not exist. That sticks in my gullet as it does in the gullets of everyone in your Lordships' House. But we have a responsibility to our own people who are in Libya at this moment. The whole web of international relations, which rests only upon convention and good manners, is under acute strain at this moment. It seems to me that we must observe the convention very strictly while it is in force if we are to expect the Libyans to do the same.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising to speak again; but this is a very grave matter. I hope that the House will therefore forgive me if I just revert to two questions which the noble Lord the Minister, in the first case, misunderstood and in the second case—if I may say so with deep respect—did not answer. First, in no way did I suggest that the demonstration should have been banned. What I asked was whether, bearing in mind one's knowledge
32
of the behaviour of the type of people inside that building, it was wise—especially having regard to the warning of which we now know—not to have diverted the demonstration from a place immediately outside the People's Bureau which was eventually where it took place. That was my first question. I think that the noble Lord the Minister misunderstood it because he talked about banning. Secondly, I asked the noble Lord a direct question as to whether the Statement meant that inquiries in regard to this murder and the identity of the murderer were now to cease, or are they at least to be carried on in the hope of finding out who the murderer was, however difficult and hopeless the task might seem to be?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that I ought to respond to those questions. As regards the first issue of which the noble Lord has reminded me—if I may so put it—the Secretary of State cannot actually say anything about a demonstration unless it is moving; it is up to the police to decide. As regards the police on this occasion, the demonstration was, by London standards, a very small one and there were half as many police as there were demonstrators. There was no reason to suppose that anything untoward was about to occur until this unfortunate woman and many others were gunned down from diplomatic premises. This is unprecedented in the history of this country. It is not something on which we can look to earlier examples to guide us on how to behave and can say, "This may be very dangerous; they may shoot us from the embassy". Such a thing has not happened before.
Regarding what the police continue to do in respect of this crime, I cannot, as the noble Lord will understand, give a specific answer on the detail. The only answer that I can give as to the movements of the people inside the Libyan People's Bureau building at this moment is what is in the Statement—which is very clear—and which means that the diplomatic immunity of the people therein will be respected.
I have it in mind that there is another outstanding question from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which was about the possibility of a debate. The noble Lord will know the answer which I have to give him perforce and that it is a matter for the usual channels; but I do not doubt that the noble Lord will exert himself thereupon.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the people who have not diplomatic immunity within the so-called People's Bureau are going to be allowed to leave without being interrogated and without being questioned by the police? If that is the case, it seems that we are stretching the Vienna Convention a very, very long way.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at midnight on Sunday all the people—whether or not they have diplomatic immunity now—will lose that immunity. If they are still here there will be no differentiation and no protection. Up to that point the situation is as it is described in the Statement. They will all be required to go, and to go out of this country for good.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to press this point, but if there are people who do not have

33
diplomatic immunity they are then presumably treated exactly the same as students or as you and I, or as tourists or whoever it may be. They are presumably material witnesses to a crime of absolute abhorrence which has been committed in this country. Why cannot those people be taken and asked to help the police with their inquiries?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have tried to make it as clear as I can. I can only add to what I have repeated from the Statement already that the police view is that without the co-operation of those in the bureau it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained which would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder. My noble friend is suggesting that we should do something which would have no fruit in this country, but which might have fruit, which we would regret, elsewhere.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, there are two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. First, is he aware that the Englishman's right to express his dissent from the behaviour of other governments and to express that dissent by demonstrating outside those countries' embassies, is a very old one indeed and goes back at least to the 18th century and I think earlier, and that to be frightened of doing that by assassins would be very wrong indeed?
Secondly, why has this action been so long delayed? The only good thing we can really say of Colonel Gaddafi is that he never at any point at all indicated that he would abide by international law, that he would abide by the conventions of international law or that he regarded international law with anything other than contempt. But when he came here he did not open an embassy—he opened a people's commission and that was just to express the fact that anything he did would be purely one-sided, that he had no intention to play by the rules of a diplomatic game. Then later on he sent assassins over here; we knew very well that they were his assassins and we went on having communications with him. Then four alleged students turned up and seized the embassy or the People's Bureau. They were said to be students but we knew perfectly well that they were not and that they were here illegally. Why do we have to wait until this unfortunate lady is murdered before we remove these known and self-asserted assassins from our shores?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the first of the noble Lord's points, I can only agree. As regards the noble Lord's second point, he is aware of course of the successive deportations, detentions, trials and convictions of Libyans that have taken place in this country. But I ought to remind the noble Lord, Lord Paget, of something that he said himself because it is a view with which I agree. In 7th December 1981 (at column 1242 of the Official Report) he said:
"in the international sphere there is no sovereign. International law is based upon agreement, and those agreements are based upon one fundamental agreement, which is that each will respect the sovereignty of the other".
Certainly Colonel Gaddafi has never given allegiance to that principle; but if we were to breach it unilaterally, without testing it most severely, we would be risking much more than this part of the web of
34
international agreement, which maintains civilised international life right round the globe.
To turn to timing, I do not know whether the noble Lord has in mind the five days which it took for us to come to the conclusion that we did. But as the Home Secretary explained in his Statement, we first sought to persuade the Libyan authorities that their staff should leave the bureau and let the police search it for arms and explosives. We then sought to achieve our objectives by breaking relations by mutual agreement, and when they refused to do either we decided that relations could not continue. I do not think that the intransigence of others ought to force precipitate action upon us. I believe that a considered and orderly observance of international conventions is the best that we can do to protect the interests of the very large number of British citizens at present in Tripoli and other parts of Libya.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I should like to ask a question relating to the future. Until recently I should have thought that what the Libyans have done might constitute a virtual "act of aggression" under the United Nations Charter and should, therefore, be taken by us to the Security Council. Clearly, that is now out of the question because it is obvious that there will be a Soviet veto on any proposed resolution.
I suppose that there might still be a possibility of having it considered by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community. If that is so, I imagine that, first, we should have to make discreet inquiries to find out whether there would be unanimity among our colleagues for taking the same action as we have taken—namely, breaking off relations with the Libyan Government. If all this fails, and the Colonel continues with his policy of assassination, of course, I imagine—and I do not want to exacerbate the situation in any way—that we should have to consider with our colleagues other means of exerting pressure. On the other hand, if there is ever a question of economic sanctions, I would ask the Government to consider that history has shown that economic sanctions are never likely to have any good effect unless there is the intention in the background to use force in the last resort.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that I can best reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, by saying that, indeed, we are lobbying our European Economic Community partners on this matter, and that we are receiving an increasing volume of international support, some of it now being publicly stated. So far we have received expressions of support from the United States, Australia, Canada, Belgium and Norway. The Easter holiday has interrupted matters and so the responses are only just coming in. We are keeping the United Nations secretary-general closely informed, and have placed on record our account of the incident of 17th April in order to refute a totally misleading Libyan version, which was circulated earlier.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. The first arises from the questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Paget, concerning the right or the privilege of

35
people to demonstrate on the streets of London and in other cities of this country on matters which are totally irrelevant to the policies of Her Majesty's Government. Although we must clearly take full cognisance of the right of people to demonstrate against what they perceive to be the policies of this Government, is there not something quite different about using the streets of London and the streets of other cities of this country to demonstrate against the policies of foreign governments, which are totally irrelevant to the domestic or foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government? Is there not something to be said for preventing, discouraging, or at least creating some rules about these demonstrations?
My second question is more specific. The noble Lord mentioned certain installations in London which are recognised as being installations occupied by Libyans and representatives of the Libyan Government. Do Her Majesty's Government intend to do anything about an educational establishment in Chelsea which is thought by most people to be (if I may put it this way) not exactly what it seems to be? Are Her Majesty's Government planning to take any action about the people who occupy those premises in Chelsea?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall, of course, draw to the attention of my right honourable friend what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in his first question. However, I think that one should regard with very great suspicion a proposal to prevent the peaceable expression of public opinion, in public, in a democracy, when what we have to advertise is, in fact, freedom of expression of view in a free country. As I said, this has never happened before and on this occasion I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that one ought not to be frightened by the assassin into buttoning up the liberty of expression of expatriate communities, who ought to be free to express views of their home governments. However, I shall ask my right honourable friend to take into account what the noble Lord has said.
The noble Lord's second point was clear to me a moment ago, but has now entirely escaped me. If he will give me a one-word cue, I shall recall it.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I raised the matter of the school in Chelsea.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I know the school which the noble Lord has in mind. We do not have such suspicious views, as perhaps does the noble Lord, but there is a discreet police presence outside the school to make sure that nothing untoward goes on.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was, of course, referring to either mobile or static demonstrations by nationals of other countries who are guests of this country. To put it at its lowest common denominator, it is as bad as having a row with one's wife at someone else's party. The noble Lord has simply suggested that such people should not be allowed to demonstrate in this country in regard to whatever cause with which they are concerned. I believe that most serious consideration should be
36
given to that point. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Such people would be perfectly free to express their opinion in the territory of that nation or, indeed, within that nation's embassy.
Lord Elton: My Lords, one cannot make particular rules for particular occasions. The general rule is that this is a free country with freedom of speech.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, does the Minister's reply to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mean that the Government have already gone rather further than is indicated towards the end of the Home Secretary's Statement on initiating international discussions with the object of a review of the Vienna Convention? If that is so, it would certainly be very warmly welcomed in many quarters, as the scale and nature of international terrorism has undergone great changes since the convention was brought into effect. Can the noble Lord confirm that those international discussions will not only cover dealing with abuses of the diplomatic bag, but will also deal with the practices and procedures for checking upon the status and identity of the occupants of missions and, indeed, of the missions themselves? Would he not agree that one of the lessons to be learnt from last week's barbaric outrage is that—to use an inadequate word—we cannot tolerate unorthodox missions in the future?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the lobbying to which I referred and the support resulting from it, which I also mentioned, is in the first stages and is concerned with expressions of solidarity with us regarding the outrage we feel at the murder of an innocent girl under diplomatic privilege, the outrageous breach of diplomatic privilege, and the convention from which this sprang. We are conducting that exercise on a wide scale, and the Prime Minister has also sent personal messages to a number of heads of government. However, the question which the noble Lord wishes to pursue is that of the review of the convention. I can only say that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be embarking on that review, and it will doubtless embrace all the matters which the noble Lord has raised. Indeed, I shall draw this debate to my right honourable friend's attention.
Lord Lloyd: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned the question of economic sanctions. Can the Minister tell us what kind of effect, plus or minus, the imposition of economic sanctions on Libya would have on this country?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my knowledge of such matters is not extensive, but it extends this far. These things never stop where you start them, and I do not think that I could say what the end of that line would be.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was pleased to hear that the Government are keeping the United Nations secretary-general closely in touch with the situation. Will the Minister consider the following suggestion? In view of the totally unpredictable character of the people with whom we are dealing,

37
would it not perhaps be wise to ask the United Nations to send an observer? I ask that because we have had the most extraordinary statements issued from Colonel Gaddafi, from Libya, and from other countries. In view of the propaganda which has been issued from both Libya and other countries, and the fact that anything may happen before Sunday, it might be as well to have verified the undoubtedly correct actions that the Government are taking.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is an idea of some originality which I shall pass to my right honourable friend. I would not like to respond to it in other terms.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord used the expression "lobbying". He said that they were lobbying our European partners. Is he aware that many people feel that if there is anything in the Community idea at all there ought to be an immediate and common reaction of all our European partners to this outrage?
Lord Elton: My Lords, noble Lords will watch with interest what the response of fellow members of the European Community will be. I know that their hearts at least are in the right places.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would there not be some advantage, does the noble Lord not think, in publish-ing in due course information about the links between Libya and the IRA? Finally, do we have to assume from this Statement that the murder weapon will be returned officially by the Libyan Government in the diplomatic bag to Libya?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I always regard as very unwise undertakings from this Box to publish matters of security and intelligence importance. I would not think that there would be great merit in publishing anything which may exist of the nature which the noble Lord has said. As to what is being done with the murder weapon, I have no more knowledge than anyone else at this stage.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that quite a number of ordinary people are perturbed that we did not appear to know who was in this so-called People's Bureau? There have been instances when we have dismissed overnight diplomats by the dozen from other embassies in London. Was there any equivalent of the structure of ambassadors, counsellors and other people who represent their countries in this country in other embassies in this so-called bureau, so that we could at least know who was there and might have had records, who might have committed crimes elsewhere or committed them in this country? It is giving some concern to millions of ordinary people that we did not seem to be aware of just who was in this building.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the noble Lord's question will be very carefully looked at. I hope that the House will feel, in view of the feelings recently expressed about the time taken in repeating Statements, that while this is the most important Statement and one which quite properly the House will take considerable notice of, 46 minutes is a reasonable time to have given to it and the other debate which has been interrupted should now advance.

Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping: Report
4.52 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I, too, was privileged to be a member of the sub-committee that produced the report on remote sensing and digital mapping under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I learned a lot from the experience and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the opportunity to talk about our work today.
If ever there were such a thing as high technology this must be it, for it involves microelectronics, high-speed data processing and transmission, sensitive instrumentation and the precise control of satellites in earth orbit. It also involves a great deal of basic science. For example, if one wishes to observe from space changes of vegetation on the earth's surface, one has first to know how the reflecting properties of different plants and soils depend upon the wavelengths of the radiation being observed—upon the colour of the light if it is visible radiation. Only then can the space technologist set about the design of suitable radiation sensors.
Some colleagues of mine at Imperial College are using such techniques to study how the size and distribution of small patches of woodland affect the flora and fauna of a district. If the patches are too small or too far apart certain species can no longer be supported. Eliminating one patch may therefore do damage to natural habitats elsewhere. Perhaps that example will serve to illustrate the multidisciplinary nature of remote sensing; in this example a liaison between botany, geology and optics in the service of ecology. Applications to mineral exploration, or to meteorology and climatology, involve rather similar basic considerations and are certainly no less complex.
Remote sensing might also be regarded as astronomy turned inwards. Some of the most significant advances in our understanding of the universe have come in recent years from telescopes carried aboard satellites. Telescopes are merely radiation sensors of a particular kind and many of the other requirements, such as satellite control and data transmission, are similar to those of remote sensing which has therefore gained enormously from the efforts of space astronomers, and not least in this country.
Your Lordships may deduce from these introductory remarks that I am personally more interested in remote sensing than in digital mapping, and that would be true. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, saw remote sensing, as he has already explained, mainly as a valuable source of input data for digital maps. Given his lifelong interest in things geographical, not least in the well-being of the Ordnance Survey, that is hardly surprising.
Digital mapping is important in its own right. Equally, however, one may see it as an essential tool of remote sensing, because it enables one to present and transmit analysed data in a wide variety of graphical and therefore intelligible forms. Chickens and eggs are

39
not the same things and they certainly have their independent uses. Nevertheless, there is a considerable degree of common interest. So it is with remote sensing and digital mapping, and that is why we found it valuable to study them together in spite of our different starting points. Nevertheless, I shall leave it to others more knowledgeable than myself to talk about digital mapping.
I have stressed the essentially multidisciplinary nature of remote sensing. This has important implications for education and training. At present the research councils have approved only one advanced course leading to a Master of Science degree in remote sensing, and that is offered jointly—if I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—by the Centre for Remote Sensing at Imperial College and University College London, with an annual intake of about 15 post-graduates. Students are taught the basic principles not only of image processing and data handling but also the physics of sensors and space platform design and the fundamentals of electro-magnetic radiation and its behaviour in passing through the atmosphere. The course covers many of the applications of remote sensing to such things as the location of mineral resources, environmental monitoring, hydrology, crop prediction, oceanography, meteorology and planetary atmospheres—to some of which subjects the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred. In addition to that, however, remote sensing forms a component of several other MSc courses offered by Imperial College, such as atmospheric physics and dynamics in the department of physics, mineral exploration and petroleum in the department of geology, and environmental technology, itself interdisciplinary. These reflect user requirements rather than the development of the technique as such, and both kinds of course are necessary.
I am sure that several universities, such as Leicester, Surrey and Oxford, include remote sensing in courses reflecting particular applications, but I regret the fact that so far the research councils have not been able to support more than the one multidisciplinary course in London. Apart from anything else we would like some healthy competition!
I believe that our report has been warmly welcomed by the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, who see it as timely and constructive. However, I believe that we may not have done full justice to SERC, whose interests in remote sensing are considerably wider than the evidence to us may have suggested. For instance, we did not take sufficient account of university courses, supported by SERC, which include remote sensing as an available technique, and of research which is highly relevant, if peripheral, into solid state devices, for example. We paid scant attention to SERC's extensive experience in satellite ground segment work, which began in 1974 with the Ariel V satellite and has continued to this day with IRAS, the infra-red astronomical satellite.
Nor did we take into account sufficiently the work of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Chilton in the important matters of data networks. In Recommendation 7 of the report, we said that a communications
40
network should be created for the distribution of spatial data with its central node at the National Remote Sensing Centre at Farnborough. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has reminded us, we said that it might be on the lines of the Starlink model devised by SERC for the transmission of astronomical data to and between the universities. However, we did not refer to SERC's main networking activity, the Joint Academic Network, JANET, which they have been developing in collaboration with the Computer Board. JANET links mainframe computers at most of our universities to the major SERC computing centres at Chilton and Daresbury and to the Computer Board centres at London and Manchester universities. This important networking activity has been developing over the last ten to 15 years or so and is managed by the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I am interested to hear him talking about JANET. We were aware of it. The difficulty is always time and, of course, it is a low-rated network.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I do not entirely disagree with what he has said. I feel that I myself am in part to blame for not having put sufficient emphasis on it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, on what point does the noble Lord disagree with me? It is low-rated technically.
Lord Flowers: I should like to accept a little bit of blame for not having brought sufficient attention to this project in our committee, because it had its beginning when I was chairman of what was known as the Science Research Council. Had we given more attention to the JANET project, I do not think it would have altered our recommendation that the remote sensing network should be managed at Farnborough—what else is a national remote sensing centre for?—but we should certainly have wished to draw attention to the highly relevant experience of JANET and, for myself, I should have wished to recommend that those concerned should be fully consulted in setting up the newly-dedicated network. It is not immediately obvious to me now that some of the facilities of JANET could not be used jointly, especially if increased computer power could be included somewhere in the network. Perhaps the Minister when he replies would care to comment on this point, for I am sure that he will have been adequately briefed on it by SERC.
Remote sensing is a very expensive activity and we recommended in our report that we should therefore go about our support for it selectively. In Recommendations 4 and 5 we said that our main efforts should be in the ground and user segments, in radar sensing technology in which we are traditionally strong—Sir Martin Ryle won the Nobel Prize for his invention of aperture synthesis in radio astronomy—and in data handling and the relevant software engineering in which we are also strong and. thanks to the Alvey programme, likely to remain so. The Natural Environment Research Council have pointed out that in this country remote sensing has developed mainly as a result of technology push rather than user

41
pull—something about which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has already spoken—and that user agencies will have to be brought more into the decision-making process if there is to be a significant change of balance. But the user community is extremely dispersed and does not benefit directly from the structures, both national and international, that have brought communications and meteorological satellites into successful operation.
The users will eventually be expected to pay for operational systems, so they should be involved as soon as possible. In Recommendation 44, we call for a study of the foreseeable economic benefits of operational remote sensing and, if this should turn out to have positive results, it will obviously act as a powerful magnet to users. Cost benefit studies are difficult, however, especially in a relatively enexplored area like this, and are often controversial. It might prove more realistic to mount a few demonstration projects funded partly by satellite developers and partly by potential users in both the public and private sectors, Government departments, research councils and industry. That is a more conventional way of establishing whether there are real benefits to users and to establish the relevant costs. However, it supposes that user departments would be willing to commission their part of any joint project, and it has to be said, not for the first time in your Lordships' House, that the record of successive Governments in the commissioning of research is not encouraging.
I believe that the House will be interested in any views that the Government may have about how best to go about stimulating user participation. I support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in what he said about the need for a Government lead here, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make encouraging comments on it. At the same time, we said in Recommendation 45 that, although we did not foresee the need greatly to extend United Kingdom expenditure on remote sensing, we thought the balance was at fault, giving too little to the research councils. There is perhaps some confusion here. We should have said that there was no need to increase public expenditure. As private expenditure increases, representing the user contribution, public funds become available for basic studies and for the development of the art.
My Lords, it is a matter of balance but, in urging more emphasis on user applications, we should not go overboard. Indeed, there are several areas where there should still be some technology push. One of them which gives me particular concern is the whole field of data base management, too little stressed in the Alvey programme, as I have had occasion to say before. One has to learn how to store data in such a way that it may later be analysed for purposes that had not been foreseen when it was originally acquired—for, otherwise, a great deal of information will remain inaccessible. A related matter is the adoption of more efficient means of data storage; compression of the huge amounts of raw data to be expected from a remote sensing programme into much smaller physical volumes.
Some advance has already been made in this country by storage on video tapes rather than on ordinary magnetic tapes, which gives compression by
42
a factor of between 10 and 100. In the United States, they are already using video discs with somewhat greater compression and the additional advantage of indestructibility. The Rutherford Appleton Laboratory have also had some success with data compression through image processing techniques developed for the Infra-Red Astronomical Satellite. But a great deal more needs to be done. High-speed transmission via optical fibres and increased computer power will also be essential if we are to make use of the data once acquired. Even in the Landsat programme of the United States (to which some reference has already been made) it has so far proved possible, for reasons of this kind, to make available for research less than 10 per cent. of the available data. Still more remains to be done in this country. It will involve solid state physics and software engineering, in both of which, in this country, we are strong. There is considerable sales potential here and, as our report suggests, we should be doing more than we are.
Development problems of that kind involving a considerable amount of basic research are primarily matters for the research councils. The usual response is to say that it is for the councils to determine their own priorities within the funds made available to them. In better times, it was difficult to argue otherwise—although, of course, we did! The fact is, however, that at the present time the funds available to the councils through the Science Vote are under increasing pressure, partly because of the increased contributions they have to make to international organisations because the value of the pound is falling and partly, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has said, because of the breakdown of the system of dual support of university research because the budget of the University Grants Committee has been so heavily and so continually cut.
It is a treasured belief of the Government (but an entirely mythical one) that basic research has been protected by upholding the value of the Science Vote in real terms. In fact the Vote has had to make up for gross deficiencies elsewhere, with the consequence that money for basic research is harder to get now than for many years. When combined with an unwillingness on the part of Government to commission strategic and applied research, it is little wonder that in this country we are hard pressed to harness the intellectual resources we undoubtedly possess to tackle remote sensing with the vigour it undoubtedly deserves—and the same thing could be said of many other major fields of science and technology at the present time.
What is needed is a co-ordinated programme between Government, research councils, universities and industry, each contributing its proper share. We have it in the Alvey programme for information technology—the one truly enlightened act of the present Government in science and technology. If they would only learn from their own successes we might be able to halt the downward decline in our technological strength, which in the long run will otherwise cost this country dear.
5.11 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, this was, I think, by far the most fascinating inquiry with which I have been concerned in 28 years as a Member of your

