Sitting of 2 February 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Thursday 9 February.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Monday 13 February at Seven o' clock.
SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)
BARCLAYS BANK BILL By Order
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL By Order
DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL By Order
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL By Order
Orders for Second reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 February.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Herring Catches
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the negotiations between the European Economic Community and Norway with regard to the share out of North sea herring catches in 1984.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The European Community and Norway will consult on a definitive allocation of North sea herring for 1984 in the spring, immediately after the receipt of scientific advice. In the meantime it is likely that an expert group will re-examine the question of the zonal attachment of this stock, using the latest scientific information.
    Mr. Wallace: The fishing industry is glad to have the opportunity now to catch herring, but the industry's enthusiasm is tempered by the knowledge that until 31 July the Norwegian fishing fleet will be allowed to catch 15,000 tonnes as opposed to our 12,500 tonnes. Is the Minister prepared to give any further reassurance that this will not be seen as a precedent when the long-term negotiations between the EC and Norway about allocations are finally resolved?
    Mr. Jopling: I remind the hon. Gentleman of my statement yesterday. The Council confirmed that the interim arrangement is entirely without prejudice to the definitive allocation between Norway and the European Community for 1984 and subsequent years. The Council also confirmed its declaration of 3 and 4 October on the same subject.
    Mr. Alexander: What steps will be taken to ensure that there is no over-fishing of the stocks by any of the parties concerned?
    Mr. Jopling: As I reported yesterday, nine of the 13 Community inspectors have been in place as from yesterday to keep an eye on the national inspection which is carried out in any case. We shall be strengthening the number of those inspectors over the next two months, and introducing log books, and I believe that the control over the catches and quotas will improve.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister consider the need to couple the increased Norwegian cod catch with the herring negotiations, the Commission having failed to get that catch from Norway in December? Secondly, will the Minister bear in mind the importance of continuing to allow the traditional Yorkshire herring fishing from August until the end of September? It is important as an extra catch, because of the fall in white fish catches, as well as a source of supplementary earnings. It is essential that that catch be kept open. Will the right hon. Gentleman make every effort to keep it so?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said yesterday that the reason why the total allowable catch of North sea cod is lower this year is that the number of cod in the North sea has been reduced. However, there is an opportunity for renewed discussions with Norway with a

    387
    view to increasing the TAC. The closure of the middle part of the North sea for herring between 15 August and the end of September will be reviewed before then to see whether it is still necessary.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: In view of the inevitable conflict between pelagic and demersal fishermen, will the Minister accept that the United Kingdom's fishing fleet's interest will be best served in the discussions with Norway by maintaining our herring quota and not bargaining that away for increased cod and haddock?
    Mr. Jopling: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the interim arrangement which was agreed this week will stick strictly to the key agreed in December at the Council for the North sea herring stock. We shall not be diverting from that share-out between Community countries.

    Hill Farmers
    Mr. Bruceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that hill farmers should not suffer financial loss as a result of threatened delays in payment of hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: We are pressing for urgent resolution of the difficulties which have arisen over the continuation of the structures directives. We shall begin paying 1984 hill livestock compensatory allowances as soon as the way is clear. In the meantime, as Agriculture Ministers have already announced, payments of eligible claims under the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme have been resumed. I am pleased to announce that Agriculture Ministers have also decided to resume payments under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme, the farm and horticulture development scheme, the agriculture and horticulture co-operation scheme—for forage groups—and the farm structure (payment to outgoers) scheme, in respect of claimants whose participation in these schemes was approved by 31 December 1983. This will bring some benefit to hill farmers.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for the fact that the Minister has used the opportunity of my question to bring us up to date about some other payments. In the context of the hill livestock compensatory allowance, will the Minister confirm that the West German Government have agreed to go ahead with immediate payments to their farmers? Will he give a commitment that British farmers in a similar position will be paid promptly, because in the present climate many of them face severe difficulties and are extremely anxious about the position?
    Mr. Jopling: I understand the anxiety that is felt about this matter. I understand also that there has been discussion in some member states about action to continue payments. I am not aware of any grants yet being paid in respect of entitlements arising in 1984. At the meeting of the Council next Monday and Tuesday I have every hope that we shall be able to agree to a roll-over of the structures directive which will allow those payments to be resumed immediately.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulty faced by hill farmers in Northern Ireland because of the non-payment of these grants? Will he assure the House that they will be paid retrospectively, as some £9 million is due up to 31 March?
    Mr. Jopling: The normal practice is that very few hill grants are paid before the second week of February, when the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers will be held. The vast bulk of the payments are paid annually, later in February and during March. If we can obtain the roll-over and the clearance to go ahead next week, it will mean that only a few hill subsidy payments will be delayed.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: I welcome the advances that the Minister has been able to announce, but will he bear in mind that this section of agriculture is least able to stand any delay in payments, particularly after a hard winter? If, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, other EEC countries are paying their hill farmers, will he take a leaf out of that book and pay ours without further delay?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that we shall be able to pay them in the normal way next week after the Council. I acknowledge the difficulties that hill farmers face, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is another group in the marginal areas who would be beneficiaries of our proposals to extend less-favoured areas, which are currently being blocked in the Council by various states.
    Mr. Watson: The House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for the announcements that he has been able to make in response to this question. Will he confirm that the standard of living of hill farmers generally is not high, that these allowances represent a significant part of their income and that a further delay in their payment will result in considerable hardship? Will he therefore treat the payment of these allowances as a matter of the utmost urgency?
    Mr. Jopling: We shall be pressing with the utmost vigour to get clearance from the Council next week for these payments. I am well aware, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that they are a significant part of hill farmers' incomes.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: We welcome what the Minister said about certain payments, but is he aware that unless he gives an assurance to the hill farmers that, even if he fails at the Council meeting next week, he will go ahead—as the German Agricultural Ministry is doing—and make the payments, he will leave many hill farmers in a desperate plight?
    Mr. Jopling: To correct the hon. Gentleman, I understand that the German Government are not yet paying out these grants; I suspect that they are waiting until after the Council meeting next week before making payment. We must go into the Council meeting in four or five days' time with a determination to get clearance to start paying them in the normal way.

    Agriculture Industry (Grant-aid)
    Sir Michael Shawasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the policy of the European Commission of delaying grant-aid to various sectors of the agriculture industry to save money.
    Mr. Jopling: On balance, the Government support the Commission's policy of delaying payment for certain products taken into intervention so as to help contain CAP expenditure within the 1984 Community budget.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is absolutely essential for many farmers that their grants are paid on the approved and acknowledged dates because their financial situation and cash flow are such that, having made arrangements with their bank managers, it is vital that those arrangements are kept?
    Mr. Jopling: I am, of course, aware that these delays in payments will cause difficulty for farmers who would otherwise have received them. The problem is that the cash is just not there. There is a major cash flow problem in the Community, and we had better acknowledge that very soon indeed and do everything we can to get a settlement that will put matters right.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister direct his mind next Monday and Tuesday at the Council meeting to the question of European development capital grants? Is he aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty on the part of people who entered into farm development schemes over five-year periods and who are threatened with these grants being delayed or withdrawn?
    Mr. Jopling: I announced last week that agricultural and horticultural grant scheme payments would be resumed straight away, and I have been able to announce today that grants which were approved before 31 December will progress. I hope that when we can get a roll-over to the structure directive, all the later ones can be paid as well.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the policy of delaying the payment of these intervention grants for up to 90 days? It is clear from his previous remarks that he is aware of the damage that is done to the cash flow of any business by a delay in payments to which that business is entitled.
    Mr. Jopling: I appreciate the difficulties to which these delays will give rise, but the Community must save money in the best way that it can, because it is overspending at an alarming rate.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Minister has expressed a desire to contain agricultural expenditure, what does he say about the report of the Agriculture Committee of the European Assembly, which is chaired by his friend David Curry, which says that VAT receipts should be increased immediately? Can he not get his act together with his Tory friends in Europe, or is Mr. David Curry flying a kite to the inevitable sell-out that we shall soon get?
    Mr. Jopling: I have not seen the report of what Mr. Curry said, but having read many articles written by him I should be surprisd to hear that he does not agree that the financial crisis of the Community must be put right with the greatest expedition.

    Agricultural Prices
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the 1984–85 European Economic Community agricultural price proposals.
    Mr. Jopling: I expect to receive numerous representations on the 1984–85 price proposals, details of which have only recently been received in London.
    Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that fundamental to the financial crisis and the other problems
    390
    of the CAP is the high price of cereals, which forces up food prices and sharply increases the cost of products such as poultry and pigmeat? Will he assure the House that the Government will stand firm on the proposal to freeze cereal prices?
    Mr. Jopling: The Commission's proposals do not match up to the scale of the problem in view of mounting surpluses and the imbalance between the grain and livestock sectors. There is a need to narrow the gap between Community and United States prices and to improve the balance between the quantity of cereals and the livestock sector.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that that there will be a freeze on cereal prices, or not?
    Mr. Jopling: We have said, and I intend to say at the Council next week, that it would have been better if there had been not a freeze but a cut in the price of cereals.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister tell us how often the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland, both of whom are responsible for agriculture in those countries, accompany him to discuss price proposals in Brussels?
    Mr. Jopling: I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland would be enormously welcome if they chose to come to the meetings. I can only think that they believe that the negotiations are in good hands.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend resist proposals to revalue the green currencies to reduce the positive monetary compensatory amounts, which currently favour United Kingdom producers, because to do so would penalise United Kingdom producers while not penalising Continental producers? Surely there can be no fairness in that.
    Mr. Jopling: I shall make my stance clear in the Council on Monday. I find the Commission's proposals on this matter unacceptable.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister assure us that when he repeats what he said at the beginning of this exchange at the Council on Monday he will do so in plain English? Will he also assure the House in plain English that he will not put his name to any proposals which increase the cost of unwanted surpluses?
    Mr. Jopling: The Government's approach in these matters is to try to eliminate circumstances in which structural surpluses seem to appear in ever greater quantities.

    Salmon
    Mrs. Roeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Government have raised in the European Economic Communities Fisheries Council of Ministers the question of measures to control excessive fishing for salmon on the high seas, in particular off the coast of Greenland and the Faroes.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes. As a result the Community subscribes to the international convention on the conservation of North Atlantic Salmon, which prohibits the taking of salmon on the high seas. The

    391
    Community also limits catches of salmon in Greenland waters and insists on the limitation of Faroese catches in the context of the European Community-Faroes fisheries agreement.
    Mrs. Roe: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In practice, however, the present controls are not effective and better policing is essential. As stocks of salmon throughout the entire Atlantic region are being overfished and the runs of salmon are declining, will my hon. Friend insist on much stricter control, as there is an urgent need for improving stock levels and controlling netting?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has asked several questions. I am aware of the anxiety, although the evidence on the decline of salmon varies.
    On the international position, the Greenland and Faroese salmon fisheries will be closely examined by the West Greenland and North East Atlantic Commissions of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation at its next meeting in May. New scientific advice on these fisheries has been requested from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and this should be available for that meeting, at which it is hoped decisions will be taken on the appropriate level of such catches.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that, because of the excessive netting of salmon off the east Yorkshire coast, and particularly with nylon monofilament gill nets, no salmon are managing to get up the only real salmon river in Yorkshire, the River Esk, and no salmon are managing to spawn? What is he prepared to do about conservation on the high seas off the coast of east Yorkshire, or to conserve the salmon in the Esk river?
    Mr. MacGregor: The evidence in all the rivers that are affected by that coastal fishery is by no means as clear as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I am looking at the matter urgently in the context of our review, and I hope to be able to make an announcement on these matters before too long.
    Sir Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real truth about this problem is that the salmon at present have not a chance? What with pollution and over-fishing, a very serious situation has developed, particularly in the south-west of England. It affects the tourist trade and, therefore, the consumption of salmon. It is so serious that something has to be done very quickly.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have indicated to my hon. Friend how, on the international level and international seas, this matter will be taken forward at the next meeting of NASCO. As for internal action, one of the key proposals now before us for dealing with the problem is the salmon tagging, which would help to deal with the poaching problem. On that matter, I feel very strongly that it is highly desirable that this should be done not just in England and Wales, but throughout Great Britain. We have completed our internal review of the salmon tagging proposals, and I shall be discussing them with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office shortly.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that if the Government do not act quickly to support conservation the only salmon that will be entering United Kingdom waters will be in tins? Will Ministers stop dithering? Will the Minister stop talking and start acting in the interests of salmon conservation?
    Mr. MacGregor: International action is being taken. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very conscious of these matters, but it is important that we discuss them with other Departments before final decisions are taken. and I shall be doing that very shortly.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for new operating aid for the British fishing industry.
    Mr. MacGregor: We introduced aid under the Community measures for restructuring the fishing fleet just before Christmas — indeed, we were the first member state to do so. So far, aid to the value of £10·1 million has been applied for. In view of this, we have no proposals for a new operating aid.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that his answer will be viewed with great despair by a badly battered English fishing industry? It means that the industry will have no help in its transition to the more limited opportunities under the common fisheries policy. It means that the English and Scottish fishing industries are being asked to contend with competitors who receive operating aid. The best example is the 21 centimes per litre fuel subsidy paid by the French. The Government are taxing the industry heavily through dock charges that are much higher than those of our competitors, as, indeed, are port charges, and are not helping them to survive those charges.
    Mr. MacGregor: I discussed all these matters fairly recently with representatives of the Grimsby inshore fleet and with the hon. Member. I think he knows that operating aid has been declared illegal within Community law. If we introduced one today, we would be asked to remove it immediately. I am particularly aware that the French have not yet withdrawn their fuel subsidy as requested by the Commission, and we shall continue to pursue that matter through the Commission. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the fact that we have a common fisheries policy in being enables the fleet to plan ahead properly, and the fact that we were the first member state to introduce very substantial aids for restructuring the fleet will greatly help with its problems.

    Agricultural Land
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now consider amending the grading classification of agricultural land.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this issue, but, as we have made clear on a number of occasions, we have no plans to introduce any changes in the numbering of the grades of agricultural land.
    Mr. Chapman: I know that the National Farmers Union has reservations about the renumbering of agricultural land within the classification system, but will my hon. Friend consider this matter again, if only to emphasise that grade 3A land forms a significant part of all agricultural land, is good agricultural land and is not third rate? Does she agree that it is important to conserve such agricultural land, especially on the urban fringes where it is threatened by development of another sort?
    Mrs. Fenner: I agree with my hon. Friend that much grade 3 land is of good quality. I am sure he is aware that because of that consideration the present grade 3 land has been subdivided into grades 3A to 3C. After the review that took place the Government consulted all interested parties to gauge support for the system.

    Lamb Exports
    Mr. Torneyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the effect upon British lamb exports to France of the French Government's new policy to introduce instructions that will hold up British lamb at the French ports for five days.
    Mr. Jopling: I understand that the proposed French controls on hormone growth promoters are unlikely to be passed by the Assembly before April. I have made it clear to the French Minister of Agriculture—
    Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is reading the wrong answer.
    Mr. Skinner: He has turned over one page too many.
    Mr. Jopling: It would be as well if the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench carried out some research, because if they did they would discover that the instructions we are discussing apply to hormone growth promoters. I have made it clear—the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) knows what I am talking about and it is a pity that those on the Opposition Front Bench do not—to the French Minister of Agriculture that there can be no justification for detaining United Kingdom meat exports tested under such legislation, hearing in mind the strict controls that we apply on the use of growth promoters.
    Mr. Torney: Does the Minister agree that the action of the French is merely making the hijack official, as it is apparently being officially backed by the French Government? What firm action does he propose to take to counteract the French action? Will he give serious consideration to retaliating by stopping horrible French milk from coming into this country?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the question of lamb exports to France.
    Mr. Torney: I suggest that the Minister closes all but one of the ports in England and the one port in Scotland which are now open to imports of French milk and makes the French queue up in retaliation for the action that they are taking against our lamb exports.
    Mr. Jopling: I have already written to M. Rocard to say that, in view of the controls that are applied in the United Kingdom on the use of growth promoters, there can be no justification for detaining United Kingdom exports pending test results. I am awaiting a reply. I shall not hesitate to raise the matter with the Commission if it becomes clear that measures are to operate that will disrupt trade.
    Mr. Latham: Is this another example of the French making up the rules as they go along?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that that is not so. The position is—
    Mr. Budgen: Yes, or no.
    Mr. Jopling: —that the proposed French measures would appear to be contrary to a Community directive which places a standstill on national legislation on the use of certain growth promoters. It is a principle of Community law that sample testing should be proportionate to the degree of health risk. Detention of United Kingdom consignments would be quite disproportionate action, and I have drawn M. Rocard's attention to these matters.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise to the Minister for accusing him of reading the wrong answer. Is he aware that there is widespread concern in Europe about the use of hormones and the possibility of residues in carcases? Is he aware also that there is not sufficient checking in Britain? The French have restricted our imports on that basis. Will the Minister consider the fact that the French and the Commission seem to have a predilection for taking us to the European Court when they think that we are being difficult? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not do the same with the French?
    Mr. Jopling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks at the beginning of this question. The administering of stilbenes to livestock in the United Kingdom and the use of other growth promoters is controlled under the Medicines Act. At present, no anabolic growth promoters are marketed for use in sheep, none is licensed for use in pigs, and those used in cattle are licensed subject to recommended withdrawal periods. If problems do arise in this connection—we must wait and see—it would be better for the Commission to take the necessary court action, although naturally we will be taking a keen interest in what happens.

    Intervention Grain
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheimasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the plans to take intervention grain out of store and make it available to pig and beef producers.
    Mr. MacGregor: A Community scheme to sell breadmaking wheat from intervention stocks for animal feed at a special price was introduced on 4 December 1983. Barley from intervention is also available at the lowest price consistent with Community rules. But these offers are not being taken up in the United Kingdom because ample supplies of feed grain are available on the open market at lower prices.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the present scheme 90 per cent. of the grain released from intervention will go to French and Dutch farmers? Is he aware also that such schemes have great potential benefit for the livestock sector, especially the pigmeat sector, at the same time as they benefit the consumers of the EEC, at no cost to the EEC? Does my hon. Friend know that further schemes would be greatly welcomed, especially if they equally benefit the British livestock sector?
    Mr. MacGregor: Unfortunately, that scheme is not helpful to us, because our prices on the open market are lower. A large part of the grain goes to Italian farmers, not to French and Dutch farmers. The problem with such schemes is that if they operate on a substantial scale well below the open market level supplies coming on to the open market are simply replaced, thus creating the vicious circle of open market supplies going back into intervention

    395
    stocks. Great problems would occur if one did as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I assure him that we are pressing the Commission for some relaxation of the present rules in a number of areas where we believe future schemes would be more advantageous to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that the deficiency payment for pigs which operated in the 1960s and 1970s worked well? In view of the serious problems facing the pig industry, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the payment should be reintroduced in the near future?
    Mr. MacGregor: The difficulty is that a deficiency payment scheme of the type suggested by the hon. Gentleman—I have seen his early-day motion—would be illegal under Community rules.
    Mr. Lord: I trust that my hon. Friend has seen the report that the French Government plan to help the French pig producers to the tune of £8·3 million. If that report is true, will he take steps to see whether that action is allowed under EEC regulations? If it is not, will my hon. Friend stop the French Government from taking that action? If it is allowed, will he ensure that the same type of aid rapidly comes to our own hard-pressed pig producers?
    Mr. MacGregor: The Commission is responsible for ensuring that no illegal aid is given. When we saw the report that the French authorities might have in mind arrangements for providing loans to pig producers in financial difficulty, we immediately got in touch with the Commission. We understand that already it has approached the French authorities on this matter. I shall certainly pursue this issue, if necessary, with the Commission as soon as we have the details.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should tackle the root cause of the problem by examining corn intervention itself? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister's earlier reply on grain prices will have the wholehearted backing of the House?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is how it must be tackled in the medium to longer term and that is why we have supported firm measures on cereal prices to improve the balance. Nevertheless, there are other legitimate ways in which we can help the pig industry, and these we have been pursuing. The reintroduction of private storage aids, for example, has led to a big take-up in this country in its first week.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister accept that no one in the House believes that it is right for Spanish pig producers to obtain grain from Europe which is subsidised by British taxpayers when our own pig producers have no effective incorporation scheme to use that grain at a reasonable price? Will he look much harder at this?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been looking at it very hard. I have explained the basic difficulty of trying to offload surplus grain on to internal Community markets in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Sometimes it is necessary to dispose of such surpluses in export markets. I assure him, however, that we are pressing for a relaxation to the rules to make it possible for the cereal incorporation scheme to be taken up in the United Kingdom.

    North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation
    Sir Hector Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the first meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation in Edinburgh on 16 January.
    Mr. MacGregor: The inaugural meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation was held in Edinburgh from 17 to 20 January. That meeting concentrated on procedural and organisational matters. The organisation also established working arrangements with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and formulated precise requests for scientific advice in preparation for the next meeting of the organisation in May which will consider possible regulatory measures for salmon fishing at Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are unlikely to make much progress in international discussions unless we take firmer action on drift netting and poaching in this country? Is he aware that if that is not done salmon will become an endangered species, to the detriment of both angling and tourism?
    Mr. MacGregor: I well understand my hon. Friend's remarks, as he and I have discussed these matters. Indeed, I was in his constituency over Christmas and was able to have discussions there. I accept that there is an urgent need to find a sensible method of dealing with poaching. That is why I said earlier that I hoped very shortly to have discussions with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the matter should be tackled on a Great Britain basis.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the Tory Government's only positive achievement in Scotland has been that their damaging economic policies have so deindustrialised the Clyde that the river is now so pure that salmon have returned to the upper reaches for the first time in more than a century?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is an utter travesty of the situation in Scotland.
    Mr. Onslow: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that at the meeting to which he referred the Irish Government told those present that they were pulling their full weight in salmon conservation matters? When he meets my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, will he bear in mind that many people in Scotland believe that a salmon-tagging scheme could be effective there, even though no rod licensing system is in operation?
    Mr. MacGregor: The first meeting was a constructive one and prepared for progress at the second. So far as I know, everyone participated fully. I note my hon. Friend's comments on the second point.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much common agricultural policy expenditure, in both cash and percentage terms, was directed towards the disposal of surpluses in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Jopling: Expenditure in the European Community on the disposal of surpluses through export refunds and internal disposal subsidies in 1983 totalled approximately £4,840 million. This represents about 49 per cent. of the cost of the common agricultural policy last year.
    Mr. Fisher: How can such enormous surpluses and such ridiculous expenditure possibly help the British consumer? What plans does the Minister have to help the consumer?
    Mr. Jopling: I an very concerned about the continuing growth in agricultural expenditure and surpluses. We shall continue to press for the greatest restraint in fixing support prices and for the introduction of strict financial guidelines so that decisions on prices are taken in the light of the available financial resources. Those measures will help the consumer considerably.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever resources are devoted to dealing with surpluses, the British dairy farmer—I met many at the weekend — will under no circumstances accept the Common Market proposal to introduce a super levy on milk production in Britain? Is he aware that if the Government accept such a proposal the dairy farmers will riot and it would be a blatant sell-out of the British dairy sector to the European Community?
    Mr. Jopling: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I suspect that if he talks to some of his Scottish Conservative colleagues he will find that the view of the NFU of Scotland is wholly contradictary to his, as it is in favour of having a super levy based on farm quotas.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall be departing for a visit to Hungary.
    Mr. Bidwell: When the Prime Minister travels to Hungary, will she bear in mind that from 11 am on Monday morning to 11 am on Tuesday morning the London Broadcasting Company invited the people of London to telephone their views on the Government's proposal to abolish the GLC? Is she aware that of 12,745 calls, 82 per cent. were opposed to the Government's proposals? Is the right hon. Lady further aware that a Harris poll showed conclusively that the people of London, including many Tories, are increasingly becoming opposed to the stupidity of the Government on this issue?
    The Prime Minister: The abolition of the GLC and the other metropolitan councils was a fundamental part of our manifesto on which we fought the election. The hon. Gentleman knows the result of that election.
    Mr. Kinnock: As the Prime Minister is travelling to Hungary this evening, while she is there will she discuss the right of people to belong to independent trade unions?
    The Prime Minister: I doubt it, but if I did I should also discuss the right not to belong to one.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that would be fascinating, but in respect of the great problems that she leaves behind as she goes to Hungary, is it not true that the no-disruption agreement offered by the trade unions yesterday met every one of the four objectives which the right hon. Lady set
    398
    to guarantee continuity and security? Is it not clear that she could have obtained such agreements and secured us dependable safeguards if only she had had the common sense and common decency properly to consult the unions beforehand? Now that the right hon. Lady knows that such an offer is readily available, why does she not get on with such consultations, instead of pursuing her invent-an-alibi-a-day strategy, which is a demonstration not of strength but of considerable weakness?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the right course is to treat GCHQ like other intelligence agencies, and the Government's decision and the offer to the staff of GCHQ stand. If the unions, having heard the points that I have put to them, wish to meet me again, I am willing to do so.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister take time today to consult her colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the appalling state of the prisons in Northern Ireland and about the explosion that took place in one of them last night? Will she also consult him about the Prison Governors Association, which announced that, because of a direction from the Northern Ireland Office, certain well-known IRA criminals had to be given positions of responsibility in the prison regime?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will do everything possible to improve the efficiency of the regimes in prisons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will he the first to understand the very difficult task that prison officers have to carry out in those prisons and to welcome the way in which they carry it out.
    Mr. Freudasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Prime Minster accept that the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils will deprive the arts of £35 million of direct aid? Having rate-capped the local authorities and given no concessions to private sponsors of the arts, and bearing in mind her party's opposition to the setting up of joint councils, will the right hon. Lady tell the House how the metropolitan theatres, orchestras, art galleries and museums will manage?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that some of the GLC's contributions to the arts will be taken on by the local councils. The Government are prepared to consider the financial consequences as far as central Government are concerned.
    Mr. Gorst: Why, at my right hon. Friend's meeting with the TUC yesterday, were the concessions offered by the TUC unacceptable? Are there any considerations other than the four already put forward by the Government at the back of my right hon Friend's mind or the minds of other Ministers in declining to accept those concessions?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, provisions are specially made for intelligence agencies. They have applied for many years to avowed intelligence agencies. They also apply to the police force. We believe that those are the best provisions to apply to GCHQ.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Prime Minister seen the reply given by Mr. Winston Churchill on 25 February

    399
    1952, which is included in the memorandum by the secretary to the Cabinet on Ministers' private interests? It states:
    "It is a principle of public life that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises or appears to arise between their private interests and their public duties." — [Official Report, 25 February 1952; Vol. 496, c 702.]
    In the light of that statement by Mr. Winston Churchill, will the Prime Minister state clearly to the House whether there was a conflict between her private family interests and her public duties in the Omani university deal?
    The Prime Minister: There is no question of conflict arising between my private interests and public duties. My public duty is to get contracts and work for Britain. I do not distinguish between British companies, and cannot do so.
    Mr. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at some polytechnics, including Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield, certain subsidised courses are being run for shop stewards, the subject being to combat privatisation in the public sector? Is this—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right as anybody else to ask questions.
    Mr. Fox: Is it not a disgrace that the National Union of Public Employees and the education officers involved are using public money in that way, particularly as they are bringing in outside lecturers to sabotage Government policy?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. Of course I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I think that many workers in industry would wholly disagree with combating privatisation; for example those in the National Freight Company, who, having had a management buyout, are doing very well indeed.
    Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the increase in the unemployment figures announced today, will the Prime Minister say whether she agrees with Whitehall sources that there is no obvious explanation for the increase, or does she believe that unemployment is explicable?
    The Prime Minister: Unemployment is explicable in the sense that one gets more jobs only when one has really competitive industry producing goods which other people may buy. Until then we shall not get more jobs. Today's unemployment figures are disappointing. They are for one month only. The answer that I have given is the only way to get unemployment down.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the United Nations peacekeeping force has no part to play in the Falklands, but can she assure the House that the Government believe that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islanders, as well as the new liberal regime in Argentina, that there should be early talks on the resumption of trade and diplomatic links with Argentina?
    The Prime Minister: We believe that it is in the interests of this country, the people of Argentina, and the
    400
    people of the Falklands that we should establish better relations with Argentina. We wish to start with commercial relations. We have no intention at all of negotiating on sovereignty.

    Water Rates
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Prime Minister if the Government will introduce measures to control water rates.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The average domestic water services bill is about 20p per day. We continue to press water authorities to improve their efficiency, so as to keep increases in charges as low as possible. For this financial year the average increase in main charges was 5 per cent.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the draconian powers that the Prime Minister is taking to rate cap the rates levied by democratically elected local councils, is she aware of the misgivings in Wales at the very high water rates that are being levied by a non-elected body that has powers of taxation without representation and hits particularly at those on low incomes? Will she now move towards a system where there can be a water rate rebate?
    The Prime Minister: No. I believe that water rates are not a tax, but are a charge for services supplied. They are therefore different in nature from the fundamental local authority rates. With regard to the charges of the Welsh water authority, I understand that the authority is consulting the local consumer advisory council about various proposals to redistribute charges between and within various groups of consumers. I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that this is a matter for the Welsh water authority.
    Later—
    Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister replied to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), she said that water charges were for services. Would she explain—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman rise to ask a question when that matter was being discussed.

    Engagements
    Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's commitment to help in the reconstruction of Scott Lithgow is widely welcomed in Scotland? Does she agree that the only practicable solution to rebuilding international customer confidence at Scott Lithgow is the acquisition of the yard by a major private contractor?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Taxpayers have already shown the extensive help they have given to Scott Lithgow by providing something like £165 million since nationalisation. The story of the rig conract between British Shipbuilders and Britoil is a sad one. The right way now is for the contract to go to a new operator, who can make a totally fresh start. If the rig is built successfully, there will be a basically good performance on which to get further orders.
    Ms. Clare Short: Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the problem that she has of Fascist and racist groups operating at all levels in her party? Will she tell the House and the black community in Britain what action she proposes to take?
    The Prime Minister: There is no racism in the Conservative party. We believe in equal opportunities for all our citizens, whatever their background.
    Mr. Brinton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the "Panorama" programme last Monday was a disgraceful example—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Prime Minister can hear the question. Will the hon. Member please repeat it?
    Mr. Brinton: I should be delighted to do so. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not hear me. Does she agree that the BBC "Panorama" programme last Monday was a disgraceful example of sensational journalism?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that those whose names were mentioned in the programme, and who feel that they were not properly represented, will take the matter up with the BBC.

South Africa (Members' Visit)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned with the dignity of the House. Four Conservative Members are currently on a trip to South Africa. I understand that that trip is being paid for by the South African authorities. South Africa is the most obnoxious of all dictatorships—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order on a matter which is not for the Chair to decide.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a valid point of order. Where Members choose to visit is not a matter for the Chair.
Later—
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take a point of order on which I cannot rule.
Later—
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that I am not prepared to take a point of order about trips to South Africa, or anywhere else.
Mr. Winnick: My point of order is on different aspect. This free trip—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows that he cannot put that matter to the Chair, because the Chair has no authority to rule on it. I am not prepared to take that point of order.
Mr. Winnick: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not press on that point.