43
Lordships' House. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having arranged that we should undertake it and for producing such an interesting report in co-operation with our admirable specialist adviser, Dr. David Rhind, and our equally able clerk. It was a privilege to be a member of the noble Lord's sub-committee. We have both been interested in space science and technology for more years than we might care to admit although, as a cartographer, the noble Lord, who has been so distinguished a president of the Royal Geographical Society, would, I am sure, beat me easily even if during the war he did not take a course in graticuled oblique photography as I did!
In some ways I personally should have liked the sub-committee to cover the broader spectrum of space science and technology generally. Perhaps we may do so on another occasion, when no doubt the forthcoming remarkable book by Mr. Geoffrey Pardoe (the new co-ordinator of the National Remote Sensing Programme), which I have had the advantage of reading in typescript, might well provide a comprehensive basis for such a debate.
Going back in time—and I feel I must do so—I greatly regret our failure, for example, to take up Arthur C. Clarke's proposals in 1945 regarding the launching of communication satellites in geostation-ary orbit and, later, our abandonment of Blue Streak in the early 1960s. I regret that, having given up our launcher capability, we could not go ahead with the British Space Development Company formed by my friend Sir Robert Renwick, later Lord Renwick—and I am glad to see that his son is sitting behind me—of which Mr. Pardoe was then a very effective executive technical director.
We let the Americans and, as has been mentioned, the French, go ahead in the development of rocketry; and our French friends and relations now have their own successful rocket, Ariane, in which we, the British, have only a small interest through the European Space Agency. The French also have, as your Lordships know, their own rocket base in French Guyana. We got left behind there. Then, too, I regret to say, we lost out in our efforts to participate effectively in the American space shuttle, which Mr. Pardoe and I worked for when I was a Minister of State in 1970.
These are sad stories, and yet we still have tremendous expertise in space instrumentation and indeed in remote sensing, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has indicated. We must not be left behind in these scientific and technological developments too, for, as our Committee says in its report,—and I do not think any speaker has yet quoted this—
"large rewards for British scientists and companies can be expected if we actively develop the exacting technology of remote sensing from space."
International competition in remote sensing promises to be fierce. As proprietary satellite systems become more common, any country without a foot in the door will virtually be shut out of the market. The United Kingdom must have something to offer, and I agree that the keystone technique for British effort is radar. This clearly should be accompanied by specialist work in data handling in software engineering and in developing applications. I also agree that a main effort
44
should go into the ground and user segments, and I would hope that the new National Remote Sensing Programme Board would work towards co-ordinating user requirements.
We certainly need, too, our own computer-based communications network for making both imagery and mapping data available through regional centres. That is why the Committee recommend that the Government should fund the establishment of such a network, co-ordinated from the National Remote Sensing Centre at Farnborough.
There may be, I think, a number of candidate solutions for other elements of a national network of this kind, and I am glad to learn that the new remote sensing programme board will seek to co-ordinate these into a comprehensive and integrated national network. My own view is that we may not necessarily have to spend so much on a new network once we have integrated existing and proposed facilities.
From what I have said so far, your Lordships may gather that I have in this investigation been more interested (like the noble Lord, Lord Flowers) in remote sensing than in digital mapping, but I would not like it to be thought that I do not believe digital mapping to be of great importance; and I am sure that both the Ordnance Survey and the National Environ-mental Research Council's Experimental Cartography Unit have made and still continue to make very important contributions. Nonetheless, I am glad to find that the additional knowledge provided by remote sensing and the ability to view large areas in quite small detail produces other benefits, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has also referred, not only in mapping—and especially I would underline thematic maps—but also in mineral exploration, oceanography, fisheries, crop forecasting and land use in general, as well as industrial spin-off in high technology companies. We should also do well to remember the extensive applications overseas and the scope for market development there.
The importance of satellite surveillance for weather forecasting and defence, as others have said, is already well established; and when I was recently in Washington—by chance at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—there was much greater interest in military space systems ("Star Wars for real", as they say) than in our own problems in Europe, our coal strike or our EEC budgetary contributions. These were scarcely reported in America at all.
"Star Wars for real" is something we must discuss in your Lordships' House at some time because, as your Lordships know from what President Reagan has said, there is no doubt that the Americans will now be developing anti-satellite satellite systems; and maybe if there is to be a third world war—which God forbid—it may be better if it takes place in space rather than on our own planet Earth.
Of course, I agree with the 46 recommendations of the report and particularly that we should make our contribution through radar. In regard to Recommendation No. 5, about our membership of the European Space Agency and our engagement in bilateral projects especially with the Americans and Canadians, I am interested to note that the United Kingdom, through

45
our own meteorological office, is participating in the development of the new meteorological research satellites to be operated by the European Space Agency and the United States of America. And, of course, as I know well from having recently visited Ottawa, Britain is involved in the Canadian Radarsat programme, which is due to start in 1990.
I agree particularly with what I consider to be some of our main recommendations, including strength-ening the Ordnance Survey's research and development capacity, aimed at improving the value of digital mapping data for general use and for amalgamation with census and other spatially referenced information. I agree, too, that there should be a joint research councils committee concerned with both remote sensing and digital mapping, and I am glad to note from the recent views of the Natural Environment Research Council that they consider this proposal to be a sensible early step to take. I also fully endorse the proposal that an experiment in mapping the coast of the United Kingdom by satellite, to include both landward and seaward information, would be very useful.
Clearly we must also preserve the national collections of air photographs. Those taken from aircraft flying at lower levels have a higher spatial, if not perhaps spectral, resolution than images transmitted by satellites from much greater heights, and they have of course immense historical importance. For certain limited purposes, aerial photography from aircraft certainly still has an important role to play even if, as I said, it cannot cover anything like such wide areas as satellites, which, for instance, in polar orbit have been producing detailed images of the whole globe every month.
In this connection, I was particularly interested in what the French had to tell us about their SPOT satellite, which, as will be seen from the list of abbrevi-ations, stands for Système probatoire pour L 'Observation de la Terre. It is, I think, recognised by all experts in this technology that the French SPOT satellite will give higher resolution than any of the five American civil land satellites. Indeed, the Canadians told Dr. Rhind and myself that they hope to make more effective use of this satellite than even the French themselves. There seems no doubt that the Americans, too, will be clients in obtaining data from this French satellite and that we in Britain will want to do so too. There is no doubt that in certain sectors of space science and technology the French are well ahead of us in Britain, as the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Sherfield, have already indicated.
While recently in Washington, I heard—and this is something which no noble Lord has yet mentioned—about the Versailles Working Group's report on remote sensing from space which is to be submitted to the summit meeting in June. I should be interested to know whether my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—I hope that he received the notice I gave to him of this question—would be willing to tell us something about the contents of this report. In so far as the Americans are concerned, I note that for the Federal Year 1985 Budget the National Environ-mental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) is calling for a budget of 271 million dollars—funding sufficient to operate and manage the
46
American civil earth observing satellite system and the global data bases for meteorology, oceanography, solid earth geophysics and solar terrestrial sciences.
I was pleased to learn in Washington that Dr. McIlroy, the chairman of the Versailles Working Group, had said that the United States Congress has now reaffirmed its commitment to the free exchange of meteorological information. I see, too, that the National Oceanographical and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has taken over a great deal of work from NASA, has examined a number of model arrangements for sharing the costs of meteosats. I hope that there may also be a sharing of costs in other applications of remote sensing, too—including digital mapping.
I think I have said enough to show that I fully support the recommendations of the Committee. Nonetheless, I hope that this will not be the last of our debates on these subjects and that the Select Committee on Science and Technology will continue to watch, and indeed monitor, developments looking especially to the future. When I think how right Arthur C. Clarke was in his calculations about how high to launch a satellite in geostationary orbit—calculations that he made in 1945—I wonder, in reading some of his latest explorations in space, 2010, his second Odyssey, is it fiction or faction, and I wonder whether we should not keep an eye on his new predictions and hypotheses. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for introducing this debate.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, on the night when the Luftwaffe practically destroyed the headquarters of the Ordnance Survey it was thought that we had suffered an irretrievable blow. But that was not so, because quietly we had been developing the science of photogrammetry. This applied aerial mathematics related to air photographs. Consequently we were immediately able to convert photographs of all kinds into maps and plans. But during that disastrous raid there was a piece of equipment which was quite important to our work; it was called the Multiplex and it was destroyed in the raid. This had been made by Zeiss at their works in Jena.
Fortunately for us, the Prussian who owned the estates on which Jena stood had been dispossessed by Hitler and had become our agent, and we appealed to him to obtain for us a Multiplex. He organised among his old parishioners an entry into the factory, stole a Multiplex, sent it to Switzerland, and we got it back and were in operation within a few weeks. I thought that your Lordships might be interested in that little anecdote, if only to emphasise the crucial importance of this study of photogrammetry to our war effort.
The optical instrument which we brought back here was only the beginning of a whole variety of instruments which we began to develop at very high speed. If it were not for those instruments, people like Barnes Wallis would not have been able to have a precise survey of the Mohne dam and to pinpoint the spot at which his bouncing bomb would be most effective. There are dozens of similar examples, but one must always remember that if it were not for our photogrammetric analysis of the coastline of France,

47
we would never have been able to locate the most beneficial and advantageous beaches for our advent on the continent.
Consequently, when the war was over I seized the opportunity to establish a degree course in photogrammetry. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, emphasised in his speech, education in this subject is of enormous importance because it is a subject of great width and depth, as is evidenced by the fact that the committee received evidence from over 100 sources of information. It is an enormously important and intellectual subject of great economic value. This course, which I established in Nottingham in 1948, was the beginning of photogrammetry in university studies of engineering, geology, geography and applied mathematics, but I am sorry to say that it did not receive the support it might have had, had it been sponsored perhaps by more forceful people.
From this obscure centre emerged a whole series of "firsts". We were the first people to publish the photogrammetric method of surveying coal seams and of locating subsidence. In my maiden speech I pointed out how these methods could be used to avoid disasters such as that at Aberfan in South Wales. The photogrammetric analysis of coal tips is now standard practice as a result of this kind of obscure, embryonic work. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and many other speakers, including the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, have pointed out, the use of photogrammetry—or air photography, to use a simpler term, or remote sensing, to use a more graphic term—is useful when looking down on the earth's surface for deposits which man cannot see when he is crawling over the surface.
One fascinating example which has a future to it is the one we observed when we were flying across the Kalahari Desert. We were all photographing through the windows of the aeroplane like mad! About a year later when I was again looking at the photographs, I noticed that there was a geometric pattern to the salt domes in the Kalahari Desert. This could mean only one of two things. It could mean that the salt domes are diamond pipes, or it could mean that the geometric pattern of this series of salt domes indicates oil. So there is a wholly unknown area in Central Africa which can be ascertained only by photogrammetry or by remote sensing methods.
On a lighter side, we also embarked upon a search for King John's treasure. We found, by photo-grammetric methods, the route which King John took from King's Lynn across The Wash. The whole subject is full of drama, colour and glamour. And it is creative. As the report states:
"Remote sensing, aerial photography apart, is still relatively undeveloped".
The report goes on to point out that most of those who develop technologies and the hardware have a different discipline from those who develop and use the applications. This is a very important point. The committee realised that in the framework of remote sensing there is both hardware and software. In developing the hardware for this subject we had to invent new instruments. In this connection, I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hives, who was then the chairman of Rolls-Royce. He fitted up a
48
workshop for me. Those instruments which we could not make ourselves he made for us. This is how it all began and how it will all go on.
There are three elements in the remote sensing sphere. First, there is the detector. This has to be designed to produce a measured image of a visible object or of an invisible situation. The detector may have to operate in the field of optics or, as the report describes, it may have to operate in the area of electro-magnetic radiation. It might have to operate in the invisible field of electro-chemistry or in the still little understood field of resonance. Resonance is symbolised by the divining rod. It is a very important field of remote sensing. We are only at the frontier of this remarkable area of resonance, to which I shall refer in a moment.
Secondly, there is the recorder. This has to be designed to translate the images produced by the detectors. Until the advent of the semi-conductor and the birth of micro-electronics we were restricted to the use of moving pens to record what our detectors were telling us. This was far too slow, so one finds the use of digits or pulses. Digitisation means that you can speed up your recorder to match the output of information from the detector. That is why digitisation is absolutely vital in the sphere of sensory determinations.
Finally, we have the analyser. Until the arrival of the computer we were human analysers. We were applied mathematicians. The only aids we had were the calculators, but now the computer has taken it on. So there are the three elements: the detector, the analyser and the results at the end. Be that as it may, it was a surprise to everyone that we were able to achieve in those early days quite remarkable results, even without these remarkable new inventions.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may like to be reminded of the time when we were able to analyse photographs in Antarctica of an outcrop of sandstone called the Beacon Sandstone. We had developed a detector which could detect infinitely small quantities of oil. Therefore, we were the first people to deduce that there would be oil-bearing strata in Antarctica. This is another graphic example of remote sensing in the very earliest days of the history of this quite glamorous subject.
In an entirely different area of application—not surprisingly, it has taken place at Nottingham University—there is the work of Dr. Tony Heyes who has produced the first pulse-echo ultrasonic guidance aid for the blind. It is controlled by a micro-processor which uses advanced information-processing algorithms. This is a dramatic breakthrough, because it will pave the way for the formation of a digitised map for the blind. It will replace Braille. It is as big and important as that.
Remotely sensitised data has been the basis of the recently developed studies of the tides in the Bay of Fundy. Instead of barraging this fantastic bay, with its incredible rise and fall of tides, they found, from photogrammetric evidence, that it would be far better to take one of the inlets and to barrage that, not the whole bay. From this, for the modest equivalent of £33 million, they are able to produce 20 megawatts of endless power. Recent photographs in the Bristol

49
Channel have proved to be equally revealing. They show, with little doubt, that any barrage put across the channel will disturb the existing equilibrium of the sediments. Within a short space of time the ports of Bristol, Newport and Cardiff will become inoperable.
These pictures also show with equal clarity that the long shore currents are equivalent to those which they discovered in the Bay of Fundy and in the exit to the River Rance in France. So we should not put a barrage across the Bristol Channel. Instead we should put a tidal barrage from Neath to Swansea and produce a power station which will give us far more power than the hypothetical barrage across the Bristol Channel—and for the modest sum of about £40 million.
I have said sufficient in the way of narrative to support the importance of this report, but allow me to conclude with one further reference. It is to the use of remote sensing in the earth's atmosphere. We are talking about satellites, distant sensing, and so on. But let us get nearer to earth. The detector has been developed to measure the pollutant gases in the earth's atmosphere, but we have yet to devise a recorder which will work at the speed of the detector. Once such a recorder has been devised, it can be put into a helicopter with the detector, and the helicopter would survey the atmosphere. We would very quickly find out where the pollutant gases are and where the acid rain is being produced.
I make these comments simply to support with all the energy 1 can muster and to praise this report, and to ask Her Majesty's Government to take note of it and to continue to sponsor a subject which has great depth, great intellectual value, and which has its birthplace in Britain.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I rise to add my modest support to the recommendations of this committee, of which I was very happy to be a member. I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in that this committee was one which I (with less knowledge than the noble Earl can command) found to be one of the most difficult but also one of the most interesting and fascinating committees on which I have ever had the pleasure to serve. I can say this with no false modesty because I believe we all recognise that the quality of a report is dependent primarily on the quality of the chairman, the specialist adviser, and the clerk to the committee concerned. In this case, all three were absolutely first class and the report produced is accordingly of high quality.
It is a very good report and I hope that the Government will take it constructively and seriously. The Minister of State for the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Kenneth Baker, who gave evidence before us, remarked that remote sensing is, and I quote,
"a complicated, intricate and somewhat arcane subject with many different interests in it … and remote sensing information provides new and very significant opportunities for managing and monitoring our natural resources".
Characteristically, he went on:
"We are taking a very practical, down to earth, commercial industrial approach to this".
50
Those of us on the committee would agree with that attitude as being all very well up to a point—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, remarked, only up to a point. There is no doubt that private industry is likely to have the sharpest ideas as to where and how a growing market may best be stimulated. But no sensible person could pretend that, at the present stage of development, market growth can be left entirely to private effort. Certain prerequisites fall firmly in the public domain. It seems to me especially significant that even in the United States, with its far wider domestic requirements and opportunities, and where steps are currently being taken to transfer the Landsat system to private corporations, Congress has recognised that the market for remote sensing data is still too small to cover the operational and development costs of satellite remote sensing.
Accordingly, as I understand it, it is proposed that there should be a provision for federal subsidies to be assured to the proposed private interests invited to take up the Landsat system for up to at least 10 years ahead. If this support is necessary in the United States, then, a fortiori, it holds good in the much more restricted conditions of the United Kingdom.
A number of important recommendations in our report deal with specific public responsibilities. The most important of these has already been stressed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others. It is that the United Kingdom should publicly decide upon and maintain as a matter of major policy the concentration on user applications, data handling and relevant software engineering, with only highly selective efforts in remote sensing technology itself. All this would be without prejudice to our partnership in the European Space Agency or, in particular, to our specific projects with United States or Canadian enterprises.
To develop our chosen role, we need to strengthen our own organisation. Our report points to a number of present weaknesses. For example, we need to make up our minds about and embark upon a properly-designed United Kingdom communications network for the distribution of spatial data. This is essential, and it is one of the most important recommendations in the report. Although I am sure that private enterprise can play an extremely important part, it must have the backing of the Government if this organisation is to be realised in a reasonable space of time. If the Minister can today indicate that the Government accept this concept and are prepared to embark in the very near future on an evaluation or a feasibility study, that will at least indicate that the Government are in earnest about developing the matters dealt with in our report.
There were other weaknesses. In recommendation No. 8, we point to a revelation that shocked some members of the committee, including myself; namely, the dangerously small number of highly qualified staff available at the National Remote Sensing Centre and at Ordnance Survey itself. In paragraph 5.5.9 of the report, we point out that in Ordnance Survey the number of graduates employed appears to be fewer than 20 out of a total staff of 3,000. This situation compares very unfavourably with the French geographical institute, where they have some 400 graduate staff in a smaller total of 2,500 workers.

51
In general, United Kingdom support seems to compare poorly with that given by the governments of other major industrialised countries and even in some less highly industrialised countries, such as India—to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others have referred, and which I understand hopes to launch its own remote sensing satellite with the aid of a Soviet rocket in 1986. Meanwhile, until the French and European satellites are operational, we depend mainly on the United States Landsat system.
I would like strongly to support the comments already made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he said how grateful we should be for the open skies policy of the United States. This has meant that, up to now at any rate, we have been able to obtain a considerable amount of remote sensing data at very little cost to ourselves. It is only right that we should express our gratitude to our colleagues in the United States for the way in which they have observed the open skies policy. Whether it can be maintained under private enterprise is another matter, but it will be very detrimental to our own work if some comparable arrangement is not made for sharing the results of their enterprise.
I have in my possession some references to the new Landsat V which was launched, sooner than expected, last month, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, remarked. We know that it is very similar in its scope to its predecessor, but we trust that it will not have the technological problems which beset Landsat IV. I notice in Flight International a reference to the fact that the new satellite is in an orbit of some 700 kilometres above the earth's surface, which will allow it to observe each part of the earth's surface under the same lighting conditions every 16 days—that is, two days less than its predecessor could. This will add to the immense quantity of data, the handling of which is an immense problem facing all countries using this type of remote sensing information.
Meanwhile, whatever may be the major importance of satellite thematic mapping above the earth, our report makes the emphatic point, to which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, referred, that we in the United Kingdom with our small tightly-packed terrain should not neglect the continuing use of conventional aerial photography. For many United Kingdom uses aerial photography can fulfil existing needs for local planning and land use purposes. Some local authorities, though by no means all, have commissioned their own photographic cover. For example, in Wales, of the four counties in the former area of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire which undertook a survey in 1971, only one has updated it for the following census year of 1981. In North Wales the county of Clwyd is hesitating whether to update for 1984–85—the appropriate 10-year interval—the survey it undertook in 1974–75. The estimated cost is less than £20,000 but in these days when local authorities are so much badgered and constricted by Government even such a small sum to maintain a scientific series becomes doubtful.
In the inquiries that I made there seems to be no central guidance available on what local authorities should do in the matter, even though I am assured that a county like Clwyd has found the survey invaluable
52
for planning, and even for transport planning purposes, with a great saving of time and staff effort. However, regular updating is essential.
There are some areas in the United Kingdom where satellite remote sensing may be more immediately useful to local authorities than in others. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned, for example, the Grampian region in Scotland; and there are other areas. But the praiseworthy pioneering example of the Grampian regional council received very short shrift from the Minister of State, Mr. Baker, when he was giving evidence before us. He bluntly told us—I refer to page 267 of the evidence—that,
"if Grampian wants maps Grampian has to pay for maps and the payment that Grampian makes for maps will allow us to develop this equipment and allow us to launch satellites."
I cannot believe that the mite received from Grampian would make that much difference to our capacity to launch satellites. Frankly, we did not find this ministerial comment either very profound or very helpful.
It is perfectly plain that there is a lack of purpose and sense of direction in the relationship between local authorities and central government in this area. If we are agreed that aerial photography remains the best bet for certain public uses and also for certain uses by private firms it is important to keep the archives and records in England, Wales and Scotland easily available. Whether this will really be so in England seems questionable, at least until we get our full network of information centres. I understand that the Department of the Environment has decided to hand over its vast collection of prints to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. I am sure that this may be extremely interesting for the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, but whether it will be the most helpful way of dealing with it for other users I am not entirely convinced. I understand, however, that of the roughly two million prints in the DoE store only about half have been indexed and are, therefore, accessible. Conceivably the Royal Commission will be able to do what the DoE has not found it worth while to do; that is, sort them out and make them available to interested bodies.
I understand that the films are to be returned to the Ministry of Defence. The register, however, will be with the Ordnance Survey at Southampton. In our report we recommended that it should be with the National Remote Sensing Centre at Farnborough. By contrast with this dispersion in England, I am happy to say that a few days ago in Cardiff I was able to visit our small but useful centre at the Welsh Office, where everything is under one roof and easily available to any public authority or private individual who is interested and may wish to consult it. Similarly in Edinburgh, where dispersal was not contemplated but access, we were told, at one time was to be curtailed to official users, there was so much public protest that a sensible compromise has been reached. Public access will still be permitted but, for the sake of economy, in the afternoons only.
The overseas survey archive is another very important source for aerial photography. I presume that that will be going to Southampton. The staff are being transferred there, but I very much hope that proper arrangements will be made for this to be easily

53
accessible to those who are concerned with its use. Those of us who are especially interested in land use would like to know more about the attitude of the Department of the Environment because the use of remote sensing is not just an industrial matter but a question of the proper study and monitoring over time of our natural resources. We were told in evidence that the Department of the Environment was (and I quote) "holding a watching brief. In consequence of this attitude it has taken twelve-months to summon the first meeting of the Advisory Group on a project for Monitoring Landscape Change in England and Wales, sponsored by the Department of the Environment in conjunction with Hunting Technical Surveys. This will make use both of Landsat Thematic Mapping and aerial photography but on a statistical but not a cartographic basis. I believe that some difficulties have already arisen. The Nature Conservancy Council seems not to be entirely happy with the efficacy of the scheme and wanted to do something on its own. However, it is a small step in the right direction and we shall await the results with interest.
However, useful as these modest exercises may be, I think we were primarily concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, emphasised in his most informative speech, with the matters of major importance touched upon in this report. I think it is fair to say that none of us on the Committee felt that the Government have yet taken the full measure of the problems or the opportunities at home or abroad. There is diffusion of interest and a reluctance to acknowledge the need, especially in the next few years, to sow in order to reap. It seems to us that we are being outdistanced by our competitors. It will be lamentable if we fall unnecessarily far behind. I put to the Minister who is to reply to the debate that our 46 recommendations offer sound advice and that the Government would be wise to adopt them.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I feel I must explain my temerity in intervening in this debate. Until recently I thought that remote sensing was what drove dogs to wander from home, but since reading the valuable report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton I find that I have taken part in remote sensing myself, in that in my youth I did some aerial photography in the RAF and that this is indeed remote sensing.
I am intervening in the debate purely because I am an ex-rector of Dundee University, which has been doing a great deal of work in this field and is under considerable difficulty because of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It runs a number of courses, it is taking part in the MSC course which is being developed and it runs summer schools. The university is uniquely placed to collaborate with industry and the other Scottish universities because it has the offshore oil industry, to which remote sensing can be extremely important. It is also doing a study of its effects on the Tay estuary and of course it has the fishing industry on its doorstep. But the difficulties it is experiencing have nothing to do with this report, which, I understand from my mentor, Professor Cracknell, who is the head of the theoretical physics department, is entirely satisfactory, fulfils much of what the university has been thinking, and is considered to be of great value, particularly as regards Recommendations 6 and 7,
54
because much of the university's work would be enormously helped and would be of great practical help to fisherman and others if the information came in in time. In fact, some of the information from the outlying stations takes as long as a month to come in, by which time it is of only historical interest or for storing in whatever form of computer may be used for the purpose.
I think that the universities around the country must play a bigger part in the development of this extremely important subject and science. They cannot do so to the degree that they should without Government help. Obviously the technique of this, as even I can see, has advanced to a stage where the technique is far more advanced than the organisation necessary to put the technique to good practical and theoretical use. This is where the Government must come in. They must supply the money, they must supply the organisation and they must do the negotiation in order to bring about the system necessary to take advantage of the technique.
The universities do feel that perhaps the research councils are not doing as much to help the universities as under their charter they should. I know that Dundee University has been extremely forward-looking in seeing what the Government are going to do by way of cutting back further through the University Grants Committee. I was most impressed in my time in the court of the university by the way every appointment was examined in order to save money to put in the direction of the priorities on which it had decided. One priority has of course been the extension of the department dealing with remote sensing and, indeed, digital mapping.
I think that the Minister does need to assure us that NERC and SERC are looking at this, more in putting the work out, in helping the departments of the universities, instead of building their own empire or holding their own empire together, which is the fear that Dundee University is expressing. It is very exasperating for people who are doing tremendously good work in the field to feel that they are being frustrated by the money being ill-used elsewhere. I should like the Minister to assure us that the money is being spread about according to a system of priorities and that some effort is being made to put the shortages right by a readjustment of money. For universities which have been doing this themselves, it is a little galling to see pious hopes and excellent recommen-dations such as No. 36 in the committee's report, which are bound to go by the board unless more money is made available. Recommendation No. 36 (vi) stresses this once again when it says that,
"the intellectual, commercial and political merits of providing courses for overseas students should be recognised".
There is no question of the immense importance of this. I do hope that the Government will be able to give some hope to the universities which are doing good work in this field that the cash will be available for them to extend their activities.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has said, we were most lucky to have in our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a former president of the Royal Geographical Society

55
and someone who had actually been a real life surveyor. For my part, I came to our subject with no knowledge at all of remote sensing but having what one might call an amateur's knowledge of digital mapping through having served on the Ordnance Survey Review Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir David Serpell. I hope, and indeed believe, that we shall soon hear the Government's response to it. As has been said, it was published no less than five years ago—some time ago—in 1979. It is only fair to say in this connection that the occasional obiter dicta from the Government appear to endorse many of the Serpell recommendations. One knows that, at a practical level, much of the report has been implemented.
One of those recommendations was that there should be an advisory board. This has recently been set up by the Secretary of State and I am privileged to be a member of it. And so I must declare an interest, although this afternoon I will confine my remarks to the report of the Select Committee. Inevitably, of course, it means that I shall tend to concentrate on the less exotic topic of digital mapping.
Back in 1978–79 it was clear to us—the Ordnance Survey Review Committee—that computer technology would dominate a major facet of the work of the Ordnance Survey for the remainder of this century, and that this would have major implications as to both how people used maps and how the Ordnance Survey would need to be organised and the skills that would be needed. In a sentence, the OS would need to change from a rather traditional and inward-looking organisation—an essentially craft-based organisation—to a more outward, science and technically based organisation. So, four years later, it was instructive to see the changes that have taken place at Southampton.
The first point to make is that if one compares the OS of today with the organisation when I first saw it in 1978, the changes there have been very considerable, and not just in the field of digital mapping. The Select Committee's report acknowledges this, although it is critical—but I hope constructively so—in a number of areas. I should like first to deal with the need for digital mapping. There can be little doubt that, as a means of handling spacial data, that is to say, its manipulation and analysis, and its storage and distribution, the traditional paper charts and maps are now technically obsolete. The evidence to the Serpell Committee, the detailed and painstaking survey conducted by the Ordnance Survey itself last year, which was made available to your Lordships' Committee, and the written and oral evidence generally to the committee, all indicate this.
More recently the cable television companies have expressed a strong interest. Evidence from overseas points in the same direction. I suppose that to anyone involved in information technology the need must seem both obvious and also consistent with Government philosophy in this field. I see no point in labouring the question of need. I think the more difficult questions are how quickly the archive should be converted to digital form, the question of costs and cost recovery, and, finally, matters to do with the application of digital mapping.
56
In the field of large-scale maps, which is the great bulk of the Ordnance Survey's work, we have said that the aim should be for national coverage in 10 years. The Ordnance Survey takes a rather longer view, although there is not much between us on the key area—the urban and the peri-urban areas. It is fairly obvious that the benefits of the digital national archive will be fully realised only when large blocks of contiguous country are covered. As office automation generally gathers pace so will the pressure for digital maps increase. Delays carry with them the danger of duplication of effort by bodies such as the utilities which decide that they cannot wait for full coverage. There is already some evidence of this duplication taking place, but it is not such that one actually needs to worry about it.
But there are considerable practical problems in speeding the conversion process. It is currently pretty labour-intensive, and even if the bulk of the work is sub-contracted to the private sector, as is the Ordnance Survey's plan, there is a practical limit (in particular in adequately supervising the work) on how fast one can proceed. A balance has to be struck. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to judge at this stage the extent to which the conversion process will, as it were, naturally speed up when the full programme gets under way. For example, it is hard to say in this fast-moving technical field to what extent automatic digitising will be able to take over economically from manual digitising. The other important factor here, as we note in the report, is that there should be a clearly laid down timetable so that users can make their own plans, because they, too, will have to put work in hand.
On the question of costs, the Ordnance Survey puts the gross cost of converting the large-scale map archive at about £100 million, which sounds a lot of money. It is unfortunate that this cost tends to be the cost which is bandied around, because this makes no allowance for the considerable savings that will flow from the annual programme of bringing out new editions of out-of-date maps by old-fashioned manual cartographic means. These costs will be saved by digitising, so it is the net figure which is put at £50 million (say £5 million a year) which is relevant in resource cost terms. Moreover, one would expect that in parliamentary Vote terms, the net figure would be even lower because it should be possible to charge an enhanced price for the computer tapes. This latter is a difficult area which we discuss under the heading of "Copyright".
The conversion of the archive is a one-off cost, as has already been said—an investment expenditure—with long-term benefits. It seems to me therefore that the approach to cost recovery (i.e. to pricing) should reflect this. This could mean spreading cost recovery over a longer period, but with the inclusion of a concomitant element for the cost of the notional capital involved.
The costs that I have quoted are direct costs and do not make any allowance for user benefit some of which, by their nature, are not readily quantifiable. If these benefits are to be properly realised, considerable education is needed on the applications side; at present both the Ordnance Survey and users perceive their needs for digital maps rather in terms of convenient substitutes for paper charts. This is not surprising

57
because this is what they have been used to. It is not easy to appreciate the wider purposes—the powers of spatial analyses and of being able to relate spatial data to non-spatial data—until you have the new technology.
In this connection the structure of the database will be all important. We devote a number of paragraphs to this and also to the question of educating users to the applications that can become available. But I am inclined to think, on re-reading our report for this debate, that we do not stress sufficiently the need for user education in applications. This is a case, it seems to me, of forging a closer relationship between the academic community, the users and the Ordnance Survey itself.
Let me now say a word about the small scale maps—that is to say, the 1:50,000 and smaller scales. My remarks so far have been largely devoted to large scales, but digitising the small scale map series is also very important. This emerged clearly from the evidence. The Serpell Committee took the view that the small scales programme should run in parallel to the large scales programme, but in practice it has tended to lag behind. The programme needs an impetus.
The cost of the exercise would be only a small fraction of that for the large scale; nevertheless, it would be unfortunate if the Ordnance Survey was required to meet this investment cost out of its annual small scales revenues. It was therefore encouraging to note the Minister's statement in evidence that his department would take a practical view about cost recovery. Now that the Ordnance Survey has embarked on a comprehensive user survey one hopes that the work can be put in hand as soon as possible, for there is no doubt that in both the scientific and military communities a properly structured digital database is now urgently needed.
As a number of members of the committee have already said this afternoon, we formed the impression that the R and D effort at the Ordnance Survey should be enhanced. The director general in his evidence to us in November rather chided us I thought for not taking sufficient note of what was being done. Perhaps we did not. It was certainly encouraging that both he and his Minister said that they wanted to do more.
But the problem is not just one of the amount of the R and D budget—of budget constraints. It is also a question of approach and attitude. If mapping is entering the high technology era, then, as in so many other fields, the old demarcations of professional disciplines break down. It is necessary to combine the traditional skills with the new. This is a matter of people, of combining different disciplines, of recruiting or seconding people from outside, of staff exchanges, and so forth. The review committee recommended, and the Select Committee reiterates, that R and D should be headed by a chief scientist—a technical man with research experience—supported by staff with a wider range of disciplines; that there should be a considered R and D programme—a strategic plan if you like; and that there should also be a research requirements committee.
It is in this area above all that an outward-looking organisation is all important—one that has an easy
58
and close relationship with its peer groups in related fields. It is here that our suggestion for an expert committee to report on the handling of geographic information might be a useful catalyst.
It is also perhaps here that there could be a linkage between remote sensing and digital mapping. I believe it to be particularly important that remote sensing and digital mapping (which is in a sense its handmaiden) should develop together and not, whether for institu-tional or other reasons, in separate compartments. The common thread is the user: what are his needs for spatial data and how can they best be met?
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, it is no doubt quite natural that remote sensing, as with digital mapping, has to date been technically driven, and, as so many other speakers have said, it now needs a much more applications thrust. In such a wide field it is here that I would place emphasis—to quote from our report—on,
"an immediate need for research into the nature and extent of user benefits".
Let me be clear, this is not a plea for cost benefit analyses in the technical economic sense, but rather of
"identifying and understanding the benefits that are likely to accrue".
Although, as we know, some benefits can usefully be quantified—and some have already been referred to—at this stage of development many of the most important benefits are not realistically quantifiable. It is therefore—to repeat—more to identify and understand, and hence rank, the uses according to the benefits.
In this new, wide and exciting field it is very easy to get carried away by one's enthusiasm, and I am no exception. If one is to get the best use from our pounds one needs a rather disciplined framework.
This has, I believe, been a debate of considerable quality. It is a matter of regret that, owing to the lateness of the hour and a prior engagement, I shall not be able to stay to its end and listen to the Minister wind up.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, and indeed I was glad to give him my place in the list of speakers in order to help his timetable because I have had the benefit of hearing his excellent speech before making my own speech, which is somewhat related to what he had to say. I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and his colleagues on producing this outstanding report and on choosing what is already acknowledged to be a somewhat arcane subject. To me, one of the many uninitiated, it is a subject of not only very great interest, but also enormous importance. I have listened fascinated to the debate about remote sensing. I do not intend to make any comment on it because I do not have time, but I have certainly learned a very great deal to my benefit, as, I think, have all noble Lords concerned.
I want to make just one comment. It is about the application of digitisation to the public utilities, in particular the water industry. The report has recommendations which touch on this point, and in my opinion there is no doubt that the Ordnance

59
Survey should be given the necessary strength in personnel and finance to mount and to accelerate a programme of digitising its large-scale maps, with a publicly stated programme for the digitisation area by area.
The water industry is deeply interested in this matter. Indeed, if their national head had not been cut off by my noble friend and his right honourable colleagues, the 10 regional water authorities would, I am sure, have united in thanking the Select Committee for producing a report which is so valuable and potentially helpful to them. In default of any national body to speak for them, I am very happy to do so myself. I should think that other public utilities would be in a very similar position to the water industry, but perhaps no public utility is more interested than is the water industry because it has no fewer than three national networks. It has the rivers, tributaries and water courses (which of course will show up direct) the underground systems, main water supply pipes, and public sewers and outfalls.
In the evidence the Ordnance Survey fairly makes the point that the water industry is not yet ready to use digitised maps. That is true, but it very soon will be ready; though perhaps it would be fairer to say, "soon will be". All regional water authorities—except Wales, where they do not seem to have heard about it—are making, or are about to make, preparations to use digitisation. But it is generally recognised that prepara-tion will be a long and expensive business for them. However, they see that the benefits in terms of efficiency and cost at the end of it will be very great and well worth going for.
There are two particular aspects of preparation in which they must engage. The lesser one is that they must complete their own records of underground services, water mains and sewers. As noble Lords will know from the excellent report, there are 318,000 kilometres of water mains and 234,000 kilometres of sewers. In the rural areas these are not at all adequately recorded—certainly not in some of the regions of the country. So that has to be completed. It is troublesome and expensive work.
Much more important of course is that all the regional water authorities must equip themselves with the necessary computer hardware and softwear for the conversion. It is a fact that the transfer of the regional water authorities' records from the existing Ordnance Survey paper maps to computer is a major undertaking, though some of them have already engaged in it. Indeed, the Wessex Water Authority, as members of the Science and Technology Committee will remember from their visit there a few years ago, have already digitised their records, though unfortunately with a system not compatible with that of the OS, and so they have now jettisoned it and started again. But this is a point which I think has been made in speeches this afternoon; namely, that too long a delay by Ordnance Survey will see public utilities proceeding on their own to get out digitised map systems in their areas, which will not be compatible, and a very great deal of benefit will be lost thereby. But certainly the preparatory work for a Regional Water Authority to get its information in a state where it can
60
then make its overlay fit on to the Ordnance Survey's digitised system will be a very major job.
Fortunately, there are specialist consultancy firms—private firms—which are now available to serve water authorities, and indeed any other public utilities which want them. They tell me that, for instance, in the Thames area they have already engaged a firm called View Map, which has started in the eastern division, and will soon be extending to the others. But they are all getting ready, or have already started in this major job of preparation. They are also co-operating under the Water Research Council, so that they are informing each other, so that they will harmonise with each other, and so that they can talk to the Ordnance Survey as they proceed with their preparation, and the Ordnance Survey proceeds with its digitisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, very rightly said, it is most important that the potential customers should be learning just what is involved and how they can make the best of it and make their preparations in both hardware and software accordingly.
In this context, I should like to commend the Dudley experiment. It is quite admirable. The Dudley local authority has brought together four public utilities working with the local authority, setting up a five year co-operative programme: the use of digitisation for the common benefit. This undoubtedly is a most valuable exercise as a prototype of what is needed eventually throughout the country. A footnote to co-operation is, as again this admirable report records, that the amount of mutual damage which is done by the public utilities is surely too appalling to record. No fewer than 73,000 incidents annually, at an estimated cost of £15 million, where such dreadful accidents as a pickaxe being put through a main electricity cable when a workman is on his way down to find the main water pipe, with the most terrible effects for everybody, possibly even the death of the workman. That kind of totally unnecessary accident would be removed for ever once we get a total universal digitisation.
So the picture of the water industry which emerges is that the industry is aware that there is great potential here. They are in various stages of digitisation, mostly pretty early stages. They are a little apprehensive that they are committing themselves to a great deal of money and a great deal of work. Therefore, the timetable of the Ordnance Survey digitisation is absolutely vital to them and I guess that they are not really going to commit themselves wholeheartedly until they see that timetable in front of them.
So it is really up to my noble friend who has sat there very confidently. He has got a perfect speech to answer everything that has been said and I do not doubt he will produce that in a few minutes. But as far as the potential customers are concerned—and public utilities and local authorities must be among the most important of them in the civil scene—they really do need to have a firm programme and this does mean clearly from the report that the Government have got to commit extra resources in money and personnel for the Ordnance Survey to do just that.
On finance, I recognise the figure of £100 million or thereabouts is a heavy one, but there is no doubt that these public utilities are going to be able to pay for this

61
when it is finished. It is going to be worth a lot of money to them. Therefore, I am sure that Lord Chorley made a very good point that the £100 million to be set out initially is going to come back to a very large extent in the value of the new and improved services that can be spent.
Can I just add my word in this very interesting debate to those of others that Lord Shackleton so ably gave the lead to, to ask the Government to treat this report with the gravity which it really deserves and commit the Government to give the necessary support to the Ordnance Survey so that it can fulfil our expectations.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is of particular interest to me as a member of the Select Committee to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, speak from his special expertise and to hear his opinion of this report. As the last man in from the Back-Benches, it would be inappropriate and rash of me to attempt anyhing like the wide-ranging and diverse reviews that your Lordships have heard from previous speakers. I shall try simply to hit again a ball throught an opening in the field identified by the noble Baroness, Lady White, when she spoke of land use surveys.
The survey of land use changes and habitat monitoring is identified on page 18 of the report as being an area of common application of the two otherwise somewhat diverse topics, remote sensing and digitial mapping. For this reason I wish to dwell on it for a moment. As the report notes this is the concern of the Department of the Environment, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. It is also an area in which the Natural Environment Research Council has strong research interests. I recognise that the noble Lord the Minister may feel that in dwelling on an environmental issue I am unfairly taking him outside his own personal field of expertise. It is fortunate that he has beside him the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who can whisper a word or two in his ear, if necessary.
But the noble Lord the Minister can hardly have overlooked the existence of widespread public anxiety about some perceived current trends in land use in the United Kingdom. There has been some publicity for the Friends of the Earth in the launch of its countryside campaign. Last weekend, I recollect, one of the large national Sunday papers started its own "campaign" to use its words, to "save the British countryside from further depredation". There is even a feature article in The Times today on the same theme.
In these outlets, the figures for habitat losses put forward by the campaigners are, in fact, those of the Nature Conservancy Council. For instance, lowland herb-rich meadows are, I quote, probably 95 per cent. destroyed. Ancient lowland woods are estimated to be 30 to 50 per cent. destroyed. These figures are, of course, in a sense dependent on one's interpretation of the word "destroyed". They are also, as I am certain the Nature Conservancy Council would admit, estimates based on partial samples of the countryside, and, in several cases, the relevant investigation was carried out some years ago. There is an urgent need to review these data and to bring them up to date.
62
The urgency attached to a review of land use by those who care for the natural environment is illustrated by action being taken spontaneously in my own county of Suffolk. Here, the local naturalist trust is devoting much energy to a county-wide survey of current land use based on Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale maps. This survey also involves the local preservation society, the local community council, the local biological records centre and the county council itself. So far 80 volunteers have come forward. They have achieved since February a 15 per cent. coverage of the county.
I asked the organisers whether they could estimate for me what would be a reasonable economic cost if this survey was to be done by paid practitioners who were drawing normal Civil Service travel allowance, and so on. They estimated that about £90,000 worth of work was being done. This is probably fairly realistic. It can be compared with a Countryside Commission research project that is designed to resurvey the new agricultural landscapes, which is budgeted for at £22,000 but covers scarcely more than a few parishes. So, for a single close ground survey covering one county, one is talking of something approaching £100,000. Your Lordships can multiply that figure if you can remember how many counties there are these days, and the total for England and Wales will come to millions. Moreover, this is for a once only survey. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, has emphasised, such surveys need to be repeated to monitor the effects of action taken or, as many fear, the effects of inaction.
This is precisely an area in which remote sensing and digitised mapping can reduce the cost of data collection and data processing. I ask the noble Lord on the Front Bench to state the Government's position. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will forgive me if I quote his words in a recent debate on the protection of areas of outstanding beauty—on 4th April, when I take it that he was speaking as spokesman for the Department of the Environment. He said:
"It is the task of central government to provide a framework for achieving a balance between these various demands"—
that society places upon its land. He also said:
"The Government's job is to provide guidelines by which others, principally the local planning authorities, may formulate proposals for the shape of future land use".
The noble Lord continued:
"Structure and local plans set out the land use policies".—[Official Report, 4/4/84; cols. 784–85.]
This seems to me a reasonable interpretation of the duties and powers that are conveyed in the relevant sections of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Whether or not this Act gives local authorities sufficient powers may be disputable, but clearly they have an obligation. But so, too, do the Government. It is important to establish a national framework and to draw up guidelines on a national basis as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is no longer acceptable—in fact, it is damaging to both sides of the argument, if indeed there is an argument—to depend on partial and outdated figures derived from limited ground surveys.
Local initiatives cannot provide the basis for a national framework and guidelines. Moreover, even if

63
a range of local studies could be combined to form a national data base, the cumulative cost to the nation is likely, as I have shown, to be very great. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, says, this is a major opportunity for the Government to take advantage of the technologies now available. There are other examples that I could bring forward. The noble Baroness mentioned the Countryside Commission and Department of the Environment joint contract with Hunting. But this, as I think the noble Baroness said, is not a full land use survey. It is rather an attempt to obtain statistically reliable information which is, of course, the important point. It is essential that any Government decision on land use, even if merely in proposals for guidelines, should be based on satistically sound figures.
If such a project is to be used to provide us with land use guidance, what are the aspects that need to be safeguarded? I choose to reiterate two points that have already been made. First, the database must be established in a mappable and digitised form that is accessible to a wide range of potential users at the county or district local government level. It is important to promote facilities for shared use of the archive, and the report suggests the mechanism. It is important to ensure the fullest co-operation between potential users and even more to ensure that their processing facilities are mutually compatible.
Secondly, it is essential for this nation which lacks its own data gathering satellite to maintain user access to data at a reasonable cost. For some purposes necessary in a land use survey, satellite images are still too coarse grained. At the present state of technology, air photographs continue to be indispensable and, as the report stresses, must be treated as part of a common archive and mutually compatible database.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, mentioned, in theory SPOT—that is the French satellite—should provide greater resolution than the present generation of Landsat American satellites. In practice, I have been told that the simulated SPOT trials produce data with a lot of noise, that is to say, with a lot of random scatter. Once this has been smoothed out, despite the potential higher resolution the ultimate data do not have greater resolution than Landsat. This is a significant point which requires following through. In any event, it is important to keep options open and to retain access to all data-gathering systems. Whatever appeal is made to local, regional or international loyalties it is important not to allow this country as a user to become dependent on any one source.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is just over a year since we started this experience together, and it is nearly four hours since we started this debate. I feel that after 10 speakers I had better be brief because the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite has been very patient and he deserves to be able to stand up very soon and let us know what the Government really feel about some of our recommendations.
This was my first experience of sitting on a sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House, and I must say it was a very
64
rewarding experience. One is surrounded by people of great eminence. En passant, I must say that I find it rather strange that I can sit on committees with Nobel prize-winners and not be allowed to refer to them as noble and learned Lords, whereas one always has to refer to eminent lawyers in that way. Perhaps it is a sign of the fact that this nation has not yet wakened up to the importance of science and technology. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the way in which he chaired this committee and initiated me, as it were, in the mysteries of this sort of activity. I am overwhelmed with admiration for the way in which our clerk managed to put everything together into a coherent form that we could all understand and agree with at the end of the day. Obviously he was greatly supported in that by Professor Rhind, our adviser.
Many other speakers have already commented on matters about which they know far more than I do, but if I repeat some of the things they have said I hope your Lordships will allow me to do so because I think we all should have a bit of a go at this. It is welcome that one or two noble Lords who were not members of the committee have joined in the debate. I regret that on these matters more noble Lords do not join in the debates. We have been listening to ourselves talking to each other for over a year and it is nice to hear a few new voices on the subject. Those who have joined in are indeed welcome.
I should like to start with the question of the digital mapping part of our remit. I endorse the views that have been expressed that it is disappointing that the Ordnance Survey have not made greater progress post the Serpell Report. It is particularly unfortunate that a real start has not yet been made on small-scale digitising. I very much welcome the opinion stated in our report that the timescale has got to be speeded up now, and that while it would be wrong to dispense with the user survey—I refer to page 48—it should take on the character more of a sales drive than of a search after truth.
I think this message comes through loud and clear at a number of points in the recommendations. Certainly it was at the forefront of many of our minds when we were discussing some of these matters that, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, there has been a technology-led drive in this matter and it is now time for the market or for the user to be encouraged into picking up the stroke and making sure that the whole activity both in remote sensing and in digital mapping is progressed in a way that is different from before. Again, on page 48, we refer to a sense of urgency and drive that must be imported into small-scale digitising. We did feel there was a lack of urgency there in the Ordnance Survey. I do not want to be too critical of them because we all believe they have done a first-class job. Our chairman made reference to the work that they had done on several occasions while they were giving evidence to us; we all endorsed that.
As noble Lords have said, there has been considerable worry about the fact that the slowness of digitising is leading to a duplication of effort, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned, there is this real danger that local utilities and indeed other people, including the Natural Environment Research Council, will start doing their own digitising to standards that