Members (Declarations of Interest)
3.31 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions to the Prime Minister the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) complained about trade unionists considering ways to combat privatisation. As the hon. Member for Shipley is retained by a firm that is seeking privatisation contracts, would not it have been advisable for him to declare his interest when he put his question? Does not that underline the need for the rules about the requirement of declaration of interest during Question Time to be reviewed?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We dealt with this matter during points of order earlier this week—and last week also. The House knows that it has never been our practice to declare an interest during Question Time. If it were, we would get through very few questions.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (8th Allotted day): There will be a debate on a motion on the damaging effects of European Community and United Kingdom Policies on Northern Ireland agriculture. This subject has been chosen by the Ulster Unionist party.
Motions on the District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order and on the European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Cooperative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock, motion on the Welsh rate support grant report 1984–85.
Afterwards, Motion on the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1983, and motions relating to Sea Fisheries Conservation (Variation) Orders.
THURSDAY 9 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the report by Sir James Hennessy on security arrangements at the Maze prison, House of Commons Paper No. 203, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY I 0 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, Private Members' motions
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement.
In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement that there is no racism in the Conservative party, may we have time for a debate on the subject, preferably on the motion debated at the Conservative party's annual conference last year?
With reference to next week's business, can the right hon. Gentleman give the publication date of the White Paper on public expenditure? I should add that a statement on the White Paper will not be enough, so can he assure us that there will be a full day's debate, in Government time, on the subject?
The Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill, which is to be debated next Tuesday, is a bit typical of the Government's muddle on these issues. It is two Bills rolled into one, and an attempt to smuggle through cuts in regional development aid of between £150 million and £200 million. To shed more light on the subject, the Opposition will therefore be tabling a reasoned amendment.
Finally, will there be statements soon first on the A320 airbus and, secondly, on the second Severn crossing?
Mr. Biffen: I shall answer those questions in reverse order. I certainly expect statements to be made very shortly on the Severn crossing and the airbus. I note that the debate on Tuesday will turn upon the stratagem of a

405
reasoned amendment and, of course, the controversy will take that into account. I confirm that I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that, rather than a statement, there should be a debate on the White Paper on public expenditure. Indeed, I know that that will also be the wish of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) mentioned the possibility of a debate on political attitudes within the Conservative party. While I am almost second to none in my deference to the Conservative party conference, I do not regard its procedures as necessarily the best guide for the House.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week, or soon thereafter, for a debate in Committee or on the Floor of the House on the prayer to annul the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order, which was introduced on Monday to take effect on Tuesday? As there has not been one recorded accident to any child in Britain, and as there are several million pounds worth of stocks of such erasers all over the country, might it not be appropriate to hold a debate in emergency time before the order comes into effect?
Mr. Biffen: I will look into that point and will get in touch with my hon. Friend.
As a postscript to my answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I should say that I hope that the White Paper on public expenditure will be published on Thursday, 16 February.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the fishery orders are to be taken next Wednesday, will the right hon. Gentleman consider arrangements for the corresponding Northern Ireland regulations to be debatable at the same time? Such arrangements have previously proved convenient.
Mr. Biffen: I will certainly consider that point, and perhaps the matter may be taken further through the usual channels.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the Leader of the House consider the seriousness of a number of gas explosions that have happened all over the country, and in particular the possibility of the storage of two tanks of 6,000 gallons each of liquid petroleum gas in east Leicester, which is of great concern to my constituents, who feel the need of protection? We hope for an early opportunity for a debate on the subject.
Mr. Biffen: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the serious point that my hon. Friend has made on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Leader of the House give us an undertaking that the Government do not intend to guillotine the rate capping Bill so that it will reach the other place before the Trade Union Bill, because of their fears about opposition to that Bill in the country and the other place?
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure of the convention on the extent to which I am expected to refer to the progress of Bills in Standing Committee. I understand that the debate on the sittings motion has barely been concluded. That being so, I am not yet in a position to talk about guillotines.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's undertaking that he would not offer Conservative party resolutions for debate on the Floor of the House, will he undertake not to invite the Leader of the Opposition to put any Labour party resolutions before the House in Opposition time?
Mr. Biffen: We will all proceed under self-constraint.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: There has been some most interesting questioning during Prime Minister's Question Time about the Government's decision on GCHQ, but the meeting at No. 10 yesterday and the reports today show that many wider aspects of the matter remain to be considered. A number of hon. Members have received letters from the strangest places in Britain stating that they too are affected by the Government's decision. Should we not therefore have a fuller debate of that decision next week?
Mr. Biffen: I do not hold out any hope of a debate next week, as no time has been allocated for such a debate.
Mr. Richard Holt: A further week has passed, and the people of Cleveland continue to live under the Damoclean sword of nuclear waste being dumped at the anhydrite mine in Billingham. The longer the Government continue to fudge a denial, the greater the opposition becomes.
Mr. Biffen: I will ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are conveyed to the appropriate quarters.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Would not the Leader of the House agree that the report of the parliamentary commissioner on the wrongful imprisonment of John Preece is a scathing indictment of the Home Office? It raises disturbing questions about the attitude and behaviour of Home Office officials, the possibility of other miscarriages of justice, and the need for many changes to be made so that similar cases never arise again. As, in the last resort, Parliament is responsible for the liberty of the individual, could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange for this vital issue to be debated in the House?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman very properly draws the attention of the House to a most serious matter which has affected his constituents and has wider ramifications. The right hon. Gentleman has written to me on the subject, and I will reply to his letter shortly.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Today the Government are at long last publishing their response to the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on water in Wales, nine months after that report was published. Will the right hon. Gentleman find an early day on which we could debate the report and the Government's disgracefully deficient response?
Mr. Biffen: I should be the first to underline the report's importance. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but I must make it clear that there is no prospect of a debate being provided in Government time in the near future.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), it is impossible to have a debate on the issues arising out of the GCHQ, and if the Government are complaining, about the GCHQ operations in the run-up to

407
the Falklands war, can we have an explanation of why there was no mention of that in the evidence to the Franks committee? Could we further have an explanation from the Foreign Secretary as to why he was so quick on the draw to rule out President Alfonsin's suggestion about United Nations troops?
Mr. Biffen: I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give a substantive answer.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Following the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for a debate on the GCHQ, will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said about that, because we have now had disturbing news that these restrictions are not solely at the Cheltenham GCHQ but have been extended to Cheadle Stoke GCHQ? Mick Bradshaw, one of the union representatives there, has been told by senior management that he must under no circumstances appear on Granada Television's programme "Union World" to defend his union on the issue of outlawing trade unions at Cheltenham, or disciplinary proceedings will be taken against him. Is it not a scandal that the Government are taking away trade union liberties while at the same time refusing to debate the matter in the House of Commons?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot helpfully add to what I have already said about the time available next week for debates. I will of course draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to the advent of the publication of the report by Sir Douglas Lovelock on the functioning of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux? In the event of it being published before his next business statement, will he assure us that the Minister will appear in the House on the day of publication to give the Government's view of it?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give a categoric undertaking that such a statement will be made. The report will be of real interest to the House and doubtless will be assessed in that light.
Mr. Greville Janner: Further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and in view of the review of all cases of people who have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as a result of the evidence of the forensic scientist Dr. Alan Clift, can we now have a debate on how many other people are imprisoned and have lost their rights due to the forensic evidence of other people including Dr. Keith Guigan?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I can add to what I said to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is made aware of these exchanges.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Leader of the House return to the subject of the citizens advice bureaux? I understand that the report is due to be published
408
during the middle of next week, and, therefore, we will not have a chance to put this matter to him before publication. He will bear in mind the unfortunate background to the original attempt to deal with the matter and the embarrassment leading, eventually, to the dismissal of the Minister. He will also bear in mind that the report was promised before the end of last year and then before the end of January. We are now into February, and at last it is to appear. That is almost a full 12 months. The Minister should be in a position to make a statement to the House when the report is published.
Mr. Biffen: I understand the force of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes and I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Having had the publication this week of a major White Paper from the Department of Employment entitled "Training for Jobs", having seen over 200 youngsters on youth training schemes lobby the House yesterday, having had the publication of my private Member's Bill on youth training schemes on the same day as the publication of the White Paper, and as nearly 170 hon. Members have signed early-day Motion No. 172 on the subject of youth training schemes, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time that the Government provided time to debate no only health and safety and the lack of jobs at the end of youth training schemes but, in particular, the scandal of youngsters getting £25 a week, two thirds of what they should be receiving if the allowance had gone up by the amount that earnings have gone up in the last three or four years? Will the Government provide time to debate the whole question of youth on these schemes?
[That this House is concerned at the lack of legal protection, particularly in areas of health and safety, afforded by the present government to youngsters on the youth training scheme and supports the immediate introduction of legislation to amend this situation.]
Mr. Biffen: The immediate hope — slender it may be, but hope it is — that I can offer to the hon. Gentleman is the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has chosen the youth training scheme as his private Member's motion, which is second in the ballot for Friday.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen on the Order Paper early-day motions Nos. 366 and 407 concerning bone marrow transplant facilities on Merseyside and in Wales. Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make an early statement on the funding of such units, which are urgently needed in the region to save lives?
[That this House congratulates the people of Merseyside for raising £100,000 through the Liverpool Echo Appeal for the Establishment of a Bone Marrow Transplant Unit; and calls upon the Government to fund this vital life saving unit, the first in the North of England, and to fund similar units in other regions as a matter of urgency.]
[That this House welcomes the decision of the Secretary of State concerning the establishment of a bone marrow transplant unit at the Heath Hospital, Cardiff; but notes with deep regret and disappointment that the unit will not become operational until 1987 and in the meantime

409
consultants at the hospital will have to take life or death decisions in respect of those 50 per cent. of patients currently on the hospital waiting lists for such operations for whom there will be no prospect of this life saving treatment.]
Mr. Biffen: Yes, I will almost certainly undertake to comply with the request that the hon. Gentleman makes.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have heard a great deal today about the wrongful imprisonment of people. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House next week to make a statement about the mistaken release of prisoners from Strangeways prison in Manchester, which is causing the people of that area great concern and which is also a matter of concern to this House?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that that is so, and I shall refer the remarks of my hon. Friend to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Secretary of State for Social Services why he has not seen fit to make a statement on the drug Osmosin, which has been related to 600 adverse reports and 20 related deaths?
Mr. Biffen: I will look into that matter and have discussions with the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: With reference to the memorandum by the Secretary to the Cabinet on Ministers' private interests — on the declaration of those interests — has the Leader of the House noted the statement in the document:
"If any Minister finds himself in doubt or difficulty over this, he may seek the Prime Minister's guidance."?
That is in relation to difficulty over deciding whether there is a need to declare an interest. Whose guidance does the Prime Minister seek? Would she seek the guidance of the Leader of the House, or—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question about the business for next week.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: —or perhaps we could discuss whether the Prime Minister would seek the guidance of the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor. Someone must advise her.
Mr. Biffen: As the Prime Minister answers questions every Tuesday and Thursday, that is an interesting topic to be directed to her.
Hon. Members: She is not answering it.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of the principle involved in the question of belonging to a trade union — which has now been taken away from those employed at GCHQ — will the Leader of the House ensure that there is at least a statement on the subject next week, even if a debate is not to be provided? Will he make arrangements for the details of free trips to be duly entered in the Register of Members' Interests, and is it not important that we know of trips paid for by foreign Governments?
Mr. Biffen: I have no responsibility for how hon. Members make their entries in the Register of Members' Interests. As for Cheltenham, I can hold out no prospect of a statement on that, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I am one who favours the exploitation of our oil and gas reserves? However, bearing in mind the fact that we now have onshore drilling for oil and gas, there is a special need for added environmental protection. Does the subject not deserve a special debate?
Mr. Biffen: I can offer no prospect of a debate in Government time next week or shortly thereafter, but I agree that environmental factors are an important dimension of energy debates.

Freeports
3.54 pm
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about freeports.
Last year, in the course of his Budget statement my right hon. and learned Friend announced that, in accordance with the recommendations of a working party chaired by my noble Friend the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the Government had decided to designate a limited number of freeports on an experimental basis.
Subsequently, on 27 July I informed the House of the terms on which freeport applications would be assessed and invited applications to be submitted by 31 October. Forty-five applications were received by that date. On 3 November I listed the names in a written answer and I undertook to announce the successful candidates early in the new year.
Since November all 45 applications have been examined, first by officials and then by Ministers. As it was necessary to limit the numbers it was not possible to satisfy all of the applicants. My right hon. Friend and I, with ministerial colleagues, have made our choice with great care and no little difficulty and the House will understand that it would not be right — or proper, for reasons of commercial confidentiality — for me to attempt to explain why a particular application was successful and why another failed. Our selection achieves a mix of airports and seaports with a good geographical dispersion. This will enable the freeports concept to be properly tested and, as we have said, each of the initial freeports will be closely monitored and formally reviewed after five years.
We have chosen six sites. They are:

Belfast—Northern Ireland Airports Limited.

Birmingham—West Midlands Freeport Limited.

Cardiff—Pearce (Wales) Consortium.

Liverpool—Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.

Prestwick—Kyle and Carrick district council and British Airports Authority.

Southampton—Associated British Ports (Holdings) PLC.

The necessary enabling legislation will be included in the Finance Bill which my right hon. Friend will introduce next month. Discussions will begin immediately with the successful applicants with a view to designating and bringing the sites into operation as quickly as possible. In some cases it may be necessary for the plans submitted to be modified to some extent for operational reasons. I hope that the whole House will wish these ventures well.
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Does the Minister accept the conclusions of the working party's report that no tariff advantages can be gained from the freeports? Will he confirm that practically the only tangible advantage is cash flow relief and that that will lead to the concentration of goods in warehouses in some freeports until they are ready to be dispersed, at which point customs duty will have to be paid? Does he agree that that will merely give some ports an unfair advantage? It will relocate trade and jobs, concentrating them in the few ports which have been chosen by the Treasury. It will not create new jobs in the country as a whole.
Does the Minister agree that his announcement is no substitute for a real policy for the docks? The Government have abolished the National Ports Council and have no solution for the crisis facing the docks. The Tilbury port
412
users committee, which might be expected to welcome the proposal referred, not to this policy, but to a policy to combat subsidies which are given to continental ports such as Rotterdam and Hamburg, through lower costs and, perhaps free pilotage and lighting. The committee would rather have had a sensible policy for the ports than this announcement. In view of the absence of a serious policy to deal with the crisis in our ports, it is not surprising that the Government were flooded with applications from areas which are desperate for jobs.
The Minister said that this was a geographical spread of freeports. That factor is supposed to have been taken into account, but east London, east Anglia, as Conservative Members will no doubt have noticed, Yorkshire, the north and north east, all areas of high unemployment, have not been taken into account in the Minister's statement. The General Council of British Shipping gave as its only praise for the idea the fact that the title of freeport is a marketable commodity. Does the Minister agree that the council has well summed up today's statement? It is a cosmetic solution. The Opposition would welcome Government policies or statements which were designed to create real jobs. This statement does not do that, and that is why we cannot welcome it unreservedly.
Mr. Hayhoe: I am sorry that the hon. Lady, in a rather long and, I thought, carping and sour response which was muddled in its reaction, adopted the line that she did, but I can confirm that under EC rules there are no tariff benefits. That was made clear by the working party, so there is nothing particularly new in what the hon. Lady said. There will be advantages, of course, in terms of cash flow. A main advantage may well be the marketing concept of a freeport. Benefits will flow also from the simplification of procedures and the reductions in compliance costs. This is a fairly modest initiative, but I expect that those who will benefit will not share the hon. Lady's sour reaction to it.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that there will be great satisfaction in Northern Ireland following the announcement that Aldergrove is to be one of the freeports? Is he also aware that he and Northern Ireland Ministers will receive from the elected representatives and the Antrim borough council the widest possible co-operation?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said.
Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend accept that there will be widespread delight in Scotland that Prestwick has been chosen for a freeport, particularly so in the county of Ayrshire and in west and south-west Scotland? Will he take an early opportunity to explain to industry the advantages of freeports, so that it can make the best use of them?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of the Prestwick announcement. Publicity for that freeport or, indeed, for any of the others, must rest with those who are concerned intimately with the arrangements and the Government are not taking any responsibility in that matter. I should also make it clear that we have no financial commitment to these freeports other than to the customs staff who will be involved with them.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister accept that those hon. Members of all parties who have been pressing for the establishment of a freeport at Prestwick are pleased that it has been chosen for one? It represents a glimmer of hope in the general gloom that surrounds employment in the country. Will the Minister accept that we hope that jobs will be provided by inward investment, particularly from North America, rather than by the relocation of jobs currently in the United Kingdom? If this scheme is to be successful, does the Minister agree that to impose a five-year experimental period does not show the kind of confidence in the concept which the Government ought to be showing?
Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman's attitude will do more to effect the success of the freeport at Prestwick than will the attitude of his Front Bench. I am therefore grateful to him for what he said.
It is right that there should be a review. There should be an independent monitoring of the progress made by these freeports. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be done in a way that will not inhibit their development.
Mr. Fred Silvester: I must express my expected desappointment at the exclusion of Manchester airport. I wish to make a point to my hon. Friend, not simply on a local matter, but going wider. Is it not the case that the freeport is intended to be an engine of economic development? If that is one of the objectives, is it not slightly unwise to have as an objective the spreading of the goodies as widely as possible, when we should be looking for those operations which are most likely to provide the biggest dynamo for the areas in which they are situated?
Mr. Hayhoe: I can well understand my hon. Friend's disappointment that Manchester was not chosen, but I know he will understand when I say that having selected Liverpool and Birmingham to have included Manchester would have meant an undue concentration in one broad area of the country. I accept what he said on the wider point.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that there will be some resentment and even anger in Scotland, in view of the disappearing industrial base of the country, that only one port has been chosen? Is he also aware that there will be great satisfaction that the one chosen is Prestwick, since that town has been denied its right as one of the premier airports of the country, due to the indifference over the years of British Governments and the petty-minded and parochial attitudes of the councils of Glasgow and Edinburgh?
Mr. Hayhoe: I noted the great difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman in saying anything agreeable about the selection of Prestwick.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I must tell my hon. Friend how delighted all Merseyside will be, and relieved too, that Liverpool has been included in the list. It is a tribute to the support that has come from Members on both sides of the House for this application. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is further evidence of the Government's commitment to Merseyside and that, together with the international garden festival this year, this could well be Liverpool's year?
Mr. Hayhoe: I share with my hon. Friend and the other Members representing Liverpool their hope that this will assist in the revival of Liverpool and that the international garden festival will be a great success.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Can the Minister say at this stage whether registered dock workers will be employed at the freeports? [Interruption.] Questions are being asked of the Minister, and not of the rabble opposite. Will the Minister say whether the conditions laid down by the National Dock Labour Board will be applicable at the freeport, and whether local authority responsibilities will be affected in any way by the regulations governing the freeport?
Mr. Hayhoe: I do not believe that any of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for me and, therefore, the operators of the freeports concerned.
Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be disappointment in Manchester that the city with the second largest international airport in the United Kingdom, outside the south-east, has been excluded? Can my hon. Friend give his reasons more fully than he did to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester)?
Mr. Hayhoe: As I have indicated, I do not think that it would be advantageous to seek to give reasons why certain of the sites were selected or others were not, but I accept what my hon. Friend said about the merit of the application for Manchester.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a matter of great interest to all hon. Members who have been seeking to intervene, and I shall endeavour to call them all, but I appeal for short supplementary speeches—[Laughter]—supplementary questions, I mean.
Mr. David Lambie: I, too, disagree with the view expressed from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on behalf of the Labour party. I thank the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for acting on the advice of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and designating Prestwick as Scotland's first freeport. Is the Minister aware that his announcement will give great pleasure to the people of Ayrshire, especially the unemployed, and those of us who have been campaigning for a number of years on behalf of Prestwick? It will give a fresh start to Prestwick and, as such, it can only be a good thing for the area.
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I think in December 1982, and it was agreeable to be able to make a decision in harmony with that recommendation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision that he has made to include Northern Ireland will be widely welcomed throughout the Province? I am sure that he is aware that the Assembly's Economic Committee made strong representations to have a freeport in Northern Ireland. Does he understand that there will be regrets in Northern Ireland that the facility will not be divided between the

415
international airport and Belfast harbour? Will he go a step further and declare a customs-free zone for Londonderry harbour and Belfast harbour?
Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that it would be right for me to go beyond what I have already said. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that there is support from both sides of the House for the announcement that I have made.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister realise that there will be considerable disappointment in Aberdeen that the city has not been designated a freeport? Will he acknowledge that the concept of a freeport appears to have changed between the original outline and the final award and designation? The original idea, as I understood it, and as the working party explained it, was that the designation should underwrite and secure economic success. No area is more successful than Aberdeen, yet it has been denied freeport designation for reasons which I suspect are political.
Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that it would be wise to go into the precise reasons, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the attractions of the Aberdeen application. As I have said, I am sorry that some areas have not been selected.
Mr. Gerald Malone: Will my hon. Friend carefully explain to the House why the Treasury took the trouble to set out the criteria which applications for freeports had to meet, when in Scotland the only applicant to meet the criteria, Aberdeen, was not successful?
Mr. Hayhoe: I do not accept my hon. Friend's assertion. All the sites that have been chosen meet the broad criteria that were set out.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister address himself to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? There is some anxiety that the Government—not the operators—might "do a GCHQ" on the freeports. This has happened in parts of the developing world where there are no trade union rights, and it could happen in the freeports because the areas will be cut off from the normal economy. Will he give an undertaking that the Government will not do that?
Secondly, how many new jobs does the Minister think will be created by the freeports? I campaigned for Liverpool to be included in the designation, although I had doubts about the concept. I took the view that if we were to have one we wanted it in Bootle. Will the Minister give an estimate of how many new jobs will come to the area, and will he say whether he thinks the freeport status of Liverpool will enable the area to attract trade from Hamburg and Rotterdam?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, true to form, seeks to impose some sinister interpretation on what is a straightforward announcement and straightforward action by the Government in designating six sites. The dock labour issue is for the operators concerned, not for the Government. Whether any of the freeports will attract trade from other freeports in Europe or elsewhere
416
must be a matter for the operators. I wish them well in attracting such trade and making a success of their ventures.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that his list shows some inconsistency? He has backed some winners and some losers. But therein lies the secret, for it will be a real test of the idea of freeports. In backing Southampton he has most certainly backed a potential winner. I am sure that he would like to pay tribute to Associated British Ports and its presentation, which did so much in persuading him that the port, which is becoming of growing importance in the European context, should be on his list.
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome, and especially for the selection of Southampton. I agree that there is a reasonable mix in the sites that we have designated. That reasonable mix will allow the freeport concept to be properly tested.
Mr. Frank Field: As I come from an area which benefits by the decision that has been announced today, I thank the Minister for the decision. However, I am mindful of the worries that other Members must have who represent areas which are not included in his list of six.
Mr. Dennis Skinner:: I have no worries.
Mr. Field: Even though my hon. Friend does not have worries, I do.
Mr. Skinner: Get on with it.
Mr. Field: I am on my feet and I am trying to speak to the Minister.
Mr. Skinner: Get on with it, then.
Mr. Field: I shall be a lot quicker if the hon. Member shuts up.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand, but this does take time.
Mr. Field: I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). May I lastly say, if I am allowed to—
Mr. Skinner: Get off your knees.
Mr. Field: The hon. Member obviously has difficulty distinguishing feet from knees. That is a basic problem. There has been a debate locally about the wisdom of the scheme. However, now that the decision has been made, I hope that all of us will pull together to make a success of the designation.
Mr. Hayhoe: I think that a majority of Members will share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), especially at the end of his question, including those in his remarks to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend understand that there is great disappointment in the Medway towns, including my own constituency, which contains the port of Sheerness? This is felt particularly following the closure of the Chatham dockyard and in the light of the other advantages which we felt we had. One wishes success to all the other applicants, but is it not

417
strange that of the six selected not one is an example of the newer expanding ports, which one would have thought would be natural applicants for freeport status? Is there any prospect of the list being reopened before the expiry of the five-year experimental period?
Mr. Hayhoe: When one selects six out of 45—my hon. Friend will know that there were voices saying that fewer should have been chosen—it is inevitable that some categories and groups will not fall within the selection. This initiative should not be regarded as the only action that is being taken by the Government that will be of some assistance to certain areas.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister remind the House of the advantages of freeports over existing bonding operations in existing ports? If there are no advantages, why is the programme being introduced? If there are advantages, surely it puts the existing bonding operations at a commercial disadvantage.
Mr. Hayhoe: As the working party's report made clear, there are no specific tariff advantages. It will be open to unsuccessful applicants to discuss with customs other procedural arrangements which could provide somewhat similar benefits. I have made that clear in the past in the House in respect of the Isle of Man initiative, which was introduced under existing legislation. The 45 applications, which were spread so widely throughout the United Kingdom, showed considerable interest among operators for these benefits.
Mr. Roger Gale: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Will he acknowledge that there are many of us who represent areas whose applications have not been successful who have no feelings of sour grapes and wish to see success? Will he confirm that nothing in his statement will deny the right to set up export-free processing zones to those who wish to do so under existing Customs and Excise legislation, which is exactly what, with total confidence in our area, we shall do in Thanet?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The present customs arrangements allow certain procedural arrangements to be made which can benefit those concerned.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that I and my colleagues welcome this concept and wish well the areas that have been chosen? However, does he agree that on this day of all days, when we have the highest level of unemployment in recent times, as announced this morning, the initiative is an inadequate response to the high levels of unemployment? Why has the northern region, which has the highest level of unemployment in the country, not been given one of the freeports? If the Minister is not able to designate one of the areas in the region as a freeport, will he reconsider with his Treasury colleagues the application by Teesside airport to introduce duty-free facilities and persuade customs and excise to provide at least that relief to the provisions of the airport?
Mr. Hayhoe: Since the initiative of designating freeports was not intended to be a response to high unemployment, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. It was never intended for that purpose.
418
Customs duties at the airport are a separate question, but I am prepared to look at any further representations by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Following the rather carping question of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), I assure my hon. Friend that if Merseyside is not especially happy about having the freeport, Manchester would be delighted to have it. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the requirements for freeport status as stated in the July memorandum—that there should be trade demand and economic viability, that there would be no extra funds from central Government, and that it should be possible to do the necessary work quickly. As Manchester international airport fulfils all those requirements, will my hon. Friend explain why we are being bypassed? Is he aware that some of us are getting a little sick of Manchester being treated as a poor relation in the north-west?
Mr. Hayhoe: The description of Manchester as a poor relation is a long way from reality. I assure my hon. Friend that a number of sites which fully met all the criteria were excluded from selection, and I made that clear earlier. I have not said that those six sites were the only ones that met the criteria. I said that my right hon. Friend and I and the other Ministers involved had a difficult task in selecting what we believed was a reasonable group which would cause the concept of freeports to be properly tested.
Mr. Robert Parry: As the Member representing the Liverpool docklands area and Riverside, I welcome Liverpool's designation as a freeport, although I appreciate that it will not provide a panacea for Merseyside's economic problems. Can the Minister give an assurance that trade union views, planning, health and safety regulations and minimum wages will be observed within the freeport areas?
Mr. Hayhoe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no difference between what occurs inside and outside the freeport zone in relation to safety requirements and the other aspects to which he referred. His question gives me an opportunity to say that a particularly stupid article in, I believe, the New Statesmen last November which suggested otherwise was absolute bosh.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend accept my gratitude and that of most hon. Members at the arrival, at last, of freeports in this country? My sadness, which is shared by many hon. Members, is that the thriving port of Newhaven in my constituency is not one of those appointed. Will my hon. Friend reassess the period needed to measure this test to ascertain whether the time can be brought down to below five years? Will he tell the House the number of freeports that will be allowed then to expand this helpful instrument for the economy?
Mr. Hayhoe: It is better for me to make no commitments about the future. Let us see how we go. I am attacked on two sides. It is said that five years is too short a period to allow proper assessment of the viability of any of the ports, and now my hon. Friend offers me the opportunity to say that five years is too long. I believe that five years is about right.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous disappointment that will be felt in the east midlands now that once again that area has been omitted from the Government's initiatives,

419
in spite of great and growing unemployment and the ideal facilities at east midlands airport? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to draw the anger and irritation of the east midlands to the attention of his colleagues, not least to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Hayhoe: My right hon. Friend has heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman has had to say.
Mr. Tony Favell: Are there any provisions to take freeport status from those areas which do not use it properly, as may be apparent from the statements of hon. Members who represent Liverpool constituencies? If there are such provisions, Manchester will welcome the opportunity to become a freeport. The people of Manchester believe that Liverpool is adopting the status of the prodigal son, and they are fed up to the back teeth with Liverpool being rewarded with the fatted calf.
Mr. Hayhoe: No open-ended commitment is being made by the Government to continue to provide the official resources — the customs and manpower —required to control freeport zones. That is why we are having a review. If the review shows that any of the sites designated has failed to work well and does not have the opportunity and potential for the future, the Government will take the necessary action.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that when the election was fought in June the Labour party manifesto made no reference to freeports, and not one Labour Member of Parliament of the 200-odd who were returned to the House was elected on the basis of a mandate which" included freeports, whether in England, Scotland or Wales?
Mr. Lambie: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Skinner: It was not in the Labour manifesto. Will the Minister bear in mind also that some of us are not kidded about this freeport? They are not free and they are not ports. This is nothing more than a confidence trick. A few years ago we had another one called enterprise zones. Enterprise zones were going to solve the problems of a few areas in the country. We do not hear much about them now.
Hon. Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help the House and me if the hon. Member occasionally said, "Is the Minister aware".
Mr. Skinner: I think that you will find, Mr. Speaker, if you look in Hansard tomorrow and check with those people up there in the Press Gallery, that my opening words were "Is the Minister aware that as far as the Labour manifesto is concerned"—do hon. Members want me to continue?
Is the Minister further aware that what he has said today will not stop the trail of human misery in the Liverpool and Merseyside area and all the other areas that are involved? His policies, which have brought about the 50,000 or more bankruptcies and resulted in more than 4 million people trying to get work, need to be changed. Only in that way—not by the Minister's statement today—can we get Britain back to work.
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the Labour party manifesto at the last
420
election. I found it a great winner for the Tory party. The more often the electorate are reminded of its existence and the fact that at least some Labour party Members still support it, the better our chance of political success.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that Edinburgh's application for a freeport will stand until the day when the number of freeports will, I hope, be increased? Is he further aware that, notwithstanding some disappointment from Aberdeen and Edinburgh, the Prestwick decision will be widely welcomed, because not only is Prestwick the home of the Scottish aircraft industry, but the decision will greatly assist service industries?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has expressed his disappointment by wishing the freeport at Prestwick well.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Is the Minister aware that many Labour Members have at no time supported the concept of freeports? Once the Government had come forward with a policy of free ports—[Interruption.] Each hon. Member must concern himself with his own people in his own areas, especially if his has the highest level of unemployment in the country.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if my area had not been designated a freeport the future of the port of Liverpool as a whole would have been hanging in the balance? Is he aware also that some of us, especially me, have had discussions with the port authority and have received categorical assurances that the wages and conditions of the port workers will be maintained at the same level, that all those who work at the freeport will be free to join their trade unions and enjoy those wages and conditions, that the local authorities concerned will not lose any rates and that the customs duties will continue once goods move from the freeport? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that—
Mr. Anthony Steen: Too long.
Mr. Heller: It may be too long for the hon. Gentleman, but many of us who are deeply worried about the future of our areas, although we do not like the concept, are prepared and happy to accept that it is better than nothing. It cannot be a substitute for the Government coming forward with proper policies to deal with unemployment and economic development throughout the country.
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about discussions with the operator for the Liverpool freeport. If he had passed on that information to his hon. Friends earlier rather than giving it in the House now he might have saved some time and avoided the raising of various questions which are not really matters for me. I have noted the other points that he made.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising, but there is an important debate to follow and I ask them please to be brief.
Mr. Michael Brown: I wish the experimental freeports every success. My hon. Friend expressed the hope that the operators would be successful

421
in obtaining traffic from freeports in Europe. As there is no freeport on the east coast of the United Kingdom, how does he expect the freeports to succeed in that respect?
Mr. Hayhoe: It is not for me to judge how the traffic will go, but if the facilities and services offered when the freeports that I have announced come fully into operation are attractive on a world basis they will undoubtedly attract further traffic to this country, to our considerable advantage. I accept that no site has been designated on the east coast. As I said earlier, in choosing six out of 45 it was extremely difficult to cover all the various combinations and groupings which I knew would be mentioned when the House considered the matter.
Mr. Michael Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware of the regret that will be felt in the city of Bristol that the freeport has gone to the wrong side of the Bristol channel? Will he bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when assisted areas and regional development aid are considered by the House next Tuesday?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly undertake to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to his comments.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the carping from the Opposition Front Bench and some Liverpool Members, the people of Merseyside are extremely grateful for the consideration the Government have shown in granting them a freeport and will grasp the opportunity to make something out of it?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that his predictions will be fully justified.
Mr. Steen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on putting into practice one of the recommendations of that splendid publication, "New Life for Old Cities", which advocated freeports. Will he have regard, however, to the problems of bureaucracy when setting up the freeports? Will he bear in mind especially the American experience that the advantages may be negatived, especially in relation to policing, if the Government are not sensitive to the way in which the freeports are run? Will the Government study the way in which freeports are run in the United States?
Mr. Hayhoe: I believe that the working group sought advice from other freeport operators, but I will certainly draw the attention of Customs and Excise to the points made by my hon. Friend. As to the reference to his earlier publication, I had forgotten the debt that we owe to my hon. Friend in this matter.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be deep dismay in Aberdeen that no freeport site has been selected in that area? In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), my hon. Friend said that all the applicants met the criteria. Will he confirm that the land on which the Prestwick freeport will be sited is owned by the Scottish Development Agency—a Government-sponsored body — and that Kyle and Carrick district council proposes to be involved in the administration? As public money will be spent by those two authorities, the application does not meet the criteria laid down by the Government, so will my hon. Friend reconsider the decision?
Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that my hon. Friend's comments will attract much support in the House, save from one or two of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members who wish to press the claims of other areas. I can only repeat that the broad criteria were met—not by all the applicants, as my hon. Friend suggested, but by all the sites that have been designated.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that Prestwick should have freeport status before the Government said they would consider such decisions? Is he aware that that was a unanimous view and that Labour Members of the Select Committee played a major part in the work that was done?
Mr. Hayhoe: I accept that the Select Committee made that clear recommendation in December 1980 and I understood that it found support in all parts of the House. I believe, therefore, that our announcement will attract wide support in Scotland, although I accept that people who would have preferred their own areas to be chosen will be sorry that they were not.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and the commitment to free enterprise. Does he agree that hon. Members should temper their regional or constituency disappointment by wishing success to all six of the applications selected and ensure that they have a profitable future? Does he agree also that the attitude of the hon. Member leading for the Opposition might have been different if a freeport had been designated in the constituency of Thurrock?
Mr. Hayhoe: I have no reason to suppose that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) expressed other than the views appropriate for her to express as Front Bench spokesman for her party.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As a great supporter of and believer in freeports, may I say how pleased I am that we have the original six? Although I wish that the east midlands airport had been one, I hope that it will be considered favourably in the next round. The enterprise zones, to which we wished success when they were announced, have proved successful and created many jobs, and I am sure that the freeports will do the same. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the people of the east midlands would like to be considered at a later stage?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his positive and constructive comments.
Mr. Timothy Yeo: As Felixstowe is the most modern and profitable port in the country and was described by The Times last year as the nearest thing to an economic miracle in the British ports industry, and as it is an outstanding example of what private industry can achieve in an area previously dominated by moribund public sector attitudes, does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to exclude Felixstowe from the list of six seems to run counter to the Government's philosophy and will be greeted with great disappointment throughout Suffolk and the whole of East Anglia, especially as there is no east coast port on the list?
Mr. Hayhoe: I agree with my hon. Friend that Felixstowe is a highly successful port with a tremendous track record over the past 10 years. Its exclusion from the

423
selection that I have announced in no way detracts from what it has already achieved or from what I believe will be its glittering future.
Dr. McDonald: Will the Minister just tell us how many new jobs will be created by the freeport scheme?
Mr. Hayhoe: No, I cannot make that prediction. So far as I know, none of those who have supported the concept of freeports has been able to give such a figure. Nevertheless, in making their applications the individual operators have stated that new jobs will flow. If their predictions of the success of their operations are fulfilled. that should be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Royal Air Force
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ian Lang.]
4.39 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I am pleased to open today this debate on the Royal Air Force. coming as it does at a time when the RAF is in fine fettle. We have too often to talk in terms of cutbacks, economies and scalings down when addressing defence issues. Today, however, the situation is different, in that the service is growing in terms of front-line aircraft, equipment capabilities and, no less important, confidence in its own ability to do its job. Over the past four or five years I detect a real battle hardening in the service. By that I do not mean the hardening born of fighting and losing financial battles in the corridors of Whitehall, but true battle hardening in the south Atlantic and in the highly professional attitude of the service to its job.
It does not matter whether one's scrutiny fixes on the manner in which the RAF goes about its current operational task or its planning for future ones; the result is the same. One comes away highly impressed by the standards achieved. In the past year we have seen the RAF mount impressive operations over the south Atlantic and in the near east. The air-to-air refuelling capability demonstrated in the long haul between Ascension Island and Port Stanley has been remarkable. Equally, the despatch of six RAF Buccaneers to Akrotiri in support of the United Kingdom contingent to the multinational forces in Beirut last September was a convincing demonstration of the reach and reflexes of air power. Therefore, we come to today's debate heartened by the state of the RAF, which is professional to its fingertips and, as I hope to demonstrate, armed to the teeth.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will wind up the debate and deal with points raised. He will emphasise operational matters, whereas I shall emphasise procurement issues.
I shall tell the House the progress that we are making with the major re-equipment programme that is now under way for the RAF. The RAF is currently undergoing the most extensive modernisation programme for 20 years, involving the expenditure of some £14 billion on major projects in the coming decade. Those measures, coupled with the advances in capability that the RAF has achieved over the past five years, will leave the RAF much stronger and better armed than it has been for many years.
I shall describe the re-equipment programme under three broad headings: our readiness to meet the threat; our ability to respond to it; and the reach of our air power in the world today—the three Rs revisited.
First, I remind the House about our readiness to detect and meet the threat that hostile aircraft pose to the United Kingdom. Any conventional attack by the Warsaw pact on western Europe would most likely include heavy air attacks on this country. Warning would be provided primarily from a chain of radars, and airborne early warning aircraft.
An enormous programme of improvements to our detection capability is well under way and the RAF is already deriving benefits. Starting later this year, Nimrod AEW aircraft will at last replace the almost timeless Shackleton. The Nimrod, which can operate with the

425
NATO Boeing AWACS aircraft, will form the British contribution to NATO's early warning force. That will greatly enhance the radar surveillance of the air space to the north of Greenland, Iceland and United Kingdom gap. With the increase in detection range, our air defence fighters will be able to mount barrier patrols well to the north to intercept hostile aircraft even before they can release long-range stand-off missiles against targets in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robert Atkins: My hon. Friend will doubtless have seen the reports in the Sunday newspapers about problems relating to the Nimrod mark 3 and its radar. Bearing in mind that it is still under consideration for the French navy as an early warning capability, will he tell the House what is going on?
Mr. Pattie: I do not want to fuel press speculation. It is easy for the media to become aware of items of gossip about the progress of particular programmes. I have no reason to doubt that the programme is sound. It would be foolish to pretend that there have not been some difficulties of the sort that occur in any advanced programme. However, we depend vitally on the programme and are determined to see that it succeeds.
In parallel with our AEW investment we are completely replacing the network of ground radars and associated command, control and communications systems for air defence, known as UKADGE. The sophisticated surveillance and data processing equipment in the Nimrod will provide the information necessary for our air defence controllers to direct the air battle. Communications links that are resistant to jamming — the joint tactical information distribution system, which answers to the acronym JTIDS—will be introduced in the second half of the 1980s to support those operations. To give the House an idea of the capability that is now being installed, there are, in each air defence sector operation centre hunker, five computers, each one of which has more computing capacity than the whole of the system being replaced. With that enormous processing power and the most advanced ECM-resistant communications system, we shall be able to knit together fighters, AEW and ground radars, to provide a resilient and comprehensive defence.
At the sharp end of our air defences, the major event next year will be the introduction into service of the Tornado F2 air defence variant. Prior to that will be next month's roll-out of the first Tornado F2s off the production line at British Aerospace in Warton. The Tornado F2 has an excellent range and loiter capability, and will be equipped with a powerful air intercept radar able to receive tracking information from the Nimrod AEW. JTIDS will also be fitted. The Tornado F2 will carry Skyflash and Sidewinder AIM 9L missiles, which will be replaced in the early 1990s by a new and more advanced generation of medium and short-range air-to-air missiles.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was the dollar cost of the Sidewinder?
Mr. Pattie: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
At present, the Phantom is the backbone of our fighter force, and these are being reinforced by the squadron of F4J(UK) aircraft that we are buying from the United States. They will be based at RAF Wattisham and will make good the shortfall in immediately available aircraft
426
for United Kingdom air defence caused by the deployment of Phantoms to the south Atlantic. We plan to run on several squadrons of Phantoms well into the next decade. Those improvements will increase the strength of our air defence forces from about 100 to about 150 aircraft—a 50 per cent. increase in numbers of front line fighter aircraft—such is the priority we have given to the air defence of this country.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am most grateful to the Minister. Will he explain to the House in more detail when the 150 aircraft will be available? Will it be now, tomorrow, next year or the year after?
Mr. Pattie: If the hon. Gentleman had paid his customary attention to me, he would have heard me say that we have about 100 at present and that the plan is to introduce the Tornado F2 from next year. Although that means full inter-squadron service numbers next year, the first production unit will be rolled out on about 28 March at Warton. If we run on some of the Phantom squadrons, as I explained, we shall obviously have an increase in numbers. If the hon. Gentleman still finds that difficult to follow, perhaps he will refer to it again in his speech.
Furthermore, our fighter assets are being supplemented by the 72 Hawk aircraft that are being modified to carry the Sidewinder AIM 9L missile, and this conversion is well under way. That will be a very useful adjunct to close-in defence of our airfields and—as I am sure that the House will be glad to know—a number of Hawks are already operational in that role.
In war our airfields in particular would be subject to attack by a variety of air-delivered weapons, and I am sure that the House will realise how vulnerable aircraft on the ground can be. Our readiness to meet the air threat, therefore, embraces the various so-called airfield survivability measures now being implemented at the RAF Germany airfields and priority one airfields in the United Kingdom. These measures include the provision of hardened aircraft shelters — 28 more have been completed for the RAF in the past year — and the hardening of personnel shelters and key base installations, so that operations can continue in spite of heavy and direct attack. The complete airfield hardening programme, when completed, will cost some £160 million.
I refer now to some of the new equipment that is being introduced to deal with threats elsewhere. In particular, I want to turn from the air defence of the United Kingdom itself to air operations in Allied Command Europe—ACE— and the maritime role of the RAF.
The RAF is improving our contribution to ACE. The first Tornado GR1 Squadron was formed in 1982, and four were operational by the end of last year. Further squadrons will be formed at the rate of one every four months, with the last forming at RAF Honington in 1987–88. The arrival of these aircraft in the front line is a major contribution to deterrence. Their extremely high bombing accuracy and ability to penetrate enemy defences at high speed or low level, at night and in all weather, move allied air forces a generation forward in capability. Moreover, when attacking an enemy airfield with the JP 233 cratering and area denial weapon, there is an order of magnitude increase in effectiveness when Tornado is compared with older systems. As a result, NATO now has the very real prospect in war of redressing the Warsaw pact's superiority in aircraft numbers.

427
Tornado will also carry the United Kingdom-designed and built air-launched anti-radiation missile, acronymed ALARM, for defence suppression, and Sidewinder AIM 9L short range air-to-air missiles for self-defence. The Skyshadow ECM pod is being fitted to improve survivability. All those systems lend substance to the policy of shifting emphasis from weapon platforms to weapon systems.
A future aircraft blessed with the almost unique distinction of having little to fear from a Soviet JP 233 is the Harrier GR5 due to arrive in the central region later this decade. Partnered at first with an improved version of the BL 755 anti-armour weapon, an ECM fit and, in due course, a new anti-armour weapon, the GR5 will greatly improve the capability of the offensive support force.
Finally, in describing to the House how we are responding to the threat, I should like to say a few words on the RAF's role in the defence of the sea lanes. Almost all the RAF's maritime reconnaissance Nimrods have now been modified to the mark 2 standard, making them probably the world's finest submarine hunters. They have very advanced passive and active sonobuoy sensors, which, with on-board processing equipment, locate and track submarines. With one air-to-air refuelling, a Nimrod can maintain surveillance over 10,000 square miles continuously for well over 10 hours, using sonobuoys and Searchwater radar. If hostile submarines are detected, they will be attacked with the Stingray torpedos now entering service. If surface contacts are made, the Searchwater radar will classify the ships by type and, if they are designated enemy vessels, the Nimrod can attack with the Harpoon stand-off weapons that it has carried since the Falklands campaign.
We are also improving the capabilities of the Buccaneer for low-level attack on enemy ships, which will be armed with Sea Eagle anti-surface ship missiles as well as laser-guided bombs. The Buccaneer will be able to carry out low-level stand-off attacks in the northern seas in war, and would prove a potent threat to any encroachment southward by an enemy fleet.
I should like to conclude my survey of the improvements that we are making to the RAF's equipment programme by reminding the House that the reach of our air power will be greatly extended by the expansion of our tanker and transport assets. Air-to-air refuelling enables our aircraft to increase their combat range, or to remain longer on task: the Falklands campaign proved the effectiveness of AAR and, as the House knows, we have bought six Tristars to augment the RAF's tanker fleet. In addition, we are bringing into service a squadron of newly converted VC10 tankers, the first aircraft having joined the RAF last July.
Subject to the tanker task, the Tristars will also be available to supplement our air transport resources. Hon. Members will be aware of the programme of fuselage-lengthening for half our Hercules transport force. A stretched Hercules is able to carry nearly 50 per cent. more fully equipped paratroops after modification, but will still be able to operate from short airstrips. Station-keeping equipment will be fitted next year to a number of stretched Hercules, which will enable the aircraft to carry out a co-ordinated drop of the parachute assault force, even in poor
428
weather. Our air transport force is therefore a highly flexible asset for the deployment of our forces both within and, if necessary, outside the NATO area.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend refer to the Queen's flight? He will be more aware than most of us with what antiquated aircraft that prestigious flight is equipped. Is it not time for the Government to grasp. that nettle?
Mr. Pattie: It could be said that the Government grasped the nettle when we announced the purchase by the RAF of two aircraft that used to be known as the HS146, now the BAe146. Those aircraft will be taken into service by the appropriate squadron for about two years, so that their suitability for royal use can be assessed. I have no reason to doubt that that excellent aeroplane will be able to graduate to such use, possibly in the slightly larger, more executive version, which the company is already producing. I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not see that announcement. It was made some months ago.
Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the public statements of the most senior British officer in NATO, Admiral Sir William Staveley, can the Minister give us an assurance that the high proportion of the British tanker capability that is tied up in the south Atlantic does not mean that we cannot fulfil our tanker obligations to NATO?
Mr. Pattie: Admiral Staveley was talking entirely about naval assets and the replenishment of assets. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I am talking about the RAF and the Tristar tanking capability. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can reserve that question for another day.
With regard to the front line of the future, I wish to say a little about the aircraft intended to replace the Jaguar and Phantom. Such an aircraft would be geared primarily to the air-to-air combat role, although it must also have a good ground attack capability. A number of other European countries perceive a similar need for their air forces. The Chiefs of Air Staff of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom have agreed an outline staff target for a future European fighter aircraft. The FEFA, as it is already known, would be a single-seat, twin-engined, agile, short take-off and landing fighter for introduction in the mid-1990s. There is, of course, a very long way to go before that staff target, designated AST 414, achieves shape as a new aircraft, but it is most encouraging that five nations have been able to harmonise their operational priorities in that way. The next step is to determine the viability of a collaborative development programme. Discussions have already commenced among officials of the five nations, and their industries have been invited to undertake a joint pre-feasibility study.
I much appreciated the support that I received from various quarters of the House, particularly from several of my hon. Friends, and, if it does not cause him too much embarrassment, from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). I am grateful for his most energetic espousal of this cause and similar causes for the well-being of the aerospace industry in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Michael Marshall: I do not wish to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), but I add my voice to what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. Will my hon. Friend take on board the argument that is sometimes used about the high cost

429
of collaborative ventures? What is his assessment of the great benefit for the avionics industry of Tornado development, and how far does he think that process will be extended with further European collaboration?
Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend is asking a broad question, which could be almost the subject of a weekend seminar. He asks me to name the benefits of collaborative programmes. As I am sure the House is aware, the usual advantage is that the numbers of aircraft that will be ordered by five air forces make the project appear more attractive and therefore more viable. Whether the cost increases during the lifetime of the programme depends largely on the bureaucracy at the top of the programme and also — rather critically — on the level and type of industrial arrangements. If the latter are difficult and convoluted, the programme will be slow and more expensive. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can resume that debate on another occasion.
It has been alleged that we have paid insufficient attention to the interests of the United Kingdom aerospace industry in relation to the future European fighter aircraft. This allegation is entirely groundless. We well understand industry's concern that a major new programme should follow on immediately from Tornado and we take due account of this, but it is just one of many factors we must consider.
The agile combat aircraft is often mentioned in this context but I must stress that this is an international private venture. Neither we nor the Governments of Italy and Germany have declared any commitment to it. For our part this is because we are working towards a common operational requirement for a new European fighter and, thereafter, a collaborative procurement programme. This is a most complex process in which rapid joint decision-making is most difficult. The first phase of the sequence has been successfully concluded with the signing in December of a joint air staff target. Industry has been kept informed of our thinking on the whole issue and will, of course, become increasingly involved in defining the aircraft and the programme. In the meantime we have been providing substantial financial support for the experimental aircraft programme. A number of companies are involved with us in this. The technology demonstrator is of very considerable importance in the context of future aircraft procurement, especially the FEFA, for it enables the technologies that will be required in such aircraft to be advanced while the collaborative possibilities of the FEFA are fully explored.
The Ministry of Defence is funding several technology demonstrator programmes to establish whether scientific or technological concepts are realisable and capable of economical introduction into service. These include the manufacture of large aircraft structures in carbon fibre composites which offer weight saving advantages, and we have successfully test flown CFC tailerons on a Tornado aircraft. A Jaguar has been equipped with a "fly-by-wire" system which involves the use of computers to govern the way control surfaces move in response to the pilot's instructions, and so improve controllability at all speeds. An avionics system demonstrator rig will explore and develop the integration into a single system of digital equipment in avionics, weapons, flight and engine control. We are also looking at methods of reducing the radar and infra-red signatures of aircraft in a so-called "Stealth" programme. The EAP brings together several of these
430
technologies in one aircraft. In short, we are advancing steadily towards our goal of introducing an advanced agile aircraft into RAF service in the mid-1990s.
In the front line alongside the FEFA will be another collaboratively procured aircraft, the GR5 Harrier. This programme, of course, is an Anglo-United States venture. This "new" Harrier being developed for the RAF and for the US Marine Corps is not, as has been claimed, entirely of United States' origin, but is the product of a collaboration between companies in the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, when we decided in 1981 to purchase the Harrier GR5 for the RAF, we determined that the programme should evolve into an international collaborative project at governmental as well as industrial level, and that is how it has proceeded.
British industry benefits substantially from this joint programme. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand those who claim otherwise. The fact is that the aircraft on order for the RAF represent about one fifth of the current total planned production for the two participating countries, yet British industry is undertaking some 40 per cent. of the work on the airframe and over 75 per cent. of the work on the engine.
Such a significant share of a programme valued in total at perhaps £8 billion represents a very significant slice of business for the British aerospace industry. One does not need to be a mathematical genius to realise that our aerospace industry does far better from an arrangement providing the workshares I have mentioned on a programme of over 300 aircraft than from having a 100 per cent. share of 60 aircraft. Arguably—I would not deny it — the United Kingdom avionics industry fared less well from the decision to proceed jointly on VSTOL with the United States. I would only point out that this sector is undertaking very substantial amounts of defence business, to the point that it is having to make strenuous efforts to recruit all the highly skilled personnel, such as design engineers, that it needs.
It is, moreover, not the case that by pursuing a collaborative programme, the capability of British industry to develop and produce vertical and short take-off and landing aircraft like the Harrier has been lessened. British Aerospace is the prime contractor for the development of the GR5 and it will continue to undertake design work on the existing versions of the Harrier, especially the Sea Harrier. This work will serve to preserve and extend its capabilities in this important field of military aviation for many years to come. What is more, Rolls-Royce remains the only aero-engine company in the world which produces the vectored thrust engines required by Harrier-type aircraft. Participation in the joint programme is also helping to develop Rolls-Royce capability in this field. We wish to build on this successful partnership in the longer term for the equipment needs of the RAF and the Royal Navy around the turn of the century. To this end discussions with the United States about advanced STOVL concepts are in train. In short, the collaborative programme on the new Harrier not only represents the best means of meeting the RAF's requirement; it also provides a very good deal for British industry—a fact which has not, unfortunately, always been fully appreciated, especially in certain union circles. My hon. Friends and hon. Members will recall union lobbies recently. We had no problems with those, but some of the so-called facts that were enunciated then are rather wide of the mark.

431
Continuing with the RAF's future programme, I should like to say something about the future basic trainer. The facts are simple. We are considering whether to extend the life of the RAF's existing basic trainer, the Jet Provost, by refurbishment or to replace it. We require a sound and robust aircraft which will perform efficiently and economically for many years. If we go for replacement there are a large number of proven aircraft on the market as well as new designs. We intend to take full advantage of the existence of the available competition to obtain the best possible value for money. It is therefore entirely proper that we consider a wide range of candidate aircraft, including foreign designs. I do not accept that we should curtail our deliberations because British designs already exist. This does not mean that we have decided to buy abroad. Indeed, I hope that, if we do go for a new aircraft it at least be built in the United Kingdom.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On this important point, why is it that the Royal Air Force appears unable to resolve certain clear doctrinal choices: first, whether it would prefer a turbo-prop or a turbo-fan, and secondly, whether it prefers side-by-side or tandem seating?
Mr. Pattie: It is unfair to the Royal Air Force for my hon. Friend to say that it is unable to solve these problems. The preference of the Royal Air Force for seating one behind the other rather than side-by-side seating is well known. Therefore, a design offering side-by-side seating will probably not be favoured, but we shall have to see. The turbo-fan and turbo-prop debate goes on, but I think that there are preferences in certain circles. My hon. Friend must not tempt me further.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have a considerable constituency interest, a somewhat embarrassing one sometimes.
Mr. Wilkinson: A vested interest too?
Mr. Ross: No, I no longer have anything to do with Pilatus Britten Norman; I resigned last March. I want to put in a claim for the PC7 and the Firecracker. I am disappointed, as the Minister must realise, that the replacement of the Jet Provost is still being debated. Over £3 million of private money has already been put into the Firecracker project. Therefore, it would help all concerned if the matter could be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible, particularly as unemployment in my constituency is now 16·5 per cent.
Mr. Pattie: I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. When he deduces that the matter is still being debated, it means that we have not finally announced a decision, although the costs of rewinging and generally refurbishing the Jet Provost seem to indicate the likelihood that we will go for a new design. We need to be certain about it. We are close to a decision and we shall not delay it unreasonably.
Mr. McNamara: Does the Minister mean that he is close to a decision on the type or on the short list?
Mr. Pattie: We are close to a decision on whether we shall go for a new aeroplane. I am always happy to extend the courtesies of the House to the hon. Gentleman by
432
giving way, and I know of his constituency interest. He represents vigorously British Aerospace at Brough. I was happy to see in my office at the Ministry recently a delegation from the union there.
At an earlier stage in the aerial endeavours of potential RAF pilots—even earlier than basic flying training—can come flying experience on gliders. A good many of today's RAF front-line pilots started their flying days in such aircraft, and very often with the Air Training Corps. It is difficult to exaggerate the cost effectiveness of getting enthusiastic young men and women quite literally hooked on flying in that way. It is time to replace the current gliders used for that purpose with a more modern design. However, in contrast to the position with the future basic trainer, there are no British Aircraft in this area and we may have to look overseas for suitable designs. None the less, I am determined that we shall take advantage of the competition that already exists, and enhance that by offering British firms the opportunity to tender for construction of that requirement.
I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his excellent work. He has used his great experience of gliding in working with the ATC, and has promoted its cause with great effectiveness.
Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I commend the sail planes that have already been purchased and tested. They are safe, which is important when teaching young cadets to fly, and they are robust, which is important as cadets have the habit of hitting the ground rather hard with them—as I know to my cost. Although it is sad that no British product is suitable for the task, it is important that we purchase aircraft that will last and be as effective as those that we have had for more than 30 years.
Mr. Pattie: I entirely support my hon. Friend's remarks.
Having said a good deal about the RAF's future aircraft, I should like briefly to review the progress made on two of the more important weapon systems. Following the decision last year to purchase the British air-launched anti-radiation missile—ALARM—I am pleased to report to the House that a fixed price contract covering development and production of the ALARM system was agreed last August. Since then, subcontractors have been appointed for appropriate specialist sub-systems and project teams have been built up together with associated development facilities. Early development models of hardware are available on all sub-systems, and some of those have completed initial development trials. The programme is on schedule.
Another British Aerospace programme, air-launched Sea Eagle, is making satisfactory progress through its development phase. Successful trials firings have taken place from both Buccaneer and Sea Harrier aircraft, and the first production missile is on schedule for completion in the late summer. In addition to the order from our own services, India has chosen Sea Eagle to equip its Sea King helicopters. That achievement of overseas sales at so early a stage in Sea Eagle's life is most encouraging.
Mr. Tom Sackville: My hon. Friend has mentioned the air-launched Sea Eagle. Can he give the House any news on the progress towards a decision to procure the ship-launched Sea Eagle?
Mr. Pattie: I must be wholly consistent with my response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) when he intervened earlier. I said that it was a naval matter—indeed, it is hard to imagine a more naval matter. I do not blame my hon. Friend for raising the point, but I am bound by the terms of today's debate.
I want to say a little about the policies that guide our attitude towards procurement. Our overriding task in defence procurement is to equip the armed forces by the means which give the best long-term value for the nation's money. To do so, we need a healthy and efficient United Kingdom defence industrial base, able to compete successfully in home and overseas markets.
Our approach to procurement now stresses the need to discuss with industry at the earliest stage to allow it maximum scope to offer its best solutions to our problems. We are attempting to simplify requirements to eliminate "gold plating" and, wherever possible, adjust them to increase their export prospects. We are entering into joint venture projects with industry where they are judged a good business proposition. An example of that is the EH101 helicopter where the Government and Westlands are in a joint venture with the Italian Government and Agusta.
Mr. John Farr: That important deal involves about £2,000 million. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the new three-engined helicopter will be powered by engines built in Britain?
Mr. Pattie: It is too early to answer that question. The aircraft is currently designed to take American engines. At the time that the aircraft was designed, there was no Rolls-Royce engine to fit it. That is not to say that one might not be produced. Indeed, I understand that there are plans that might be developed and produced.
I remind the House that last month the United Kingdom and Italy took two significant steps towards launching the development of a collaborative helicopter, the EH101. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the two nations' Ministries of Defence covering the development of the military version, and Ministers of the two industry Ministries signed a confidential memorandum of understanding reflecting their commitment to support the commercial version. Moreover, eight days ago the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, announced to Parliament the Government's decision to advance to Westland Helicopters Ltd. up to £60 million in launch aid over the next six years towards the company's share of the project.
The commercial version of the EH101 is envisaged as being produced in two variants—passenger-carrying and utility. The military version is conceived as a naval antisubmarine warfare helicopter. In that role, it will replace the Royal Navy's Sea King and the Italian navy's SH3D helicopters from the early 1990s.
The next step in that important project will be the signing of a development contract with EH Industries Ltd., a joint Westland and Agusta company.
When it comes to a choice between British and foreign purchase, our policy is to buy British wherever it is good sense, economic and consistent with our international obligations to do so. We go overseas only when the advantages of cost, performance and time scale are judged to outweigh the longer-term benefits of procuring the British option. The proof of the pudding is in the
434
proportion of our defence equipment expenditure going on contracts to British suppliers, which is running at 95 per cent., including collaborative projects. A "buy British regardless" policy would be self-defeating because it would encourage other nations to protectionism. As defence equipment exports make a major contribution to the balance of payments—some £2·4 billion last year—British industry would be the loser. That is especially true of the aerospace industry which is so dependent on overseas sales. About two thirds of the output from the industry is exported.
There has been a campaign recently for Government support for our aerospace industry, to which reference has been made, and several hon. Members have written to me about their constituents' concern for the future. I understand that, but I have to say that the Government's record in working with industry is good by any standards.
The aerospace industry includes our largest defence contractors, with whom we spend several hundreds of millions of pounds a year. A significant proportion of that is on research and development—the seed corn of future projects. As with other equipment areas, the overwhelming proportion of our expenditure on air systems is with British suppliers—even though approaching one third of our expenditure in that area goes into collaborative projects. I must stress that the forward programme is nothing other than the equipment that our armed forces need: its size and shape cannot be dictated by the existing capacity of British industry.
However, in following that policy we are continuing to make major investments in military aerospace equipment which bring work and develop the capabilities of those industries. One example is our decision last year to purchase the ALARM defence suppression missile which will maintain in the United Kingdom capabilities in a key area of defence technology. But our choices are made on the value-for-money grounds that result in equipment which both meets the requirements of the United Kingdom armed forces and is also competitive on the international market. For it is to that market, and not only to the Ministry of Defence, that our aerospace industry must look for its future prosperity. In the long run success will depend on the response that management and work force can make to that challenge.
I should like to conclude by saying a few words under the heading of joint operations. The Falklands' campaign was a highly successful demonstration not only of inter-service co-operation, but of co-operation across a broader spectrum. A good deal has been said about the efficiency with which the task force set to sea and about its job in the south Atlantic. The RAF also played a vital role. We should also remember the enormous contribution which the United Kingdom defence industry, both the private and public sectors, made to the success of operation Corporate. We could not have had a clearer demonstration of the need to retain in this country a broadly based defence industrial capability. Neither could we have had more wholehearted co-operation in that endeavour than we received. It is the Government's intention that we should retain a defence sector in British industry capable of providing our armed services with a wide range of technologies and capabilities, and that the aerospace component of the defence industrial base in this country should continue, as at present, to thrive, on the basis of a healthy order book at home and an expanding one overseas.