65
are incompatible. I think the Ordnance Survey would say they are inferior. That depends on one's standpoint, but certainly they could well be incompatible. That would be an enormous waste of manpower and effort. It is for this reason, more than any other, that we want to see the Ordnance Survey get on with digitising both the large-scale and the small-scale maps.
The other area where the Ordnance Survey do seem to have been lacking interest at first is the whole question of remote sensing. One can understand that they have been in the map-making business for a long time, that we are the best mapped country in the world, and therefore their instinct is to look upon the possibility of deriving maps from remote sensing as being inferior to the methods that they use at the moment. It was encouraging when the director came back to us, along with the Minister from the Department of the Environment, to find that there had been some change of attitude and they were now beginning to say that SPOT could be useful to them when they start to look at small-scale maps. I must say that I was slightly alarmed to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook said about the results of the SPOT simulation exercises. If that is true, then perhaps we are in for more problems than we thought.
There are one or two points I should like to emphasise about remote sensing. First, we were all disappointed by the concluding remarks of Mr. Kenneth Baker when he appeared before the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has already referred to those remarks and certainly I endorse what she said. He seemed to see the role of the Government only as one of co-ordinating the commercial forces. I suppose it was a classic view that the market forces would exert themselves, and that if they did not it would not be the fault of the Government. But, as many speakers from all sides of the House have said in this debate, there is available to this country a tremendous opportunity which, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, we missed in the case of other science-led applications years ago. We must not miss this time round.
The committee has identified very specific areas where this country can take the lead—in the radar developments, in the whole business of data manipulation, data compression both on board and on the ground. We have focused our attentions on those areas, but the problem is that while there are a lot of potential customers for the data, and indeed for the equipment and for the software, many of those potential customers are not aware that they are potential customers and somebody has got to go out and tell them.
I thought that the Minister was too dismissive of the idea that the Government should help to stimulate the market. The suggestion as regards stimulating the market was something which was mentioned quite frequently in our discussions. It is clear that the French, who have set up a commercial company called SPOT Image, very much backed by Government money, have realised that the potential is there provided that they go out and seize it.
The other thing that the French are doing—and I do not think that anyone has mentioned it yet today—is encouraging a considerable number of overseas
66
students from developing countries to come and take courses and see what is going on at Toulouse. It seems to me again that this country is missing a trick because many of those countries will become potential markets for data, and those are the markets for which we should be looking. They are not areas that will be able to fund it themselves, but they are areas where the techniques of, in particular, remote sensing will be of the greatest possible value in helping to uncover mineral deposits and hydrocarbon deposits. So the difference in attitude between France and the Department of Trade was rather startling, and I hope that that impression can be corrected by the Minister when he speaks.
Not everything is gloomy. One applauds the fact that the department has appointed Mr. Pardoe—Mr. Geoffrey Pardoe—as co-ordinator of the National Remote Sensing Board. I must say that his attitude was extremely refreshing. It seemed to me that he was part of the better news that we heard during the whole of our discussions and he certainly showed an awareness of the need to get up and go and create markets.
Therefore, as I have said, the report is quite clear about the areas upon which we should concentrate. We were led in that direction by some excellent memoranda from the Royal Society and from the Remote Sensing Society. Indeed, the thing that put the matter into perspective for me more than anything else, was a brief visit to Imperial College, and I say that not just because my noble friend is sitting behind me. However, in my view, that visit put many matters into context which I, for one, had been groping for among the mass of data that we had before us. Those of your Lordships who have a copy of the evidence will realise that quite a heavy tome was produced, not by our efforts but by contributions from people outside. Those particular items helped to clear our minds.
Undoubtedly the most important recommendation, which has already been mentioned by several people, is the one contained in the opinions on the institu-tional framework in paragraph 5.3. This is an area where we must ask the Government to state their intentions as soon as possible. It will cost money but it is an enormously important capital investment for the country to have this data network. As has been said, it is something which will link into other data transfers. Without it, in my view large parts of the country will be flying blind. The concentration of activity in the south of England has been referred to by many of the people who wrote to us. Indeed, my noble friends in Dundee I am sure illustrate the problems that exist in places away from the south-east of England.
I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. I hope that the Government will not just leave this report to gather dust, but will realise that we have tried not to be spendthrift in making recommen-dations that can never be achieved because they are too expensive. We have endeavoured quite seriously to focus our activities on matters which are genuinely important and which need a minimum of Government intervention, at least in the early stages. The market forces can take off in due time, but they need the type of encouragement that can only come from the Government. I have had my eyes opened by being on this committee. I have seen how many excellent people we have in this country in a whole

67
range of different disciplines. It behoves Parliament and the Government to recognise that that talent is there and that, given the right support, we can find a sector of this whole business where we can be extremely successful and which can be profitable in every sense of the word for this nation.
6.56 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have only myself to blame for being here. Just over a year ago I had the temerity to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in a debate on the future of the Ordnance Survey, and to talk specifically about digital mapping. I was misled by the common courtesy of your Lordships to think not only that I might have made a reasonable speech, but also that I had some intellectual understanding of the issues involved. I must assure your Lordships that my technical knowledge of these matters is extremely limited and if I succeeded in concealing that fact a year ago, I will have much more difficulty in concealing it now.
I am drawn to the subject not least by the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who described remote sensing as being a matter of drama and colour and glamour. Not just from the illustration of the report, but from my own reading of the whole subject over the period since I was asked to reply to this debate from this Dispatch Box, I must agree that this is a subject of very considerable fascination as well as of very considerable importance.
I see my duty speaking here on this subject as being two-fold. First, to express support for and appreciation of my noble friend Lord Shackleton and his colleagues for the excellent work which has been done in the report, and for the recommendations that they have put before your Lordships. Secondly, to make some effort to anticipate the kind of objections which the Government—any government—are likely to have towards any positive action, especially involving the expenditure of money, and to see whether it is possible, in anticipating those objections, to weaken the response of the Government and to make it more difficult for them to oppose positive action. I hope—and I think that it is highly likely—that I am doing a great injustice to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and to the Government, but let us work from that assumption for the purposes of the next few minutes.
In my first task of expressing appreciation for the report, 1 want to add my thanks to my noble friend for the way in which in his opening speech he gutted the recommendations for us. It is daunting to be faced with 46 different recommendations about two subjects whose interconnection is not immediately obvious although it has been forcefully made clear by a number of speakers in this debate. As I understood it, the most important recommendation which my noble friend was commending to the House on the question of digital mapping, was that there should be a very considerable speeding up of the process of digitising both large-scale and small-scale maps by the Ordnance Survey, and that there should be a considerable strengthening of the research and development capability of the Ordnance Survey. I shall return to both of those matters in a few minutes.
68
On the question of remote sensing, it is clear that we have here a very complex investment decision. I think that it can be readily agreed that the first priority for investment by this country—whether it is private or public—should be in the ground and user segments. But the committee is recommending to us that there should also be a selective involvement in the space segment. Having no particular knowledge of the space technology involved, I am convinced that this is the right approach and that, as the committee says in its recommendations, it will be a rewarding investment.
I am thinking particularly of the need for space instrumentation which, in the short history of space technology, has proved to be enormously more economically and technologically exciting when applied to other applications than to space itself; secondly, of the importance of concentrating on radar sensing, which I understand to be a unanimous view of the members of the committee and of noble Lords who have spoken today; and, thirdly, perhaps more important still, of the importance of improving the capability of this country in data handling and in software.
My noble friend then referred to the importance of the institutional arrangements—and a number of other noble Lords have made the same point—in strengthening the National Remote Sensing Centre and the National Remote Sensing Programme Board. There appears to be some disagreement as to whether or not the communication network should be based on Starlink, but I believe that those are both secondary matters. It is the importance of the communication network itself which will be the most significant element in the committee's recommendations.
I turn now to the second part of my duty, which is to try to anticipate what obstacles there may be to advance, and to see what answers there might be to those suggested obstacles. First, there is the obvious and most straightforward one, which is the sheer cost of the investment by the Ordnance Survey in digital mapping and, indeed, the research and development capability within the Ordnance Survey. If we take the 10-year period which is suggested as being appropriate for the digitising of large-scale maps, and if we take the estimates which we have been given of a net cost of £50 million over the 10-year period—that is, taking into account the savings in what I think one would not be unfair to call obsolete technology or at least obsolescent technology within the Ordnance Survey—that does not seem to me to be a very significant level of investment, even of public investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to the need for balance and to the difficulty of actually finding the facilities for speeding up digitising, even if we succeed in going over very largely, or entirely, to automatic digitising rather than manual digitising. An outsider's view would be that, if there is a will to achieve complete digitisation of our large-scale maps, and if there is also a will to go to the private sector to have this work done, the prospect of international business in all the other countries of the world, which will be behind us in digitising as they have historically been behind us in the creation of large-scale maps, will be enough to attract private investment in automatic

69
digitising equipment and will be enough to make it possible to speed up the programme.
Another obstacle referred to in the report is the question of copyright. Here I believe that the report is grossly pessimistic. The copyright issue here is nothing like as complicated as some of the other copyright issues which are now coming to the fore with the development of other means of communication and other media. After all, when we are talking about the copyright of Ordnance Survey maps, there is only one beneficiary of copyright. I accept that copyright income is a third of the income of the Ordnance Survey, but nevertheless, there is only one beneficiary, and the secret—as always in these matters—is to make sure that the user is getting a sufficiently differentiated product for him to want to have his own map, his own features, his own scale and his own co-ordinates, even at the cost of paying a copyright fee, rather than pirating something which is less suitable for his applications. One of the great things about digital mapping is that it will be possible to have customised maps, whereas at the moment almost all users of maps are using models which inadequately represent their own needs and requirements. Under those circumstances and given the progress that is being made in finding ways of enforcing copyright, probably through licensing agreements, I do not think that copyright needs to be a serious problem.
The major reason why a government, particularly this Government, might resist rapid advance in these matters was expressed very clearly by Mr. Kenneth Baker in his evidence to the committee. It is the view that investment in these matters should be user-led. A number of noble Lords have very effectively answered—and very directly answered—that suggestion. The noble Lords, Lord Sherfield and Lord Flowers, referred to the difficulty of finding the users who do not yet know what they want. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, spoke about purposes which have not been foreseen. Is not that the essence of a large part of scientific advance?—that one pursues a line of research because it seems to be the right thing to do and then one is surprised and delighted when it turns out to have other applications. In practice I do not think it likely that finance from private users will make the sort of progress—particularly in the very capital-intensive, remote sensing area—which will be necessary to keep this country up to and—why not?—ahead of, the world in this matter.
When talking about keeping this country up with the world, I must confess that I was disturbed by the reference on page 34 of the report to anxiety in the United States that their supremacy in remote sensing was being challenged by competition from Europe and elsewhere. I should have thought that that was exactly the wrong attitude to take to the development of remote sensing. Nearly all of the effective development on the space segment of remote sensing has been by international co-operation, and a number of noble Lords have referred to the necessity, mentioned in the report, for us to keep in with the international-multinational projects which are taking place at the moment in this area.
The essence of this is that both remote sensing and digital mapping will have unsuspected uses and unsuspected users, and it is impossible to forecast at
70
this time what they will be. There are almost comic examples of this. The recent scandal, if that is the right word, of the avion renifleur, which did not cast much credit on a certain French oil company, a certain Belgian count, or even certain members of a former French Government, was only an example of remote sensing; it was claimed that it was possible for, in this case, a low-flying aircraft to spot oil underneath the Sahara. We are told in the report that the maximum penetration below the earth's surface from a satellite is, in fact, in the Sahara, but that that penetration is only down to five metres. If that report had been read thoroughly before anyone became involved in the investment in avion renifleur perhaps recent French history would have been slightly different.
I am also reminded of the recent film "Trading Places", which hinges on early reports of the frozen concentrated orange juice market and the success of the crop in Florida. Perhaps if there had been continuous remote sensing of the development of the orange crop there would have been none of the stock market opportunities for success or disaster and we might have been deprived of a most amusing film. But there are much more serious applications. In the report the possibility is suggested that we might be able to use remote sensing to improve on and update census data. I should be interested to see in detail how that might work, and I wonder whether the Government are considering doing without the 1986 sample census on the basis of an adequate investment in remote sensing technology.
The most important of the areas where the uses cannot ce fully anticipated will be in the military area. Here the issue of space instrumentation, so clearly identified in the report, is the most significant. I want to suggest to the Government that there is good evidence from the report and from the opinions of the witnesses who spoke to the committee that this development ought to be still in the public sector. The reasons for that, oddly enough, are set out most clearly in the evidence from Logica Limited. It says that it has to be because of the pre-eminence, first, of defence interests; secondly, of the uses for environmental monitoring (a number of noble Lords have referred to that in the debate); thirdly, because of the uses for mineral and geological exploration and research—I concede that that is an area where it could be thought that the private sector has a concern—and finally for the understanding and control of the weather and climate. That is an element which I understand Mr. Pardoe refers to as humanitarian rather than business, which I still think is very important to our economic development, and it is difficult to see how it could ever be in private hands.
However, I do not think for a moment that to say that this development should be in the public sector is to say that it should be carried out without a degree of business acumen. This is the message which I take away from the report and why I think that the report is so important. It is in considering it in business terms as investment in capital and looking at the revenue to come in ways which are only hinted at at the moment that we will make the most progress. I believe that here not just the geographical but the scientific and economic benefits of the work proposed in the report will be of the most value to this country.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing the Government's gratitude to your Lordship's committee for this report. It comes most usefully at a time when both remote sensing and digital mapping are at important stages in their development. This comprehensive report brings such a welcome focus to both these fields, that it is already a much-valued source of reference.
We are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, not only for moving the debate but for opening his speech with such a useful explanation of the techniques of remote sensing and digital mapping and their many applications. The Government share the noble Lord's view that we should not be swept away by spectacular advances in new technology so that we proceed without regard for its applications—a subject I should like to return to later.
Your Lordships will appreciate that I cannot on this occasion give detailed replies to all the 46 recommendations of the report. A full written reply is being prepared by the Government and I am pleased that we shall be able to take account of your Lordships' debate today. I have listened most attentively to the points that have been made, and I shall see to it that they are carefully considered.
The committee's first recommendation was that the development of remote sensing and digital mapping should be complementary and their separation should be no greater than necessary. The Government are in complete agreement. Though the techniques used are very different, and the areas of application overlap only partially, the two areas do have important common applications. In thematic mapping, for example, there is a requirement for the transformation of remote sensing data to match standard map projections, and here especially there would be benefits from a joint approach.
We must avoid duplication of effort and the production of incompatible data systems. The closeness of the relationship will undoubtedly increase with the enhanced power of resolution of remote sensing satellites. As the report suggests, however, it would be unwise to try to force an artificially close relationship, and, outside the areas of overlap, remote sensing and digital mapping should be allowed to develop independently—for instance the linkage between digital mapping and the handling of other types of spatially referenced information is likely to become increasingly important. As an earnest of the Government's intentions, I can say now that the Ordnance Survey will forthwith be appointing a member to the National Remote Sensing Programme Board, as recommended in the report.
Turning first to remote sensing let me state the Government's objectives. They are: first, to put British companies in a favourable position to develop and exploit markets (through the provision of national archives and distribution arrangements, a national research programme, and back-up advice and services); and, secondly, to provide guaranteed continuing access to worldwide remote sensing data.
The Government recognise that a sustained effort of co-ordination will be required to achieve these objectives, chiefly because of the wide and varying
72
range of actual and potential users of the data, and the interdisciplinary nature of the applications and techniques used. It was for this reason, and actually during the course of your Lordships' committee's inquiry, that the Government set up the National Remote Sensing Programme Board. This has representatives from industry, from the research councils, from all the relevant Government departments and now of course from the Ordnance Survey. The Government also appointed an industry-based team to co-ordinate the national programme. The board has already set about several of the tasks which the committee have recommended—in particular the development of a national policy framework for setting research priorities to take account of an exercise to identify more clearly the potential users and the economic benefits of remote sensing.
The interest in ERS—1 of the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Sherfield, and many of your Lordships has been carefully noted and I can assure your Lordships that the emphasis in the national programme will be to work towards the development of practical commercial applications and the provision of major investments in reception and processing facilities, particularly of the radar data.
Last year, my right honourable friend the Minister for Information Technology announced the start of a £14 million co-ordinated national remote sensing programme, mainly to develop techniques for the use of the European Space Agency's ERS satellite for coastal and oceanographic observations. The decision whether to proceed with the main development phase of this satellite has to be taken within the next couple of months. Your committee rightly appreciated that the United Kingdom, with its maritime tradition and experience unique in Europe in radar remote sensing, would be well placed to develop applications for this satellite.
If I may reply now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, about the ESA in particular, I can confirm that the Government remain committed to membership of the European Space Agency. An increasing proportion of the Government's space research and development budget is projected as being devoted to remote sensing, reflecting its increasing priority. As for bilateral projects, the United Kingdom is already involved in preparation for the important Canadian Radarsat programme together with the United States, and we are likely to be major participants in this mission, which is due for launch in 1990. I think that was in the mind of my noble friend Lord Bessborough as well.
Before I turn to digital mapping, there are two more of the committee's recommendations on remote sensing which have already been taken on board, and which I should like to mention. The report asked the Government to take all reasonable steps to support a second experiment with the European Space Agency's metric camera aboard the United States space shuttle. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that there is now every prospect of a further flight for the metric camera in the near future.
I turn now to the future of the Central Register of Air Photographs for England, a subject which I know is of considerable interest to the noble Baroness, Lady White. The Select Committee were concerned that the

73
register should continue, and form part of the national catalogue of information accessible through a communications network. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government have decided that responsibility for the Central Register is to be transferred to the Ordnance Survey from the Department of the Environment. This decision has been reached after careful consideration of the responses to the DOE's consultation paper issued towards the end of last year.
The Ordnance Survey have an acknowledged expertise in air photography, which they will be able to combine with their existing customer services. They propose to computerise the register, and to provide an improved level of service to its users. In this way, the register could form part of a national archive of information. I can assure the noble Baroness that computerisation, higher-profile marketing and the other improvements that the transfer of functions will bring will improve the level of service to the public.
My Lords, I turn now to digital mapping. The proposals of your Lordships' committee for digital mapping are ambitious and reflect the expectation that the demand for digital information will increase rapidly over the next decade. The speed of change can undoubtedly be increased by the injection of significant new investment, but I do have to say that the Government have some doubts as to whether all the proposed expansion can be implemented cost-effectively in such a short period of time. Techniques have still to be refined and promulgated; users still have to learn and experience what can be done; new users still have to emerge; hardware has to be installed and personnel have to be trained. All this requires considerable time, effort and financial resources.
Despite this note of caution, your Lordships will be interested to learn that the Ordnance Survey's proposals for an acceleration of its basic scales digitising programme to provide cover of Great Britain by the year 2000 were recently endorsed by the Ordnance Survey Advisory Board. These recommen-dations will be submitted to Ministers shortly. With regard to Recommendation 19 of the committee's report, I am pleased to say that the survey of user needs for small-scale digital mapping is in hand and when the results have been assessed later this year an appropriate programme will be prepared. The Government will, of course, need to consider further the costs, benefits, and conflicting priorities for Ordnance Survey resources before committing themselves to an expanded programme for the mainland, but I am very pleased to be able to announce that approval has been given to the programme to digitise the mapping of the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland. The procurement process for the acquisition of the necessary new capital equipment is already in hand.
One of the Select Committee's key recommen-dations, in our view, is the proposed committee of inquiry into geographic information systems. I can assure your Lordships that we are looking into this very seriously. We very much agree with the committee's analysis of the issues here: in particular, the need to provide a forum, or "club", as it is sometimes referred to, to co-ordinate and strengthen user interests. We also believe that the committee has
74
rightly pointed to the need for widespread discussion on how geographic information systems should develop. These discussions will be essential if the growing number of sources of information are to be effectively brought together, and if duplication of effort between data collectors is to be avoided. The Government see the merit in securing good advice, as suggested by the committee, on the best methods of building up and maintaining a national catalogue of all digital spatial information. We should expect to be able to make an announcement on these important issues and proposals when we respond formally to the committee's report.
Turning to more specific points, your Lordships' Committee made recommendations for the Ordnance Survey's research and development capabilities. The Government accept the need for strengthening these capabilities. Already a number of extra graduates have been recruited to the Ordnance Survey's Research and Development Division, and it is hoped to double its strength during the next five years.
In addition, the graduate strength of the Ordnance Survey will increase from the current figure of 48—not 20, incidentally, as the report states—to 84 as a result of the amalgamation with the Directorate of Overseas Surveys. Recruitment of additional graduates is in hand and this year six graduates in surveying, geography and mathematics will join the department; but increases in graduate manpower can only come about within the manpower ceilings currently authorised. Also, numerical comparisons of the kind made in the report can be a little misleading because more account needs to be taken of how graduates are employed and of the different types and varieties of work done by different departments. Nevertheless, it is recognised that the hydrographic department, for example, has benefited over the years from having a high proportion of good honours graduates on its staff.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked me about the Versailles Working Group. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government have been playing an active part in the discussions of the Versailles Working Group on remote sensing from space. In the main, discussion has so far focused on polar-orbiting weather satellites. The latest thinking is that the broader European participation in this mainly US-inspired programme should be through the provision of additional satellite instruments. The United Kingdom is in fact providing such instruments for the present series of American satellites. There were a number of other matters raised by the Versailles Working Group about which perhaps I may write to my noble friend.
I turn now to some of the other points which have been raised during the course of this debate. The noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Sherfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, and I think one or two other noble Lords, asked me about the possibility of the Government financing the establishment of a communications network as suggested by the committee. The Government accept the view that rapid dissemination of data and ready access to the national archives are essential for the development of the remote-sensing and digital-mapping user communities in the United Kingdom. The development of the British Telecom System X will provide adequate channels for this purpose. In