435
Given that degree of home support, we can be fully confident that the Royal Air Force will carry out its task with courage and skill, and that it will continue to make a vital contribution to the preservation of our security and our freedoms.
5.20 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join the Minister in congratulating the British defence industries on the work that they did at the time of the Falklands conflict. However, I am sorry that the Minister did not extend his appreciation to the many men in the shipyards and elsewhere who worked so hard to fit out and get the fleet ready for sea, and who now find themselves on the dole because their shipyards, including some on Humberside, have closed.
I take issue with the Minister on one point. He said that the unions that came to see him last week perhaps did not have all their facts or statements right, and that the rumours that they passed on to him were ill-founded. When we make our speeches about the effectiveness of our defence forces, we often forget the men and women in the design teams and on the factory floor who produce the aircraft missiles, work in avionics, and so on. But their morale and worries must also be our concern. One thing that is certain is that morale in the industry is now very fragile. Those who work in it are worried not only about the immediate future and their jobs — the unions concerned have been to see the Minister—but about the future of the defence, and in particular aircraft, industries.
Like the Opposition, those men and women fear that if their jobs at Warton, Brough and elsewhere go, the present skills, techniques, years of training and capital investment in manpower will be lost, and will be impossible to replace. However, the industry is at the forefront of our new technologies and has spin-offs in the civil as well as military sectors. Indeed, its techniques and developments have spin-offs throughout industry. If those skills are lost, British industry as a whole will be much worse off. If the Government's furious attack on this nation's industrial base extends to the defence industries, not only our industrial but our defence potential will be weakened. That is what concerns the unions. They are concerned not only about jobs, but about this country's security and its ability to defend itself while relying as much as possible on our manufacturing base to produce the weapons that will enable it to do so.
Mr. Pattie: I wish to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about the delegations from Brough and Warton. The remarks that I made related entirely to the newspapers and the broadsheet put out at the time of the national lobby under the signature of Mr. Ken Gill, when various claims were made. However, those were not the claims being considered by the union delegations that I saw. There were no problems between us.
Mr. McNamara: I am pleased to hear that. In that case, the major problem must be caused by the Government's philosophy.
The Minister talked about value for money. I accept that that is important for the nation, but we must consider not a short balance sheet, but the amount of money invested in this nation over many decades, and our capability to produce weapons systems.
436
The Opposition want Britain to lose its nuclear capability. We consider many of the projects under discussion, in particular the agile combat aircraft, from the viewpoint of conventional weapons replacing the need for a nuclear response. Such conventional weapons will help us to rely less on nuclear weapons while still safeguarding our position in NATO in that regard.
The Minister said that the RAF was in fine fettle. He mentioned the improvements which had taken place, which he though illustrated that a Conservative Government were good for the RAF. We do not agree with that. Furthermore, the picture is not as rosy as the hon. Gentleman described. If the Air Force is to be modernised, the Government will have to show a little more alacrity and success than so far.
Mr. Bill Walker: Oh, God.
Mr. McNamara: I am quite willing to give way to God, but I do not see him intervening in the debate. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) wishes to intervene, I shall certainly give way.
Mr. Walker: It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to discover that I am the only serving RAF Reserve officer in the House. Today morale in the RAF is as high as I can remember it in post-war years. That is no exaggeration.
Mr. McNamara: I am pleased to hear that. However, morale is high because of the splendid men in the RAF, and despite this Government.
If our aim is to defend our country as best we can, we must use the best equipment. The previous Labour Government were severely criticised for allowing our air defences to shrink to a very low level. When I asked the Minister about the 150 fighters that we are to have, it was interesting that he could not say where, when or how. He suggested that I should sit down and work it out with the imprecise figures and dates that he had given. However, I understand that the strength of our fighter force defending the United Kingdom is lower than at any time in the past. I gather that at present only about 72 aircraft are available to defend this country from a Warsaw pact attack. The Minister may shake his head, but let us look at his Defence Estimates and at the figures. There are 110 Phantoms, 30 of which are assigned to NATO, mostly in Germany. There are eight Phantoms in the Falklands. Thirty-eight from 110 leaves 72. The 50 Lightnings are also assigned to NATO, and most of them are also in Germany.
Mr. Pattie: I do not want to be drawn by all the hon. Gentleman's inaccuracies, but the Lightnings are not in Germany. They are assigned to NATO, but it may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that the defence of the United Kingdom is a major NATO task.
Mr. McNamara: That is very interesting, but when the Conservative party was in opposition in 1978 it did not adopt that attitude. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour)—not the Government's most beloved Member of Parliament, but respected by the Opposition—who then spoke about a Cinderella RAF. He demanded statements at a time when it was said that there were only 74 aircraft with which to counter a Soviet attack. He was talking solely about aircraft assigned to the defence of the United Kingdom. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the

437
gander. Today there are only 72. One can say exactly the same about the present position. That is the situation, and the Government will have to face it.
The Minister said a great deal about improvements in the Hawk programme. I was interested to hear about the 72 Hawks to which the Sidewinder is to be fitted. We should be glad to know how many aircraft have been, and are to be, modified. The programme has fallen behind considerably from the time when it was announced. How many of the Hawk Sidewinder replacements have taken place—one, six or 20?
Mr. Pattie: About one third.
Mr. McNamara: That is about 24 planes. Bit by bit, we are drawing more information out of the Government. Twenty-four planes out of 72 have been modified. We should be glad to know when the rest are to be done, and what progress is being made.
Another improvement associated with the use of the Hawk, when armed in that way, is that it enables training pilots to maintain war flying hours. If the trainers—the Hawks—have Sidewinders attached, the pilots can be regarded as being among those who are capable and ready for the defence of this country.
I have other quesions to ask about the Hawk. There are at the moment eight Phantoms in the Falklands, but we have also now installed adequate ground radar there. Could not those Phantoms be brought back for the defence of the United Kingdom and be replaced, for local air defence, by the Hawk?
Mr. Wilkinson: What about the Mirage?
Mr. McNamara: I shall come to that point. We know that the Hawk is more economical. The Phantom is a gas-guzzler.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Williams) quite rightly asks how the Hawk would cope againt the Mirage and the Super Etendard. The question is whether the great losses suffered by the Argentine air force were due entirely to the capability of the Harrier and our pilots, or to the fact that the Argentine planes were over-extended and could not mix it in battle. That was shown by the fact that many of the planes were lost when seeking to return to the Argentine mainland. Using the Hawk in the Falklands—together with adequate ground radar, and knowing that the Etendard and the Mirage will be considerably extended—would seem to be an option that the RAF and the Government should consider. That would enable the Phantom to be brought home.
Mr. Wilkinson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that the weather in the south Atlantic is very bad? There is a long winter and many hours of darkness. Without an airborne interception radar, how will an aeroplane cope in all-weather operations or at night against high performance aircraft? The Phantom is needed because it has airborne interception radar.
Mr. McNamara: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's judgment, but I do not accept it. I believe that the Hawk could be used in that role. The option that I have suggested needs further consideration.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I do not accept many of his arguments about the basic jet trainer. He said that he had not made a firm decision whether or not to replace the Provost, but I understood that we may shortly hear an announcement that it is about to go. To
438
refurbish 100 of those jets would cost about £60 million, and in many ways that would be wasted money. Therefore the Minister's decision has in fact been made by virtue of what he said today. There will be a replacement.
If there is to be a replacement, the real argument is on a theological point—whether it should be a turbo-fan or a turbo-prop. The Opposition favour the turbo-fan. We believe that it makes far better sense in terms of training, and also, if British Aerospace got the contract, it would add to the family of planes, which range from the new basic jet trainer to the Hawk. It would be eminently saleable. It would have advantages for smaller nations, which could perhaps arm it lightly in some way.
The argument at present seems to be whether or not we should take a plane off the shelf. The Government's argument is fallacious. They argue that if we look around the world we will find a dozen or 18 planes of that type available, that if we buy them off the shelf they will necessarily be cheaper, and that there is therefore no need to fund a development by British Aerospace. That is a strange argument. We would be buying off the shelf from other countries, so helping to cross out the research and development expenditure of those countries. However, we would also wipe out jobs in this country.
If we buy a foreign aeroplane—whether turbo-fan or turbo-prop—that aeroplane will have no export potential for this country. That is a matter of fundamental importance. We should seek to find a plane for our forces which could also be useful in the export market. The Prime Minister has made that point to the British defence industries, and I believe that we should do the same.
If we buy a plane from abroad to meet the needs of the RAF and its training programme, we shall have to buy not only the basic frame and engine, but a new kit to build up the structure against fatigue. We shall have to put in many of our own requirements. Although the basic price may at first appear attractive, when all the sums have been done, there will be no great cost advantage in buying off the shelf rather than from British Aerospace, which would also improve our technology and provide jobs and export potential.
Mr. Robert Atkins: I do not necessarily disagree with the hon. Gentleman's argument in favour of British Aerospace, but the MOD might plump for the Firecracker. That is also British, but it does not come from British Aerospace. What is the hon. Gentleman's view as to whether that plane should be built and whether it should be subcontracted to British Aerospace?
Mr. McNamara: I understand that although that plane is of British design, many of its components are foreign-made. Also, I am not certain that its manufacturers would have BAe's capability and throughput, or the strength in the market that BAe believes that it could achieve. That must make British Aerospace a very powerful contender.
The hon. Gentleman pushes Warton, and I push Brough. I want jobs in my neck of the woods. Under this Government, unemployment is worse than it has ever been. What is good for north Humberside is good for Britain. We are not to get a freeport, a garden centre or an enterprise zone. Let us hope to God that we get Nissan. It is a terrible thing for us to have to go on our knees with our rice bowls and ask for jobs. That shows the depths of unemployment to which we have been driven by the present Government.

439
Let us move from the P164 and all the obvious reasons why British Aerospace and Brough should build it, to the ACA, EAP or the FEFA or whatever string of initials the aircraft will have during the next few years. I wish the industry had as many millions as there are initials spawned. We should then be well on the way to obtaining the money that we need to develop these aeroplanes.
We all accept the need to replace the Phantom and Jaguar in the mid-1990s. We believe that the Government should put their money where their mouth is. With all their fine words, the Government have given little for the development of these experimental aeroplanes. We should study the experience of the United States. It has built demonstrator models, as it did with the F16. Afterwards the United States found itself faced with enormous deficits. If it is decided to build only one or two experimental aircraft, a great many corners are cut. [Interruption.] I feel the same about the hon. Gentleman every time he opens his mouth.
If only one aeroplane is built, the jigs and tools are not the same as would be required for a long production run. Equipment cannibalised from other aircraft is used and one does not achieve the results for which one should be looking.
The Government have invested the least that they could to enable British Aerospace to go forward. What the Government have done must be compared with what the French have put into the ACX. The French Government have invested £150 million. They are determined to go ahead with the project. Unless we are prepared to invest more money, only a limited share of the project will come to British industry. That will affect jobs and the industry's commitment to the future.
The Minister spoke about the Harrier replacement, and the amount of work that would come to the engine and air frame component manufacturers as a result. However, he did not say what percentage of the cost of the project that would be. It would be nice to know how much of the money to be invested in the new Harriers will come to this country.
There is great anxiety, which has been expressed to the Minister, that the Harrier, which was developed by British technology, is being almost continually exploited by the United States, that many of the ideas are being developed by the United States and that our industry has lost out. That is not the attitude taken by this Government or the previous Labour Government. We welcomed the collaboration.
The ACA was suggested for the mid-1990s, but five years later it was decided to go ahead with the new Harrier. Do we have the money, the expertise and ability to develop these two projects at the same time? Are we perhaps being too ambitious? Would it not be better to postpone the Harrier project for a while and invest more in the ACA project to get it firmly off the ground and ensure a greater British share of that project than appears possible at the moment?
I want to ask the Minister about Nimrod. He made what can only be regarded as a rather disparaging comment about the distinguished defence correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, Desmond Wettern. He is always reasonably well informed. He wrote an article about the 11 Nimrod AWACS and the delay in their delivery. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) asked when the aeroplane would come into service. He wanted to know how far
440
behind the programme was and what we shall do until they come into operation. The Minister said a great deal about the aeroplanes that we hope to have delivered and systems that we hope to have in operation. However, with many of them there are likely to be teething and development problems similar to those of the Nimrod. The prospects for the United Kingdom's air defences are not half as rosy as the Minister would have had us believe when he opened the debate.
5.45 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all the points that he raised, particularly in the nuclear sphere. Since coming to the House I have never heard a more comprehensive review of our equipment than that given by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I congratulate him on it. He spoke about the defence of our airfields and said that the new programme that he mentioned would put us a generation ahead. He is right. The most important point is that it will redress the imbalance between ourselves and the Warsaw pact countries. I congratulate him upon that also.
My hon. Friend talked about attack and defence. I want to talk about a topic that was not well covered in the defence review, air surveillance and reconnaissance—intelligence and the war in the air. It is most important that we should have proper reconnaissance and intelligence. If we look at page 46 of the excellent Statement on the Defence Estimates we find that number 2 reconnaissance squadron consists of 24 Jaguars GR1 and one flight of three Canberras in addition to the maritime patrol. I welcome what the Minister said about the Nimrod. The Army's small contribution is recorded on page 43.
The lessons learned during both world wars, the middle east and the conflicts in Vietnam, of which I have some experience, showed the value of reconnaissance and the emphasis in obtaining information to be vital. Those matters should not be forgotten. They were vital in those campaigns.
It is not just the obtaining of information that is important; its interpretation is equally important. It is, however, perhaps even more important to ensure that that information reaches the right people at the right time—the troops on the ground. They need to know about the terrain and the enemy. In the last war all the Soviet maps were inaccurate and we had to redraft them. It is equally important for the troops to know about enemy concentrations of armour.
If we study United States defences, we find that they fly 14 sorties a day, year-in and year-out. In peacetime the United States is capable of mounting up to 60 sorties and of course many more in wartime. Of that number, 25 per cent.—a high proportion—are in support of our defence and that of our NATO allies. That is an extremely important point which we should remember in case we ever have to fight a campaign on our own.
During the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict valuable information was obtained from the United States SR 71 Blackbird. That information probably changed the course of history by locating missiles, which might have been used in that conflict. President Nixon told the Soviet Government that they must be pulled back because they were endangering world peace.

441
The Iranian revolution changed the concept of surveillance because the United States could no longer have its intelligence gathering operations on the borders of the Soviet Union. They could no longer survey the Soviet missiles from posts within Iran. It was the only method of obtaining the information on what were extremely important matters. The Turkish systems were inhibited by the terrain, and we must remember that Pakistan had been asked for reciprocal arrangements to enable the United States to place similar equipment in that country.
While we pay tremendous tribute for what happened in the Falklands, there is a chink in our armour which requires explaining. In South Georgia and Port Stanley there was a lack of information because of pressure on our aircraft. The superior art of our training overcame that difficulty, our troops and equipment were infinitely superior to those of the Argentines, and we were able to obtain victory. But had it been another theatre of war we might have found ourselves in an entirely different position.
After we had bombed the airfield on the Falklands we did no reconnaissance to see how much damage we had done. As it happened, it did not matter in that case, but in any future operations, such reconnaissance could be extremely important because the enemy would be able to fly at a much earlier date than we might anticipate. It is important, therefore, for us to have our own reconnaissance and surveillance units.
If we are to have the progressive surveillance that we need, much remains to be done in that sphere. Let us face the fact that after the last war reconnaissance was completely forgotten—as it had been between the wars—and work on it did not really start until about 1951, since when we have been developing our systems.
I am worried by the fact that the Americans seem to be taking on most, if not all, of the important role of surveillance and reconnaissance. If we should ever find ourselves in another Falklands position, I do not know whether we would have sufficient reconnaissance facilities. I appreciate that we cannot spend money on everything, but reconnaissance and surveillance have been pushed aside as poor relations for too long. We have good equipment for attack and defence but we cannot always rely on the Americans to meet our reconnaissance needs. To what extent are Britain and our NATO allies entirely dependent on the surveillance and intelligence obtained for us by the United States, with its extremely sophisticated equipment?
While, therefore, I welcome the proposals as outlined by the Minister, I implore him to look into the whole question of surveillance because it is an activity which has tended to be neglected in the past. I hope that we will remedy that, for NATO and particularly for any hostilities that we may have to undertake by ourselves, without the practical assistance of the United States, as was the case in the Falklands campaign.
5.53 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: We have entered undoubtedly the most challenging decade in the history of NATO. The Warsaw pact's unprecedented arms build-up increasingly compels NATO to reappraise its deterrence strategy. Concurrently, the arrival of nuclear
442
parity will make it dangerous, as well as politically unattractive, to consider the nuclear deterrent as the only credible response, even to a conventional attack.
Thanks to emerging technology, we can tackle this evolving instability, however, by providing a strong conventional deterrent to any potential aggression. This is possible by following a strategy that would capitalise on our strengths and our adversary's weaknesses and by extending defence co-operation and project collaboration within the NATO alliance.
What relevance, I may be asked, has that for today's debate? The answer is, simply, that the need is likely to arise, first, in the central region, and more particularly in respect of the Royal Air Force, as I shall argue. I am sorry that the Minister of State is not in his place because I had intended to put it to him that in his all-too-brief references to the threat in the central region—where the other great responsibility of the RAF lies, along with the defence of the United Kingdom base—he was misleadingly brief and complacent.
The most urgent need in the central region, even more than the tank threat, is to check the enormous increase in what the Minister himself described more than once as the Warsaw pact air threat, and which I recall him even describing as Warsaw pact air superiority, remembering that it is increasingly offensive-profiled.
Air interdiction, and a capacity for offensive counter-air in the depth of enemy terrain, will undoubtedly be enhanced by Tornado, as the Minister claimed. But whether it will provide an enormous augmentation of deterrence and redress Warsaw pact air superiority—to both of which the Minister referred — I seriously question.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: As the hon. Gentleman referred to Tornado, may I ask him to try to persuade those who have started to demonstrate inside RAF bases which have the Tornado to stop doing so? It is an activity which will not help even the kind of defence that he wants—defence with which I do not agree, but which he wants — which is defence without nuclear weapons. That will not be achieved if we have that kind of demonstration.
Mr. Duffy: I was about to discuss the role of Tornado, and I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The heavy fighter bomber of the 1980s and 1990s—which will be a role filled largely by Tornado—will have to meet numerous military requirements. They include survivability within a ground-to-air and air-to-air threat environment; an all-weather fighting capability against ground targets and for air force efficiency; and an optimised sortie-to-target ratio. All of those will intensify.
Given the current imbalance in forces, a properly planned Warsaw pact attack with little or no warning would present NATO with a nightmare problem. NATO knows that it cannot match the Warsaw pact one for one. Given a threatened breakthrough, is NATO to go nuclear? Do those Tornado squadrons, and the Buccaneer and Jaguar squadrons which they will increasingly replace, as well as the F111 squadrons, all of which have dual capability, then assume their nuclear roles?
NATO has long recognised that it must extend the battlefield to exploit Soviet tactical weaknesses by attacking second and third echelons, not with nuclear weapons but with accurate conventional stand-off

443
weapons. The Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 presumably recognises this, for it states in paragraph 4 on page 24:
"The successful combination of new technology and new tactical concepts holds out considerable potential for a major improvement in NATO's conventional posture, and the hope of a significant raising of the nuclear threshold … For example, MLRS, Tornado GR1 and the JP233 airfield attack weapon represent a considerable capability against enemy airfields and concentrations of armour. In the longer term, we are considering options for an advanced airborne anti-armour weapon in the 1990s and studies are in hand to assess the potential effectiveness of conventionally armed long-range stand-off missiles as complementary systems to manned aircraft for the attack of airfields and other major static targets in the 1990s and beyond."
But is the tone urgent enough; is the timetable implied short enough; and is the long-range stand-off missile envisaged dependable and accurate enough? Is it not air-to-ground, and crucially dependent, therefore, on a measure of air superiority? General Charles H. Gabriel of the United States Air Force, Europe, said in January 1982:
"We need an airfield attack munition so that we can bust runways, disrupt their operations, and reduce sortie generation capabilities. We must be able to do this at night and in adverse weather."
In short, NATO's vital need is to counter Warsaw pact air superiority and free NATO's TACAIR in such a way as to provide sufficient leverage to offset the Warsaw pact advantage in numbers.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a distinguished and important speech and is referring to the dramatic modernisation of the Soviet air force. Does he agree that the Government should move beyond the stage of studies into air-launched systems or stand-off weapons for Tornado, into the definition and then the development of a design, because with the look-down, shoot-down capability of the Soviet fighter force and its airborne early warning, Tornado will not be able to get over the target by the late 1980s but will have to engage it from some distance?
Mr. Duffy: That is the question which we all face today. The hon. Gentleman has gone to the heart of the matter. We all take pride in Tornado which is a remarkable expression of modern, and to a considerable extent British, technology. It would probably have done its job a decade ago but will it get through in the 1980s, never mind the 1990s? If it gets through, what will it deliver? It would not be in the public interest to go into too much detail on an occasion such as this. However, the hon. Gentleman is right. We must address ourselves to this problem in fundamental terms. I am glad to join the hon. Gentleman in doing that now. I see that NATO TACAIR now needs the complementary systems that today's defence statement envisages for the 1990s if it is to be free to fulfil its essential role. Can TACAIR accomplish its missions by itself or will something more than even what is envisaged—an air-to-ground missile — be required when it is available?
Dr. Wörner, the German Defence Minister, is on record as saying at a press conference in Bonn on 21 May 1982:
"This disruption of an airfield's usage, even if only for a matter of hours, proportionally reduces the sortie rate, and therewith, the strength of the adversary's tactical air forces"
even if only for a matter of hours.
444
The Minister knows how vital those hours are likely to be. The timescale for that vital interdiction, that crucial disruption of the enemy thrust, is shortening all the time.
The essential task, as Dr. Wörner recognises, has been to close the main operating bases of invading forces so that returning first wave aircraft have to divert to dispersed bases where they can be dealt with by NATO TACAIR. My information is that the vital time involved is no longer a matter of hours but has been reduced to a mere two hours. The crucial time gap can be as narrow as that if second echelon follow-on forces are to be really disrupted. My advice is that NATO needs a conventional ballistic missile to complement the current TACAIR force. I do not detract from TACAIR. I appreciate the enormity of its task, bearing in mind present circumstances about which the Minister will know. It is not necessary to deal with numbers on occasions such as this. Right hon. and hon. Members who are present would not be here if they were not aware of the importance of debating the Royal Air Force, especially this year.
I am well aware of the objections on grounds of cost and of increased dependence on our American ally and therefore the further distortion of the procurement two-way street. I am also advised, however, that a conventional ballistic missile could be funded out of existing programmes by converting Pershing I, for example, from a nuclear role to conventional purposes. The concept of second echelon interdiction and attack is familiar to many hon. Members. I am arguing in rather general terms that its successful implementation can no longer be left to Allied air superiority. We can no longer depend on air superiority unless we have early reliance on nuclear weapons. The Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 recognises the urgent need to raise the nuclear threshold. Every right hon. and hon. Member present will endorse that. A new approach to defensive and offensive counter-air is therefore called for.
To the objection on grounds of costs I say that the real issue is how in future we allocate increasingly scarce resources. We are not talking of many new additional systems but of determining priorities for the most cost-effective equipment needed for the job and using our technology to make it work together as a system. The basic factors are in our favour and enable us to have an affordable yet credible deterrent. Moreover, it would be a conventional and not a nuclear deterrent. I argue that on objective grounds, not those of political expediency.
We are all aware that our budgets are becoming too constrained to do the type of job that we want to do in isolation and with wasteful duplication. That is recognised in paragraph 326 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983. I welcome the memorandum of understanding arrived at with the United States, West Germany and France to develop a new generation of short and medium-range air-to-air missiles. I am sorry that the Minister did not refer to it. With regard to the overlapping capability of AMRAAM and ASRAAM, and bearing in mind the fact that the American end of the project—AMRAAM — is expected to progress more rapidly, might not our and the German responsibility, ASRAAM, be prejudiced in this programme, not to mention future demands?
Such collaboration forms a welcome part of the defence statement. I should like more international collaboration. I know that it has come in for a bad press recently, but my advice is that circumstances are improving and that we can

445
look forward to more effective industry-to-industry and nation-to-nation co-operation. In any event, we have no choice. The need for increased co-operation within the Alliance on defence procurement is now urgently related to conventional deterrence. As long as a credible conventional deterrent for NATO is not regarded as a critical goal, budgetary pressures will merely give us less in terms of new capability. It is becoming increasingly clear on the political side that the risk of relying only on the nuclear option will become increasingly unacceptable. Therefore, the role of the conventional deterrent will be the key in the 1980s, if we are to keep the peace in this turbulent period and minimise the risk of nuclear conflict. Emerging technology makes that possible within the framework of realistic budgets.
NATO faces a major challenge in its ability to deter our adversaries with conventional weapons. Choosing the right priorities and pursuing a policy of increased co-operation in procurement within the Alliance are two key ingredients in the implementation of such a strategy.
6.8 pm
Sir Walter Clegg: It is a tremendous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), to whom the House has listened with great respect because of his knowledge of these matters and the way in which he expressed himself. He has helped me by demonstrating the need for NATO forces to have a battlefield aircraft that can allow Tornado to operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, unless Tornado is protected by other aircraft, it cannot carry out its designated role.
My main reason, and it is an unashamed reason, for taking part in the debate is that I have constituency interests in the matter as well as a regional interest. In the provision of military aircraft, the north west of England has a leading role to play, a role that it has played over many years. This is more important in some ways because it is one of the high technology industries in the northwest. We were the cradle of the industrial revolution that spread to other industries. It is vital to us in the north-west to have a viable aircraft industry. If one were totally idealistic, one would say it should be an entirely civil aircraft industry, but that is not the reality of the situation.
We have made military aircraft, we make military aircraft and we need to continue to make military aircraft at the Warton complex. This concerns not just the 550 men working at British Aerospace, and the 550 families involved. It goes much beyond that into the subcontractors of British Aerospace. I feel that I am almost converted, because my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Under-Secretary of State, comes from this area where he has his own problems with Rolls-Royce. With him, I have just completed a visit to Warton to listen to what the management and the unions have to say about the necessity for future European fighter aircraft. I echo the tribute paid by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for the part that he has played in making public the concern that we feel about the project.
It is about FEFA I wish to speak. We had the advantage last year of going with the deputation of the unions to see the Minister who opened the debate, and we were received most courteously. He listened very carefully to the arguments that the unions put forward. We have found both unions and management very good in keeping local
446
Members of Parliament informed of the situation, and of the necessities that must be faced. I am not talking to them about something of which they know nothing; they are only too well aware of the situation facing British Aerospace.
There seemed to be two problems. The first, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, is the operational necessity for FEFA as a battlefield aircraft. Since the agreement between the chiefs of staff in December, we have moved into a new phase. Before that time it was much more pie in the sky, but now it has been acknowledged by five air forces that this is a definite requirement, and it will be needed in the 1990s. If what the hon. Member for Attercliffe said is correct, even that will be a little on the late side.
There is no doubt that what we have to try to do now—I realise the difficulties facing the Government—is to make sure as far as possible that British Aerospace plays a leading part in the development of FEFA. As we know, the Government have provided money for a demonstrator. When we visted Warton we were told of the work now taking place in preparation for the meeting in May at which the five aerospace companies involved will make representations. It will not be easy, as the House well knows, to get five nations to agree first on the specification, on which progress is now being made, and secondly on how it will be put together. I believe that we can expect great competition from the French.
All the time, while we are looking at this in the joint venture, the Americans will be looking at that express need of the European air forces for an aircraft, and in my view they will not just stand on the sidelines. There should be a real intensity of effort among the five European nations to get something off the ground so that Europe, and not only this country, will have its own aircraft industry. In discussions with the unions and management at British Aerospace, we are constantly told that we must retain the capacity in this country to design and manufacture aircraft and to get the avionics ourselves without, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said yesterday, apropos another matter, a Meccano fixing assembly plant. When one talks to the men who design and build the aircraft, the intense pride in their knowledge and achievements is something to be marvelled at.
I wish to assure the Minister—I know that I push at an open door here—that he will have immense support from these Benches, especially from those hon. Members in the north-west who are more intimately concerned than those in other parts of the country, in every effort that is made to help British Aerospace get FEFA off the ground for the sake of the country, for our defences and to ensure continuous employment.
6.16 pm
Mr. Russell Johnston: It is not very easy in debates like these once a year to do more than raise questions within the established frame of our air defence capability. As has been said, the broader strategic issues of the inter-relationship of the services, and where scarce resources ought best to be concentrated between them, is more appropriately examined within the context of a general defence debate, or, indeed, within the forum of the Select Committee on Defence. I therefore intend to concentrate on procurement matters, which were indeed the main