75
addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, pointed out, the whole university and research council community have now agreed to establish a unified network. For major regional centres or for locations not serviced by System X special arrangements will be necessary. The architecture of any data communication system will require considerable further study, and the universities' JANET network may well be relevant here. The Government would expect users to contribute to the investment, particularly in the setting up of regional nodes.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred to the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Information Technology about the priority in financial allocation given to remote sensing. My right honourable friend went on to say that knowledge for knowledge's sake is a very expensive thing. I agree with him, but the fact that we are interested in developing applications rather than just in technology and that we are looking for users who will be prepared to fund further developments does not indicate a lack of will on the part of the Government. We are keen to prime the pump with funding for remote sensing, as in other areas.
On the question of extra resources for basic research in remote sensing, in its 1983 advice, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils identified remote sensing as a priority area for additional scientific research. This was followed with a recommendation for an additional half million pounds' spending on remote sensing in the National Environment Research Council for 1984–85.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his opening speech—and I think that this may have been referred to by at least one other noble Lord—asked about whether the Government agreed that more needed to be done in the field of application research. The Government welcome the Committee's analysis of the requirement for research and development, and we support the view that more needs to be done in the field of applications research. The R & D projects to be implemented will need to be selected on the basis of their contributions towards the development of useful and rewarding applications. Work is being carried out in some of the areas identified by the Select Committee but we agree that the appropriate bodies for recommending priorities are the research councils and the National Remote Sensing Programme Board. Work to date has progressed on an ad hoc basis and as a result of the specific interests of potential users. The NRSPB is already considering the adoption of a more thorough and systematic approach.
The noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Mackie, referred to the attitude of the research councils to work on remote sensing in the universities. The research councils well recognise the value of the universities' remote sensing work. The NERC has given particular help already to the University of Dundee, especially through grants and a contract to help to finance the development of a satellite receiving station there. The international recognition accorded to the output from this station is a great tribute to the success of the NERC investment and to the quality of the Dundee staff.
76
It is open to universities to initiate requests for recognition and support for advanced courses. However, in the absence of such bids for remote sensing courses, the NERC and SERC, recognising the national importance of this work, unusually, invited universities to submit proposals for a MSc course to be supported by both councils. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, the University of London proposal was selected, but others may still submit proposals for courses for consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, queried the status of the Ordnance Survey and manpower levels and their commitment to R & D and remote sensing. Of course, the Ordnance Survey is an autonomous Government department reporting through a Minister in the Department of the Environment. Its future manpower levels will be set taking into account its rolling five-year plan. The staff reductions to which the noble Lord referred were not decided upon lightly, but it was the Govenment's view that the maintenance of the archives and progress in digitising programmes would not be significantly affected by them. R and D at the Ordnance Survey has concentrated on large-scale digitising, and consideration of small-scale digitising must await the outcome of studies now in hand, in collaboration with NERC, in order to identify the demand. As for remote sensing, the Ordnance Survey has monitored its use for some years. The Ordnance Survey is a principal investigator for SPOT—my noble friend Lord Bessborough and also my noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to this—and it is participating in studies using the metric camera in Spacelab, to which I have alrady referred.
Perhaps I may say a few more words about the SPOT programme in response to what my noble friend Lord Bessborough said. I am pleased to be able to say that some years ago Her Majesty's Government were the first in the world to sign a memorandum of understanding with the French for access to the SPOT data. That will be available to users here from the National Remote Sensing Centre, which is organising a preparatory simulation programme this summer.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook was rather critical of SPOT. With regard to the potential spatial resolution of SPOT data, it is well known that simulations using aircraft are not precise, and, while I have no knowledge of the particular results to which my noble friend referred, I am assured that the specified resolution of the SPOT sensors can be achieved. I believe I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on that point as well.
I imagine I have omitted many points that have been made, but time is marching on and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I do not speak on particu-lar points raised which I have not so far dealt with. I will deal with those points in writing on a future occasion. Let me conclude by thanking the committee once again for its excellent report and by thanking its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for arranging this most informative debate. We shall be endeavouring in all this to set the right course for future development, to spell out our priorities for action and to provide the conditions and framework within which remote sensing and digital mapping can develop successfully in the United Kingdom.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the debate has gone on for a long time and I shall not spend very long in replying. I should like to thank the Minister, who has shown great endurance. I do not think he has moved from his seat during the debate. He is well qualified to take part in a space mission I should say. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend; in fact I think the two Front Benches have done rather well in the face of the mass onslaught of all the members of the committee, except one. I am very grateful, because I feel that between us we have been able to cover all the points that we wanted to cover. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have joined in.
One point I should like to mention is this. I have been looking again at the evidence and I think that it is one of the most fascinating collections of information. I do not believe that anyone here has time to read it, but it is a textbook containing most useful information and most useful views. By and large, also, I think our report reflects the evidence we had.
I do not think I need do more, except perhaps to mention one or two weaknesses in the report. I do not think we stressed sufficiently the importance of help for developing territories; nor perhaps did we stress to the ordinary reader the importance of overseas as a source of successful industry and business. I think we thought that we had, but from comments we have received perhaps we did not press it far enough. Nor, of course, were we able to cover all the people who have since written in or who have given evidence; for example, the various university departments. I am conscious that we may not have paid the tributes to them that we should have paid. We had interesting comments on Dundee University, and we are well aware of the importance of their work. There were also other universities, such as Southampton, Reading, and Nottingham, all of which are doing pioneer work. There is a great burst of energy, in particular in the geography departments. Geographers see this as a point where they can actually focus themselves without just being regarded as spread between other disciplines. I see this myself, as a former geographer. It is a multidisciplinary activity, and indeed our team was a multidisciplinary one.
I shall not go into the question of whether the appropriate network should be JANET; in the long run I think we shall need something with a great deal higher capacity than the JANET network. But I think that today the Government have given us as much encouragement as we could reasonably expect, and indeed perhaps rather more than I had hoped. Clearly I think we are agreed on the diagnosis, and certainly this represents the views of Government and industry. If one reads the evidence of Marconi, one sees that they look to Government. They do not believe that private enterprise at this stage can create the markets and finance the activities; and this point is well reflected in the report.
I am also grateful for the reference to the Versailles meeting. I do not think that people generally are sufficiently aware of the importance that is beginning to be attached by scientists and technologists to this matter and the matters which are being taken to the summit meetings in this whole area. What is
78
characteristic of the House of Lords, I like to think, is that we are able to pioneer these things.
Seeing the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in his place reminds me of our interests in the past. I remember a parliamentary scientific committee in 1955 suggesting that we should have a session on space. There was an embarrassed silence, and then I substituted the international geophysical year, when of course the first sputniks went up. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I in the aviation debate suggesting that we ought to take an interest in space. I also remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that he was not going to spend his time flinging satellites round the moon. We are not doing that, but we have got to participate with those people who are putting satellites into space.
I am grateful for what the Government have said. We shall look with some anxiety to the report. As the noble Lord knows, in this House we are able to return to topics and to keep up the presssure. I think the role of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee is to highlight and emphasise areas to which the Government need to give attention. I consider that the Government, together with certain civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry, deserve congratulations. People are not aware of how often only a very few civil servants are carrying major responsibilities, and they are entitled to credit. They will need support, as will the National Remote Sensing Centre. So far, so good. We shall await with interest the Government's reply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Urban Parishes Bill [H.L.]
7.40 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It may seem paradoxical that, at a time when the Government are bringing forward to Parliament a large number of legislative measures concerned with local government, I should seek to add to their number. I do so because I believe that the whole tendency of local government legislation over the past 20 years—and I am not making any party political point at all; it is something which has been agreed to, assented to or not effectively opposed, by both parties—has been towards greater complication, towards less truly local services, towards less understanding by local people of what local government is about, and less participation by local people in the actual process of running their own communities.
The starting point of the Bill which I seek to present today is a report by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, based on a survey which he carried out in my own area of Hornsey in North London in 1970. I shall leave it to him to describe it in detail and to follow through what has happened since then. But the essence of it is—and it is necessary to say this now in order to describe the motivations in bringing forward this Bill—that people in urban areas, just like people in rural areas, think of themselves as belonging to communities.

79
If they are asked to describe where they live, they talk about themselves as living in communities. Those communities are not large district councils, metropolitan councils or London boroughs; they are not even the electoral wards of districts or metropolitan boroughs. As we know, those wards can be manipulated for party political purposes and are frequently the subject of party political dispute. They change quite rapidly and cannot represent communities, both because of that lack of community and because generally they are much too large for the purposes of communities.
People think of themselves as living in groups which are not recognised, except on old-fashioned maps of perhaps 3,000 to 5,000 people. They like to think that in an area of that kind it would be possible for them to know their neighbours and, if they got together, to do things among themselves to help to improve and maintain the day-to-day recreational and other facilities of the area. It is the simple intention of this Bill to give effect in law to that common feeling.
Two factors take away from the simple intention. It is necessary to express this intention in rather complex legal terms, not only in the Bill which I seek to present to your Lordships today—although the essence of it is in only one clause—but also by reference to the Local Government Act 1972. It is necessary to say that Part IV of that Act contains a number of references to parishes and provides in some way for reviews in urban areas of parishes and of parish boundaries.
I have no doubt that it was the intention of the Act that there should be far more parishes, community councils or neighbourhood councils—call them what we will—than has been the case in the period following the enactment of the Local Government Act. So it is necessary to look in a little more detail at what the 1972 Act says and then to ask the Government what has happened as a result.
First, in Section 47(1)(g) there is reference to
"the constitution of a new parish by—

(i) the establishment of any area which is not a parish or part of one as a parish; or

(ii) the aggregation of the whole or any part of any such area with one or more parishes"—

A promising start! We may think that this is what we are trying to do. But Section 57 states that a district council can say no to any such proposal, and that if a district council says no the matter goes to the Secretary of State who may consider. The words "may" and "consider" occur all the time in this part of the Act, and we shall see what practical effect they have.
Section 48(1) refers to a 10 to 15-year period after 1st April 1974, and this is why the timing of this Bill is so appropriate after 1st April 1984. Under Section 48(4) the commission shall consider requests for the establishment of parish councils. Under Section 49(1) the Secretary of State may direct councils to conduct reviews and there is a possibility for 30 local government electors in any parish area to request the district council to carry out such a review.
The part which needs to be read out in full is Section 50(4):
"It shall be the duty of the council of each district in England to keep under review the electoral arrangements for the parishes (if
80
any) in their district for the purpose of considering whether or not to make substantive changes in those arrangements and what changes, if any, to make, and the council shall consider any request made with respect to those arrangements by the council for, or not less than thirty local government electors of, any parish appearing to the district council to be likely to be affected by those changes, and the district council may, if they think fit, make an order giving effect to those changes".
The most important words in that subsection are, "if they think fit".
The fact of the matter is that we have now reached the period of more than 10 years after the starting date of the review period. I do not have the resources which the Government have to tell me what parishes have been created in urban areas, but I suspect that the number, and the number of people involved, will be derisory. All the evidence I have from the Association for Neighbourhood Councils and the National Association of Local Councils, which basically covers the rural areas but is prepared to take responsibility for those living in areas which wish to have local democracy, confirms the view that the number of district councils which made any significant progress with their parish reviews in that 10-year period and have proceeded, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to creating parishes is very small indeed. Thereby hangs the need for something a little more positive, and something which makes it possible for a more significant number of people—not just 30 local government electors; we are suggesting a tough hurdle at the outset of 20 per cent. of the electors in any given area—to be able to push ahead and get a parish organisation in an urban area.
I believe it is my duty to take your Lordships as quickly and as clearly as I can through the clauses of the legislation, and then come back to say a few words about why it is important for local democracy that legislation of this kind should be enacted. Clause 1 may appear to be spatchcocking the whole of Greater London into the Local Government Act 1972, which generally does not deal with Greater London. But subsection (8) of Section 1 refers to Part V of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act, which refers only to reviews for the purpose of the creation of parishes. Therefore the purpose of Clause 1 is to extend the coverage of an Urban Parishes Act to Greater London as well as to other urban areas. That seems to me to be a simple matter of justice. There is no good reason why, just because London government was reorganised 10 years earlier, the needs of people living in London communities should not be recognised in just the same way as the needs of people living in other urban area communities.
Clause 2, using the wording of the 1972 Act, adds a new section which provides for petitions to be the basis of urban parishes where no parish has been constituted in accordance with the original Act. This is the significance of the point that I have already made: that in a period of 10 years very little significant progress has been made. Subsection (2) provides that a petition for the constitution of such a parish shall not be a petition if it is presented during a closed period. Subsection (3) refers to a closed period as being one in which a commission or council is proceeding with a parish review. Clearly it would be grossly negligent on the part of those drafting the Bill if they were to provide for two different procedures to go ahead at the

81
same time. If the English commision is going ahead with a review of the constitution of parish councils, that is good enough for us. It is only in those cases where such a review is not taking place, which I understand is true of the great majority of urban areas in England, that a petition under the Bill would be permissible. But subsection (4) also provides that if the Secretary of State or the Local Government Boundary Commission for England wished to override the protective provisions in subsections (2) and (3) it would be possible for them to say that such a period should not be a closed period.
Clause 3 is again technical. It is concerned with the definitions of counties and districts and adds Greater London to those definitions of counties and districts for the purposes of the Act. Clause 4 takes away the provision whereby a London borough is not included in cases where there are continuing parishes which existed in urban district councils before the 1972 Act. I am caught in a treble negative which is clearly not helping your Lordships. Paragraph 4 of Part V of Schedule 1 to the 1972 Act is now of very little significance. It refers to the continuing parishes, mainly in rural areas, which were or were not set up at that time. It does not provide for new parishes to be set up where there is none now.
Clause 5 is the important clause. Paragraph 1 of Part VI says that not less than 20 per cent. of local government electors may present a petition to their London borough council or district council. The important point to make is that no attempt whatsoever is made to impose parish council status on any area where a very large number of local people—20 per cent. is a large number—do not wish to make the effort to have parish council status for themselves.
Paragraph 2 indicates the boundaries and the technicalities of the petition. Paragraph 3 says that when a council receives such a petition it has to start to take the action which it may take under the parish review procedures of the 1972 Act. Paragraph 4 says that if a petition is not opposed, the parish will be constituted within 12 months. Paragraph 5 says that objections can be lodged by 10 per cent. of the local government electors for the area of the proposed parish. Ten per cent. is a deliberately low figure. If it is difficult to get people to come out for a positive proposal, it is possibly even more difficult to get people to come out for a negative proposal. Those who want to support a negative proposal ought to have the benefit of the doubt. Paragraph 5 also says, in sub-paragraph (b), that the council may resolve that a petition be rejected, in which case it becomes an opposed petition.
Your Lordships may say that so far there is not a great deal of difference between this Bill and the Local Government Act 1972, but now we come to the position in Paragraph 7, which refers in more detail to the status of opposed petitions: that the English commission shall—not "may"—forthwith appoint a local commissioner if it is a district council which is objecting. If it is other electors who are objecting, Paragraph 8 provides that the council may appoint a local commissioner to hold a local inquiry. Paragraph 9 refers to the status of the local commissioners, and Paragraph 10 says that one cannot go through the
82
same procedure over and over again: that at some stage, and without unreasonable delay, there must be a proper inquiry, following the demand of this significant number of people, into the government of their own neighbourhood.
That, I believe, concludes the analysis of the clauses in the Bill. It is only necessary for me now to go back to the wider issues which lead me to commend this legislation to your Lordships' House. I have spoken about the express need of people in urban communities to have a say about their own needs in their own area. What does that mean in practice? It means that the very limited executive powers and financial resources of rural parishes should also be made available to people living in the urban areas of England. In Scotland there is already provision for community councils. The same is true of Wales. In the rural areas of England there is a virtually universal pattern of parish councils which carry out functions which other people may not feel enormously excited about. For instance, they provide park benches, street lighting, and so on. It is only in the towns and cities of England that there is no adequate provision for this perhaps not earth shattering but still important need for local people to make decisions about their own requirements and about whether to vote a modest amount of their own money towards those requirements.
There is no question of vast amounts of public expenditure being involved. I do not believe, in any of the political disputes about local government during the past five years, that it has been suggested that any significant part of public expenditure relates to parish councils, or that parish councils have formed any real threat to the medium term financial strategy or to the public sector borrowing requirement. If I am wrong about that, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will correct me. However, I have seen no reference to it in the public expenditure White Papers which have appeared during this period of time. If the system were to be extended to urban areas in England, clearly there would be no significant public expenditure implications. Nor is there any question of bureaucracy being extended. Parish councils generally work with the assistance of an honorary clerk.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who spoke in the previous debate, is an honorary clerk and a member of a parish council in Suffolk. I do not suppose that he is a very substantial addition to bureaucracy, or a drain on the public purse. There is no question of an additional tier of local government. We are seeking here to add to the opportunities for local people to make small but significant decisions about their own lives.
For the life of me I cannot understand why, over the period during which I have been chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, from 1974 to 1980, it has been so difficult to persuade a government of either complexion—and it was just as bad with a Labour Government as it was with a Conservative Government—to carry out what seems to me to be this minimum act of justice and to make this minimum provision for local democracy. The only suspicion I can have is that the power of the existing bureaucracy and of the existing oligarchies in local government—the councillors and the officers—is

83
in some way threatened by legislation of this kind. I believe it is the duty, and the privilege, of your Lordships' House to stand up for local communities and to stand up for local people against oligarchies and entrenched bureaucracies of all kinds. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
8.1 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for taking the initiative in introducing this Bill. I am pleased to be able to speak on its behalf. In view of the persuasiveness, at least to me, of the speech we have just heard, I should like also to express the hope that if the speech he has prepared has a certain lukewarm aspect to it, the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply to the debate, will, in the light of the speech that has been made, be prepared to scrap what has been written and adopt a much more friendly attitude than he might otherwise have taken to this Bill. If he is prepared to do that, it will be a most important occasion in the history of an already rather long, drawn-out campaign.
In the past, when the case has been made for the creation of urban parish councils—or neighbourhood councils, as they have often been called— Governments, unfortunately, have been opposed. Perhaps they have been opposed because, very broadly, they have been on the side, so far, of the powers that be in local government; or if they have not, at least they have not wanted to upset too much the district councils and London boroughs where it was unnecessary to do so, even if they might have been maltreating them on other counts.
As we all know, and as some of us feel we know only too well, this Government are not of that kind. Tomorrow's proceedings will show that. Although I am sorry about that in one way, I am glad in another. I shall be sorry tomorrow, but I am glad tonight, because it seems to me that, in view of the stance taken by this Government on local government reform, it becomes impossible to trot out the old arguments against any change such as that proposed in this Bill tonight. Large changes are being mooted, and that being so, can we not hope that the Government and those who ordinarily support them in this House will adopt a more friendly attitude than did previous Governments? Cannot we hope that it could be accepted that although the changes being proposed here are important, they are not massive changes?—as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said.
What we are asking for is an extension of parish councils from rural areas to urban areas in England, as has already been done in Scotland and Wales. We are asking for this because we—those who support this Bill—see no reason why in this respect England, or, at any rate, the urban areas of England, should be left behind. Yesterday I was in Devon, where I often am, where there is a lively parish council which brings into public life, even if only on a small scale, people who would not ordinarily come into it at all; people who do not necessarily associate themselves with any one political party and who see that there can be, at the
84
level of the parish council, a most fruitful partnership and association with voluntary bodies of many different kinds.
The parish council there is one of the centres of communal life. But in what I think of as the urban village in London where I live when I am in London—it is part of one of the large boroughs that have been created in the course of time, as the result of the many reorganisations of local government generally—there is no democratic representation of the kind which people have the advantage of if they live in the country and have to act for them a parish council, through which they can act on very much a self-help basis.
I am claiming that this Government have a signal opportunity to do better than two Governments which have gone before them. I am referring in particular to the Heath and Wilson Governments, who both considered this proposal in their time. I had the somewhat unhappy experience of lobbying both. The first occasion was in 1970 when, with Derek Senior and Donald Chesworth and other stalwarts, and with the backing of the National Association of Parish Councils, we set up the Association of Neighbourhood Councils to press for just this Bill, or something very like it.
We all then feared that in the proposed local government reorganisation of that time, following the Redcliffe-Maud report, no firm action would be taken on elected neighbourhood councils or urban parish councils. We feared that even though the case was as strong as we believed it to be, and as I still believe it to be. The case was strengthened by what went into the Redcliffe-Maud report. That commission was bound to ask whether the territories in which local government operated were in all cases the right ones. It was bound to ask whether, in the light of the success of rural parish councils, there should not be an extension of them into urban areas. It was all the more bound to do so because the commission's own research showed that in urban areas three-quarters of electors defined their local community as being no larger than the size of a ward.
The newly-formed association followed up this research with some of its own—to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has referred—and showed that in many different parts of the country it is to small-scale areas that popular loyalties attach, and not to larger units, such as have been created—always larger on each occasion—out of the long line of reorganisations which started in the last century.
In the minds of the supporters of this Bill it is the belief that if local government rests at its bottom tier on really local communities, it will have a secure base in people's loyalties and interests. It will recognise not the economies of scale, but the psychological virtues of small scale. The case was partly made by Derek Senior in his minority report of the commission. He did not refer to them as neighbourhood councils, or as urban parish councils; in his report he used the term, "common councils". He saw common councils as having the function,
"to act as a sounding-board for community opinion"
on all matters affecting the local environment. It would also share with district and regional councils a

85
general power superseding all existing permissive powers of local government to provide as many social and recreational facilities, amenities and conveniences for the benefit of its area's inhabitants as they are prepared to pay for through a local precept on the rates, but it would play no part in the discharge of the statutory duties of local government. His report was a powerful one, and it still bears reading.
Although the association was set up and was reasonably active, it did not get far until a little later, after 1970. It was joined by the late and lamented Airey Neave, who was then Member of Parliament for Abingdon, and by a group of Conservative Back-Benchers. Between us the Heath Government were persuaded that they should provide that small boroughs, such as Abingdon and Totnes, should not be wiped out, as was proposed, but replaced by successor councils with the powers of parish councils. I think most people who have followed the fate of these new councils, or successor councils, throughout the country believe that they have acquitted themselves well, or at least have performed a service that would have been sadly missed if they had been wiped out as originally suggested. Unfortunately, the Government would go no further by giving firm support to parish councils in urban areas, other than the particular ones where the ancient boroughs had existed.
The Wilson Government were hardly more favourable, though Mr. Crosland, when Secretary of State for the Environment, did at least give a small grant to the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, which enabled it to survive and flourish. Unfortunately, that grant has recently been withdrawn by the present Government, though no doubt in the light of the arguments being advanced tonight the noble Lord the Minister may consider that perhaps that retrograde step should be reversed.
Tonight, with the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we have a chance to break new ground and at last ensure that the lessons about the advantages of the small scale, which have been learned over many centuries in rural areas, should be applied to urban areas, even if it is against the trend of history. There is surely no reason why urban areas should any longer be deprived. It needs only a small step to be taken along a road that was started many years ago for urban areas to enjoy the advantages that rural areas have had for a long time; to learn from their experience, and to put back into local government in urban areas some of the spiritual fundament that local government needs if it is to survive and flourish—and I believe that it would be very much in the interests of this country if it did.
8.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I should like to say one or two things briefly in support of the intentions of this Bill, because it seems to me that its implementation would lead to the enhancement of democratic government. That sounds a great big phrase, but it is very important. I suppose in theory most people would go along with the idea that it is good if people can have a say about matters that affect them at absolutely local level. But in a world which is becoming increasingly complex and, therefore, more and more difficult to control and direct, the good intentions of democratic feeling are always up against
86
the pressures for centralisation and the supposed interests of control. Therefore, I think that it is incumbent upon thoughtful people to be constantly vigilant on behalf of participation at local level, and that is what I see this Bill as standing for.
Where outside the cities and the towns there are parish councils, the average representation is, I think, about one parish councillor to every 200 of population. At that level people can know their representative and he can know them. They all belong to the same scene. He knows what they are talking about, and they know what he is talking about. Local communities can decide on many things about their own priorities, through their own resources, and express their own needs. There is a very different picture where one gets the average representation in the urban situation. I believe there is about one district or borough councillor to 8,000 people in Manchester and to 5,000 people in London. It is a very different scene. In spite of the excellent work that is done by councillors at that kind of level, the sensitive touch that can be so important in dealing with certain matters at local level, where the man is part of the local scene, is less likely to be forthcoming.
The parish council level of local government can do a lot to make local government more effective. Where they work well, parish councils can be sensitive local eyes and ears for the higher local authorities. Parish councils can provide an accurate, respected and sensitive line of communication for the public at a very basic level if they want their concerns to go to a higher level, where they are more appropriately dealt with. I believe that this great effectiveness of local government can do much to reverse the damaging apathy which can easily become a feature of a mass society in which ordinary people feel that everything is so complicated, and power and authority so far away, that there is nothing to do except cultivate the garden.
Finally, may I say a few words about voluntary organisations, which have already been mentioned. One of the ways that local authorities can play a very important part at all levels is in partnership with voluntary organisations. Where services and amenities are being cut, as they are at present, the voluntary organisations become increasingly important. A healthy society throws up a lot of voluntary organisations at local level. Something very valuable could come out of that, where there is a really local element of local government to go into partnership with them and fund them, or whatever it may be.
There is also a planning issue. Parish councils have a right to be consulted about certain planning matters. There ought to be at that level people who understand more about a matter being brought into the planning field than may be known at a higher level. For those reasons I support the intentions of this Bill.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may follow, with real pleasure, the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, who showed real sensitivity and understanding regarding the aspirations behind the Bill, based upon what I detected to be a genuine understanding of some of the failings in our present democratic fabric. This fabric has been fashioned to be responsive to the pressures of modern