447
preoccupation of the Minister in opening the debate. Before doing so, I am happy to pay warm tribute to the morale and efficiency of the RAF. The Minister rightly referred to the achievements of the RAF in the Falklands and more recently in Cyprus in connection with our responsibilities in the Lebanon.
The Minister laid before us in concentrated form, I must say, an encouraging description of developments in the RAF, both on-going and to provide an effective shield in the years ahead. On this Bench we dispute major aspects of the Government's overall defence policy, especially in the nuclear area, as the Minister knows, but we very much share the Government's objective of ensuring the efficacy of our conventional forces, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), in a distinguished speech and in no way are we at variance about the necessity to sustain and, wherever possible, improve, the performance of our air defences. It is fairly rare to be able to follow a relatively bipartisan approach in a debate, and I very much welcome this opportunity to do so.
On the vital matter of airborne early warning, the Minister was confident about the pace of Shackleton replacement, but there seems to be some unease, already expressed by one or two hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), about the Nimrod conversion. This could well be returned to in the wind-up speech.
On aircraft, the Minister referred to Tornado F2s, as have a number of hon. Members. I confess I was not clear about the time scale of their operational availability, and I would appreciate clarification on that point. As to Phantoms, I am told that there were problems with fatigue in the wings of the two remaining squadrons. I wonder whether I can be reassured that the problem is under control.
The Minister properly stressed the need for the RAF to have a substantial capacity for air-to-air refuelling and, of course, this makes a notable contribution to the flexibility of the air force.
I watched from within a Hercules another Hercules refuelling it over the south Atlantic and I greatly appreciated the skill, precision and courage with which the exercise was undertaken.
The Minister said that six Tristars and a number of VC10s were being converted. Can he confirm that some half-dozen Vulcans and four Hercules also were undergoing conversion? Is he satisfied that our refuelling capacity matches the need? I accept that it is always difficult to match need and demand.
It is convenient now to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the Falklands. I have no doubt that he will speak about the Falklands in due course. That is one reasonable political prediction that I am able to make. It is indisputable that the defence of the Falklands has compelled a certain redeployment of aircraft and Rapier missiles. Is the Minister able to make an assessment of the impact that this has had both on our own United Kingdom defence capacity and our capacity to fulfil our general NATO responsibilities? I understand that all Rapiers were to be equipped with blind-fire radar and I should also like to know whether that programme has been completed.
448
As a Member who represents a constituency over which jet training takes place, I am aware that the disturbance which Tornados will cause will be considerably in excess of what we have previously experienced. I do not think that people entirely appreciate that. As West Germany and Italy will now have training facilities, that will presumably increase the incidence of training flights.
Low-flying areas were revised about four years ago, partially in response to the complaints that were then being made. Did that reduce the level of complaints? I still receive them and I daresay that that is the experience of most rural Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, has the pleasure of jets flying over his house. Does the Minister keep in regular review the way in which complaints are dealt with? The other day a farmer called MacFarlane at a place called Flichity, near Inverness, telephoned RAF Kinross to complain about the disturbance caused to his cattle, only to be told that he must get a vet to authenticate his complaint. That was not much use, considering that the vet lives about 15 miles away.
I know that there must be training facilities. We all know that and we do not argue about the fact. Equally, public co-operation and understanding must be retained and, therefore, complaints should not be dealt with flippantly. They are important matters to the individuals concerned and something to which the Ministry has to respond.
The Minister spoke of the need to retain a national industrial defence capacity—in other words, industrial back-up for our defence capability. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say a little more about what advance there has been in balancing that need in a secure way against the technical and financial pressures of much greater NATO procurement integration. The understand-able reluctance of national Governments to jeopardise in any way the industrial base behind their defences must increasingly be weighed against our capacity to sustain the necessary level of technological advance ourselves.
There are many examples of joint ventures, but we must go further than that. The House will remember the failure of the Atlantique as a joint venture. Perhaps that was a good thing, because out of that came the British Nimrod. However, time has passed. I agree with the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) about the need for a European approach to the air industry. I do not think that there is any other way in which we in the United Kingdom and our partners in the European Community can maintain a degree of independence other than in that direction. The French continue to retain their ambivalent attitude towards NATO. Perhaps the Minister could say a word about that, in this context.
As I said, I intended to make a short speech, and I do not think that it has been a critical contribution. The Minister covered a wide area in introducing the debate and gave an encouraging sign of giving proper priority to what we all recognise to be a vital consideration in our defences.
6.25 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: This is the first speech that I have had the opportunity to make on defence matters since the Falklands war, when I was Sir John Nott's PPS. An aspect of that conflict that was broughthome to me was the extent to which the fleet, the task force, was dependent on the 19 Sea Harriers and the

449
handful of Sea Harrier pilots, especially in the early stages of the conflict before 800 and 801 squadrons could be reinforced by 809 of the Fleet Air Arm and later by No. 1 squadron of the Royal Air Force. It was a time of the utmost peril. A feature of it that was not clearly enough understood was the degree of personal strain that was imposed upon air crews and servicing personnel, who had to operate round the clock in extremes of weather in most demanding circumstances.
That leads me to the theme of my speech, which is the importance of sustainability in air operations. The importance of it was referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who brings to the House experience as a naval aviator in time of war, experience as a Minister and long service as a Member of the North Atlantic Assembly. He was right to say that we must be prepared to fight a long war. No one wants to have to go nuclear, and if flexible response is to mean anything, we must be able to deter and, if necessary, to fight successfully at a conventional level. To do that, we shall need air power.
If we are to be able to maintain air operations of the degree of intensity that can be envisaged in central Europe in the air environment that exists in that area, we shall need a high degree of maintainability and reliability from our aircraft. We shall need sufficient air and ground crews to do the job. That leads me to my message, which is a familiar one to the House—the importance to the Royal Air Force of reserves.
The Sandys White Paper of 1957 was a watershed in the post-war history of the Royal Air Force. The emphasis after 1957 was on the 48-hour war. The theory was that the important role for the Royal Air Force was to protect the V-bomber bases. Therefore, Fighter Command was drastically reduced and the capability of the service to engage in protracted hostilities was seriously degraded.
In the 1960s, post-Nassau, we had the Royal Navy assuming the role of strategic deterrent. Interestingly, and conveniently for the Royal Air Force perhaps, it did not change its force posture. It did not move to a system whereby it could mount sustained and protracted air operations. It was still basically geared to the concept of the short war.
It is now clear, after the Falklands conflict, that we do not know what form the next war will take. Therefore, it behoves us to evolve a system of manpower and force planning that is as flexible as possible. Flexibility is inherent in the reserve concept. Since 1957, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has proved itself. We have had the three maritime headquarters units at Northwood, Pitreavie and Mountbatten, and they have performed so well that the Royal Air Force has used their example as a good basis to found Royal Auxiliary Air Force regiment squadrons at, initially, Honington, Lossiemouth and Waddington. There are now three other squadrons. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is an honorary air commodore, knows much more about the subject than I do. Nevertheless, the regiment squadrons did so well that the Royal Air Force moved on to create an aeromedical auxiliary unit at Wroughton and a Royal Auxiliary Air Force movements unit at Brize Norton. The quality of the auxiliary recruits in those ground units has been almost embarrassingly high with a large proportion of university graduates and ex-regular RAF aircrew.
Only 600 men and women are auxiliary and volunteer reserve personnel out of a total strength in the RAF of
450
86,400. The cost of the auxiliaries and volunteer reservists is minuscule—£18 million out of what I estimate to be the RAF budget of about £5,400 million. The Army's approach to reservists is more sound and realistic. The Territorial Army is 62,600 strong as against 145,000 in the Regular Army. Its ceiling on recruitment will rise to 86,000 by the end of the decade, and its budget is £279 million. We should clearly understand that in services such as the Royal Navy and the RAF, which are capital-intensive in that they use highly sophisticated equipment —there are fewer foot-sloggers than in the Army—the need for reservists to form a pool of trained personnel who can fulfil those highly skilled functions is higher in the Navy and the RAF because in those services it takes longer to train people with that aptitude.
The Navy, to its credit, is constantly stealing a march on the RAF. A number of years ago, the Royal Navy formed two Royal Naval Reserve air squadrons. That was not noticed much, but it was significant. Not long ago when I went to Invincible I was told by a Sea Harrier pilot from, I believe, 800 Squadron, that the first Sea Harrier RNR pilot was fully qualified. Why can the RAF not do the same? The Royal Navy can operate in space, as can the RAF, but again the Royal Navy has stolen the lead.
In no area of specialisation is there a greater shortage in peace time than in fast jet qualified aircrew. In war, the shortage that already exists in peace time would be compounded by combat fatigue and battle attrition. One has only to examine the casualty rates sustained in the 1973 war by the Israeli air force or by the Syrian air force in the campaign against the Israelis in the Bekaa valley to know how serious would be the attrition in northern Europe in a war.
We must have a pool of suitably qualified aircrew. The current plan is to redeploy jet qualified personnel from ground appointments to flying squadrons in emergencies or war. There is a well-refined scheme. A number of people in ground appointments, whose importance in war is not so critical that they must stay in their jobs, would keep in touch with their former units and could be assigned to their former role so that there is continuity. It is a good and sensible scheme. We do not know where the greatest attrition during war will occur and whether the matching of people in ground appointments to the jobs that will be needed in war will work as well as it should.
Another source of reserve aircrew lies in the operational conversion units, the tactical weapons units and flying training schools—especially, the Hawks from the TWUs at Brawdy and Chivenor, a third of which have been armed with Sidewinders. When the Hawks are deployed in war in point defence, they will be flown by the weapons instructors, but they will not then be able to do their primary job of continuing to turn out new crews. The supply of new aircrew will be interrupted at the most critical stage when the force should be expanded. This is a fundamentally flawed scheme. That is why I have always suggested that the Hawk role in point defence should be fulfilled by Royal Auxiliary Air Force pilots.
We know that young men are, understandably, unwilling to commit themselves at 18 or thereabouts to service until the age of 40 which was the previous requirement. Previously, the minimum engagement for service as aircrew was up to the age of 38, or 16 years' service. Everyone knew that that requirement was bound to fail, and it did. The RAF had to revert to the old system of short service engagements with a possibility of eight

451
years to 12 years' service with a gratuity thereafter. One third of the pilots coming into the RAF do so on short-term engagements. According to the latest parliamentary question by me which was answered, it costs £2·2 million to train someone ab initio to the time he joins his operational squadron. Thus, one third of the pilots are lost to the service just when those men are becoming useful as flight commanders and squadron executives. They join an airline or do something else and are lost for good. There is no reserve and no way of calling on their expertise. That is bad economics, apart from anything else.
We should look at the role of the flying squadrons for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force more closely. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when replying tell me whether Flight International of 24 December is right? It cheered my Christmas up no end to read the headline
"Royal Auxiliary Air Force to have Wessex".
The article stated:
"The Royal Auxiliary Air Force will resume flying in 1986 after a 29-year lay-off. Plans first mentioned in the UK defence White Paper some two years ago are progressing steadily. Flight understands that the first Royal Auxiliary Wessex squadron will form in 1986."
The White Paper, in best MOD language, said that studies would be made. Do those studies have to take two years? Will we not know, at the end of the studies, the conclusion? If that is the case, it is a disgrace. I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify the point. There is a first role for tactical transport helicopters flown by auxiliaries to fly members of the Territorial Army, and I should like my hon. Friend to clarify that point also.
Secondly, the Hawk is a rugged aeroplane for what I would call day fighter ground attack. It should be used not just for point defence with the Sidewinder, but for offensive support also. Close support operations, especially in central Europe, will be crucial if we are to maintain a conventional defence against the armoured preponderance of the Warsaw pact. The emerging technologies to which we referred are those weapons, like Wasp, which are essentially fire and forget weapons which can drastically alter the balance on the central front in favour of the defence.
Another role for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is maritime patrol. I believe that we all comprehend how seriously overstretched we are for maritime patrol resources. Those of us who went to the excellent briefing organised by the C-in-C Channel, Eastern Atlantic, Sir William Staveley, will have noticed the grave shortage of maritime patrol aeroplanes. The Nimrod is a fine aircraft and does a superlative job. But does it make economic sense to use the Nimrod for the "tapestry" role and for the surveillance of rigs, fishing fleets and other inshore maritime patrol tasks which could more sensibly be done by a turbo-prop such as the Coastguarder? If the Coastguarder, manned by auxiliaries, were used, the Nimrods could be released for their oceanic role, which would make better sense.
It is notable that the RAF, in its war planning, has a scheme whereby the Dominies and Jetstreams from Finningley, which are normally used for navigational training, will in emergency be deployed around the coast and used for inshore maritime patrol. Instead of interrupting the training at Finningley it would be more
452
sensible to use aircraft, such as the Coastguarders, which are equipped for the role and allow the training school to get on with its job.
Mr. Tony Favell: If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to describe the shortage of work at the Manchester division of British Aerospace. The Coastguarders are manufactured at that division's Woodford factory, so my hon. Friend's suggestion would solve many problems there.
Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, I realise that that would be so.
The fourth auxiliary role might be described as cheap airborne early warning. We must face the fact that Nimrod mark 3 has very serious development problems. The aircraft has been rejected by the aeroplane and armament experimental establishment at Boscombe Down and sent back to the makers to get the radar right. Those are the facts, and the House and the country may as well know them because they are serious. I do not decry the weapon system. If all the bugs can be sorted out, it will be an admirable system. Nevertheless, there is a need for supplemental airborne early warning. If we had had something like the Coastguarder airborne early warning-aircraft, it could have been used in the Falklands war, operating from Goose Green once the airfield had been regained. There is also an export market for such aircraft. The air defence of the United Kingdom will be enhanced if this is available to fill in the gaps.
Mr. Peter Viggers: I support my hon. Friend's very interesting suggestion about the use of the reserves. Does he agree that the assets of aircraft and ground facilities would probably be otherwise unused when the auxiliaries would wish to use them? Secondly, what time scale does he envisage for the auxiliaries fulfilling a reserve role?
Mr. Wilkinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. Not in the operational squadrons, but in many of the training schools, the RAF operates a five-day week so that aircraft sit in the hangers at weekends when they could be used by auxiliaries.
I will deal with my hon. Friend's second point by giving concrete examples from abroad. People throw up their hands in horror and ask how civilians will cope. As we discovered in the Falklands war, the civil community—the basic economy of this country—is rich in a diversity of skills and talent. Many people do not necessarily want to be in full-time military service, but they could be useful as volunteer reserves or auxiliaries. The United States Air National Guard has 1,000 combat aircraft and 99,500 personnel and now flies the F16—the most modern fighter operational in Europe, which is also flown by the Dutch, the Norwegians, the Danes and the Belgians—and the ANG pilots are coping very well with the task. In the United States navy the fourth squadron of Fl8s is to go to the reserve, so let it not be said that only regulars can cope with modern equipment.
Indeed, the experience of the reserves in this regard is often greater than that of the regulars they concentrate on that one role. They do not go to staff college or command recruitment training schools. They do not become ADCs or air attaches and the like. They concentrate on just one role. I have visited Air National Guard squadrons which regularly deploy here, and the defence of Europe depends on them. They carry out in-flight refuelling over the

453
Atlantic and come here to summer camp flying supersonic fighters. Among the pilots there is scarcely one with less than 2,000 hours flying experience. In the regular Air Force a man with 2,000 hours experience with a Jaguar or Phantom squadron is likely to be a flight commander. In the ANG, however, the ordinary squadron pilot has that sort of experience. The same is true of the United States air force reserve.
Let us consider the operational record of air forces with strong reserve elements.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones rose—
Mr. Wilkinson: I give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am scarcely gallant, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to draw a comparison. In 1939 the RAF Volunteer Reserve formed an important part of the defence of this country. Is the hon. Gentleman pressing the RAF and the Ministry of Defence to introduce that concept into the modern RAF?
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Moreover, one third of the pilots in the Battle of Britain were auxiliaries. Nevertheless, there are two different concepts. The volunteer reserve is a pool of non-assigned aircrew, whereas the auxiliaries are in units or squadrons with a territorial connection—usually with the county of this, that or the other. In the first instance, I am calling for the re-creation of flying units in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. There is, of course, a need for VR pilots, for example in air transport, so that civil crews can be assigned to war zones in an emergency. There is merit in both, but I was concentrating on the auxiliaries today.
The best example is the Israeli air force, which has been more wedded than any other to the concept of reserves. I believe that operationally it has also proved itself to be the finest air force in the world. A typical Kfir squadron with 24 pilots and 24 aircraft would be one third reservists. The first MiG25 shot down over the Bekaa valley was shot down by a reserve pilot. The Israelis have found that if reservists operate for 50 to 70 hours per year, they can retain a reasonable level of competence. That is also the experience of the Swiss, who depend heavily on reserves.
The key to the matter is not simply that one is using trained crews who join the auxiliaries after regular service. The key now lies in modern simulation, which is so advanced that one can simulate not just procedures but air combat, feeding in whatever aircraft one wishes to engage. There is, of course, the Warton simulator, which I have seen. There are also air-to-ground simulators. These could be used by auxiliaries in the evenings and at weekends when the regular units are not using them. That is the key to giving the RAF greater capability for sustained air operations. It will also increase the amount of contact between the civil community and the service.
Mr. Bill Walker: It now seems unlikely that I shall speak in the debate. Will my hon. Friend draw attention to the fact that the RAF already has experience of volunteers who give 30 to 40 weekends every year, some having done so for more than 30 years and many of whom have built up flying hours well in excess of many Regulars? Those people operate on the Chipmunk air experience flights and also, as I do, teach air cadets to fly gliders, both motorised and conventional.
Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, I know that it is so, and I pay tribute to all involved.
We must face the fact that the defence budget will be seriously constrained in the next two or three years. The cost of Trident will be horrendous, especially in view of the current relationship between the pound and the dollar. It will cost about £10,000 million, at a time when we are also procuring the Tornado, F2 and the GR5 and hoping to develop the ACA. In those circumstances, it behoves the RAF to consider policies which will reduce or at least control the manpower costs of its defence budget. Auxiliaries do not need pensions, education allowances for children, married quarters and the rest. They are paid when they do the job. That strikes me as the ideal system for the Royal Air Force today and, more particularly, tomorrow.
6.49 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: One of the civilised and agreeable courtesies of the House is that often hon. Members who follow another hon. Member excuse themselves for not continuing on his line. However, I shall begin on the line of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who began his speech by saying that today he intervened for the first time on defence matters since he was Sir John Nott's Parliamentary Private Secretary. He went on to imply that one of the lessons of the Falklands—he implied that John Nott had agreed — was flexibility. Some hon. Members remember with fascination the valedictory speech that Sir John Nott made from the Dispatch Box. It was the last speech he made from the Front Bench. He had clearly written it himself—it was not written by a civil servant—and I thought that some of his true feelings came out.
I hestitate to take issue with Sir John Nott's former PPS, but from that speech and various public utterances since then, I should have thought that Sir John Nott, with a sense of realism, recognised that "flexibility" was exceedingly expensive and that Britain should concentrate on central defence issues rather than become involved in all sorts of expenditure, which our economy cannot sustain. The memoirs to which some hon. Members look forward most, are Sir John Nott's. I am sure that they will be well written, for he was a man of candour and a most interesting Minister.
Mr. Wilkinson: They will be funny too.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, they will certainly be witty. I hope that he has time between his daffodils and his business to give us the benefit of them sooner rather than later, because they will be well worth reading.
The idea of flexibility sounds fine, but we must make up our minds whether we can have such a horrendous financial commitment in the south Atlantic and still pay for essential defence and many other civil commitments.
I interrupted the Minister on two points and should like to return to them. First, I asked a simple question about the cost of Sidewinder. It is the sort of question that cannot be asked in parliamentary questions. As systems go, I know Sidewinder is not very expensive, but it is legitimate to ask how much we are paying the Americans for it, because there is a background point, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and others are only too well aware. Is it not true that Britain

455
is now the fourth or fifth biggest customer of the United States when it comes to buying arms? It is against that background that I ask about Sidewinder.
Secondly, I asked the Minister about tanker aircraft. In one sense he was right that Sir William Staveley was a naval officer and that the remarks were made in a naval context. But to be fair, they were not wholly within a naval context because he is the senior British NATO officer, and I thought that they were in terms of general capability. However, so be it.
I repeat the question for the wind-up. What proportion of our tanker capability is bound up in the south Atlantic? Can the Minister assure the House that NATO is satisfied that we have a sufficient British contribution to what NATO itself took for granted?
I am aware that this may be an Army point, yet it is not entirely. I refer to the helicopters in the Falklands and the tragic case, about which I asked questions, involving Sergeant Jones and Captain Belt in the lost Lynx. I shall not go into that because there is a board of inquiry and presumably it will report reasonably soon.
People returning from the Falklands are saying that much of the equipment quickly becomes "clapped out"—to use the old service phrase—in those conditions. Whatever I or anybody else thinks about our commitment, we should all be concerned about the safety of personnel. Therefore, I ask the following question. Is there any grain of truth in the idea that at the rate that those helicopters are being used—not only the Lynx but the Sea King and the Wessex—they are becoming more dangerous than they should be? I hope that the Minister will say at the end of the debate that there is nothing in it. I should be greatly pleased by that.
What bothers many people are the costs of the airport in the south Atlantic. There was a statement in the New Civil Engineer that costs had already escalated to £240 million. I understand that Ministry of Defence civil servants thought that that figure had come from me. In fact, it did not. I never mentioned it. There were other sources. What is the latest estimate of the cost of the airport, given that there are strong suggestions that the 8,500 ft runway is not long enough for a fully loaded Tristar? An extension may have to be made to 10,000 ft. There are certain problems of strata involving the tillite that is at lm or 2m of peat. Proper borings have not been taken where the extension might have to be made. Again, I look forward to the Minister's reply.
I do not want to be too current, but this morning in The Scotsman, under the byline of Chris Mullinger, who is a reputable and serious journalist, there appeared an article about GCHQ. It would have been better to establish its basis by means of parliamentary questions, but the following questions were not allowed by the Table Office. I shall put them carefully in debate, which I think is legitimate. What plans have defence Ministers to introduce Computer Network 102 or Platform into GCHQ? Until this morning, I might not have asked that question. I realise that it is sensitive. On the other hand, the matter is in public print. It was nothing to do with me that it got there.
Secondly, what proposals does the Minister have to introduce the concept of "real time facilities" into GCHQ to obtain time-critical information? Was it on his authority
456
that Mr. Peter Marychurch, headquarters director of GCHQ, wrote to the staff about an important development affecting all GCHQ staff claiming that
"our future work will depend on its success."?
I do not want to abuse the procedures of the House by going into further details on GCHQ other than to say that I took up much more time in the Army debate on 17 November than I shall tonight, in going over at length the argument for a Select Committee on intelligence. The Under-Secretary may remember that following that speech, I wrote to ask him for a considered reply. I should like to read into my speech the reply not from the Under-Secretary but from the Secretary of State himself, who wrote on 4 January:
"John Lee has shown me your letter of 19th December, following your speech in the army debate when you called for the establishment of a Select Committee on Intelligence.
Perhaps I could draw your attention to John Biffen's Written Answer to the House on 12th May last year, when he gave the Government's reply to report of the Liaison Committee on the Select Committee System.
In his answer, John reminded the House of the long-standing convention whereby the Government do not provide information or answer questions in Parliament on matters of security and intelligence; and he confirmed that the Government would regard itself as bound by that convention in relation to select committees no less than in relation to Parliament itself. I do not think that I can usefully add to what John Biffen told the House last May."
That letter was signed by the Defence Secretary. It was a civilised and courteous letter.
Given the events of the last fortnight and given the fact that a Select Committee on intelligence is not the brain-child of myself as hon. Member for Linlithgow but is the considered recommendation of very senior Members, experienced colleagues of the Defence Secretary, would it not at least be sensible to consider whether there should be such a committee? Had there been one, many of the Government's troubles over Cheltenham might have been avoided and wiser counsels might have prevailed. I do not want to recap the detailed arguments I gave in the Army debate. I have had a responsible and serious reply from the Defence Secretary. I think that events may have proved him wrong.
Mr. Wilkinson: I have the greatest sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a Select Committee on intelligence. Would he envisage the composition of the Select Committee being restricted to Privy Councillors because of the high security classification of the matters with which it would have to deal, or would he wish the membership to be wider? If the latter is the case, the effectiveness of the Committee would not be great.
Mr. Dalyell: My opinion, for what it is worth, is that membership should be restricted to Privy Councillors. I am not a Privy Councillor but, given all the considerations and the sensitivity of certain issues, that is the sensible reply, and it happens to be my belief. Some of my colleagues do not share that view, but it would be more satisfactory if membership were limited to Privy Councillors. The important thing is to get the Committee set up.
When he opened the debate, the Minister referred in some detail to the Nimrods. Therefore, I do not think I am abusing the House in raising again a matter on which I have spoken to many constituency Labour parties and which I have already raised in the House. What is said outside the House should be said at available opportunities within it. As the Minister knows, the Nimrod is a

457
formidable flying electronic laboratory. Some three or four years ago I had the good fortune to travel with colleagues in one from St. Mawgan.
I assert that on the evening of Saturday, 1 May, 1982, at seven minutes past eight, orders went out from the operational commander, Admiral Walter Allara, on board the carrier, 25 de Mayo, which was in port at the time, confirming that the Argentine surface group should go back to its port of Uschaia. These orders were confirmed again by Naval Command in Buenos Aires at 1.19 am on Sunday, 2 May. Both sets of orders were intercepted by the Nimrods, using their AD470 Marconi high frequency transceiver equipment.
The orders were flashed back to Ascension Island and from there to GCHQ, where there are at least three levels of decodification. I assert, as I have repeatedly outside the House and inside it, that the orders were known to the British Prime Minister at least five hours before she gave the order from Chequers through Northwood to the submarine Conquerer to sink the Argentine cruiser, the General Belgrano, thereby changing the nature of the Falklands conflict, and, indeed, scuppering the Peruvian peace proposals.
It is not true that the peace proposals were vague or ill thought out. Since I last spoke on the subject in the House I have had the opportunity of going to Lima to talk to the president of Peru, Belaunde Terry, to Manuel Ulloa, the Prime Minister, in his house, at the Avenue Calderon, in the Miraflores district of Lima, and to Dr. Oscar Maurtua, the head of the private office, who spent two years at Pembroke college, Oxford. The details of the Peruvian peace plan were given hour by hour to our excellent ambassador, Charles Wallace, who is now in Montevideo—he was not dismissed but given an important job—and were passed back to the United Kingdom.
Explanations must be given some time on the Floor of the House as to why and in what circumstances the Belgrano was sunk. I repeat yet again for the umpteenth time that there should be a public inquiry. It is all the more necessary because it is widely known in the House that the reputable publishers, Martin Secker and Warburg, will publish in March a book with many details of these events. I point out to the defence Ministers and to their officials that a satisfactory explanation must be given to the House of all the conflicting evidence that has accrued.
At no time have I thought that British service men were at fault. Indeed, I think that they were used for political purposes, though not by the Conservative party. My criticism is not of Conservative Members or of the Conservative party; it is highly personal to the Prime Minister, not for vendetta reasons but because she conducted the conflict. For 33 days between 2 April and 5 May she never consulted the full Cabinet on the conduct of the war. Again for the last fortnight we have had another instance of this personal decision-making on central matters. If it is to be believed—I am sure it can be—that members of the Cabinet were not consulted about the decision in relation to GCHQ, that is another example of the highly personal conduct of the Prime Minister which is alien to the traditional British system of Government. Therefore, once again I ask that these matters be explained by the Prime Minister.
7.8 pm
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not follow
458
him, but we want to get back to the debate on the Royal Air Force and policy for the next year or two. I welcome most warmly the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State; it was full of valuable and encouraging information. It is right to recall that in the last debate on the Royal Air Force there was full and deserved praise for its outstanding airmanship in the south Atlantic. This outstanding efficiency has continued with regular flights to the Falkland islands. I do not think there could be any air force in the world with more practical experience of inflight refuelling. With the Nimrods, Hercules, Victors, Harriers and Phantoms that carried out the hazardous flights to the south Atlantic, we have shown that we have the capability for rapid deployment all over the world. That is an asset with which no other air force can compete.
We have heard much about record flights from the south Atlantic, and all credit must go to those who set the standards for long-range and high-speed flights. But we must not forget the old tradition of the RAF and its long-range Vickers Wellesley monoplane that flew from Britain to South Africa and from Egypt to Australia non-stop before the war. I am glad that we have pilots who, with their skilled training and sense of adventure, can match those early flights.
That skill is shown in many other aspects of RAF duties. None is more deserving of praise than the work of the air-sea rescue helicopters, whether in the highlands and islands on mountain rescue work or around our coast. During the past year there has been some quite outstanding airmanship and work by the winch crews in saving lives. They deserve our praise for their determined work in appalling conditions. In a more peaceful role, we must not forget the quality of the Red Arrows and other RAF display teams that show the British public just what they are supporting.
I have never been more exhilarated in an RAF debate than I was tonight by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who spoke about the reserves and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force with knowledge and enthusiasm. He and my hon. Friend the Minister know that I am also involved with the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. It is right that we should discuss the developments in the reserve forces—for example, in the Regiment squadrons and the maritime headquarter units.
I warmly welcome the emphasis put on the reserves, especially the RAuxAF, by the RAF board. The squadrons have responded by excellent recruiting and enthusiastic training. They now take their place in the line of battle. If necessary, I am sure that the RAuxAF will equip itself well in aerodrome defence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House tonight whether there is to be an increase in the number of RAF squadrons.
How wise and how exciting were the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. When I was flying with the RAuxAF—when the squadrons flew Spitfires and Mosquitos, and later Meteors and Vampires—there was no question of a shortage of skilled pilots. As my hon. Friend said, I am sure that we would have no difficulty now in recruiting able pilots—certainly for maritime patrols, and even up to the standard of flying the Hawk. Such a service could be developed along the lines of the national air guard in the United States. I know that some people might think that the cost of that would be frightening, but, as my hon. Friend said, the cost of the