87
society, and yet it is his experience and, I believe, the experience of every member of this House—certainly those with local government experience—that we are constantly aggravated and frustrated by the fact that the machinery which Parliament appears to have provided is not quite appropriate—if not in all circumstances, then in many of them.
The Minister will find that in the small band of those speaking in this debate there is unanimity that what is being sought is desirable. The Minister is quite fairly entitled to say that there is a difference between that which we all feel is desirable and that which is practicable.
I want to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord McIntosh on his initiative and to join with his name that of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Darting-ton, who has long experience and a proud record of innovation and initiative in not merely the field of government, but also many other spheres, too. My noble friend Lord McIntosh not only brings to this debate a deep interest in matters democratic, but from his experience on the Greater London Council he is also able to tell us, as he hinted, some of the problems that face big forms of government, which do not always present the best way of solving problems.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Underhill, who was in his place for a fair while, has now left, because he is President of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the largest bodies. It shows something not only for his own interest in local government but expands the dimension at which we are looking—those forms of government which have responsibility for trying to satisfy millions of people, and what we are talking about, satisfying, in some instances, hundreds of people. Certainly, I do not think that anyone can cavil at the prime objectives of the Bill.
I have a document of which I believe many noble Lords will have the benefit. It is headed Urban Parishes Bill and is published by the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, to which reference was made by the first two speakers in the debate. I think the objectives are perfectly simple—to extend local democracy, to expand local democracy and to make it more meaningful. We have of course no firm yardstick or measuring rod as to why in certain circumstances people do not take advantage of the franchise which has been extended to them. We all know of the great suffering of many people particularly women in getting suffrage over the past 100 years and the aggravation one finds on the doorsteps from men and women who treat all too lightly their opportunity of taking part in the election. In national elections fewer than 60 or 70 per cent. of the people entitled to vote turn out and in council elections and regional elections 30 per cent. or sometimes even less turn out. In some of the wards of my former constituency of Edmonton, to my shame, sometimes only 20 to 21 per cent. of the people given the opportunity to tell their councillors what they wanted to do took advantage of it.
In supporting the Bill and I hope in seeing the Government's unwillingness to block the progress of the Bill we are trying to experiment in a new initiative. I am bound to say to my noble friend Lord McIntosh that I am not optimistic that there will be a wild rush
88
of groups of people, organisations or individuals who will be looking upon this as something for which they have been waiting for years. That is quite clear and I am sure the Minister is well briefed and will be able to tell us of the extent to which in certain parts of the country, even with the present opportunities, there has been a demand or a cry for these opportunities, but that does not mean to say that we ought not to extend the franchise to other areas and to other groups. It might be that what one needs is a stimulus or some publicity or one needs to make it more exciting.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord McIntosh quite properly steered, as did his co-sponsor of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, wholly away from party politics, governments or matters of that kind. I should like to look upon this—I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House would like to look upon this—as an opportunity. We certainly have disillusionment and aggravation as to the accessibility by ordinary people to the people whom they believe have power. Those of us who have been councillors, while we know we had power, were certainly not all-powerful. What we are about here is to make Government and living more meaningful.
Certainly those who have served on large authorities—I served in a London borough which was large by comparison—do not need to be told sometimes that small is beautiful. We have all had experience of residents' associations, tenants' associations and ratepayers' associations and groups that are formed to fight the passage of a road or the extension of an industrial development. We know the things that can excite people which are not wholly related to politics. While we are politicians we are not talking here about party politics. We are talking about providing a framework for ordinary people perhaps to find a little ecitement in their ordinary lives.
I was sorry to note in the document we received that in many urban areas there is a resistance by district councils to fulfilling the requirements of the law and some have decided to take no action at all. I am bound to say that I am not fully briefed on the past history in this matter, but I would be disappointed if there were councils and councillors who were not big enough to recognise that, although they have authority and responsibility, it is still possible to give to smaller groups of people a say in what happens in their part of the world. If they talk in terms of expense, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey might be able to tell me how these matters are governed. The Bill says that,
"The expenses of the procedure are to be defrayed as expenses of the relevant district council under section 147 of the 1972 Act and may therefore be charged upon the area concerned".
I assume that the area concerned is the district, or does it mean that if a number of people petition success-fully, the costs are to be borne by the area, the geographical area within the district? I can imagine some difficulty. One could find people signing petitions and putting their hands up, but when they were told that it would cost them £3·50, or whatever it might be, they might say that they were not as serious as all that. We need to look at the money business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I may be able to help my noble friend. Section 147 of the 1972 Act says:

89
"All expenses of a principal council shall be general expenses chargeable on the whole of their area"—
except under a number of circumstances which I do not see in this case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if, for instance, the London Borough of Enfield received a petition, the procedures worked and a parish was created within the London Borough of Enfield, then the costs of the procedures would be borne by the total ratepayers of the London Borough of Enfield. To that extent one might get some parts of a borough saying, "One part of the borough has it, so why not us?" The answer is that these things are experimental where a borough is courageous enough to respond to a petition from an area.
I live in a part called Bush Hill Park, which is well known to my noble friend Lord McIntosh and perhaps to other noble Lords. Bush Hill Park is literally two sides of the track area. There is a railway line which runs from Liverpool Street to Enfield Town. One side of the track, between Edmonton and Enfield, is called Bush Hill Park. The other side of the track is also called Bush Hill Park. They are two distinct, separate environmental areas. One is more residential, the other is more industrial. They are clearly distinct little villages. People talk in terms of the village. I can well see one side thinking that it is a good idea and the other side not thinking it is a good idea. What we are after, surely, is a willingness to experiment in these matters.
I can also think of the area of Enfield Lock, where the small arms factory is. It is greatly bedevilled by problems of the north-south road which will come and affect the area. I can see them becoming very excited about the possibility of getting a veneer of muscle. If that cost a fraction of a penny on my rates, I would say good luck to them and would support them. Another area of Edmonton, the Weir Hall Estate, is trying to get some activity off the ground. I think that that would be a good way of spending money.
The mover of the Bill was very careful and honest in pointing out that it is not merely a question of a group of people saying that they want something and getting it. There are a lot of hurdles along the way. A phrase used more than once was, "may, if they think fit". The power to frustrate the proposal is very real and is in the hands of the district council. But the Bill mentions the procedures which are open to petitioners if their petition is opposed.
The Minister is entitled to point out the difficulties along the way and to be sceptical about the need for the proposal. But I believe that any encouragement that we can give to a Bill which, although it could be improved, nevertheless would extend to everyone in this land enjoyments which are available only to some should be encouraged. I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey for providing us with the opportunity to say just that. I very much hope that the Minister will be helpful in his reply. 8.31 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, from our experience in his time with us no one in your Lordships' House can be surprised at the interest of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in local government. Irrespective of his expertise in digital mapping, he has made clear on this Bill and in his second speech today
90
his interest in particular in parish councils as representing local opinion. How could it be otherwise? He is, as he reminded us, a past chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils.
In his speech the noble Lord pointed particularly to the need for local people to be able to express themselves through local representatives. If I may paraphrase what he said, because I did not quite get his words correctly, he said that people identify with small geographical areas. He is not alone in his support for this view or indeed in his support for parish councils and his belief in their value as units of local representa-tive government. For example, the right reverend Prelate spoke of the sensitive local eyes and ears of parish councillors. However, he then went on to say that he wondered whether people would be better off cultivating their gardens than trying to approach their district councillor if they happened to live in an urban area. I think, with the greatest respect, that perhaps he was then going a little too far.
To be serious, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been joined today by every other noble Lord who has spoken. Not only that; my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently affirmed the Government's support for parish councils in a message to the National Association of Local Councils on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the passing of the Local Government Act 1894, under which civil parishes were created. In his message he pointed to the fact that over 100 new parishes with councils have been created in England since this Administration took office in 1979, and this without using his powers of direction set out in Section 49(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows well.
Two thirds of those new parishes are in areas which were urban districts or boroughs before the local government reorganisation in 1974. That again should not surprise us: before 1974, the rural areas were already "parished" but the Local Government Act 1972 essentially abolished the differences between urban and rural areas outside London and made possible the extension of the parish council system to urban areas. Thus it is in the "unparished" areas of former urban districts and boroughs that the greatest scope for creation of new parishes exists.
The very fact of the creation of so many new parishes is in itself evidence that the present procedure for the creation of parishes is working, and working well, in urban and rural areas alike, wherever local need is established following a proper review. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that parish reviews began only in 1978–79 after the local government boundary commission embarked on a massive programme of electoral reviews since 1974, when the Act effectively came into operation. Thus we have nothing to compare this situation with. But I take his point.
The procedure for the review of parishes was established in the Local Government Act 1972, which gave the initiative to the district councils, which were charged with the duty of keeping the parish arrangements in their districts under review at all times. Under a different Administration, guidelines for the carrying out of reviews by district councils were laid down in the Department of the Environment's circular

91
121/77. Those guidelines pointed to the importance of local opinion as a prime factor to be taken into account in considering changes in parish arrangements, including the creation of new parishes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in this Bill would have Parliament create a second, parallel, complex procedure for the creation of those new parishes. But I really must ask him directly, what is the point?
The noble Lord said in his speech that the current procedures were not going fast enough. I am not sure whether he actually said that, but I have a feeling that he implied it. I can tell him that progress is going on steadily by local councils filling a proper role. In answer to the noble Lord's direct question, two-thirds of the 36 metropolitan district councils have carried out a review, initiated one or indicated that they are undertaking a review. I can go along with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, at least in so far as I applaud that. But the Government see that as evidence that the current situation is good and the current procedures are working well. They see no need whatsoever to tamper with arrangements which are so working.
London is, as it is so often, different. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed to that fact in his speech. The provisions for review of parishes by district councils do not apply to London boroughs, and the 1972 Act makes no alternative provision for the creation of parish in London. In this the Act followed the London Government Act 1963. The Herbert Royal Commission on London Government (from 1957 to 1960) had considered quite seriously the suggestion of urban parishes, and, with all its expertise, it rejected it. It may be that with the passage of time a different view would prevail if the matter were looked at again. But I must say that the silence of those demanding parishes in London is quite deafening. In the past four years the Department of the Environ-ment has received only one letter on the subject. There is simply no demand for the parishing of London. If however, that were the case—and I say "if"—the logical way to go about it would be by extending to the London boroughs the provisions in the Local Government Act for the review of parish arrangements which apply already in districts outside London.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is better to ask a question now than not to have it answered in a winding-up speech. Now that the noble Lord has gone back to the question of district councils, and as he has told us that two-thirds of metropolitan district councils are doing something or have indicated that they will do something, can he tell us what has actually been done? How many urban parish councils have in fact been set up under this legislation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know from experience that the House does not exactly like shopping lists. I do not propose to give it one. I have a detailed list in front of me which perhaps I may show the noble Lord afterwards. In summary, some reviews have been completed and orders have been made and some have been completed and no proposals have been made. I can see a couple with the Local Government Boundary Commission, and there are no
92
recommendations. I am not making the point that parish councils are necessarily acceptable. The point that I am trying to make is that in two-thirds of the metropolitan districts reviews are being undertaken, which is what, as I understood it, the noble Lord by this Bill wanted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not asking the Minister for a shopping list. I am not asking him to name the parish councils concerned. All I want to know is: how many parish councils have been established, or, if it makes it easier for him, since he referred to it, how many orders for the establishment of parish councils have actually been made in urban areas in England in the period since 1978 when the reviews started?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. The noble Lord has misunderstood me. I must have expressed myself rather badly. What I am saying is that for the purposes of my case—although I agree not necessarily for the purposes of his case—the important thing is that the reviews either are being undertaken or will be undertaken and there is a commitment by the district councils so to do. Whether this at the end of the day arrives with the creation of new parishes is not necessarily the point—in my book anyway—because what we need is a sympathetic review as provided for under the Local Government Act, 1972 and this, as I have said, we are having.
I would sum up the Government's approach by saying that this Bill is both unnecessary and wrong. In so far as it relates to areas outside London, it is wholly unnecessary since there already exists a perfectly adequate procedure under which many urban parishes have already been created and no doubt many more will be created as time goes on. They are in areas where the people want them, the district council accept them and the local government boundary commission has approved them and made proposals accordingly for the Secretary of State.
Not only are the proposals in this Bill unnecessary, they are also wrong, in that the figures that the noble Lord so proudly quoted of 20 per cent. for with a possibility of 10 per cent. against are, I would suggest to your Lordships, a recipe for local dissent. The attempt to force the pace in areas where the creation of parishes breaks new ground would lead only to heartburn.
In so much as the Bill relates to London, it is again unnecessary and wrong. It does not of course duplicate an existing procedure. There is no existing procedure for the creation of parishes in London, because Parliament in 1972, as in 1963, accepted that there was no need. As I said, there is still no need. The people do not seek to have parishes. The London borough councils are the representative local bodies, the communities with which people identify. Even if that were not the case, the Bill is wrong because the way to provide for considered proposals for parishes is not the over-elaborate way proposed in the Bill.
We have had a good, interesting debate today. It is unfortunate that it has come on so late at night and that more people were not involved with it. It is only right and proper that your Lordships' House should debate matters of this kind from time to time. I have

93
certainly welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for parishes as a basic unit of local government in areas where the need for them is properly established.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke of the stimulus that a debate such as this gives, and I must say that I agree with him. I hope that, with that and with the report I have given of the progress being made in the creation of new parishes, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will accept that he has achieved much—as much as he can reasonably have hoped for—in introducing his Bill at this time. I hope, too, that he will accept that the proposals which it contains are in truth the answer to a non-existent problem and that he will now feel able to withdraw the Bill. If he does not feel that way, I hope that at the very least he will not seek to take it further than this stage tonight.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for making his and the Government's position so clear. I think that is about all I can be grateful to him for, because it seems to me that the arguments he has put forward do not really advance the case for local democracy and do not really provide an adequate response to something which is not and was never intended to be a party political issue.
May I say two things that I quite wrongly neglected to say when I moved the Second Reading? Firstly, that the Bill is not my Bill, in the sense that I neither have the knowledge nor the ability to draft legislation of this kind. The Bill is, with the major exception that it now purports to apply to London, the Bill introduced in another place by the late Mr. Graham Page, Conservative MP for Crosby, in 1977. My noble friend, Lord Young, has referred to the support of Conservative MPs for legislation of this kind in suburban areas and small towns. Mr. Graham Page felt that it was important enough for legislation of this kind to apply to our big cities and towns.
The second point that I wrongly neglected to make was that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, had put his name down to speak but has written to me to say that he is very sorry that he had to scratch from the debate because,
"the time is now so late, I have to get back to my wife, who is not well. I hope you have no difficulty in receiving a Second Reading".
This is from Conservative Benches and I am sure, because he has expressed public support for this before, that he would have no objection to my saying this. This is not a party matter and it really ought not to be treated in that way.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I was making what I thought and the Government consider to be valid points. I was not trying to make it into a party political matter, and I hope he will accept that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance and of course I accept it. But really the strength of the argument is also inadequate against this Bill. Yes, it is recognised and there is
94
common agreement that the successor councils proposed by the 1972 Act are working well. I believe that the noble Lord agreed with that point which had already been made. It is not the case that the provisions for parish reviews are working well. If they were working well 10 years after this came into force, then there would be urban parishes. Yes of course it is possible in the outer suburban areas where there were preceding authorities for there to be urban parishes. What is difficult is for people in the inner city areas, those most in need of the opportunity to band together to protect their rights and to provide services for themselves and for each other. It is these people who need those services. They have never had the experience of parishes and they do not know what they are. How can we expect them to make an effective demand for a parish review when the initiative, as the noble Lord said in his speech, comes from the district council and not from the people concerned?
I think that is the fundamental issue with which we are concerned here. Where shall the initiative come from? Is the initiative to come from the established tiers of local authorities, as was proposed by the Government, as is in fact the case and as is not working, or is it to come from the people themselves when they want this provision to be made? Nobody is forcing urban parish councils on anybody. Nobody is saying that in urban areas where there is dissent there should be an unopposed petition. I think the noble Lord completely misunderstood the import of what I was saying. What I was saying was that there are heavy hurdles against local activists who want to have an urban parish council—a very heavy hurdle of a 20 per cent. demand—and a small hurdle for those who want to object to it. So it is more difficult, not less difficult, to get an urban parish council.
Nobody is being forced to do anything. What we are saying is that the parish review procedure has patently, after 10 years, not worked. We are suggesting that, rather than scrap it all and start again, we should provide an alternative which will work because it must work: allow the parish review procedure to go unaltered where it has been started and let us actually make some progress.
The final point I want to make is about London. The noble Lord went on at some length—no, forgive me, he was quite explicit—about London and about what he described as the level of demand. But of course the Herbert Commission in 1957 and onwards had none of the ideas that we have now about local responsibility, about local democracy. All the ideas in those days were about the efficiency of large-scale organisations. Have we not by 1984 learnt our lesson? Of course it was consonant with opinion at the time for the Herbert Commission to reject the idea and of course, having done so, it is very difficult for local people in London who have had a flat "no" every time they have raised this issue, to be encouraged to make proposals. If there is a procedure for a petition and it is applied to London, I can assure the noble Lord and the Government that there will be demands from many, many local areas to have this basic unit of local democracy. My Lords, I do not wish to withdraw the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Bill
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Recreational Gardening Bill [H.L.]
8.51 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I express my grateful thanks to noble Lords who have supported the Bill: Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and also the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who referred to it as my window-box Bill, a point that I much appreciate. My thanks are also extended to Mr. Tom Hume, secretary of the London Society of Recreational Gardeners, together with Garden News for their full support. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, for his constructive criticisms of the Bill which I have taken into account and thus improved the Bill considerably.
Now this Bill passes into the uncertain and dangerous waters of another place. However, hope rises eternal. This Bill is needed by those who get down to earth and cultivate the soil getting healthy recreation and peace of mind in the process. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Afghanistan
8.52 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards an international solution on Afghanistan, and what assistance they are providing for refugees fleeing the Soviet occupation.
The noble Earl said: I raise this Question because I think we should examine whether we are being complacent about what is happening in Afghanistan. All of us have read this morning about a great victory which has apparently been won by the Government troops. We have to remember, on reading reports from Afghanistan, that it is a place where there are no war correspondents and that the information we receive is that communicated by the Government in Kabul to Delhi. It is then reproduced in the media in this country. No doubt, many of your Lordships saw a picture of Russian tanks not in Afghanistan but, I
96
presume, in the plains of the Ukraine, or some such place, to give an indication at least of what Russian tanks look like.
This war is a conflict between the great body of people in Afghanistan and a puppet of the Russian Government who differs only from the tyrant Timerlane in that Timerlane did his work in public while Mr. Karmal does it in private. We do not know exactly therefore what he is doing. One feature that can be learnt is that the Russians today have lost faith in the strength of their ideology. They are no longer convinced that the Marxist-Leninist creed will win the hearts of people. They have thrown their weight on the strength of the Russian Army. This takes us a step further. There are now three wars taking place between the Mediterranean and the Indus river or, shall I say, the Pakistan frontier. Wars are not too difficult to start but they are very difficult to stop. It is completely impossible to prevent them spreading. If three wars are taking place in states of moderate stability it will only be a matter of years before the Straits of Hormuz are closed. What effect that has on the economy I do not know, but probably less today than 10 years ago.
I should like now to mention the refugees. Twenty-five years ago there were about 1·25 million refugees in the world. There are now 10 million, half of them refugees from Afghanistan. That figure does not take account of refugees inside Afghanistan. Whether in the Horn of Africa, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, or anywhere else, there are people running away from communism. Inevitably, we are paying for this. It is a world problem. I should mention especially Pakistan, which is paying for at least half of the cost of the refugees. It is true, of course, that the High Commissioner for Refugees is probably meeting some of the costs, as are the voluntary societies.
I must also mention the work of the United Nations. For five years, the United Nations General Assembly, by a large majority—at least two-thirds—has called upon the Soviet Union to retire from Afghanistan. This call has been completely ignored. Russia is now of course in complete disagreement—or should I say revolt—from its undertaking as a member of the United Nations. The punishment for those who do not tell the truth or who do not fulfill their obligations is that no one believes them in the future. That is, I fear, a great complication in the wider and perhaps more important negotiations that have been taking place in Europe. I have seen it reported that the World Council of Churches is in favour of Russian action. That may not be true. If, however, it is, I feel aggrieved that it should be so. We should pay full tribute to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, and his deputy, Mr. Cordovez, for the work that they have done. They have stretched themselves to the limit, year by year, to try to make some impact, with I fear little effect on the Russians.
The reign of terror that has lasted more or less since the revolution of 1978 has been almost entirely due to the formation of communist parties in Afghanistan. The party was started in about 1965 and has since been quarrelling within itself. Like so many communist parties, it has divided into at least four branches. The question that most people ask is whether Russia has stumbled and then fallen into a bog or have they followed, perhaps more accurately,

97
the testament of Peter the Great—the testament which says, "Go South"? There is certainly some strong evidence that it is towards the South that the Soviets have been moving. Their explanation for what they are doing is wholly unsatisfactory. The Soviet ambassador at the United Nations said it was an internal affair for Afghanistan. Twelve divisions of Russian troops hardly make it look like a purely internal affair. Mr. Brezhnev complained about outside interference. Yet at present no evidence has been satisfactorily produced of outside interference. The leader writer, Mr. Bonin of Izvestia, said that there were fears of religious extremism. If anything has created religious extremism, it is the conduct of the Russians at present.
It is clear that there was considerable preparation in the Soviet organisation of the Army before this adventure took place. They proceeded, as has been the usual practice in recent years in Afghanistan by assassinating the Prime Minister as the man in charge. It was a well organised scheme. A special party that might be described as similar to the SAS was sent to the palace with the strictest order that no one should escape. We do not know therefore what happened inside. All we know is that no one escaped and that following a fight about 2,000 people were destroyed. It is not without interest that the Russian commander accidentally walked outside and was immediately shot by his own side. Thereafter a recorded television broadcast of Mr. Karmal was shown in Kabul a week before he turned up himself. He is believed to be a member of the KGB.
It is important to give some idea of what is happening in Afghanistan at present. It is said that the Russians are confined to the towns and that the country is unaffected. Ruthless brutality is being conducted; and I am bound to say that neither the Afghans nor the Russians have a particularly good record in the treatment of prisoners. I would not pretend that they have. It is quite clear that the towns are not very safe places for Russians to walk about in. Kandahar has been extremely badly bombed and I am told that at present the Government have lost control of it. A large part of Western Herat has been destroyed by bombs; and what is more significant, it is stated that half the hospitals and schools in Afghanistan have already been destroyed. Villages have been destroyed continuously and any stragglers promptly executed. What is perhaps more damnable, if I may say so, is the invention by chemical engineers, no doubt in Moscow, of scatter bombs, some of which resemble toys or maybe watches. One only has to touch them and one has lost a limb. This is the way in which it is being conducted. It is important to remember that the opposition, the Mujahadin, are unpaid. It is a voluntary war on their side. They are the "warriors of god", and it is basically a union of religious antagonism to what they call a godless civilisation from Russia. It seems to me that the Russians are showing no sign of using what we call the "heart and mind", or indeed of promoting their ideology. They are using exclusively force.
What can we do? This is the question which I am asking my noble friend. Are we being complacent or are we taking any part in this? The first action that we took was to ask my noble friend Lord Carrington to go
98
to Moscow. He went there representing all the Western powers of Europe. His proposal was the neutralisation of Afghanistan. That is clearly the proper course to take and there is no reason why Russia should not accept that. There is something of the story of Little Red Riding Hood about this, because for many years relations between Afghanistan and Russia were good. The Russians did a lot to help the Afghans. Suddenly it has turned sour, to the bitterest and most brutal of wars. It is unlikely that the Russians can ever be pushed out. What they may do is to stay there for 20 years and, to use the famous words of Tacitus, "make a desert and call it peace". That is probably the only course which they can take.
What we can do is to ensure that what is happening there receives the widest possible publicity so that no-one should be in doubt as to what the Russians are capable of doing or are doing. We should recognise what Pakistan has done—so far as I can gather, with a remarkable amount of harmony—in taking on 3 million refugees. It is not an easy task and not one which can easily be paid for by Pakistan, which is not a very rich country. Certainly we should support to the utmost the secretary general in all he does. I believe that in every way he has put his heart and soul into trying to find a solution there. Voluntary organisations can help to see that medicine, clothes, food and other requirements are brought in, and we should do that.
I should particularly like to mention a very fine French organisation called "Medicine Sans Frontières"—"Doctors to all parts of the World". From all I have learnt they are doing a first-class job. There is information now coming through to Russia. People who are wounded are more trouble than people who are dead. The information is now spreading. A number of reports are coming out bit by bit in the Russian papers. It is possible that the Russians may be willing to compromise. This is a course we should exploit. I am not prepared to say that we should not pay something or be prepared to agree to something of a compromise. I am quite certain that there are the strongest possible reasons why this must stop. If it does not stop then we should leave Russia in no doubt whatever that their conduct is a disgrace to civilisation and that what they are doing will neither be forgotten nor forgiven.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we must express our thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for raising this question at this moment. We have not debated it for some time and it is a very good thing that we should debate it now. I think I can agree with everything the noble Earl has said. I doubt that we are being unduly complacent; perhaps we are, but I should like to think that perhaps we are not. I am going to make certain suggestions later on as to what we might do; otherwise I agree entirely with what the noble Earl has said.
Unless I am wrong, the present situation is that the Russians hold most of the towns, at least by day, and that the greater part of the extremely mountainous country is now, after four years of occupation, still substantially in revolt. The total population, thanks to this enormous emigration of 4 million people, has been reduced by anything up to 30 per cent. and the fall in agricultural production, so I am told, is

99
absolutely catastrophic. There is general misery, therefore, as a result of the appalling action taken by the Soviet Government, to which the noble Earl drew attention.
Nobody knows whether the latest offensive against the Panjshir will be successful. I am told that the tactics of the Russian army are now considerably better than they were, unfortunately, and it may be that this time it will be successful in occupying the Panjshir Valley. After all, they have claimed success in that two or three times before and it has not worked out that way. When the tanks come back down the valley the freedom fighters come down from the mountain tops and the situation is much as before.
I would like to peer for a moment into the future and consider how this awful situation may eventually work out. Can Soviet occupation go on indefinitely? That is a question which was raised by the noble Earl. As I understood it, his answer was, "Yes, it could". I agree that it could do so, provided that there is no failure of will on the part of the Politburo to pursue a war which, besides being very expensive, is becoming more and more unpopular in Russia itself. I think that the Politburo could do that—in spite of what I have said—if it wants to do so, and provided that the freedom fighters of various kinds, the Mujahidin, continue their guerrilla operations of some kind and are not forced, by one means or another—and notably by starvation in the long run—to abandon the struggle altogether.
What can we do about it?—and by "we" I mean the West generally. I think that the general line should be, in the first place, by one means or another to encourage the insurgents to go on with their resistance and to this end to provide them, if we can, with small but efficient anti-helicopter weapons which can be operated by one man. I am told by local experts that that is what they really want. If they can get such weapons then the helicopters cannot come in low, but will have to keep up high and thus their destructive capability is that much less and the morale of the insurgents is therefore enormously increased. I do not know whether these weapons, which are not very large, could be got in somehow or other, but I sincerely hope so. I also hope that by one means or another—and I do not know quite where—certain members of the resistance could be trained in their use. If the West is capable of that kind of action it would have a very good effect on prolonging the resistance of the Mujahidin.
Secondly, the West could provide through the United Nations—which I agree is doing wonders—funds to see to it that at least the 3 million refugees in Pakistan (and I think that they are nearly all Pashtuns; they come and go, but broadly speaking 3 million are still there) are kept alive with their families. Thirdly—and this is perhaps more debatable—we should maintain by constant propaganda and by other means, pressure on the Soviet Union to arrive at some agreement with the rebels which might perhaps in the long run save face on both sides. I believe that it is noteworthy that even the so-called "uncommitted nations" have not lately been seeking to excuse the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which of course is quite inexcusable in
100
itself. Indeed, I feel that it might be possible to enlist a good many of the non-committed nations in a movement to induce the Russians to consider a solution broadly speaking similar to the third aim which I have put forward.
The whole situation is most unstable and hence dangerous from the general international point of view. Nobody seems to be quite certain what the future policy of Pakistan is likely to be; nobody can be quite certain—as was hinted by the noble Earl—that the Russians might not profit by events in Baluchistan in order effectively to reach the Persian Gulf. If that happened there is no concealing the fact that the danger of World War III would loom. Perhaps, therefore, in the long run, the best hope—and I only say that it is the best hope—is that the two super powers, conscious of the undoubted fact that a real clash between them could only result in the destruc-tion of both—might arrange, in the context of some new policy of detente, that Afghanistan should, in effect, revert to its original status of a "buffer state", each super power giving guarantees, if they be necessary, that the new buffer state would in no case be used as a pawn to be advanced in some fearful "power play" against the other.
The advantages of such a solution from the point of view of both super powers are, on the face of it, so obvious that one need not despair, perhaps, of its ultimate achievement even if, human nature being what it is, there is no occasion to be particularly optimistic in this respect. Nor would such an arrange-ment necessarily come about in the context of what is now known geographically as Afgahnistan. The essential thing about the buffer state is that it should at least comprise all the tough warring elements between the Hindu Kush and the Durand Line, under the loose control of some central administration of a neutral character in Kabul.
This is perhaps the stuff that dreams are made of, but unless the Afghan rebels completely despair of any real support from the outside world—who knows?—dreams might, after all, come true. We must now maintain the morale of the freedom fighters by means that I have suggested, and perhaps by some other means, and at the same time persuade the Soviet Government that the continuance of the present struggle is not in their own interests, as indeed it is not in the interests of anybody else.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for raising this timely Question. I hope that it will be equally welcome to the Government, for it is in our national interest that the Soviet leaders should not be persuaded by silence to entertain the belief that the rest of the free and third world have, by a mere effluxion of time, begun to forget, let alone to condone, the occupation of Afghanistan. Of course, no one here would imagine that the Soviet Government would be ready to withdraw because of mere words alone. But, equally, we should not altogether forget that there have been rare instances since 1945 when the Soviet Union have been ready—even under Stalin and Khrushchev—to retreat from areas which they might claim to be within their cordon sanitaire—namely, Finland, the north of Persia and Austria.

101
What were the basic factors which persuaded them to do so in those cases? Basically, surely, there was the realisation that the game of occupation was not worth the candle in the light of the continuing hostility of the local population and of world opinion, which was then led by the United States, ourselves and France. That was on certain conditions: the so-called "Finlandisation" in the case of Finland, and neutrality and reparation in the case of Austria.
How might these factors apply to Afghanistan? The peoples of Afghanistan have certainly shown that they have no wish to succumb to Russian occupation now any more than on previous occasions. But, as others have mentioned—and it has been reported in the press—the tribal structure of Afghanistan has so far impeded the formation of the degree of political and military unity which can be recognised as an alterna-tive government to the Soviet puppet regime which is established in Kabul. Added to this, new weapons—for instance, the ruthless use of cannon helicopters, missiles and other weapons—have made a radical difference to the terms of warfare which in the last century in the mountains depended so largely on small arms against small arms; in other words, the bravery of the Afghans and their resistance is not likely of itself to be sufficient in terms of military resources expended and casualties suffered to force the Soviet Union to seek some means of terminating its military occupation.
However, equally, I trust that it does not mean that all the same we can be helpless bystanders. After all, we should be warned. When Stalin was asked whether he was not well satisfied that the Soviet Army had captured Berlin, he said, perhaps half in jest, but it was a jest of some seriousness, "Yes, but under the Czars we reached Paris". In the case of Afghanistan, the Soviet Government may claim some satisfaction in occupying a country which the Czars never achieved, and maybe is counting on the fact that early in its history the Soviet army had fought an unhurried 10-year war against the Bismachi in central Asia—the lessons learned then, now apparently being applied 50 years later in Afghanistan.
What, then, can the free world do? It was surely understandable that the initial reaction was against participation in such international gatherings as the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow and for the tightening of restrictions on exports of goods of high technology, including those needed for the completion of the gas pipeline to western Europe. But, foreseeably, such measures were not sufficiently effective to persuade the Russians to seek a way out of Afghanistan—and that despite various repeated efforts to reach an adjustment which would give the Soviet Union certain guarantees.
It is here important to know whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to seek what pressure can still be kept up by other means, and to show the Soviet leaders that they will not be allowed to impose their will scot-free. For instance, these are the questions which I trust the noble Baroness will welcome the opportunity to answer. What can be done to furnish arms to those who still have the courage to fight for their freedom? Would the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, find an echo? What continuing aid will we be prepared to provide on our
102
own account or internationally to the refugees who have preferred exile to submission? We have already heard of what Pakistan herself is prepared to do. Can we match this? What efforts are we making or do we intend to make to secure a European front in the Community to show that the EEC is not unconcerned with a small, far-off country and to follow up the initiative taken by a previous British Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, which has already been mentioned today? What more can be done to ensure that the United Nations continues to support its Secretary-General and that the nub of the matter is kept in mind—that is, the withdrawal of Soviet troops?
What also can Her Majesty's Government do to ensure that the British public know, with the example of Afghanistan before them, what kind of regime they are dealing with? I use the phrase advisedly, for was it not the one used by Kadar in attempting to warn Dubcek before the invasion of Czechoslovakia? "Don't you know", he asked him, "the kind of people you are dealing with?" There may be no exact parallels with Finland nor Persia nor Austria—the latest country so successfully to shake off Russian occupation—but I cannot myself altogether forget the remark dropped by my Russian colleague when I was High Commissioner in Austria during the seemingly endless negotiations for a state treaty. He was himself a Soviet general who had fought his way to Vienna against the Nazis. He was thus, he said, in a position to assure me that where the Soviet army had won its way at great sacrifice there could be no question of retreat. I am ready to accept that he believed that, yet, in the course of a few years and at the end of protracted negotiations, the state treaty was achieved and the Russians did go. Let this perhaps be some encouragement, although the parallel is not, as I said, exact.
One of the vital factors is present in Afghanistan; the will to resist despite the odds. I hope that the noble Baroness in replying to this Question will be able to assure us and others that, as far as lies within our power, we shall be ready to show an equal determination and a calm persistence in opposing continued occupation of this suffering country.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, no one could say that the first three speeches this evening have been full of blatant optimism. Yet I find myself rather more pessimistic than any of the three speakers who have preceded me, in so far as the possibility might exist of a successful outcome either of the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (which have been rightly commended) or of any other international movement towards a settlement of this issue. My reasons for this pessimism relate to my belief that we constantly underestimate, in discussing Soviet moves in Afghanistan or indeed in other parts of the world, the ability of the Soviet Union to plan for a long time ahead, to carry though its plans and to stick to the commitment that it has made—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, has reminded us, there may be circumstances—although I find them difficult to see in the present case—when they have beaten a retreat.
In the case of Afghanistan, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, pointed out, this is an area, a country,

103
which was coveted as the rounding off of the Russian conquest of Moslem Central Asia for a very long time. The balance was held and Afghanistan retained its independence—as the other ancient principalities of that area did not—for one very simple reason written in our own military annals, the presence to the south of the British Raj and the Indian Army. We did, after all, fight a number of wars to prevent this precise thing coming about. It was the balance of power that preserved the buffer state. And buffer states are normally only preserved by a balance of power. The main difficulty is that, since 1947, with the partition of the Indian sub-continent, that balance has been removed and Pakistan, in a way, has inherited our position and is clearly much to be praised for what it has done for the refugees, but is obviously in no position to do more.
The Soviet preparations for what is now going on in Afghanistan go back to 1954, 30 years ago, when they began a programme of assistance with the country's infrastructure, the roads, airstrips and its connections to the Soviet communication network, which has been of such great assistance to the Soviets in their invasion and in supporting their troops in the country. That complete, it was followed by a period in which the Soviet Union made itself the principal arms supplier and—perhaps more important—the principal source of training for Afghan officers. In the mid-1970s, as I think the noble Earl reminded us, political activity began with the gathering together of people discontented, no doubt, for one reason or another, beneath the banner of communism.
The events whch precipitated the present situation arose with the murder of President Daoud in 1978 followed by the setting up of a pro-Soviet régime—and the pattern could be repeated elsewhere—which, in turn, invited in civil and military advisers to strengthen its hand. These were at that time ineffective. There was large-scale rebellion, the replacement of one communist ruler of the country by another and then an invasion—and I do not know whether it took the intelligence services of the West at large by surprise—which in retrospect was certainly very carefully prepared and which contrasts pehaps with some operations that western countries have improvised in recent decades.
Therefore, it seems to be highly improbable that this long-term investment—30 years to bring about the present position—is something which the Soviet Union undertook lightly or would abandon except on some very powerful consideration. Again, the noble Earl reminded us that our sources of information are not of the best; but we are told by people who claim to know these things that by now there may be in the country as many as 200,000 troops—which is a very large force for a country which, though mountainous and difficult, is still a small country in world terms. We know what the immediate advantages and threats are, and this does increase the pressure on Pakistan and particularly on Baluchistan. It brings the Soviet power closer to the Gulf and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, reminded us, that is in itself a serious matter.
104
However, it seems to me that there is another and even greater danger, though one which may not emerge for decades; and this is where we ought to be directing much more of our attention than we are. That is the threat to India. The Indian Government—and here I think I must disagree, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, about the uncommitted world because in the so-called uncommitted world India is the largest and most important country—has shown great reluctance, at least publicly, to regard Soviet control of Afghanistan as in any way a threat in itself. Yet when one reads that the Indian Government is increasingly looking to the Soviet Union as a principal supplier of arms, one must wonder whether there is not the beginning—and, as I say, it may be decades—of a Soviet attempt to push India off the uncommitted fence and on to its own side. The fact that Marshal Ustinov's visit to India, though postponed by the death of Mr. Andropov, was not postponed for very long, suggests to me that it is India to which the Soviet Union attaches most importance. The only prospect I can see of a change in the balance of power or of a change in the political climate which whould be sufficient to make the Soviet Union re-think its position would be a change in the attitude of the Indian Government.
Meanwhile, my noble friend the Minister has, not unreasonably, been asked what Her Majesty's Government propose to do. I am sure that on assistance to the refugees there is general agreement and that we can expect continued assistance to be given to the Government of Pakistan, upon whom inevitably, for geographical reasons, the main burden of maintaining and of finding some kind of livelihood for these people rests.
I am a bit more doubtful, I must admit, perhaps on—I do not like to say "on moral grounds"— moral-prudential grounds, about the idea that we ought to give armed assistance to the dissidents. If we thought either that they were capable of military victory or if we believed (and I am more doubtful, I think, than some noble Lords) that the effect of Soviet losses would have so great an impact on the Soviet public that it might affect the issue, in those two cases there seems to me to be at any rate a reasonable argument for giving military assistance in the form of the weapons described by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, or in any other form that we thought appropriate.
But if one believes, as I do, that there is very little chance of either of these, ought we to give weapons which will encourage more brave men to go out and be killed without affecting the ultimate result? It is rather different from a government making a commitment with its own forces. One is making a commitment with other people's lives, and that is a commitment which I think one ought not to undertake unless one is fairly certain that the advantages outweigh the sacrifices one is being asked for.
This may not be the position of Her Majesty's Government. I am sure that they will wish, as the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said, to continue to make it clear that this occupation is unacceptable, and, in particular, perhaps to make it clear that Soviet conduct in respect of Afghanistan will help to mould our judgments about the activities of the Soviet Union and its client states in other parts of the world.

105
I began by saying that one advantage which the Soviet Union had was the capacity for long-term planning without the problems of Congress or even of your Lordships' House to face. There is another advantage, which is that in geopolitical and psychological terms it holds the middle line. It is at the centre and looks at the world as a whole. It does not distinguish—though it may in terms of urgency—between the spreading of its regime or its friends or its clients in one part of the world and
106
another; whereas our tendency, fortified perhaps by the way in which our Foreign Offices are normally constructed, is to treat each case in isolation and not to look to the lessons which could be learned from Soviet activity in one country about Soviet activity halfway across the world. We have to try to take at least as global a view of Soviet activity as the Soviet Union does of ours. If that, too, is a lesson learned, the sacrifices will not altogether, in the very long run perhaps, have been in vain.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I have no profound past knowledge of Afghanistan on which to draw and must rely, like the rest of us, on the unreliable press reports and on occasional contacts with those who have been nearer the scene of the crime. Fortunately, the Minister herself has recently travelled in those parts and I hope, therefore, that we shall have from her her authoritative impressions of the situation in the Afghanistan area.
Like other speakers, I should like to thank the noble Earl for directing our attention to these deplorable events in Afghanistan. It has long been the purpose of the Soviet Union and its associates to keep the limelight off this situation; to allow it to become a forgotten war and to permit the conscience of the world to forget it, if not forgive it. It is essential, therefore, that the international interest should be maintained and, indeed, greatly increased.
It so happens that the press today contains items referring to this situation—the news, correct or incorrect, of the guerrilla reverses in Afghanistan, the problems set out in an interesting article in The Times, about the difficulties of organising unity among the guerrillas, and also tonight, which because of this debate we are missing, there is a film on the BBC made by somebody who has recently been inside the Afghanistan border.
Members of the House will recall that the USSR has been roundly condemned by large majorities in the United Nations, including the great majority of the non-aligned countries to whom the Russians usually look, if not for support at least for silence. Yet many people in this country continue to avert their eyes, or to equate events in Afghanistan with events elsewhere—even, for example, the liberation of Grenada. Those who draw that particular parallel seem readily to forget that the Russians promptly murdered the man who, they alleged, had invited them in.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asks two questions: how can the refugees be helped, and how can the war be brought to an end? As for the refugees, it is incredible to think that the war has added at least 4 million to the world's tragic total of persons driven from their homeland. It is a staggering figure, representing a greater number than the population of very many respected individual members of the United Nations. The noble Baroness has seen the situation for herself and we are anxious to hear about her impressions.
I believe, however, that we must draw some small consolation from the fact that the plight of these wretched people is less heartrending than that of their counterparts in many other areas of the world. This is due to the international generosity of many countries, including our own, and in particular to the generosity of the Pakistan Government and some of the Moslem countries of the Middle East. The United Nations Refugee Organisation has played an admirable part, and in the last few hours we have learned that delegates to the UNICEF conference are making a special effort to deal with the problems of the children affected by the war. This international effort obviously should be maintained and increased.
108
There is one small but important way in which we can help and I believe that the Home Office has taken, on the whole, an enlightened view. That is, we should permit a few individual refugees to continue their professional training—I do not mean military training —in this country before returning to their homeland. Members of the House will remember that some years ago there was great pressure to help the refugees from Chile. And we did help them. We could do the same thing, perhaps on a smaller scale, for the Afghans.
In this debate it would also be right to pay particular tribute to the voluntary organisations in this country which have given help, notably the Afghan Support Committee, which is now, I understand, renamed. They have done well to help the refugee situation in the face of a public opinion which is not particularly responsive to the plight of the Afghans. However, the real, urgent need would appear to be to help the Mujahadin within the borders of Afghanistan—the victims of the policy of terror which the Russians and the puppet government pursue.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a recent striking article on foreign affairs by Dr. Claude Malhuret, the director of the French organisation to which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred, which sends doctors within Afghanistan. I should like to quote what he says:
"The Russians believe that a war involving guerrillas and anti-guerrillas would never be won if the emphasis was placed on being in the good graces of the population. On the contrary, the war would be won by the side that succeeded in making terror reign."
That is exactly what they are trying to do in Afghanistan—no nonsense about winning the hearts and minds of the people. In pursuit of this policy, they lay waste the countryside, burning the crops, destroying the farms, shooting up herds and dropping, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, related to your Lordships, anti-personnel mines which are particularly designed to attract the attention of the children who tend the flocks. These are the Afghan people who certainly need humanitarian help. If there are any young, unemployed doctors in this country, there is certainly work to do in Afghanistan. In this respect, the French have set a splendid example.
Would it also be unfair to suggest that Western journalists (with some notable exceptions) have shown less enterprise in Afghanistan than they have in areas where they believe it is possible to point a finger at the other super power? I am very glad that the BBC are, as I have said, showing tonight a film on events within Afghanistan.
What should be done about arms for the Mujahadin? Like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I would hesitate to advocate that Her Majesty's Government should directly supply. But equally, they should certainly not obstruct the sale of arms nor obstruct the transport of arms. There is some doubt as to whether there is really a shortage of equipment. I am led to believe that there is not. Arms are coming from many sources—not least from the captures made by the guerrillas. But, as other speakers have said, there is certainly as yet no effective answer to the helicopters which are the main instruments of the terror policy to which I have referred. There is also a need for the training of personnel, and I see no reason why friendly

109
countries should not put training facilities at the disposal of the Afghanistan guerrilla forces.
How is the war to be ended? At the moment, military defeat of the puppet regime by the guerrillas in the short or medium term is highly unlikely if not impossible. Is there any alternative to accepting that, in the long term, Afghanistan will find itself a part of the USSR? It is only realistic to admit that this is a possibility, and indeed a probability, with all the consequences which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, indicated.
In this divided and unsettled world, the Soviet Union, I am sure, feels that it has legitimate policy reasons for the invasion; reasons both defensive and offensive. First, to protect its homeland, not least from disturbing Islamic trends; secondly, to provide a jumping-off point for the historic policy of penetration to the warm waters of the Gulf. These old Russian Imperial policies persist in much of current Soviet policy.
The Russians no doubt anticipated a quick victory and short international memories. Instead, they are bogged down in a savage and costly struggle. Actual Russian war casualties are said to be comparatively light; some few thousands killed. But the figures for sickness and disease are high. As other speakers have said, we must assume that these facts are gradually becoming known within the Soviet Union. Although the Soviet Government do not have to worry about vociferous public opinion, they cannot be comfortable about the situation, which suits neither the Politburo nor the people.
Are there any policies which the international community can jointly follow and which have some small chance of bringing the war to an end? I suggest that like-minded countries in the international community could profitably co-operate in the following four ways. First, by focusing the maximum international attention upon events in Afghanistan. This can be effectively done through United Nations, and the media of the free world have an inescapable responsibility to do this. The BBC Overseas Service has the important role of reminding its listeners of Afghanistan. My impression as a devoted listener is that it has not paid sufficient attention to events there.
Secondly, the international community could continue to lend material support to the refugees outside Afghanistan and give military, humanitarian and organisational assistance to those struggling within the country. The third course of action, I suggest, might be to encourage the existing erratic negotiations under United Nations initiative. There is always an outside chance that events will unexpectedly combine to assist them. Fourthly, the international community could work ceaselessly to diminish tension in the Middle East area and to bring reconciliation to the warring nations in the Gulf.
It may take a long time, but the Afghans have always shown a strong and stubborn national Islamic consciousness. If the international community can
110
work together on these points, each country concentrating on what it can do best, there may be some hope. Above all, if there can be a reduction of tension between the super powers I would not despair of reaching a situation in which a genuinely non-aligned Afghan Government and a repatriation of refugees would meet with acceptance by the USSR and by the other neighbours, including China.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is deplorable on all counts. It is bad for the people in that it kills them, causes them suffering, terrifies them, and turns them into refugees. It is bad for the world as a whole because the world is worse when it has to put up with this kind of unrectified injustice. It is also bad for super-power relations, to which I shall come in a moment.
It is the most glaring of a class of actions which now exist in the world; that is, the action of militarily occupying or dominating a country which does not want to be occupied, or to which the actions are so far-fetched as to be irrelevant or absurd. There is a list of rogue countries—pariah countries, almost. We all know the list. The justification for using those hard words is one of common sense, which is also generally broadly reflected in United Nations' resolutions and in the decisions of the International Court of Justice. Countries which are in this class lower their moral credit in the world by occupying other countries against their will. It is as simple as that.
Russia is, of course, and has been for a long time, the obvious leader of this group. That stands out a mile. In 1914 there were 11 European empires. The Russian empire is the only one left. In origin it was not very different from the other 10, but somehow it never got withdrawn from, as did the rest. Russia accumulated the Baltic states just before the Second World War, and it accumulated Northern Japanese territories just after. It accumulated military dominion over Eastern Europe just after, and the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, was right to remind us that it subsequently evacuated Finland, Persia, and Austria. Since then it has invaded Czechoslovakia twice, Hungary once, and, despite prolonged and brutal guerrilla resistance, invaded and held on to the subject of our debate this evening, Afghanistan.
This is the example which has been followed to a much lesser degree—but we must remember that it has been followed—by certain other countries. I shall name several. There is Israel—since 1967—which at present stands by right of invasion in military occupation of territory belonging to Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, and has achieved peace only with one of its four neighbours, Egypt. Then there is South Africa, which for many years, against the opinion of the United Nations and the world community, has occupied Namibia. Maybe here there is hope. In recent weeks there has been obscure news—so obscure that it is perhaps permissible to believe that it may be sheltering better moves than we know have taken place; or it may all be a snare and a deception. We have to wait and see.