459
reserves—certainly the flying squadrons—might be considerably less than the cost of increasing the number of highly trained and skilled front line pilots.
A reserve force is important for the many reasons given by my hon. Friend, but also because they are a valuable link between the RAF and the community. Reserve pilots would live in the community as do members of the Territorial Army and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks will be taken seriously and that there is a possibility of developing the reserve forces. The auxiliary force is important because of the flying squadrons, but the RAF Volunteer Reserve is also important because it helps with training.
I hope that in return for the efficiency and enthusiasm shown by the auxiliaries, the RAF will do all that it can to provide the best possible facilities for the annual camp. It is the highlight of the year's training. There are excellent camps in Britain, but it is important—not as a bait, but as a reward — that every two or three years the squadrons should have the opportunity to go overseas—whether to Germany, Cyprus or Gibraltar. Not only do the squadrons feel closely knit when they serve abroad, but it gives them the opportunity to work with operational squadrons and, possibly, with the Army.
I am glad that the experiment within the auxiliaries to train a select number on the Rapier appears to be working well. We might be able to extend the skill of the auxiliaries so that they can provide an even better aerodrome defence than we have now. I say with confidence that the co-operation between the RAF stations and the auxiliary squadrons is excellent. They receive a warm welcome from the community and they are again becoming associated with towns, as they once were with Edinburgh, Glasgow, the City of London, the county of London and so on. The community is beginning to feel that the auxiliaries are part of the community, and something that they should support with pride. That is an important attitude, especially as the RAuxAF celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. I wish to pay tribute to Sir Peter Vanneck, who has done so much for the RAuxAF. He has just retired as Inspector-General.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will say a word or two about the ATC, which would also benefit from some stimulus. I am delighted to hear that it is to have new gliders, because that is the most exciting aspect of its training. ATC cadets look forward to flying more than to anything else. But the ATC would like additional resources to provide a facelift for its training quarters and funds for the cadets to travel around the country visiting RAF stations. Of course, it also wants to provide as much flying as possible.
I ask my hon. Friend to say a little more about the Nimrod. Are the 11 aircraft ready, except for the installation of radar? We want to know where we are. We cannot accept the point that all will be well in the future. We want to know now that the airframes and engines are ready and that all that is lacking is the installation of the correct radar that will make the Nimrods outstanding early warning aircraft.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned the use of coastguard or other twin-engined aircraft for "tapestry" flying and catching poachers who are fishing for salmon around our coasts. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about that. Like many
460
others, I have done "tapestry" flights, and it is an expensive way of keeping an eye on the fishing fleets in the North sea, and round our coasts. Of course, there must be some such flying for training purposes, and the squadrons welcome that, but on the whole we should try to bring in less expensive aircraft for policing purposes. Given EEC fishing policy, such flights will go on indefinitely, and we might as well think about how best we can carry it out, at the smallest cost to us.
I have enjoyed the debate because many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, have re-emphasised the importance of our personnel. We do not want to talk only about nuts, bolts, aircraft and equipment but also about the splendid morale within the RAF and the high degree of training that all personnel undergo.
In conclusion, I am very pleased with the report that my hon. Friend the Minister has given us on the RAF. We are all confident that the quality and training of the RAF ensure that Britain has the best military air force in the world, of which we can all be proud.
7.21 pm
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Morro). The last time we held a debate on the RAF he spoke after me. We have many things in common. Indeed, perhaps he, too, will cast his mind back to the 1940s. I say that because the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised some important personnel issues, and I have a feeling that the RAF or the Ministry should reconsider the question of reserves and personnel. I think the hon. Member for Dumfries can confirm that the auxiliaries and volunteer reserves flew in the Battle of Britain in 1940. I should not like it to be thought that the voluntary reserves did not do so.
The Ministry should re-learn some of the lessons of that time. We should return to the concept of the volunteer and auxiliary reserves, because it is important. Later, I shall ask the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood to bear in mind that I do not want them to become Kamikaze pilots. I want them to fly superb aircraft. It is dreadfully unfair to give highly skilled, well-trained pilots relative rubbish to fly. Last time we debated the RAF I pointed out that in 1939 we had two superb fighter aircraft—the Spitfire and the Hurricane. The problem then was that there were not enough of them. It looks as though we are now in danger of having highly trained pilots when we have not laid the plans that will give them the weapons and the aircraft that they deserve.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that he found Trident frightfully expensive, and so it is. It mops up a substantial amount of defence expenditure and puts purchasing policy in some jeopardy. It provides very little employment for the money spent. As for that abomination, cruise, perhaps one day the truth will be told about the efficiency of its testing. Cruise is a wicked weapon to bring to this country in order to defend the Americans. It is untried, inefficient and ineffective. Perhaps some day someone will give us cruise's fail-rate.
I happen to have some figures, although they are supposed to be secret. They scare me stiff, and I can understand the attitude of the women at Greenham common. There is a tendency to portray those women as being all of a vulgar, screaming-hysterical type, but many women have thought about the issues carefully, and

461
believe that cruise is an evil weapon. Conservative Members may shake their heads, but they should bear in mind that there are some ex-service men who share that view. The views of people such as Lord Mountbatten and Brigadier Harbottle should not be ignored. We should not be assumed to be a bunch of cowering cowards when we talk of our fear of that weapon.
Mr. Dalyell: Did my hon. Friend see last year the front page of the Electronics Times—a very serious technical journal—which listed a whole number of deficiencies in cruise missiles? The list was sent to the Ministry of Defence, and we received the sole reply that the Ministry was confident that American testing had been satisfactory. There was no British testing. We have to rely on the Americans' word for it, which the Electronics Times certainly doubted.
Mr. Carter-Jones: My hon. Friend has given us yet more information about the worries that have been expressed about that weapon. However, I wish to relate my remarks to the important contribution made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. Such weapons may well be robbing us of the best form of fighter defence.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that my point was not that the cost of Trident would necessarily dangerously impinge on equipment programmes, but that unless we changed our manpower policies in the service there was a real danger that Trident would do just that?
Mr. Carter-Jones: I believe that the two go hand in hand. To a certain extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has a difficult problem. He has limited resources, and a substantial sum has already gone on Trident and cruise. He is therefore left with a shortfall when it comes to providing the necessary equipment.
I am sorry that I was absent at the beginning of the debate. I have just come back from Toulouse. It is like returning from "ops". After landing there is a debriefing session. However, I was delighted to hear that the EH101 is now a definite possibility. The RAF and the Armed Forces should be given the best equipment available. the civilian uses of the EH101 are also vital.
The hon. Member for Dumfries referred to the saving role of helicopter pilots and their crews. A long time ago I was involved in a perinatal campaign and in saving the lives of babies. I suggested then that the helicopter might prove an extremely good method of taking pregnant women at risk to places of excellence where their babies could be saved and safe delivery could be assured. The opportunities are great and would offer excellent training prospects as well. I have a funny feeling that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) will start agreeing with me in a moment, although not about the problem of finance.
I bet that the mind of the hon. Member for Dumfries boggles, as mine does, at the thought of ACAs coming over the horizon, head-on, at supersonic speed, closing fast, firing blind at the same time and perhaps shooting one another down. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I could survive in such circumstances now. We are too long in the tooth. However, we have an obligation to see that the pilots of today—expensively trained, as the hon. Gentleman said—get the protection that they need.
The ACA seems to me to be the ideal aircraft for firing blind at long distances and for protecting the highly
462
valuable air crew in charge of the aircraft. One thing that worries me is that if the ACA is to have agility, and if after firing its missile, radar unseen, is to be able to take evasive action to avoid a heat-seeking missile, that will of necessity mean that large sums of money will have been spent on it, but that money may not be available because it has been spent on Trident and cruise. The mind boggles at that.
If we go for the ACA—and I know that the hon. Gentleman wants it because of his constituency interests—
Mr. Robert Atkins indicated dissent.
Mr. Carter-Jones: All right, the hon. Gentleman does not want it for constituency interests.
Mr. Atkins: More than.
Mr. Carter Jones: Good. The hon. Gentleman has bared his soul at long last. The difficulty is that if there is to be joint production, the RB199 engine may well turn out to be Britain's contribution to the aircraft. Someone may say, "If you have the engine, brother, you have got your share." That would be difficult for the people at Warton, because they would be involved in the airframe construction. I am rather weary of the way in which the airframe side of British industry has been treated, in both the military and civilian areas. Some hon. Members will guess that I am now about to make a plea for the airbus, and I shall do so in a moment.
If the ACA or its derivative is made on a collaborative basis, I believe that Britain should have the engine, and I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ribble will agree that we should also have a very substantial part of the airframe.
We tend in the House to believe that there is the power plant, there is the engine, there is the airframe, and that is it. However, nowadays, about one third of an aircraft consists of avionics. I am also rather distressed at the way in which our avionics industry is treated. If the ACA is to be a goer, firms other than Rolls-Royce — Dowty, Ferranti, Lucas, Marconi Avionics and Smiths Industries—will all be involved.
I see that the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir Walter Clegg) has just returned to the Chamber. I am making a plea for Warton. I believe that it should have the order for the ACA and that it should have the right to build a substantial part of the airframe of that aircraft.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood talked about spending money. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is in a dilemma. The Treasury has given him a sum of money. He cannot stretch it as far as is necessary. Ways of training more cheaply have been suggested. Let us not train our aircrew more cheaply. They will give their lives, as they did in the past. If necessary, they will involve themselves in kamikaze actions, but they should not be put in kamikaze situations. If warfare is to be fought at long distances, the men flying those aircraft are entitled to the best equipment, and that will absorb large sums of money.
I was intrigued by the idea of the extensive use of simulators. They are important, but they remind me of the term TEWTS—tactical exercises without troops. One can win battles in TEWTS. The hon. Member for Dumfries has won a war with TEWTS. As long as no blood is shed, that is all right. The simulator can do so

463
much, but no more. To be an effective flyer, one must put in some flying hours. The Secretary of State for Defence put in many flying hours in one fell swoop; thank God he was a passenger—a good place for him. We must devote more and more of our effort to providing good hardware for experienced and well-trained men.
When I arrived in the Chamber, hotfoot from Toulouse, I heard the Tristar and the VC10 mentioned. When the Minister is searching for replacement aircraft for freight or troop carrying, it would be no bad thing to consider buying the airbus—the A300 or the A310. He would be doing a great service to British aviation. The airframe industry is in need of as much support and help as the engine industry, and it could be supplied in that way.
Finally, there is the question of personnel. I hope that wider use will be made of the volunteer and the auxiliary, but let us not put them into inferior aircraft. If they are to have superior aircraft, decisions must be made now so that such aircraft will be available at the right time in the right numbers, although I hope to God that they will not be needed.
7.37 pm
Mr. Robert Atkins: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on arriving back in time for the debate. In due course I shall take up his points about the ACA or its derivatives.
I offer my grateful and surprised thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for his kind remarks, and I also thank my distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg), who has done much more than I ever did for his constituents in Lancashire. We are very proud that my hon. Friend is the chairman of the Conservative Members of Parliament in the north-west, and grateful for what he does in that regard.
Before I deal with the future European fighter aircraft, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about other RAF matters. If he cannot answer them this evening perhaps he or his colleague will write to me.
First, there is the question of the VTXTS Hawk trainer which we are selling to the United States for use by the United States navy. There are reports that the wet Hawk buy is still undetermined. I would be grateful, as would British Aerospace, for some information about that contract. For some time the world of aeroplanes has had its wets and dries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an excellent speech. He speaks with great authority in these matters. We all enjoyed his speech. He talked about Nimrod. While, clearly, we must be cautious in saying things about aeroplanes and equipment which we believe to be very important, it must be recognised — the matter featured in the Sunday newspapers—that it has been a cause of some anxiety to senior executives within British Aerospace that they are being blamed for the problems on the mark 3 when it has nothing to do with them.
I am cautious about raising this matter but I believe that it is important to do so because, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, there is a real possibility of the Nimrods or, to a greater extent, the radar fit on the Nimrod mark 3, still being in contention for the French navy. If
464
the matter is not ironed out now, I can see the French, in their customary way in aviation matters, making life extremely difficult for this fine aircraft and its radar fit.
If the Minister feels that it is inappropriate to reply to that point in this debate, I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand. However, he has a responsibility to advise us privately of what is going on so that we can help with what is potentially an important sale and an important aircraft for the RAF.
The basic trainer has also been mentioned. I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about it with an interest which I can understand. I hope that the Minister will talk about it when he replies. The British Aerospace contender is of high quality. I am interested in the fact that there is still a delay. I should have an interest if there were to be some rewinging of the Provosts, as that would probably take place at Warton, with the possibility of more work there.
I understand that the P164 at Brough, and even the Firecracker, about which we are beginning to hear a little, are both possibilities. I am interested, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will realise, in the options and how soon decisions can be made.
I should like to ask a question about the advanced VSTOL negotiations between British Aerospace and the United States. Some anxiety has been expressed on both sides of the Atlantic about the secrecy involved, and questions are being asked about the technology transfer, bearing in mind that there has been understandable anxiety about the transfer of this unique technology to the United States. The reasons for that sale I wholly support and my hon. Friend mentioned it in opening. None the less, it would be useful to hear the Government's views on this aeroplane.
It is thought that an advance VSTOL aeroplane of this nature, which British Aerospace estimates would be in service by about 2005 or 2010, would be a follow-on for the Tornado or the current Harrier. Clearly, with the FEFA aeroplane, about which we shall be talking in a moment, in contention for funds, it will be interesting to know the Government's plans.
I gave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a warning privately that I would raise, as I did in an earlier defence debate, the problems of "Identification Friend or Foe"—IFF. A number of us went to West Germany recently to see RAF Germany, among others, and we were worried to have the problems of IFF in NATO highlighted by senior officers. While we are reassured by Ministers and senior officers that something will happen in due course, I am not yet persuaded that all is happening that should be. I press the Minister most strongly to push as hard as he can on this matter.
There is increasing anxiety within the defence industry about the usefulness or effects of the defence sales levy, which is raised at varying percentages, as my hon. Friend is aware, or soon will be when he investigates the matter. I pose the question, by way of putting down a marker, about what research has been done on the practicalities and effects of the defence levy and whether it might more usefully be used to assist in the funding of defence sales in a way which at present it is not. I do not expect my hon. Friend to answer that question tonight, but it is of interest to people involved in this matter.
I wish to deal now with the new fighter aeroplane which is so important to Lancashire. I took issue a little with the hon. Member for Eccles, as he will understand, because

465
my interest is not just for my constituency. In my former incarnation at Preston, North I was worried about my majority, which he may recall was the smallest in the last Parliament. Without being complacent, I hope that it is not now quite so much of a problem. The aerospace industry is not just a constituency problem; it affects Lancashire and the country as a whole. Some 15,300 people in Lancashire work in British Aerospace. If one takes into account all their dependants, it works out that about 40,000 people are involved, directly or indirectly, with British Aerospace in Lancashire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said, that is without taking into account major subcontractors such as Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick, Lucas at Burnley and all the other members of the consortium involved in this major contract for FIFA or ACA, and all the small subcontractors who are involved in one way or another in making small and large parts and the sub-assemblies which are so crucial.
It would not be unfair to say that the technology and production and design teams at the three factories which comprise the Warton division — Warton, the Preston factory and the Samlesbury factory, in my constituency, contain probably the finest teams of production and design engineers within the world aerospace industry.
The project about which we are talking started in 1969 as air staff target 396. It then became AST 403; then the European combat aircraft; then the P110. It then became the advanced combat aircraft and then the experimental aircraft project. Later it became the future European fighter aircraft. It is now loosely connected with AST 414. All the numbers and acronyms have changed but it is still the aeroplane that we want in Lancashire.
The time is long past when a decision on this important project is needed. I appreciate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre so rightly said, that we are pushing against an open door, particularly with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done an enormous amount of work on this matter. We are all aware of their commitment. I understand the difficulties of the Ministry of Defence and the industry, but the strategic and industrial time scale is now so tight that important decisions must be taken.
There is some discussion about the time scale for the Phantom and Jaguar replacement. West Germany and France are talking loosely about 1995. The RAF need it, if not sooner, certainly no later than 1992. Flight magazine, which is in its 75th year and can therefore speak with some authority on the matter, said:
"If the Future European Fighter Aircraft (FEFA), as it may be called, does not enter production before 1995, there will be a slump in workload at BAe and MBB."
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be aware that there has been some talk of an attrition buy of between 70 and 90 further Tornados soon. However, in a recent announcement the Federal Republic of Germany said that no decision was even possible before the third quarter of 1984 because of its funding limitations. We are therefore talking about some time ahead. Even if that were to happen and we were to sell 100 Tornados now to the various countries which, my hon. Friend knows, are still in contention, and we were to have a decision on EAP and FEFA immediately, there would still be a problem with jobs because of the learning curve and the increase in technology that has occurred in the making of Tornados, Jaguars and any new aeroplane.
I return to the article in Flight, which said:
466
"At least Aeritalia has the AMX light fighter to fill the gap. 1995 is too late for another reason. BAe sees an export market for 350 agile fighters, predominantly in the Middle East. This market will emerge in the late Eighties, and will be filled by US F-16s and F-18s unless a European alternative is available."
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre in that I, too, have been very impressed by the quality of the lobby by the aerospace industry, in management and trade union terms, and particularly in trade union terms. I have had a good working relationship with the trade unions in representing my constituency. They are hard working and industrious and have the interests of their work force, and particularly of the industry, at heart, and I pay tribute to the work that they have done.
I was pleased to be associated with the delegation to the Minister of State, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), and the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne), and a useful and productive meeting it was.
The view of British Aerospace is fourfold in this matter. First, it believes that the continuity represented by Panavia —the company that has built Tornado—West Germany, Italy and British Aerospace has worked so well that it deserves to be continued, and that is an important factor.
Secondly, the experimental aircraft project of which ACA became part is important for wider fighter technology. Thirdly, I spoke about the in-service date, and that is an area which concerns British Aerospace because it believes that it needs to deliver by 1990 at the latest.
Fourthly, there is some discussion about whether this should be a completely new fighter. Clearly a new air superiority fighter would have some advantages, but those who know the industry and the problems of design and production reckon that having a completely new fighter, with new avionics, a new engine and a new airframe, would not be the answer, because it would involve all the problems entailed in bedding the aircraft down. Above all, it would have at the least to be sanitised, to be sold abroad, thereby largely destroying its appeal, for example, to the Arab countries.
We should find a situation in which, if we are intending to sell the aeroplane as produced—give or take some of the avionics and other fit—it would take between four and five years after its in-service state with the RAF and other air forces in Europe before it could be sold, and that is a window of opportunity which we cannot afford to miss. Therefore, British Aerospace does not believe that a new aeroplane would be right.
Another problem concerning a brand new aeroplane is the engine. I must be careful what I say about Air Staff Target—AST—414 because it is still in the early stages and discussions are continuing. I know that because I was talking to executives at Warton yesterday, who told me that they have members of the other four air staffs there discussing the matter.
There is some concern about AST 414 in that it predicates, because of its size, the engine, which would not be the Rolls-Royce RB 199, even in its XG20 derivative form, which is the follow-on from the 104, which is intended to go in the Tornado ADV.
Of course, an alternative to that would be the SNECMA M88, a wholly new French engine, but all the ramifications of having that—as opposed to the RB 199, the Rolls-Royce engine—are perhaps too deep to deploy at this level. However, the Minster knows what I mean, as do other hon. Members who are interested in these

467
matters. I do not want to say too much on this issue, but it must be ironed out, because the problem is such that we could not have the aeroplane and not the engine; nor do we want to get the engine and have difficulties with the airframe.
Having spoken about the engine side, I need not go into the avionics because the members of the consortium— Smiths, Doughties and the other companies — are capable of looking after those matters themselves, and they are important members of the consortium.
The experimental aircraft project is achieving three tasks. First, it is working on the fly-by-wire technology which is currently being used on a Jaguar at Warton and is teaching us a great deal about capabilities in this sphere. Secondly, it is doing work with carbon fibre and, to a degree, a small element of ceramics. Thirdly, it is doing much work in investigating what is known as the advanced CRT cockpit—CRT standing for cathode ray tube— using mainly digital and other devices. It is an extremely advanced technology. The work coming out of that and the experience being gained by British Aerospace is making a substantial contribution to the success of the EAP.
If we are to believe the reports in the trade press about EAP there is likely to be a "fly off" between ACX, which is the French aeroplane, and EAP. I do not think that is likely in those terms, but there is no doubt that there will be a big fight as to which should be the main aeroplane in this area.
I am concerned about the possibility of the German Defence Minister losing his job. I suspect that the effects of his moving from his job would have been far-reaching in the immediate future on the potential of this project, so I am glad that he is still in post. Nevertheless, there will be pressure from the French, as there always is, and deservedly so, because they are a fine nation in aerospace terms and they make fine aeroplanes, but we make them better, and it is important that we win the day on this issue. They are members of the five nation air staffs who are considering what the next aeroplane should be, but we want it to be on our terms as much as on theirs.
I have already spoken for too long. I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak. I try to speak only on these issues because they affect my constituency greatly and I make it my business to try to learn about them. As I say, this is a vital project. I know that I am pushing at an open door in speaking to the Minister, who recognises, as other hon. Members do, the importance of the project not only in industrial but in strategic terms. Indeed, the Flight editorial of 10 December to which I referred earlier added
"the industries involved must receive the strongest possible backing from their respective governments. The bargaining will be hard, and perhaps acrimonious, but the payoff is a united Europe"
in aviation terms. It is essential for Europe that we have FEFA to combat the F-18 and the F-16 and to be in those other areas where exports are so important. It is essential for the Royal Air Force that AST 414 is a British-based FEFA. It is essential for British Aerospace and the consortium, of which it is such an important part, that the funding is topped up and commitments are given as soon as possible.
The FEFA is essential, above all, for the employees and the future of the British aerospace industry. In my opinion,
468
and in the opinion of many others more informed than I, they are the best in the world at doing what they do. I want to ensure, for so long as I am a Member of Parliament for a constituency that is so involved in this sphere, that those people have the right and ability to continue to do what they are so good at doing. That means that FEFA — future European fighting aircraft — gets the go-ahead from the five air staffs, gets the go-ahead from the Government and becomes the RAF aeroplane of the 1990s, and the sooner the better.
7.57 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I listened with care and interest to the Minister's opening speech which, by any standard, represented a competent and detailed survey of the needs and duties, present and future, of the Royal Air Force. But something was lacking—to an extent it has been lacking from a number of speeches by Conservative Members — and that was the political analysis underlying those needs and duties.
It was possible to deduce from the Minister's remarks what he considered to be the strategic and tactical tasks of the RAF. However, it was not easy to deduce the political underlying strategy—the tasks that the Government see the Royal Air Force having to fulfil in the changing relationships that are occurring between the nations of the world. That is where there is a major gap, and I shall deal with that.
It is almost as though Conservative Members were looking in detail at a number of advanced technological projects—going into them in detail and being even more expert than the experts—forgetting, to some extent at least, that their main role here is as politicians. They are not expected to be able to out-expert the expert. The problem is that the Government have taken a number of political decisions that have had all sorts of implications for the RAF and the other two services, and I shall deal with that aspect, too.
The Tory party's track record in terms of reading the intentions of other nation states is not good. It is the party which, to a large extent this century, has been responsible for getting this country involved in wars, whether it be the Falklands, Suez, the second world war or the many colonial wars in which we have been involved. The Conservatives have not been good at reading the signs. They have tended to underestimate the threat in the first instance, as happened in the Falklands, and then to overestimate it, so getting their reactions wrong, as my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) have shown.
I am reminded of Albert Einstein's forceful statement of the 1940s. Perhaps we should always bear it in mind when discussing defence matters. He said:
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking."
That is the major problem that underlies the Government's strategy on defence.
I said that I would elaborate what I meant about the political strategy not having been thought through. With regard to cruise, the Minister mentioned the importance of combating "stealth" technology by using infra-red techniques. Although I must study what he said more closely in Hansard tomorrow, I understood him to say that that is one way in which to deal with the proposed Russian

469
development of a missile which is equivalent to the American cruise missile system which employs a considerable amount of stealth technology.
It is only a few months since the Government, especially the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and their allies of the time, the Social Democrats, were saying that if the West went ahead with the deployment of cruise and Pershing, it would be only a matter of time before the Soviet Union came to the negotiating table to discuss a limitation on those types of arms. That has not happened. There is still time for that to happen, but the signs are that it will not. There are many good reasons for that. One is that the Russians, rightly, regard cruise as an especially dangerous threat. A second reason—extremely important in terms of the arms race that has developed between the East and the West—is that both super-powers are now trying to match each other on weapons systems. That is dangerous in terms of deterrence and the arms race as it tends to accelerate that race out of control.
The implication is that the Government now accept that the Russians will deploy their own type of cruise missile which is of a similar technological standard to the United States' missile system. That immediately poses another problem for the Minister, as the Royal Air Force now has the added duty of identifying in advance cruise missiles which are directed at Britain and which employ the advanced technology which is used in the United States' system. That threat was not supposed to occur because the Government believed that, by deploying cruise and Pershing, they would dissuade the Soviet Union from taking such action by persuading it to come to the negotiating table. That did not work. It was a failure of the Government's political thinking that led them into that trap.
It is important to note that the threat will reach its peak at roughly the same time as Britain is picking up the bill for Trident. It has been said that Trident will cost £10 billion. By the time that we pick up the bill, especially in view of the strength of the dollar, I suspect that the cost will be considerably higher. That implies an enormous squeeze on the rest of the defence forces. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said just that. That is one example of how the Government have got their political strategy wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow mentioned the Falklands. That is a classic example. The Government got themselves into a mess by misreading the signs. Having done so, and having got a military victory, thanks to the armed forces, they now have an enormous burden. My hon. Friend was right to point out that to defend the Falklands with the advanced aircraft that we are using there is to make a judgment about the future intentions of the Argentine Government. There is little sign yet that the Government have taken on board the fact that a democratic Government has been elected in Argentina and that they are unlikely to invade. I am not arguing that we should withdraw all our forces from the Falklands, but we do not need a defence posture anything like the size of -the one in the Falklands now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised the important point of having a Select Committee on security services to consider the information that was relayed by the Nimrod that was on patrol over the Falklands at the time. I should like to develop what my hon. Friend said. Such a Select Committee is necessary in its own right as
470
a means of making the security services answerable to the House. However, I believe that it could have prevented the Falklands crisis. If much of the information that was available to the security services immediately prior to the Falklands invasion had been brought more forcefully to the Government's attention — that might have happened through the Select Committee procedure — the Government might never have got themselves into a mess in the first place.
I disagree with my hon. Friend only in regard to Privy Councillors. I believe that ordinary Members should be involved. Until we give Back Benchers the full responsibility that they deserve and should have as elected representatives, we shall undervalue their role. A good general rule can be applied in these matters: if people are given responsibility, they normally behave responsibly. There are always exceptions, but that applies as much to Privy Councillors as to ordinary Members.
The Minister rightly spoke a great deal about Tornado, but he hardly mentioned its nuclear role. For that matter, he did not mention the nuclear role of Buccaneer and other aircraft. Tornado is a key aircraft in this respect. We have had no serious debate by the Minister or other Conservative Members today about the stage at which nuclear weapons will be used by Tornado or equivalent aircraft. We know that the West is not prepared to have a no-first-use stance on nuclear weapons. I regret that, as I believe that it is a major error of policy judgment. However, if that is our stance, we must be clear about when we shall use aircraft that carry nuclear weapons. The Government may have it all nicely worked out, but I doubt it. If their record is anything to go by, all the evidence is against the theory that they have a well-worked-out strategy.
The Government consistently increase defence expenditure. It is the one item on which the Conservative party loves to make public expenditure. I do not criticise hon. Members for defending employment in their constituencies — in view of our mass unemployment, I can understand that — but if we have to justify defence expenditure on the basis of employment we shall be getting into dangerous water, because the military-economic complex to which Eisenhower referred will become a real and grave danger.
I have for many years contended that one of the reasons for Britain's underlying economic weakness is the great amount that we spend on defence. Since the 1950s we have consistently spent more on defence than have our major competitors.
Even more worrying than that, and particularly pertinent in many respects to the RAF and avionics side, is that we have spent more than any other country on research and development. The figures are never strictly comparable—I recognise the problems in measuring this —but over 50 per cent. of all Government research and development is on defence. For Germany and France the figure is approximately 30 per cent. For Japan, the figure is less than 10 per cent., although I believe it is now increasing dramatically.
It is no accident that companies such as Plessey and Marconi, which are deeply involved in advanced weapons technology, are making good profits. At the same time, many of their leaders speak out against public expenditure, which I find somewhat contradictary. That is at the expense of all the other companies which would normally

471
be competing with the Japanese, the Germans, the Americans and the French in other advanced technology areas, but have been swept out of the market place.
It is no surprise to me that the Japanese have overtaken us in most areas of electronics, except defence, because that is where we have been putting our R and D efforts for the past 30 years, and that we have been left seriously behind. At the end of the day the Government have to remember that we can have all the sophisticated arms possible, but, unless we have a sound economic and social policy, we shall be a weak power. It did not take only the Shah of Iran to remind us of that pertinent and important lesson.
Finally, I wish to ask the Minister a question. Before doing so, I must apologise in advance. I do not normally leave the Chamber before the end of a debate, but I regret that I shall have to leave by 9 pm at the latest. The Minister may not be able to answer this direct question immediately, but I have raised it elsewhere with a colleague of mine. We wish to know what is happening about Short Brothers in Belfast. I gather that talks are taking place about privatisation. If those talks go ahead and result in privatisation, it is particularly important, in view of the nature of the equipment produced there, that the House be informed about the safeguards that the Government intend to impose—in particular, to whom the shares will be available and whether they can go overseas. The sooner we have an answer from the Government on that issue, the better.
8.12 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: If I may pick up one thought of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, (Mr. Soley) on the Falkland Islands, I agree with him that it is very important to have a reduction of tension in that area which would enable us to withdraw forces, including RAF forces. The next step must be for the democratically elected Government of Argentina to declare an end to the state of armed conflict. That must be the next stage in the de-escalation of tension in that area. We must all hope that they can see their way to do that.
I want to talk more about the duty and the role of the RAF, and less about procurement. To me, the RAF has always been about flying aeroplanes. My constituency contains within it the old Grange aerodrome, now part of HMS Sultan, the original home and birthplace of the Royal Naval Air Service, the precursor of the Royal Flying Corps and the Fleet Air Arm. For me, flying has never lost its excitement. It has always presented the ultimate physical and mental challenge. It is easy to forget that, in days when flying has become a weekend sport for some, and when airline flying has become so computerised and automatic. Flying in the Royal Air Force is not like that.
I have had the opportunity to see the variety of skill and courage of many pilots and personnel of the RAF in recent years. The air-to-air refuelling of the Hercules aircraft flying from Ascension Island to the Falklands has been referred to by other hon. Members. In the Falklands we saw the low-level flying of helicopters up the route of the advance of our troops from Port San Carlos to Port Stanley—very low-level, exciting stuff. Later, watching from a Royal Naval frigate, a practice interception by Phantoms at the limit of the exclusion zone, we saw the need for the Phantoms in that area. I believe that it would
472
be wrong to withdraw the Phantoms unless the Argentine Government first take a step to reduce the tension in those areas.
At the other end of the world, I saw recently another kind of flying during my visit to the polar ice cap area when a twin-engined transport aircraft landed on 14 ft of ice—again, very heady stuff, and quite different from the automatic flying so often carried out by airlines. The skill and professional standard of the RAF aircrew and ground staff who support them are beyond normal praise.
It is right that we should give high priority to the RAF and its men and women, and this Government do that. I make the point because I have to say that the previous Labour Government had a shameful record in this respect. When the Labour Government left office, they admitted that the pay of the personnel in the Armed Forces had fallen 32 per cent. behind their rightful pay, and it was up to the incoming Conservative Government in 1979 to make up that disastrous shortfall. I use the word "shameful" about the previous Labour Government's record, and I mean that, because it had implications, because of the low pay, for recruiting for the Armed Forces and—I ask my ministerial colleagues to bear this point in mind — it had a permanent impact on the pensions that service men received, and will receive for the rest of their lives, if they retired during a period when their pay was held down. It was, indeed, shameful that the Labour Government should have caused the pay to be held back so badly. As to the connection with the RAF, there was a stage when the pay of Royal Air Force Phantom pilot was just about the same level as the pay of a London bus driver on overtime. The situation had got completely out of balance.
We in the House of Commons have a limited role, in my view, in relation to our armed forces. It is not for us to draw up detailed plans or to specify procurement. The Government's job is to give defence a proper priority and to provide the necessary resources for the armed forces. That this Government do, and that, I must submit, the previous Labour Government did not do. Again, I make a political point in a debate that has been broadly one of consensus, because I remember well that the then Under-Secretary for the Air Force, Mr. James Wellbeloved, a man who unfortunately is no longer with us in the House, as almost his first action when he ceased to be Under-Secretary responsible for the Royal Air Force, asked Mr. Speaker for an Adjournment debate, and expressed his anxiety about the weakness of the RAF and the need for more aircraft in the RAF. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) replied to the debate on that occasion. If no other evidence is required, that is proof positive, because the very man responsible for the RAF was the one who made the complaint about the weakness of the RAF.
The main contribution I wish to make to the debate is not about flying at all, but about the RAF Regiment and its contribution as custodians at bases such as Greenham Common. Several hon. Members had the benefit of a visit to Greenham Common last week which allowed us to see the cruise missile systems and safeguards in their location at Greenham Common. The public perception of Greenham Common is based on television, radio and newspaper reporting of the women outside the gates. We see them lying down in front of cars, we see them shaking the perimeter wire — anything to get publicity for themselves and their simplistic views. They have failed in

473
their attempt to prevent the cruise missiles being deployed in this country, and they will not change the Government's mind.
Meanwhile, the cost of policing the large area at Greenham Common and protecting it against these misguided but mainly non-violent creatures is very large. The cost in the current year is estimated to be £3·7 million, involving 600,000 police hours, mainly overtime. Sixty per cent. of that large cost of £3·7 million will be borne by the taxpayers and 40 per cent. will be borne by the long-suffering ratepayers of Berkshire. If neither side gives in, it seems like a stalemate.
Where do we go from here? One possibility might be that we strengthen the perimeter wall. At present it is not a wall at all but a fence. It is the kind of fencing that would be more appropriate for keeping tennis balls in a tennis court than for keeping seriously intentioned people in or out of any specific area.
It might be possible to strengthen the perimeter fence or wall, but we must remember that the Russians and East Germans, even with their enormous concrete wall with watchtowers, searchlights and armed guards, cannot keep all their citizens in their area. So it would be unrealistic for us to imagine that by building a large perimeter wall we shall keep all the women protesters out of the base. That would not be an especially positive long-term contribution.
My constituents take a robust line in considering the damage done by the women at Greenham Common and the cost of their trespasses. They take the view that if the women appear not to like the police dogs, we should have more dogs on patrol with their police handlers inside the perimeter fence to deter the women from entering.
The real answer to the conundrum, the stalemate, lies in winning the media war. Let fact drive out myth and fiction. First, there is not very much at Greenham Common anyway. The cruise missile is fully transportable and the entire system could be kept in a large car park. It does not really need the secure compound at Greenham Common except that it provides a hard location within bunkers. The cruise missile base is nothing more than a bomb-proof garage.
Secondly, apart from the inner compound, there is not much of strategic importance at Greenham Common. It is important that the public should understand, for instance that the control tower is used only occasionally and has virtually nothing to do with the cruise missile radar system. The rest of the base, apart from the internal compound, consists of accommodation, workshops and stores of a comparatively unimportant security level.
Thirdly, the cruise missile is a classical deterrent weapon. Anyone seeking to design an offensive weapon would start from the opposite point of the compass to that at which we have ended up with the cruise missile. Cruise is slow and its design characteristics make it supremely unsuitable as a first-strike weapon. It is a weapon of deterrence.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is advancing a dangerous argument. It is new technology that makes cruise so dangerous. For example, the cruise missile could be used in conjunction with first-strike missiles by being launched at the same time with the intention of taking out secondary targets. That is one of the reasons why it is seen
474
by some, not incorrectly, as a first-strike weapon. I accept that it is not a first-strike weapon in the sense of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Mr. Viggers: I would not follow the hon. Gentleman very far along that line. I suppose that it is possible to create a scenario in which the cruise missile could be used as a first-strike weapon, but I think that that is as unlikely as the United States bringing the New Jersey to the North sea to bombard the British mainland. Much of the force of the argument lies in the conception of the individual, who will project his own thoughts on how the missiles might be used. The time that the cruise missile takes to get from its firing point to its eventual arrival point is so long that it would be unrealistic for any one to imagine that it would be used even as part of a first-strike offensive. It is not part of NATO thinking—as a delegate of the North Atlantic Assembly I hear these discussions taking place from time to time—that it should have a first-strike capacity. I accept that it is possible to invent such a scenario, but that is no part of the thinking of those who are responsible for the weapon system. It is certainly not part of the thinking of Her Majesty's Government.
A fourth fact is that a nuclear warhead is about the size of a large wastepaper basket. Demonstrators today at RAF Cottesmore were protesting about the possible use of Tornados to carry a nuclear bomb. Of course the Tornado could carry a nuclear bomb. For example, two nuclear bombs could be carried in the back of a Mini motor car. The protesters are protesting about the wrong thing at the wrong place.
How do we win the media war? How do we explain the facts to the public and how do we drive out myth and misunderstanding?
There are problems in dealing with the media war and I shall give three examples. First, on our visit to Greenham Common, 11 Conservative Members turned up in time to hear a briefing by the Royal Air Force and United States Air Force commanders. We spent some time on the base and then returned for a debriefing session. The three Labour representatives chose to turn up near the end of the preliminary briefing. They chose not to stay for the final briefing, saying that in their view there was no point in staying because their questions would not be answered. They went outside the base, put themselves in front of the television cameras and told the television personnel and the public that their worst fears had been realised. The media reported that event very fully. It was reported much more fully than the visit of the 11 Conservative Members who studied the systems and safeguards — they were reassured by the safeguards—and the effectiveness of the system. That is one example of the media war going the wrong way. The Times reported the visit of the three Labour Members who did not attend the briefings but did not report the attendance of the 11 Conservative members who did.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) followed up the media coverage by saying that he had been told that there had been a shot fired inside the Greenham Common base. That ended up as a Daily Mail headline on 20 January 1984, which read:
"Greenham guard 'fired at Ministry girl worker'".
The fact that there are inverted commas round the final five words does not diminish the fact that the impact

475
created by the newspaper report was that a United States Air Force guard had fired at a civilian girl worker at Greenham Common.
Investigations have been made and it appears that there is no truth in the story. No one can trace anyone who has even heard a shot. No one can find a bullet or a used shell. However, the idea has been planted in people's minds that a United States guard shot at a civilian girl worker on the base. The story is just not true. It would become the right hon. Member for Llanelli to say that he has made an investigation and accepts that there is no truth in the story or, alternatively, to name his source. I wrote to him before today's debate to tell him that I would raise this issue during its course.
Thirdly, there is the occupation of the Greenham control tower. As I have said, the tower plays no part in the cruise missile system. However, the impression has been given by the newspapers that the women broke into the control tower to the very heart of the cruise missile system. That is not true.
Where does that leave us? For a politican to complain about the media is like a fish complaining about water. I am not complaining about the media. They are doing their job, for they are selling newspapers. However, we need to have a more balanced view projected of Greenham Common, the cruise missile system and the safeguards. I urge the Government to provide more television, radio and press facilities at Greenham Common. Let more of the people see the professionalism which has gone into making the system effective and safe. Why not allow television, radio and newspaper reporters to make exactly the same visit that Members of Parliament undertook last week, and to be briefed on the cruise missile system and the safeguards. These hellish nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented. As they exist, let us ensure that they remain available to us to deter war and maintain peace.
We must work to improve international understanding and reduce tension. That has nothing to do with the pathetic and trivial actions of the women at Greenham Common. I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Air Force Regiment, which is playing its part in our defence at Greenham Common. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give more consideration to improving press facilities so that its work can be seen and there can be a spread of knowledge that will help to promote the facts and reduce the level of uninformed comment.
8.29 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the plight of the Manchester division of British Aerospace plc., which has suffered 1,150 redundancies in the past 12 months. The work force is down to 5,850. The Manchester division comprises two factories — Chadderton and Woodford. I shall refer particularly to Woodford because that factory employs a large number of people living in my constituency of Stockport.
Woodford is one of our most famous aircraft factories. The Ansom was developed and built there, as were the Shackleton and the Nimrods, mark 1, 2 and 3. The expertise of the design and production workers is irreplaceable. That expertise has been built up during years of experience in the design and building of marine reconnaissance aircraft and others. It has been necessary
476
for our defences in the past, it is necessary now and it will be necessary into the next century with the building of the Nimrods mark 2 and 3.
In the third quarter of next year, the 2,000 men associated with the Nimrod activities will have nothing to do. That has serious implications for this country's defence system. That magnificent work force will be dispersed and lost for ever unless the Ministry of Defence steps in to help now. This country cannot allow that loss to happen. The skills of the work force are vital for our defences into the next century.
Woodford is not asking for handouts. It is asking not for work to be provided for the sake of it, but for orders for vital work for the mark 2 Nimrod. Decisions must be made by the Ministry of Defence now, not later, because later will be too late.
I do not wish to be alarmist, but yesterday I received an unsolicited letter from the co-ordinator of the joint union/management campaign, which stated:
"Dear Tony,
I am sure you will have heard the recent announcement of a further 450 redundancies at the Manchester Division of British Aerospace. This recent announcement means that redundancies in the last 12 months now total 1,150, leaving a work force of only 5,850. Resulting from this please find enclosed a brief explaining a Joint Union/Management campaign for work crucial to the Manchester Division.
The urgency of the campaign cannot be over-emphasised and any help you can give in ensuring the Government understands the context of the brief, and takes action accordingly, would be appreciated."
I am aware that talks are going on between the company and the Ministry of Defence about a return to work programme involving air-to-air refuelling and wing strengthening. I urge the Minister to make a favourable decision on that programme now.
Today, I spoke to Mr. Norman Barber, the divisional managing director of the Manchester division of British Aerospace, and he endorsed the urgency of the matter. He said that the work force was now down to 5,850, and that figure has been reached on the basis of a return to work programme at the Manchester division, although that order has not yet been placed. He asked me to pass a message to the House. It is that there is a
"unique capability at Woodford of traditional aircraft airframe design supplemented by avionic integration and craftsmanship of the highest order as exemplified by the way the factory responded to the needs of the RAF operating in the Falklands campaign."
During that campaign the factory did magnificent work designing and equipping 16 Nimrod mark 2s with an inflight refuelling system, the first taking only 19 days from initial design to delivery. Such a capability cannot be allowed to go. It is vital to this nation that it is kept. In addition, during the Falklands campaign six Vulcan bombers were converted into tankers at Woodford and support was provided for the Victor tankers. Furthermore, Woodford armed Nimrod with Sidewinders and Harpoons. We cannot afford to lose that kind of capability. The situation is urgent and action is required now. I urge the Ministry of Defence to take immediate action.
8.35 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: We have talked about the improvement and development of weaponry for the RAF at present and in the future. I wish to turn the minds of hon. Members to the future — especially to the need for an air-to-air fighter aircraft, which for some time has been the subject of discussions at the Ministry of Defence.

477
The ACA has been discussed as a concept, but it was finally scrapped because it was thought that other ideas could be brought forward. Fortunately—I congratulate the Government—the EAP demonstrator is being built, funded by the Government to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost of the research. It is expected that that aircraft will fly in 1986. The project's purpose is to lay down the basis for an aircraft for the future to be developed.
At the moment there is a plan to build an aircraft, which has been referred to as FEFA, on a five-nation basis. It is important for the British aerospace industry, and especially the military section in Lancashire, that the project gets off the ground as quickly as possible. Will the Minister look carefully at the timetable for that project? About 15,000 workers at Warton, to which reference has been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) and for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), are dependent on the FEFA project. If that order is placed, it will go to those workers.
It is important that Britain is a major, not a minor, partner in this project. If we are to split the project with the French and West Germans, we should look for at least 25 per cent. of that project for Britain. We are in danger, unless we are more active and the Government push forward harder, of being a minor partner. The French are building a demonstrator called the ACX, which is similar to the one on which work is being conducted in the northwest — the EAP. If the French get there first and negotiate a larger share of the project than Britain, we shall find that we are Johnny-come-latelies with a small part of the project. That will have disastrous effects on employment in the north-west. The recent NORWIDA report on industry in the north-west described this as the region's most successful industry and the one that has best survived the recent recession.
This air-to-air aircraft will be needed not in the mid-1990s, but much earlier — by 1992 — for two sound reasons. First, British Aerospace has identified that there will be a world market for an aircraft of this kind at that time. As we have heard, the Americans are studying European air forces and have recognised the need for such an aircraft. They will therefore be competing in the market. Secondly, the RAF must keep abreast with the best possible equipment that modern technology can devise. That means looking very carefully at the situation in the Warsaw pact countries. There may have been a time when our air forces were better equipped militarily than theirs, but that is no longer true.
Mr. Wilkinson: Aviation Week, an unclassified periodical, has been describing the latest Warsaw pact fighter aircraft in considerable detail. It is highly sophisticated. The rate of production of fighter aircraft in Warsaw pact countries far exceeds our own. That emphasises the need for a new European fighter.
Mr. Hind: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. When one compares the estimated 13 per cent. or 14 per cent. of GDP spent by the Warsaw pact with the amount spent by NATO, it is clear that Warsaw pact equipment will improve as time goes on. It is already superior numerically in fixed-wing aircraft, and it is essential that we keep ahead in the quality of aircraft that we produce. The new FEFA is thus both urgent and important. We do not want to find in the 1990s that we have been left behind by the superior technology of the Warsaw pact, because the
478
balance between the two sides will become worse as the Warsaw pact will be superior not only numerically but in the quality of its equipment.
At present this country has the capacity to produce a total weapons system. We have the engines, the frames and the avionics. It has been proved that we can produce an aircraft without the assistance of partnerships with other countries. I believe that the research and development and the expense involved in building such aircraft is such that it would be foolish for one nation to go it alone—it makes economic sense to work side by side with others—but we must not allow ourselves to become a minor partner in any project, especially a project such as the FEFA, leading to the eventual destruction of the industrial capacity that has served us to such great advantage in times past.
Constituents of mine who are employed by British Aerospace have expressed concern that if the project is not pressed forward, there will be redundancies in that area of industry in the future. The argument for bringing forward the FEFA project to 1992, with a view to having the British aircraft in service by then, is unanswerable. By 1992 the Phantoms and Jaguars currently performing that role will be outdated and in need of replacement. We must work towards that time scale.
Another real danger for the aerospace industry is that if our capacity to produce a total aircraft is allowed to slide away, we shall become merely an ancillary — an assembler of Meccano parts. We shall not be producing the designs or the engineering skills and a great industry will decline. It is the most important industry in the Preston and west Lancashire area, employing 15,000 people. The project is therefore not only important for Britain, but vital for that area.
The go-ahead for the development programme must be given by the end of 1984 if there is to be any possibility of the aircraft being in service by 1992. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that most seriously. I hope that he will also set at rest the fears expressed by people in Lancashire who are concerned about this project. Will he give us some idea of the stage reached in the planning process and tell us how far discussions with our partners in the FEFA project have progressed? That will reassure many people—those who are concerned about when the aircraft will be in service and those whose jobs depend on it. The project is vitally important. There is a real need for the aircraft, and the sooner we have it the better.
8.47 pm
Miss Janet Fookes: In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the RAF as being in fine fettle and gave us a very good picture of the modernisation schemes afoot. I broadly agree with what he said, but it is the more remarkable that the RAF is in such good shape when one looks back over the past decade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, in the 1970s the RAF was in a very poor state. It suffered disproportionate cuts in manpower when drastic economies were made throughout defence. It suffered cuts in transport planes. It also suffered a loss of morale due to falling behind in pay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport pointed out. All this led to an exodus of highly trained and experienced pilots on such a scale that the RAF was in danger of bleeding to death and this placed enormous strain on those who remained to try to

479
keep the operational capability going. When one considers all that, it is virtually a miracle that the RAF is in the fine fettle that my hon. Friend the Minister described.
However, I am not entirely uncritical of certain aspects; in particular, I join hon. Friends who referred to the delays in getting the new Nimrod AEW going. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, it seemed to me that he glossed over the difficulties experienced and cast doubt on the criticisms by such correspondents as Desmond Wettern of the Daily Telegraph. I am not in a position to know the precise truth about it or to what extent he is right, but I understand that it was originally intended that the first of these mark 3 aircraft should have come into service either in 1981 or 1982. It is now the beginning of 1984, and they are still not with us. I do not know how long it will be before they are. The Minister owes it to the House to tell us when we may expect them, because it is a most dangerous gap in our defences, which worries me and which cannot be glossed over as it has been. That is a remarkable case of what is fashionably called "slippage".
I refer to the Jet Provost. The Minister believes that the Government were almost ready to decide whether to have a jazzed-up Provost—my term, not his—or to go for a new design. Again, the time scale is obscure. When can we expect a decision, if it is a new design? I have happy memories of the old design. In a rash moment I allowed myself to be taken up in a Jet Provost, and when I landed neither my stomach nor my knees seemed to belong to me. It is a very startling aircraft for anyone not used to it. They were even rash enough to allow me to take the controls, albeit under very heavy guidance. For that reason I have a certain affection for the aircraft.
We need to know what is to happen and how soon a new one, in whatever form that may be, will be available for training, because it is a vital part of the professionalism of the RAF. We must have a constant stream of highly trained pilots coming through.
That brings me to a point that has not yet been touched on—the training of pilots. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) drew our attention to its extraordinary cost and mentioned a cost of £2·2 million to take someone from the outset to the point when he is ready to join a squadron for operation.
Mr. Wilkinson: That was the cost in 1981.
Miss Fookes: My hon. Friend says that that was the cost in 1981. I take it, therefore, that we can add more to that now. Although the Government have curbed inflation, they have not succeeded completely.
That means that there is an enormous input into an individual pilot. We are therefore entitled to ask whether people succeed in going right through the system. I recall that a few years ago there was a disturbingly high failure rate. Perhaps it is understandable when we see precisely how difficult it is to fly these very advanced aircraft, but we should be told what the failure rate is and how much it costs in money terms, bearing in mind the £2·2 million-plus that it costs.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. As an instructor on Jet Provost aircraft 18 years ago, can I ask the Minister in his reply to my hon. Friend's excellent point to take on board the merits of the United States' navy's VTXTS training system. It is a
480
computerised system geared to the ability of the pilot, with a series of lessons and a syllabus geared to his personal aptitude. Our present and past syllabuses have been rigid and inflexible and if a student is slow at one stage, he is eliminated at great cost.
Miss Fookes: That is a most excellent point, which I could not have made myself. I am grateful for that additional information.
An entirely different matter touched on in the Minister's speech was the protection of airfields, which is absolutely vital not only in the United Kingdom but in our RAF bases in Germany, which would be in the front line if there were to. be hostilities between ourselves and the Soviet bloc. I should be interested to know how far the hardening of airfields and installations has gone. I saw something of it when visiting RAF Germany last autumn, but I am not clear how far advanced the programme is. I should welcome assurances from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he winds up, or later by letter, if that should prove necessary.
Another matter is the protection of airfields in peacetime from the efforts of saboteurs or terrorists. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport went into considerable detail about the difficulties caused by peace protesters at places such as Greenham Common. However, it does not stop there. Difficult though that may be, we also must face the fact that the bases would be excellent targets for anyone ill-disposed towards us, such as terrorists or saboteurs. I hope that there will be considerable strengthening of defences in peacetime against such a possibility, which would be dangerous for us.
In that connection, we might strengthen the RAF Regiment, even to the point where it might have more dogs at its disposal. I visited only recently the barracks at Stonehouse, Plymouth, in my constituency. At the moment there are three guard dogs, with three more to come. The people at the barracks said that the dogs were invaluable in supplementing the efforts of the men on the ground. If that is so, it must follow that dogs would be valuable for the RAF installations. Of course, there is the major difficulty that often airfields and installations are spread out. The best example is at RAF Akrotiri, which is the biggest of our RAF bases. That must make for more difficulties. I should have thought that more guard dogs and trained dogs would be extremely useful for guarding our airfields.
We are progressing on the right lines, apart from on the two points that I made in criticism. I look forward to the RAF going from strength to strength. There are fine traditions in the RAF. I am sure that in future it will build on them to the benefit of the country and, indeed, for the freedom of the western world.
8.58 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I am one of the few Opposition Members who have spoken in virtually every service debate for 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) shares that distinction. For 10 years it has been my lot in life to follow exceedingly silly speeches by Conservative Members. However, today is a rare exception. It is my pleasure and honour to follow a speech of considerable vision and depth of understanding delivered by the hon. Member for

481
Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), our Chairman of the Committee on the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), in the introduction to his speech, criticised Members for delving too deeply into defence matters and developing too great an expertise in technical matters. Had he been here, I should have liked politely to counter that. It is easy to make generalised, gung-ho, or pacifist speeches. They are usually brushed off with derision by those who happen to make the decisions. Unless on both sides of the House there are hon. Members sufficiently knowledgeable to question and challenge, the Executive will be even more dominant in decision-making. Therefore, it is incumbent upon many hon. Members to seek to develop expertise so that they can comprehend and influence the exceedingly complex processes of defence and national security.
I apologise for not having been here for the whole of the debate, but I have heard many of the half-truths and misunderstandings expressed by several hon. Members. We heard from the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) a regurgitation of the widely expressed view that somehow the Labour party has a "shameful" record on defence. Many of my hon. Friends might regard that as a compliment. There are on these Benches hon. Members who would have liked the Labour party, when in office, to take a much less serious attitude towards defence. However, when confronted with the kind of nonsense that we have heard from some Conservative Members, reality is different.
When the Labour party was in office from 1974 to 1979, even though there were adjustments in defence expenditure, it would be unfair to argue that we underestimated the problems of defence. After all, the programme for the introduction of the Tornados that are coming on stream was hardly retarded by the Labour Government. Therefore, it was unfair of the hon. Member for Gosport to echo what was said a few years ago by a spokesman for the Conservatives in opposition about one of our Ministers having done more damage to the Royal Air Force than the Luftwaffe. That was a dangerous and silly statement and I hope that that kind of view will be retracted.
The other extreme observation is that somehow a Conservative Government are good for defence. The reality is different. One expects the Conservative party to do what it promised when in opposition, but that does not happen. The morale of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence is low for many reasons which we have been discussing in Standing Committee—the privatisation of ordnance factories and erratic decision-making at the top in the Ministry. I except the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who are listening and hopefully learning a little about defence. Morale is low among some service men. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence one sees the attitude of service men. Some may be enthusiastic, but others are less enthusiastic about Government policy. Civil servants and service men are worried that the cuts will bite deeply.
I have no desire to repeat the arguments that I have used on many occasions about the consequences of the Trident programme, which, despite repeated denials from the Government, will have an adverse effect on the remainder of the conventional budget. Now the Government are
482
adding another function to the four they already have in defence, namely, the defence of the Falkland Islands. Unless serious, reasonable and intelligent decisions are made, scarce resources which should be devoted exclusively to our NATO contribution will be permanently diverted to the South Atlantic. That does not mean, as was said earlier, that perhaps we should settle swiftly. Even though there is a democratic Government in Argentina, as yet I have seen no evidence that the procurement programme of their dictatorial, bureaucratic, military predecessors has been curtailed.
Argentina's armed forces may be under more political conrol, but until their capacity to launch an attack is diminished the Government must proceed carefully. The Argentine Government may show a genuine interest in reaching a settlement, but that does not mean that they should instantly acquire what they failed to acquire by force. There must be some form of compromise. I hope that our air of realism will eventually waft from the Opposition Benches across to the Government and that the Falklands dispute will be settled to the satisfaction of all parties to the dispute. My great worry is that if we do not resolve the dispute, our scarce resources will be diverted dangerously.
Some Conservative Members are worried about the consequences of Trident. I accept that some are enthusiastic supporters of Trident, but some share the cynicism of the majority of the population. I recognise that the general election and the opinion polls have shown that most people, including Labour voters, are in favour of Britain remaining a nuclear power, but I have some reservations about that. However, if Britain is to remain a nuclear power—which I would oppose—there are cheaper alternatives to Trident which would not result in disastrous consequences for the conventional budget.
I advise hon. Members to read an excellent document produced by Aberdeen Studies in Defence Economics last summer, entitled "Alternative to Trident". It was written by Mr. David Hobbs, who said:
"To sum up: the students of British defence affairs who recognise the case for retention of an independent nuclear capability but baulk at the considerable multiplication of fire power and the massive expense which the government's Trident D5 programme involves—these people's misgivings cannot be dismissed with the brusque assertion that there is no alternative (to coin a phrase). There are a number, and that number runs into double figures".
I am not proposing Mr. Hobbs' course of action, but Conservative Members who are desperately anxious that Britain remains a viable contributor to NATO defence should be concerned that the price will be the decimation of the conventional forces. That will happen.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence. Following its present inquiry into the performance of weapons systems in the Falklands, it intends to study the consequences for defence of the abandonment by the Government of their commitment to a real increase of 3 per cent. in defence expenditure which was given to NATO in 1977. Many Opposition Members would be ecstatic if the Government abandoned their commitment. The Select Committee will consider the consequences of such action and make recommendations. The Treasury hand is behind the study, as it is behind many of the wrong decisions that have been made by Government over the years.
I wish that the hon. Member for Drake was still in the Chamber. At our Committee meeting this morning I

483
wanted to make a point which I realised that she, as Chairman, would rule out of order—on procedural, not political, grounds. The point is that the dead hand of the Treasury in defence affairs—and notably in the RAF until the mid-1930s—created what could have been a disaster.
Then, as now, the Treasury seemed more concerned about inflation than defence. It was undoubtedly the principal initiator in the 1920s and 1930s of the reduction in British defences, and bears a heavy responsibility for the policy of retrenchment that was carried out at the expense of defence. It was not until the mid-1930s that Treasury orthodoxy began to change, and that led to an improvement in our defence capabilities, which was thankfully sufficient to save us from catastrophe between 1939 and 1945.
Today, the Treasury would still like to exercise the same pernicious influence and would do so, in many ways, for the wrong reasons and for different reasons from those that I have already mentioned. However, Britain faces the almost insoluble problem of trying to achieve improvements in our defence posture at a cost that will not cripple our national economy.
It is easy for Conservative Members to exaggerate the threat. However, it is just as foolish to exaggerate as to underestimate the threat from our potential adversaries. In seeking a middle road of not being too alarmist or too complacent, one must consider the problems facing the RAF. I hope that there will never be a conflict involving conventional weapons that leads to a nuclear conflict, but we must remember that the battery of weapons available to our potential adversaries is formidable.
The Soviet Union's accumulation of weapons systems is way in excess of its security needs. It leads us to the conclusion that the West has been preoccupied with the problems of nuclear weaponry, and far less prepared to recognise the considerable increase in the number and quality of Soviet aircraft. At one time, the fact that NATO was greatly outnumbered was not thought alarming, because the Soviet Union's superiority in numbers was thought to be more than compensated for by our technology and the quality of our pilots. However, in recent years its numbers have been increasing, and the quality of its personnel and equipment has been improving and is now giving rise to anxiety.
Let us consider the current generation of fighters and the aircraft coming on stream in the Soviet Union. There is the MiG31, the Foxhound — which has recently entered service—and the MiG29, code named Fulcrum. By 1986 the Soviet air force will have introduced, in that part of the decade alone, at least one new type of supersonic bomber, the Blackjack, which is bigger than the proposed Rockwell B1B which has been resuscitated by President Reagan.
By the middle of the decade the Soviet Union will have developed a ground attack aircraft and three new fighters. It is also in the process of introducing the world's largest military transport airplane, the Condor. Although that does not mean that we should head immediately for our underground shelters, we must recognise that we must develop a system of air defence that will be equal to the task should deterrence fail.
It is therefore important to look at the real and imaginary progress made under this Government. The
484
Conservative party claims to be the party of defence. The previous Labour Government were regularly criticised rather hysterically for having reduced our defence airplanes to just over 70. That was the claim made in 1978. Since then, the Tory "crash" programme for arming the Hawks has been painfully slow, and only now are the Government starting to honour the pledge made in 1979.
Although the Hawks are being armed, the Hawk is essentially a trainer. It has no radar. If it goes out to intercept a potential enemy, it must have assistance to find that enemy. With modern technology, the enemy would be very likely to release its deadly load before the Hawk was anywhere near it. The Hawk may be fast by some standards, but by the standards of the modern Soviet air force it would be inadequate.
One can juggle with the statistics, adding the aging, though good, Lightnings and the unarmed Hawks, and make the figures seem much more impressive than they really are. As part of their stop-gap measures the Government are purchasing old Phantoms—the F4J— from the United States navy. Will there not be problems in servicing these planes? They are equipped with General Electric engines, while our Phantoms are equipped with the Rolls-Royce Spey.
I come to the saga of the Nimrod AEW. The Nimrod was chosen because of the delays and problems experienced with AWACS. The introduction of the AEW has been delayed, and until it is introduced our air defences will be vulnerable.
The hon. Member for Drake rightly spoke about home defence. No doubt that will be one of the themes of the defence White Paper. It may be that we have neglected home defence and that the Government recognise that and are acting accordingly.
We have heard a great deal today about France as an industrial adversary. We must not forget that France is also a military ally. France may not belong to the integrated military structure of NATO, but it belongs to the political structure of NATO. I have visited France several times recently and examined French defence policy. In the event of a conflict, France—like any sovereign nation and any member of the Alliance—will have to make a decision, but the extent of France's contribution to the defence of western Europe would surprise those who view France with indifference or hostility.
The action which the French are taking in bringing into effect their rapid deployment force—the Force Action Rapide — are not designed with journeys to central Africa and Asia in mind. I believe that the principal purpose of the French rapid deployment force is to come to the assistance of its NATO Allies. It should do as much to reassure the Germans of French solidarity as to encourage those who believe that the French may be prepared to embark on military adventures in other parts of the world. There has been a great deal of publicity— largely adverse—in recent weeks about the emerging NATO strategies for enhancing conventional capability. There is nothing immoral about enhancing conventional capability. If we could counter a conventional Soviet attack by adequate conventional defence — at the moment I do not believe that we could do so — the likelihood of that conflict escalating into a nuclear war would be diminished.
Those who are swift to condemn the new thinking should think more carefully. The policy of enhancing conventional deterrence is partly a result of the desirability