111
Closely linked with the South African occupation of Namibia and a part of Angola is the Cuban military presence. I would not go quite so far as to call it occupation, but it is certainly unwarranted and absurd in Angola, and even more so in the Horn of Africa. That is the fourth of my list of rogue countries. The fifth is very obvious indeed; it is Vietnam, an ally of the Soviet Union, which has remained in extraordinarily brutal military occupation of an already brutalised country, Cambodia, for several years now.
I have run through the list in order to raise in a minor key the worry which I have, and which perhaps many people in this country have, although we do not yet talk about it much, about our closest and most powerful friend in the world, the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, praised those journalists who get in somewhere difficult and point the finger at the real villain, as in Afghanistan, as opposed to getting into easy places and pointing the finger at an alleged villain, the United States. I agree, but if any finger pointing is to be done, it is more useful to do it before things go wrong, rather than after. That is what I hope your Lordships will understand that I am doing this evening.
It is not very long since the United States got out of a dreadful situation of military occupation and oppression in Vietnam. It got out without credit after terrible loss to itself and after inflicting even more terrible loss on that very small and backward country. We recently debated vivaciously—I think more vivaciously than some of us look back to with much pleasure in this House—the United States invasion of Grenada. It was a small thing indeed compared with the list of four countries through which I have run. It turned out to be all for the best. It turned out to be desired by the people of Grenada, and it put an end to an atrocious and ridiculous tyranny that had come about. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was right to point out the difference in the fact that the Americans did not do away with Sir Paul Scoon when they got there, as the Russians had done away with the apparently legal authority in Afghanistan when they got there. There is however a nagging similarity. As Lord Greenhill reminded us, the predecessor of Babrak Karmal is alleged to have invited the Russians in, but they never produced the text of the invitation. Sir Paul Scoon is alleged to have invited the Americans in, but nobody has ever produced the text of the invitation. He invited the Organisation of East Caribbean States to help him. He "asked for help", in his own words, but there is no extant invitation to the United States to land 5,000 men on that little island.
I mention this because around the world it is a difficult point to answer. When you say to countries which are in the Soviet camp, or are teetering on the edge of the Soviet camp, "Why can't you condemn the Soviet Union about Afghanistan?" they always come back with Grenada. To us it is ridiculous. To a balanced eye it is ridiculous to come back with such a small thing against such a big thing, but they do it and it is worth remembering that they do it.
The Central American situation is more worrying. Nothing has yet occurred on the scale that we are talking about in the case of the other four or five countries that I mentioned. But yesterday it was
112
reported that one year ago there were 150 United States military advisers in Salvador and Honduras and that today there are 1,800 permanently there—a figure which rises to 2,600 at exercise time. We know that in the exercises called "Big Pine I and II" the United States lands 10,000 of its troops—they are not military advisers of course; they are just United States troops— in Honduras on the six military airfields it has built for 50 million dollars. We know that in a few weeks there is to be an exercise called, "Ocean Venture I", which will deploy 350 United States ships off the coasts of Central America and will engage 30,000 United States servicemen.
This is not invasion; it is not occupation. But it certainly threatens invasion. It looks as though invasion is being rehearsed, and the whole world knows the country the invasion of which is being rehearsed. There is also to the south of those countries a considerable, permanent and forgotten American presence, by agreement, in the independent state of Panama.
We are not in this country one of the list of four. We have not been for a generation, nor is anybody else in Western Europe, and we are not likely to be. If the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan does any good in the world, which seems most unlikely, it will be perhaps to hold up to the world the continuing image—and I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that it is our duty to shed light on that continuing image and to keep it perpetually before the eyes of mankind—of how one's relations with other countries should not be conducted. The Soviet Union so often appears as the kind of super-power which cannot tolerate a government of another kind on its frontiers, or sometimes even within two or three frontiers of its frontiers, as in Eastern Europe. It is a standing example of how not to behave.
Besides our major duty to throw light on that continuing bad example, I believe that there is also a minor duty which falls upon the shoulders of those countries which do not do that kind of thing and would not dream of it, such as ourselves and the rest of the Ten, to make sure that we do not forget that other countries are doing it, that our own closest friend is sometimes tempted in that direction, and that the very closeness of our friendship imposes a special duty on this country—on us—to distance ourselves if and when we think it right.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I want to speak only about the situation in Afghanistan. Although he is not present at the moment, I should like very sincerely to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for having introduced the debate. I do not think that either this House or the other place spends anything like enough time on this issue. I am extremely grateful to him for giving us this opportunity. Although accidentally he chose the week of a massive Soviet attack on the Panjshir Valley in which the Russians, using high altitude heavy bombers against guerrilla fighters, proved not only the topicality of today's debate but their determination, as one can see at the moment, to remain in Afghanistan, which they have sought to control for over four years.

113
Reports that one has seen suggest that this massive attack this week involved roughly 20,000 Soviet and Afghan troops and more than 500 tanks and armoured personnel carriers. It is too early to know what the conclusions are, because the Russians have been successful, as they thought, in capturing or controlling that valley before and have been driven out. These events also show something else—namely, the guts and the courage of the Mujahadin who still deny to the Soviet forces and the dwindling Afghan army, which the Soviet forces themselves seem so much to despise, control of most of the country's terrain, and this in spite of the presence of what seems to about 105,000 Soviet troops.
Reference has been made to Soviet casualties. The figures that seem to be available, though the noble Baroness may have more up-to-date ones, are that there have been between 15,000 and 20,000 Soviet troops dead and wounded during the course of the past four years or so. Many of those involved in this week's fighting are said to be fresh reinforcements, no doubt deluded (as have those who arrived from the Soviet Union into Afghanistan before) by the belief that they are fighting against oppression and to protect the downtrodden Afghan people, when nothing could be further from the truth. The people of Afghanistan quite clearly do not want the Soviet Union or Soviet forces on their territory. These new Russian recruits, these new arrivals will soon learn that they are pitting their armed might against tough resisters who will fight to the end to preserve their religious, political and social traditions. If one asks oneself whether one is hopeful or not hopeful, a great deal depends on the absolute determination of the Afghan people themselves.
On two visits to Pakistan in the past four years, I have met many of these fine people, not only some of the 3 million refugees in their camps, but, in Pakistan, some of the religious and political leaders now in temporary exile who have given a great deal of information about the internal situation.
Perhaps I may say just a few words—but only a few— about the problem of the refugees. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, they are the largest group of refugees in the world with another million or so in Iran. I certainly pay very warm tribute to the commitment, planning, and efficiency of both the Pakistan Government and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. As I have said, I have on two occasions seen them working together in close harmony, together with the voluntary organisations, and I think they have done a fine job. One recognises that to have this sort of number on the territory of Pakistan is a huge drain on the Pakistan economy. The UNHCR has also again distinguished itself in helping to ensure that the conditions of the refugees are as good as it is possible for refugees to be in. I appreciate the aid from the United Kingdom Government and the EEC aid. As chairman of one of the voluntary refugee organisations, the Ockenden Venture, I am glad that the ODA is supporting a project which was worked out while I was there between the Pakistan Government, the UNHCR and the organisation of which I am chairman.
The one thing that is distinctive about the Afghan refugees—and I say this particularly, having heard the
114
words of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill—is that hardly any of them want to seek asylum in third world countries. While there are some who are here and are in training and should be allowed by the British Government to remain here in training, those who are there—unlike refugees almost in any other part of the world—are not looking for some refuge in an opulent country. Their hope, their determination, is to go back to Afghanistan.
I also, as others have done, give credit to the United Nations special representative, Mr. Diego Cordovez, who has tried with skill and determination to achieve a settlement. It seemed about a year ago that he thought that he was almost there. He said he was 95 per cent. there. But 5 per cent. is often the most difficult part of a negotiation. But certainly his task is by no means ended, and I believe that he should continue with his mission and I had the opportunity of exchanging views with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar on his recent visit to London.
Certainly the conduct of the Russians is totally, but totally, to be condemned. It has been so condemned by the United Nations General Assembly by over-whelming majorities, including the vast majority of the non-aligned states and, of course, by the Islamic Conference led by Pakistan. At this stage, I would pay particular tribute to the way that Pakistan, as the country with the main frontier with Afghanistan, has led the Islamic Conference as well as having accepted responsibility for the refugees on its territory. All the reports available to noble Lords, to myself in personal accounts given to me when I was there, and the report that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow—the article by Claude Malhuret—point out, as I heard from many, the terrible things that the Russians have done in dropping anti-personnel mines. They are mines often designed as much to affect animals as they are to affect human beings. The Russians often aim not so much to kill but to wound and to maim. A human being who is wounded may spend a long time and cause much trouble and consternation in the course of being treated or, as is often the case, if they suffer from gangrene, streptococci or septicaemia, die in atrocious pain.
The evidence I had from people coming over the frontier seeing their little plastic pens and small red trucks, designed to be picked up by children, shows a degree of cynicism and calculated cruelty that it is difficult for any of us to accept. Many of those in the Soviet Union itself, if they really knew the truth, would, I believe, be horrified by what is being done in their name.
I have also heard descriptions of the scorched earth policy. The Russians have burnt villages with bombs and with flames. They have shot at from the air and killed herds of sheep and goats. They have dropped anti-personnel mines. They have machine gunned villages. They have burnt the crops. They have made villages totally impossible to live in. They have made them virtually no-go areas. This means that the freedom fighters are unable to have the food and to use that area to continue their battle. As stated by other speakers, this has led to hundreds of thousands of internal refugees. One of the Afghan people to whom I was talking said that the internal problem of the

115
refugees, although numerically they are not so great, is more tragic than the problem of those in the refugee camps.
What support for these heroic people is being given by Her Majesty's Government? Help for the refugees, yes. I welcomed the last announcement made of additional contributions partly through the EC and partly directly. Votes at the United Nations, yes, I welcome them. The statement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the Soviet invasion was as good a statement as any Foreign Office official could draft. Having been a Foreign Office Minister, I have seen statements drafted by Foreign Office officials. And jolly good they are. However, they are words. What about action?
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked whether we are being complacent. The noble Earl, like other noble Lords, referred to the French who have sent over 160 doctors and nurses. They have equipped hospitals in the areas controlled by the Mujahadin. There is, as we know, a growing need for food and medical supplies in the many parts of Afghanistan that are still held by the Mujahadin. I am not arguing the case for arms and equipment. I shall simply say that at a very large meeting at one of the refugee camps where questions had been asked of me, as I had been asking them of others, one of my questions was, "What is your greatest need?". They said with one voice, "Arms". "Give us arms", they said. I have not got anything to offer them and I am not going to make any comment on that at this stage. But those who are fighting for their freedom are entitled to expect of us more than mere words, more than resolutions. If they think that they are on their own then their cause is lost, and it is part of the responsibility of this House, this Government, to see that they are upheld in their belief, in their conviction, that their cause is not lost, that their courage is not simply being wasted, because the sacrifices they face are very great.
A Prime Minister who tried to stop athletes from going to the Moscow Olympics ought to show more determination to help the people themselves. I have been concentrating not so much on the refugees but on those who are in Afghanistan now. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has had her own experiences and I am looking forward intensely to hearing what she has to say. She has heard the strong feelings from all sides of the House this evening. I look forward to hearing from her some positive indications of the policies of Her Majesty's Government as well as her impressions from her recent visit.
I do not believe that it is enough simply for us to pass resolutions and make pious statements. Those people are fighting for their country, their very survival, their existence, their freedom. When I say "freedom" I do not mean democracy; I mean freedom to live as they have lived, with their own religion and their own social and political customs. They are entitled to expect from us some sort of support which shows they are not left alone in an isolated world.
10.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I am sure we are
116
all grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for asking this Unstarred Question this evening. There has been a quite remarkable unanimity of view among all those who have taken part in the debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will understand if I do not follow him in his arguments this evening, because the question before the House is on Afghanistan. We have had a most interesting analysis of possible future events from my noble friend Lord Beloff and a number of constructive ideas for possible diplomatic solutions.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Selkirk when he says that the issues at stake in Afghanistan should be of urgent concern to everyone in the free world. What is taking place in Afghanistan is not only a crime against international law, but a crime against humanity. For over four years now Afghanistan has been illegally occupied by Soviet troops, now numbering well over 100,000 men. These troops are inflicting untold devastation and suffering on the Afghan people. They have killed or injured tens of thousands of Afghans in increasingly brutal and indiscriminate attacks. They have rendered millions more homeless by destroying their crops and villages, driving them abroad as refugees. They have installed a client regime which remains wholly dependent on Soviet military might for its survival, and which pursues a viciously repressive policy against the very people it purports to represent.
In the last few days we have learnt that the Russians have stepped up their brutal campaign even further. Yesterday one of the Afghan resistance leaders was quoted as describing Soviet policy in Afghanistan as genocide, saying that the Russians had intensified their assaults on towns and villages in an attempt to terrorise the civilian population.
The latest news is that the Russians have launched a seventh major offensive against the people of the Panjshir Valley north of Kabul, who have provided some of the most stalwart resistance to the invader. Indeed, it appears that this latest offensive has included high-altitude bombing, a particularly indiscriminate and terrifying tactic. Kabul Radio has reported that the valley has been captured but the resistance have denied this. I have no information about the fighting; nor have I any information about the scale of the casualties among the brave Afghan resistance and civilians or the whereabouts of Ahmed Shah Masood, the young resistance commander who has become a symbol of his people's fight to regain their country.
One might have expected the Afghan people to have been subdued by this relentless brutality. No doubt the Soviet leaders entertained such expectations when in December 1979 they took the foolhardy and callous decision to invade. How wrong they were. The Afghan people have refused to be cowed. Their spirit remains unbroken. Indeed, despite their appalling suffering, their determination to defend their way of life against an invader and an alien ŕegime has, if anything, increased. Their spontaneous resistance now extends throughout the country, and even into the heart of the capital, Kabul.
Of course, the resistance lacks the capacity to drive Soviet forces out of their country. But what they achieve against such overwhelming odds and in face of such massively superior fire-power is indeed

117
remarkable. They have learnt over the years to avoid large-scale pitched battles, which would only cause them heavy casualties. They have learnt also to co-ordinate their operations and to co-operate between local groups in the interests of a particular objective. Through their attacks on Soviet convoys, on regime installations and on army out-posts, the resistance have succeeded in denying the invaders control of all but a fraction of the country. In some provincial towns which the regime claims to control, that control extends to little more than the ground within range of their own weapons.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have asked about the supply of arms. I am sure that they will understand when I say that it is clear from the continued resistance activity that arms are getting through and that really it would be helpful not to discuss this matter any further.
The Soviet Union's client régime is thus no nearer to controlling Afghanistan now than it was when Babrak Karmal was installed in December 1979. Indeed, the campaign of repression may even have increased the Afghan people's resolve not to accept it. The regime remains riven by factional feuding between the minority Parcham faction headed by Karmal himself and the dissaffected majority Khalq faction. Its failure to win domestic support is matched by its failure to win international credibility and recognition. The unreliable and demoralised Afghan army continues to be depleted by desertions and defections to the resistance, and is now estimated to number only about 40,000 men. half its strength before the Soviet invasion. The regime has attempted to stem the tide of desertions by draconian conscription drives. But like the fruitless attempts to bludgeon the Afghan people into submission, these measures have had the opposite effect, and have served only to demoralise the army even further. The Soviet Union's claim that it now provides only logistical support to Karmal's troops is a travesty of the facts. It is the Soviet army that carries the brunt of the fighting. Without Soviet support, the Karmal regime could not survive.
Nearly all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have asked: What can we do? First, we can look at how the international community has responded to this deplorable state of affairs. The outcry at the Emergency Session of the General Assembly in January 1980 has not died away. The General Assembly has adopted a total of five resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, the preservation of Afghanistan's independence and non-aligned status, self-determination for the Afghan people, and the voluntary return of the refugees. All have been adopted with overwhelming majorities with the nations of the third world joining those of the West in almost unanimous condemnation of the Soviet invasion. Indeed, the most recent resolution, in November 1983, was adopted by a record majority of 96. Other international fora, such as the Non-Aligned Movement—and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked what part they had played in this—the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and the meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government,
118
have reaffirmed the urgent need for an internationally acceptable political settlement based on the principles set out in the United Nations resolutions. It remains clear that the international community will not accept as a fait accompli this blatant act of unprovoked aggression against a non-aligned third world country For their part, the nations of the European Community have repeatedly called for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and it was the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, who particularly asked about the Community. On the fourth anniversary of the Soviet invasion on 27th December 1983, the Greeks issued a statement on behalf of the Ten stressing the urgent need for the withdrawal of Soviet troops as the key to any lasting settlement. On the same day, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs issued a parallel British statement calling upon the Soviet leaders to honour their international obligations under the United Nations charter and to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan, so that the suffering of the Afghan people could be brought to an end. I was glad to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for this statement.
We have also contributed directly to the search for a political settlement through the proposals for an international conference on Afghanistan launched by my noble friend Lord Carrington on behalf of the Ten in June 1981. These proposals gained the support of some 70 non-EC countries. We continue to regard them as a realistic and practicable means towards promoting a political settlement, and they remain on the table.
The Ten have also given their firm and consistent support to the efforts of the United Nations secretary-general to find a solution to the problems. These efforts date from early 1981, when the then secretary-general, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, appointed Mr. Perez de Cuellar as his personal representative with the task of promoting a political settlement. When Mr. Perez de Cuellar himself became secretary-general, he appointed Mr. Diego Cordovez to take over the task. Since then Mr. Cordovez has succeeded in arranging for three rounds of indirect talks to be held in Geneva between the Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and the Karmal regime. A draft package has been drawn up setting out the four elements of an integrated settlement: troop withdrawal, non-interference in Afghanistan, international guarantees of the final settlement, and consultation of the refugees. Mr. Cordovez has recently completed a further tour of the area in an attempt to carry his initiative forward, and I had an opportunity to discuss the outcome with the secretary-general when he visited London last week.
Mr. Cordovez's efforts are welcome. They offer the only prospect of movement. But despite Mr. Cordovez's painstaking work, there are no signs of a breakthrough. For, of the four elements of the package drawn up by Mr. Cordovez, the most crucial one is surely the withdrawal of the Soviet troops, whose presence in the country has given rise to the conflict in the first place. And on this crucial issue the Russians appear to remain intransigent. They have refused to give any firm undertaking to withdraw within a specific time-frame agreeable to all the parties involved. Instead, they have sought to brand the

119
spontaneous resistance of the Afghan people as the source of the trouble, arguing that this "external interference", as they misleadingly call it, must end before they can consider withdrawing their troops. They then go on to argue that this troop withdrawal is a bilateral matter for themselves and the Karmal ŕegime.
This is patently unrealistic. The Afghan people are not going to give up their struggle so long as the Russians refuse to commit themselves to withdrawing. Nor are the refugees going to agree to return on this basis. The international guarantors of a settlement, so far unidentified, cannot be expected to underwrite a settlement which effectively legitimises the status quo. These elements of the settlement, vital as they are, will only fall into place when the Russians agree to withdraw. Unfortunately there is no sign that the Soviet leadership is about to give such an undertaking. Our recent talks in London with the Soviet First Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kornienko, showed that the Russians are as intransigent as ever. I need hardly say that we made our views clear to Mr. Kornienko, as we have done consistently at other meetings with Soviet Ministers.
The Pakistan Government, with whom I had talks in March, are committed for their part to the United Nations process. They have co-operated with the secretary-general and his personal representative throughout the difficult negotiations so far and rightly insist that any settlement must be in line with the basic principles of the resolutions adopted with such resounding majorities by the General Assembly. Their firm and principled stand deserves our full support.
One vital element of a settlement is of course that it should allow the refugees to return to their homes. Soviet actions in Afghanistan have now driven over one-fifth of the population into exile as refugees. There are up to 3 million refugees in Pakistan alone, where the camps administered by the Pakistan Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees form the largest concentration of refugees in the world. I saw some of those camps last month when I visited Pakistan. One of the most tragic sights I shall always remember was to see the camp specially set aside for widows and orphans; a stark reminder of the tragic suffering of the Afghan people. Pakistan's generous and skilful handling of this immense humanitarian problem deserves our wholehearted admiration and support.
The British Government have played their part in the international relief effort to alleviate the sufferings of these unfortunate people. Our total aid since January 1980 now amounts to £21·6 million of cash and food aid, including some £7·6 million channelled through the European Community. This includes the recent allocation of £1·6 million, of which I was pleased to tell the refugees when I visited one of their camps on 10th March. The bulk of our aid goes to UNHCR; but we have also contributed to the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the League of Red Cross Societies, the British Red Cross, Christian Aid, Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund, and the Afghanistan Support Committee. Of our aid to UNHCR, £1 million has been allocated specifically to a scheme launched by the World Bank and
120
UNHCR to set up income-generating projects for the refugees, including activities in agriculture, forestry, and irrigation. We have also set up a scheme to provide scholarships for Afghan refugees to come to the United Kingdom for training, mainly at university level. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, refer to this. Since its inception in 1982, this scheme has proved successful, and there are 25 further awards available in 1984–85.
We attach great importance to the assistance we provide for these people, but the real need is of course for peace in their country so that they can return home. So once again we come back to the need for the withdrawal of the Soviet forces whose actions have driven them out. The fighting, destruction and suffering have gone on too long already. The secretary-general has provided the means for a political settlement which will bring them to an end, and we wish him success. The call from the international community is clear: The Soviet Union must honour its obligations under the United Nations Charter, withdraw its troops immediately, and allow the Afghans to determine their own future.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask whether we recognise the Karmal Government?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, we recognise the State of Afghanistan.

Barclays Bank Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Selby Bridge Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  SCANDINAVIA: SPEED LIMITS AND ACCIDENT STATISTICS
  SCANDINAVIA: SPEED LIMITS AND ACCIDENT STATISTICS
  OUTER SPACE: FUTURE INITIATIVES
  OUTER SPACE: FUTURE INITIATIVES
  US/USSR ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY 1972
  US/USSR ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY 1972
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: MORATORIUM ON TESTING AND DEPLOYMENT
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS: MORATORIUM ON TESTING AND DEPLOYMENT
  GATOW AIRFIELD, BERLIN: SHOOTING RANGE
  GATOW AIRFIELD, BERLIN: SHOOTING RANGE
  SPAIN AND THE EC: FISHERIES NEGOTIATIONS
  SPAIN AND THE EC: FISHERIES NEGOTIATIONS
  SOVIET NAVAL EXERCISES
  SOVIET NAVAL EXERCISES
  PRISONERS: VISITORS' UNDERTAKING
  PRISONERS: VISITORS' UNDERTAKING
  PRISONERS IN TRANSIT: HANDCUFFING ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONERS IN TRANSIT: HANDCUFFING ARRANGEMENTS
  REFUGEE STATUS
  REFUGEE STATUS
  PRISONER TRANSFERS: NATIONAL AGREEMENT
  PRISONER TRANSFERS: NATIONAL AGREEMENT
  PRISONERS: COURT ATTENDANCE
  PRISONERS: COURT ATTENDANCE
  NARCOTICS CONTROL: PERSONNEL
  NARCOTICS CONTROL: PERSONNEL
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: DHSS GRANTS
  VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: DHSS GRANTS
  BRITISH TELECOM SALE: COMMISSION
  BRITISH TELECOM SALE: COMMISSION
  PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS: SCOTTISH FINANCIAL INTERESTS
  PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS: SCOTTISH FINANCIAL INTERESTS
  GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE IN 1983–84
  GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE IN 1983–84
  BUILDING ALTERATION WORK: VAT LIABILITY
  BUILDING ALTERATION WORK: VAT LIABILITY
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: PERCENTAGE OF GDP
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: PERCENTAGE OF GDP
  MEAT EXPORTS TO NON-EC COUNTRIES
  MEAT EXPORTS TO NON-EC COUNTRIES
  BEEF VARIABLE PREMIUM SCHEME: COST
  BEEF VARIABLE PREMIUM SCHEME: COST
  BEEF VARIABLE PREMIUM SCHEME: FUNDING
  BEEF VARIABLE PREMIUM SCHEME: FUNDING
  CATTLE MARKETS: RSPCA REPORT
  CATTLE MARKETS: RSPCA REPORT