485
of raising the nuclear threshold, in the light of considerable public concern about the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy. Technical advances have taken place and should be exploited. They could result in a dramatic improvement in our conventional capability and would undoubtedly make a nuclear holocaust much less likely. The people who criticise some of the new thinking should appraise the position more realistically.
I apologise for detaining the House for so long.
9.20 pm
Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to speak again.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Fortunately, every hon. Member who wished to speak has been able to do so. If, therefore, my remarks are somewhat short and I do not deal with every argument raised, I trust that I shall be forgiven. Unfortunately, I cannot say as the Minister can, "I will write to you." [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am prepared to send letters to all hon. Members. I shall not be sending any letters from Norway this year, but I shall be happy to receive them.
I want to take issue on an important point. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) spoke of the "trivial" conduct of the women at Greenham Common and elsewhere. Whether or not one approves of what they are doing, it is not trivial. For many of those women it is a courageous demonstration, over a long time in harsh conditions, to draw the attention of this country and the world — I believe they have been successful — to the terror that will face us if we have a nuclear holocaust. They wish also to show the evil, the foolishness and the bad military thinking behind bringing cruise to this country. Many people support what the Government are doing about cruise. Nevertheless, they take off their hats to the women of Greenham for having the courage of their convictions and for their persistence in difficult circumstances. I also take off my hat to them. I cannot therefore agree with what the hon. Member for Gosport said.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government have lost a media war over that matter. Many people would be worried if there were a return to the type of publicity on this issue that came from the Secretary of State for Defence before the general election. It was a bad precedent. We do not wish to see it repeated.
The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) asked earlier why we did not have Firecracker. The answer that I should have given, instead of my little spiel in favour of my constituency interest, is that it is not a turbo-fan aeroplane. People involved with the RAF and the industry believe that a return to the turbo-prop aeroplane would be a step backwards for pilot training and that it would be far better to have the turbo-fan. I believe that that leaves only the Brough and the Italian aircraft in the running.
It is important that we should have the quick decision, about which the Minister of State hinted earlier. Flight International reported that we have already ordered 20 pairs of new wings for replacement on the Provost. Such expenditure will go on and on while we are waiting for decisions to be taken. I should not like to see a great deal of the money to which I referred earlier spent before a decision is made. We shall obviously have to retain the Provost in service until we obtain the new aeroplane,
486
whether it comes off the shelf or from elsewhere. We do not want to spend a great deal of money on the Provost if we can avoid it.
Another interesting point to emerge from the debate is that from a party which won an election on the basis of less Government intervention and direction in industry has come a plea for more Government expenditure, in particular on the ACA, but, interestingly, also on Nimrod; and hon. Members have referred to the importance that that has for the Manchester division of British Aerospace.
I do not carp at any hon. Member claiming work for his constituents. It is a proper activity for us all. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I join Conservative Members in urging early decisions on these matters. We need early decisions to assure the work force at every level what the future holds for it, to restore morale and to show that the Government are determined to act in these matters.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) made the major point on that aspect—I say that not to belittle anything that his hon. Friends said, but he put his finger on it—when he said that there was a real danger that we might become a minor partner in the industrial complex that would build the new fighter. That would be damaging for the whole future of British Aerospace. Therefore, we must not let it happen.
Concern was also expressed about the Nimrod programme. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) thought that it was a waste of time and effort to use it for coastguard work. He thought that it should return to a more pertinent RAF role than be used for fishery protection and similar matters. The hon. Gentleman said there were other options open for it. Unfortunately, I was not in the Chamber to hear his speech, but I am told that it was, as usual, highly competent, and I am not sure whether the question of the Coastguarder suddenly raised its head again.
Mr. Wilkinson: It did.
Mr. McNamara: I am pleased to hear that. It is an aeroplane that is adequate in its technology to meet such needs, and it would release Nimrod for its proper role.
We had a statement from that distinguished and fine parliamentarian, the Chairman of the Committee on the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who put it in a more refined way than I did when she said that the Minister had "glossed over" the history of why Nimrod had been late in coming into operation. It is important for us to be aware of the facts behind that. Many of us have urged that further efforts should be made to push forward the Nimrod programme to get it into service with the RAF more quickly. We should like to know for certain that the major teething problems that the aeroplane had—which forced the RAF not to accept it immediately after its Boscombe Down trials—have been overcome. May we be told the date when it will come into full operation with the RAF? That is important for our national defence and for the industry.
Another point that ties in with what the hon. Members for Drake and for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned relates to reserves and adequate training. Many would support the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood that more attention should be paid to the RAF Reserve, not only for reasons of cost, which he advocated, but because—this point struck my right hon. Friend the

487
Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) strongly — combat fatigue and battle attrition could affect the supply of pilots at crucial times in a long war. That is true, and we should like to hear the Minister's comments on it.
My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out that with the problems associated with the Falklands, the RAF was considerably overstretched and in difficulties. I suggested the use of the Hawk. That suggestion should be pursued, because it would release the Phantoms to return to the United Kingdom for their proper role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned the political strategy behind policy making. He also raised the important matter of the nuclear role of Tornado and, by implication, of Buccaneer and Jaguar. The Opposition are worried about the nuclear role of those aircraft. We do not like it and want it stopped. We also want the stocks of weaponry in Germany, which are often close to the border, taken away from such areas. If, as the hon. Member for Drake said, aerodromes on the forward line, which are difficult to defend, are overrun, that weaponry could be captured. Losing it could precipitate the end to which none of us look forward.
This has been an interesting debate. I have not covered all of the points that have been raised. I suspect, however, that the Minister will have to give a great deal of information and write many letters.
9.30 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): It is customary to begin a winding-up speech by saying how wide-ranging the debate has been. Mine shall be no exception tonight, but I should just like to say a few words about the wide range of the Royal Air Force and its deployment.
I shall attempt to deal with as many of the points that have been made as I can but I want to set all of those remarks in their proper context. In doing so it is inevitable that there will be a limited overlap with some of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Overall, the Royal Air Force has some 73,000 personnel in more than 25 front-line airfields and bases. This year we are spending approximately £5·3 billion on maintaining and re-equipping these substantial and, as my hon. Friend said earlier, growing forces. Naturally, the major part is deployed within the United Kingdom. The RAF is responsible for providing comprehensive air defence of the United Kingdom. Currently it has six squadrons of fighter aircraft in this role — two of Lightnings and four of Phantoms — which will be augmented by another Phantom squadron later this year. In addition, 72 Hawk advanced trainers are being modified so that they can carry Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and in due course the introduction of the Tornado F2 will greatly enhance our fighter strength.
Warning of air attack is provided by the United Kingdom air defence ground environment.
Mr. McNamara: I heard from the Minister of State that 24 of the Hawks have been so modified. Is that the precise figure, and when are the rest of them likely to be finished?
Mr. Lee: My understanding is that the figure of 24 is correct and that the remainder are in the pipeline, but I
488
cannot give a precise in-service date. The air defence ground environment embraces a chain of radar stations and a squadron of Shackleton airborne early warning aircraft which will be replaced by the Nimrod AEW. In addition to these air defence forces there are now three squadrons of Tornado strike-attack aircraft which are operational and two Jaguar and one Harrier squadrons. Although based in the United Kingdom, these aircraft could operate in time of war on the central front or on NATO's flanks. In the maritime role, four squadrons of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft make a substantial contribution to anti-submarine operations. A further two Buccaneer squadrons at Lossiemouth and two Phantom squadrons at RAF Leuchars provide strike-attack and air defence respectively in support of the Royal Navy.
The RAF's United Kingdom based transport force consists of four squadrons of Hercules and one squadron of VC10 aircraft. There are also four squadrons of support and medium-lift helicopters. Finally, there are two squadrons of Victor tankers and the six Tristars which we bought early last year.
Overseas, the largest deployment of the RAF is in Germany and assigned to NATO's central region. There are four main operational stations there—at Laarbruch which I visited before Christmas, Wildenrath, Gutersloh and Bruggen—and some 11,000 RAF personnel.
By April this year the RAF will have two squadrons of Tornados and five squadrons of Jaguars, one in the reconnaissance role, in Germany. Progressively, the Jaguars are being replaced by six further squadrons of Tornado GR1s. In addition, there are two squadrons of Phantoms for air defence, and two of Harrier GR3s for offensive support operations, together with one squadron each of Chinook and Puma support helicopters, as well as communications aircraft and Rapier airfield defence missiles. Outside the NATO area, the RAF makes a significant contribution to the Falklands garrison with Phantoms, Chinooks, Sea Kings, Hercules, Harrier GR3s and Rapier surface-to-air missiles for air defence, and Victor and Hercules tankers are stationed at Ascension Island to support the air bridge.
Here I would like to deal with two questions raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). First, we retain sufficient tankers in the European theatre to meet our immediate requirements, should an emergency arise. The remainder can be returned in sufficient time to meet our requirements for the build-up of ready forces. The second question concerns Mount Pleasant runway. The hon. Gentleman raised the point that the runway in his view would be too short for civil airliners. I have to say that such reports, and what the hon. Gentleman said, are not true. Civil as well as military requirements were taken into account in planning the airfield. It will be able to accept any wide-bodied aircraft, and civil aircraft such as those operated by British Airways and British Caledonian will be able to fly non-stop to Dacca with a full load of passengers. I also note the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on the Falklands deployment.
To continue on the world deployment, in Hong Kong, there is a detachment of eight Wessex helicopters and there are four Pumas, four Harriers and four Rapier fire units in Belize. Elsewhere in Europe there is a small RAF presence on Gibraltar to operate the airfield, and the RAF also has a detachment of Wessex, helicopters stationed in Cyprus.

489
Currently, as is known to the House, Phantoms and Buccaneers are detached to Cyprus in support of BRITFORLEB.
The issue that has dominated the debate probably is the question of the future of the European fighter FEFA. This was raised initially by the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) who spoke with considerable passion about that area of Lancashire and industry's needs there, and the skill and expertise within the Warton Samlesbury complex. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) spoke as usual in strong support of the Warton complex. If I may say so, I think his speeches are increasingly respected in this area by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who is not now present, mentioned the FEFA aircraft also, in particular the engine problem. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) also mentioned FEFA, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who is also not present in the Chamber. My hon. Friend also mentioned subcontractors, and the importance of the subcontracting industry in Lancashire to the prime contractor at Warton. I share a degree of concern about this, because a number of British Aerospace subcontractors are in my constituency of Pendle.
I should like to set out the history and development of this project, because there is some confusion. In the late 1970s, work commenced on the drafting of an air staff target for a Harrier/Jaguar replacement. This was AST 403. It proved impossible to reconcile the characteristics of such diverse designs in one aircraft, so it was decided to deal with them separately. The Harrier requirement became ASR 409, in other words Harrier GR5, and AST 403 proceeded as the Jaguar replacement alone. Then, in the course of the 1981 defence review, it became apparent that we would not be able to afford AST 403, and the project was shelved. Command 8288 published in June 1981 said:
"It is clear that we shall not be able to afford any direct and early replacement for the Jaguar force in Germany and at home".
Command 8288 understandably caused considerable disappointment to industry. Both inside and outside the Ministry, AST 403 was prominently identified with the requirement for a next generation fighter, and British Aerospace in particular was concerned about its post-Tornado work programme. It responded to Cmnd. 8288 by promoting two new commercial design concepts in quick succession during 1982—P110 and ACA—for an agile fighter with Canard-Delta geometry and advanced technology. The ACA concept superseded P110 as a private venture project by British Aerospace in collaboration with its German and Italian Tornado partners. It suggested that the MOD should be involved in funding P110 and ACA, but the Secretary of State's predecessor was unwilling to do this and offered instead a jointly funded British Aerospace-MOD demonstrator programme called EAP, the experimental aircraft programme.
We now move on to the RAF requirement, as described in the announcement of December 1983 about an air staff agreement on an outline European staff target for a future European fighter aircraft. The agreement was signed between the air staffs of the United Kingdom, West Germany, France—I was particularly interested in the
490
comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, South on France — Italy and Spain. It related to a single-seat, twin-engined, agile, short-take-off-and-landing fighter for introduction in the 1990s, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House earlier. In accordance with normal practice, it is envisaged that a United Kingdom covering version of this outline staff target will be issued as an air staff target.
As announced already, the size of programme will be in the range of 800 aircraft. It is too early to say what each national share of the total will be and exactly how the programme will develop. The next stage, however, will clearly have to be pre-feasibility and feasibility studies leading, we hope, to a project definition phase within a year or so from now.
Mr. Robert Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the attention that he has paid to detail. To get all the initials right is an achievement in itself. Will he deal with the problem of the engine for this aircraft? Is it likely to be the RB199AG20 or the SNECMAM 28? I know that he will deal with the issue carefully as the outcome could have a considerable effect on British industry.
Mr. Lee: I shall deal with that but not, with respect, tonight.
Development and production would follow, but clearly it is impossible at present to be completely firm on the time scale for those activities. I am not prepared to speculate on these matters and on how the precise options involve United Kingdom industry.
Nevertheless, I think it is clear that any such programme will require a very substantial involvement by British Aerospace, particularly by its Warton division in north-west Lancashire. I have been to Warton twice, the last time just over a month ago with a number of my parliamentary colleagues. I was enormously impressed by the design, development and production facilities there. The facilities and the expertise of the teams that work there are a unique Lancashire asset and a unique national asset. Many hon. Members have referred to them and I can assure the House that the relevant needs and considerations are very much in mind in that area. I reiterate the concern that so many of us have for the subcontractors to this potential fighter programme.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for South Ribble referred to Nimrods and maritime air capability. Last November I had the opportunity and the honour to visit RAF Kinloss. I flew in a Nimrod on a combined maritime, surveillance and anti-submarine training sortie over the north-west approaches. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) was on the flight. We were both on the flight deck to see the first air-to-air refuelling between a VC10 tanker and a Nimrod in squadron service. With the Nimrod mark 2—nearly all Nimrods have been modified to that standard—we have one of the world's finest submarine hunters. Additionally, the surveillance capability of the Nimrod AEW aircraft will prove extremely valuable in the early detection and tracking of enemy surface ships.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) raised the important subject of reconnaissance and surveillance. As he recognised, we devote considerable resources to those tasks and our

491
capability in that area will be enhanced as Tornado GR1 comes into service. We must recognise, as I am sure my hon. Friend will, that our American allies have great experience and technological expertise, and we must work in partnership rather than try to reproduce that capability.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for South Ribble and for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to the delay in the Nimrod AEW. I am prepared to say that the present position is that the Nimrod AEW is being evaluated for training release. If that proves satisfactory, delivery will commence later this year. There have been delays in this project, but one must remember that it is immensely complex, with a high level of technical uncertainty. I hope that hon. Members will understand why I cannot go into more detail.
The subject of Nimrod servicing has caused deep anxiety to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). Contractor support is necessary throughout the service life of any aircraft operated by the RAF. Obviously, the manufacturer is the final source of expertise on the aircraft. The RAF has neither the capacity nor the wish to engage in areas of design work or major modifications that are appropriate to the design authority. In the case of Nimrod, this is British Aerospace. Of course, an operational unit incorporates minor modifications. For the Nimrod this is done at the Nimrod major servicing unit at RAF Kinloss, which has developed considerable expertise on the aircraft through doing major servicing. When extensive modifications are done by the design authority, we prefer to use a contractor's working party rather than return to the factory, as this allows the work to be done at the same time as more routine servicing tasks.
Furthermore, the basis of the current work distribution between design authority and operator is the result of longstanding policy. The value of this was demonstrated during Operation Corporate when British Aerospace did a magnificent job in modifying Nimrods for such roles as air-to-air refuelling, while the RAF recovered aircraft from the Nimrod major servicing unit before deploying that unit in support of operations.
We are always willing to discuss how we can help out, and discussions are in progress on possible future modifications to the Nimrod MR2, which may involve a return to works programme for British Aerospace Woodford based on air-to-air refuelling, and fin and wing strengthening. I note that at present there is a considerable shortage of work in the Manchester division.
Mr. Favell: I hope that I have made it clear how urgent is the need for a decision on this return to work programme. It is of critical importance to Woodford in keeping together the important design and production staff there. It is vital that a favourable decision is made without delay. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of that.
Mr. Lee: I hear everything that my hon. Friend says, and we will take that matter seriously.
The question of the Coastguarder was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood and for Dumfries and by the hon. Member for Eccles. At present, in peacetime, the RAF Nimrods carry out surveillance and offshore patrols for civil Departments. Those activities would, of course, cease in time of tension. The
492
Coastguarder is currently being considered, along with other suitable aircraft, to supplement the Nimrod maritime patrol force. Although the Coastguarder is being looked at for use in a role several years hence, it is no more than one of a number of options under consideration, and there is no immediate prospect of any purchase of the Coastguarder by the Ministry of Defence.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of the reserves and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The volunteer element of the Royal Air Force Reserves comprises the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, a small highly skilled force composed mainly of intelligence officers, and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The latter is currently made up of six regiment field squadrons in the airfield defence role, three maritime headquarters units in support of maritime operations, a movements squadron and a recently formed aeromedical evacuation squadron. Additional regiment field squadrons are planned to form over the next decade and the possibility of forming missile defence and helicopter squadrons is being examined.
The response to recruitment for these auxiliary squadrons has been extremely encouraging, with retention rates far higher than were expected. The calibre of recruits and their keenness to become fully effective has mean that the transition from untrained to fully operational units has been achieved in a satisfactorily short period.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend has thrown out a lot of Whitehall chaff, but we need to be precise. I asked about the Wessex issue and the study initiative following the White Paper two or three years ago. Is it not time that that relatively straightforward study reached a favourable conclusion of at least a trial squadron to evaluate the principle?
Mr. Lee: I am sorry about the chaff. If my hon. Friend wants a more specific answer he must expect to receive it in writing.
Mr. Dalyell: I asked about the very serious presentation in The Scotsman on the Computer Network 102 and Platform.
Mr. Lee: Perhaps I may finish what I was saying about the reserves. The volunteer units serve a very real need, release skilled regular personnel for operational duties and are a most cost-effective means of enhancing the capability of the RAF as a whole.
No decision has been taken to reintroduce a flying role for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. That remains under study. The problem is one of resources. In addition to the aircrew war appointments scheme a substantial number of ex-short-service officers have a reserve liability.
I shall deal rather more quickly with the less major points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked about strengthening the fence at Greenham Common and winning the media war. We shall take very serious note of his comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble talked about the problems of IFF. The current systems will become inadequate to meet the developing electronic threat. With our NATO partners we are developing a new system to meet the requirements of the 1990s and beyond. We attach great importance to that. Meanwhile, we are monitoring the scope for interim improvements and a number of such measures are in hand.

493
My hon. Friend also asked about Hawk sales to the United States. The Hawk VTX programme is fully funded. It was included in the President's budget proposals announced yesterday and there is congressional support.
I should like to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake on the subject of airfield defence.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised a number of questions. I intend to write to him about the cost of Sidewinder and the size of purchases from the United States. He asked specific questions and I shall endeavour to obtain specific answers. I also intend to look into the subject of helicopter safety, especially in the Falklands. The services would not allow helicopters to fly in the Falklands if they did not believe them to be safe. Nevertheless, I will give the hon. Gentleman a considered reply in writing.
I promise to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the hon. Gentleman's observations about the need for a Select Committee on intelligence. I will also draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to what was said in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, I am not prepared to comment on GCHQ or the Belgrano. I hope that he will accept that.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to the balance between the Harrier and FEFA programmes. There is no clash. The FEFA project has a later time scale. The advanced Harrier—the GR5—will come in later this decade but FEFA will not be until the mid-1990s on the present programme. On the percentage of work on the GR5, I cannot really add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in opening the debate—40 per cent. of the work on the aircraft and 75 per cent. of the engine work will be carried out by British industry although only 20 per cent. of the combined number of aircraft to be produced will be for the RAF.
Several hon. Members referred to the new trainer. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, a decision has yet to be taken whether to refurbish the Jet Provost or purchase a new trainer aircraft. It is likely to be taken in the next few months. Many manufacturers, British and foreign, have responded to our invitation on the AST 412. Their proposals are being carefully evaluated. We must take advantage of that competition, but I hope that at the least any new aircraft will be built in the United Kingdom. As it is such a competitive area, it would be unwise for me to go further.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) made an impressive speech. He gave me notice that he would not be able to stay for my wind-up speech. He referred to the Tornado stand-off missile. We are studying the possible advantages of introducing a conventionally armed long-range stand-off missile. As we said in last year's statement on the Defence Estimates, those missiles could make a significant contribution to raising the nuclear threshold, but we do not believe that they could replace nuclear weapons, which are essential for deterrence.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to how AMRAAM is ahead of ASRAAM. He wondered whether the ASRAAM programme was safe. The Tornado F2, with its excellent range and loiter capability, will enter service armed with Skyflash and Sidewinder missiles. In the early 1990s, we plan to replace them with a new generation of weapons—AMRAAM and ASRAAM, on which we are working with our American and German allies. We want
494
them both. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's support for those systems and the way in which the programme is being tackled.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber referred to low flying. In 1979 low-flying arrangements over the United Kingdom were completely revised to make best use of air space for this vital training, and to avoid populated areas and, as far as possible, sensitive places such as hospitals. I am pleased that the level of complaints, in comparison with the number of low-flying exercises, showed a drop under the new system, although the low-flying schedule was substantially increased. I also note what the hon. Gentleman said about the Tornado and its likely impact in that area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to ATC development. The ATC is a most valuable youth service and a source of high-quality, well-motivated recruits for the RAF. As was announced to the House on 20 January, following the successful trial of admitting girls to membership, squadrons are being opened for a proportion of girls, as resources permit. We keep very much in mind the need to give them interesting and exciting training.
My hon. Friend also paid a generous tribute, in which I am sure the House would like to join, to our search and rescue services in the RAF. The RAF is required by international convention and agreement to provide a civil, maritime and aviation search and rescue organisation. In support of that commitment, and acting on behalf of the Department of Transport, helicopters of the Royal Navy and the RAF, together when necessary with RAF Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and RAF mountain rescue teams, operate a permanent standby service for search and rescue. Units dedicated to search and rescue are situated throughout the United Kingdom, and there are two continuously manned rescue co-ordination centres at Edinburgh and Plymouth.
It is a great privilege for me to wind up this annual debate on the RAF. In a democracy such as ours, there quite rightly is debate as to how much should be spent on defence, how it should be allocated to the three services and, within each service, the priorities for that spend. Some of that debate has taken place today.
However, what cannot be in doubt when we talk of the RAF is the quality of its equipment and the sheer professionalism and courage of our service men; we saw that in battle in the Falklands. We see it, for example in outstanding rescue feats by our helicopter crews and in our pioneering mid-air refuelling techniques.
At the Ministry of Defence I occupy the office which was formerly that of the Secretary of State for Air, when we had a separate Air Ministry. On my outer office wall there is a signed letter from George VI to the then Secretary of State for Air dated 1 April 1943, on the 25 anniversary of the RAF. The letter says:
"But its prime cause, beyond question, is the spirit which inspires each and every member of the force—the spirit that attains the stars, however hard the way may be".
That is as true and relevant today as it was then.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Royal Air Force

  EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Iain Mills be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation and that Mr. Michael Knowles and Mr. Nicholas Soames be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Bevan and Mr. Alec Woodall be discharged from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that Mr. Stuart Bell and Mr. David Sumberg be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

  JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION, &C, BILLS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Morris be discharged from the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills and that Mr. Robert Litherland be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Crown Agents
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
10 pm
Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the Crown Agents as a subject for debate on the Adjournment. The future of the Crown Agents has been a matter for speculation since the end, nearly a year ago, of the Brunei contract to manage the Sultan's investment portfolio. Indecision behind closed doors has characterised the Government's conduct ever since. Leaks in the press and rumours that abound point to interdepartmental conflict on the issue.
Last December the Minister for Overseas Development confirmed, as I suspected, that abolition was one of the options being considered, so the staff of the Crown Agents have reason to be anxious about their future. That is bound to have an adverse effect upon morale. In turn, deteriorating morale is in danger of reducing the effectiveness of the organisation, and eventually its reputation abroad upon which its business ultimately depends.
My first plea is that the Government should end the uncertainty and cease procrastinating. Over the past year I have had contacts with the Crown Agents and with members of the staff. Through them and in other ways I have learned a good deal about the value of the Crown Agents. I have developed a special regard for the dedication and sense of service that characterise the staff and a tradition that has been built up during the 150 years or so of the existence of the Crown Agents. Nevertheless, I hope to make it clear that the ideas I am putting forward are very much my own, based upon my observation in Britain and overseas.
The Crown Agents have earned a reputation for moral integrity, knowledge and expertise. Of course, over a period of 150 years mistakes have been made. But of what organisation can that not be said? Their mistakes have been of human error, not corruption or greed. Unquestionably, the reputation of the Crown Agents for incorruptibility and professionalism makes them unique in the sector in which they operate. I mean that. There is no other organisation like the Crown Agents in the world.
Interestingly, that reputation did not suffer abroad in the wake of the property and secondary banking scandals of the early 1970s. Three hundred institutions in over 100 developing countries still use the Crown Agents for most of their dealings. I use the word "still" because the Crown Agents are often spoken of as a legacy, a sort of hangover from the British Empire, a relic, obsolete in today's world. That decidedly is not true, and the proof is the £30 million worth of business that they did in 1982 in procurement, in large and minutely small indents, responding to an incredible variety of demands in engineering, where they have special expertise, and in fund management. That is by no means a complete list of what they do. Indeed, one observer remarked, "What do they not do?" I could not answer that question confidently, and the time available in this debate does not permit a fuller description of the work they do.
It is important to underline four points that show that the Crown Agents, as constituted, are unique and

497
valuable. First, their job is to serve their customers, or principals as they are called, in over 100 Third-world countries.
Secondly, as a result the Crown Agents create an immense amount of goodwill for Britain in those countries because of their honest dealing and scrupulous representation of the interests of their principals.
Thirdly, as a by-product, the Crown Agents provide practical service to British industries and services, especially to small firms. It is no wonder that the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, Sir Terence Beckett, gave CBI backing to the Crown Agents—and that backing came from the CBI midlands region where many small firms are based.
Lastly, a point that most people have missed is that the Crown Agents, by handling contracts on behalf of the Overseas Development Administration and multilateral donors, raise the value of the aid given by ensuring the best price, the appropriateness of the goods bought, and inspection of equipment to ensure its proper and efficient working.
In the light of that, what are the arguments for change from the current position of the Crown Agents operating as a public body? What are their arguments for privatisation of one sort or another or for outright abolition? I regret that those are the options that the Government appear to be considering.
Some people's judgment may be guided by the disastrous record of investment in property speculation and secondary banking in the early 1970s. The answer to that was given by Mr. Peter Graham, the senior agent, who was quoted as saying:
"Anyone who wants to abolish us because in 1974 we got our nose rubbed in the dirt should have spoken up then, not now. Since then the Crown Agents has been completely reconstructed and has rebuilt the confidence of its customers."
I recall that many privately owned institutions did not exactly distinguish themselves during that period, so anyone who values the work of the Crown Agents and thinks that they might be more useful in private hands has a difficult case to argue.
Another, more respectable, argument is that at that time the Crown Agents imposed a charge on the Exchequer and that the loss of the Brunei contract, plus the uncertainty that clouds the field in which they work—especially in the world's current economic impasse, for which the Government must bear some of the blame—may mean that there is a risk of the same thing happening again.
That risk is significantly small, for two reasons. First, the Crown Agents Act 1979 effectively prevents, if it were necessary, any recurrence of the events of the early 1970s. Secondly, the Crown Agents have proved their reliability by meeting the targets laid down by the Government in March 1982 when Sir Neil Marten was the responsible Minister.
The Crown Agents succeeded in doing that by anticipating many of the difficulties that they were bound to face. The organisation has been streamlined and new markets have been found. In a short space of time, under the guidance of the previous senior agent, Sir Sidney Eburne, the Crown Agents have become more sensitive and responsive to changing demands.
I cannot lay too much emphasis on the quality, expertise and sense of dedication of the staff that made those changes possible. Anyone who seriously believes that there is room for further slimming of the staff had
498
better find out how much overtime is being worked to get through the work that must be done, and take cognisance of the quality of that work.
Nevertheless, there is an immediate issue in the shape of the ending of the Brunei contract, and it is only fair to admit that other issues may have to be faced. They are the inheritances of the past. The Crown Agents are conscious of the need to spread the risks that they take. But retention of the organisation will almost certainly require the rescheduling of debts—not unknown in the Third world — until it has established its business on a sounder basis. Indeed, it is fair to point out that the Brunei setback—in no sense the fault of the Crown Agents—has a great deal to do with the last days of the Imperial relationship.
I am afraid that the trouble with the examination currently being undertaken by Morgan Grenfell is that the Crown Agents may be judged by whether or not they can make profits. Accountants' rules may be applied by those who are ignorant of the organisation and its proper functions. As the permanent secretary at the ODA aptly put it, those functions are
"to minimise competition with the private sector"—
and—
"to concentrate on areas where its reputation and experience enable it to make a distinctive contribution which may at the same time benefit British Trade."
We do not judge the success of the British Overseas Trade Board by the profit it makes, nor do we judge the success of the trade attachés in posts abroad by that criterion; and it would be almost as ludicrous to apply similar standards to the Crown Agents.
I turn to the options that seem to be under consideration. The first option is abolition. However, I think that we can throw that option straight out of the window. It would be to ignore completely the cost-benefit arguments that I have mentioned. No one can measure the goodwill that Britain earns through the Crown Agents' work, the value in terms of the effectiveness of aid, or the continuing commercial, professional and other links that we enjoy. In addition, British industry, especially small firms, would lose a great deal of valuable business.
The second option, which I think must also be rejected, and which I assume is not up for consideration, is that some of the functions should be subsumed by the ODA. The reason for rejecting that option is that the Crown Agents are respected and trusted as independent and impartial by overseas Governments and institutions that use their services. That stamp of impartiality and independence would be lost by taking such a step. Moreover, most of the valuable business that the Crown Agents have built up with the multilateral agencies would also be lost.
The third option, of course, is some form of privatisation. A parliamentary answer yesterday suggests that that is the favoured option. I have to tell the Minister that the more I get to know of the work of the Crown Agents, the more I am convinced that that would be a disastrous course for the Government to take. I know of no way in which the Crown Agents could be partially or wholly privatised, without them losing the special reputation that they enjoy.
It is remarkable that, after countries became independent in the past two or three decades, so many decided to use the services of the Crown Agents. The

499
reason is that the Crown Agents are the only quasi-governmental organisation in the world that exists to act impartially on behalf of any Third-world Government, and to represent them in any area of development where they need help. The integrity of the Crown Agents is famous. It is based on a tradition of disinterested service to its principals. The anniversary publication, 1833 to 1983, says:
"The tradition of adjudication on public tender and never by private bid became an established part of each country's development. It was this characteristic that gave the Crown Agents — and still does — their stature in the development world."
In effect, the Crown Agents operate as an international civil service, observing standards that are traditional to the British Civil Service. That is why they obtain the business that they do. If they were to operate as a private agency, or as an agency in which private interests were represented by shareholdings, that reputation for impartiality would go. Inevitably, companies with large interests in the developing world would see an advantage in possessing a stake in the organisation, with the perfectly legitimate objective of seeking business for themselves. That might be acceptable in business ethics, but it would ruin the special standing that the Crown Agents enjoy among their principals.
Moreover, as a commercial procurement agency, they would be required by their shareholders to make profits for them; and that requirement would change the nature of the relationship that they currently have with their principals. If they ceased to be unique in the type of service that they provide, they would lose much of the business they now have, and independent Governments would be forced to set up their own procurement agencies. As a result, British firms would cease to enjoy the special advantage they now have in obtaining business in the developing world. In addition, much of the good will that we in Britain gain as a result of the Crown Agents' work would be dissipated.
I have raised this issue because I am afraid that the Government may be about to embark on a disastrous and ill-considered course. I believe that the Crown Agents have an important future as a publicly run agency. If there has been a fault, it has been on the part of the House and of successive Governments who have failed to give any clear political direction during the period when the Empire has been evolving into the Commonwealth.
There is still time for a proper examination of the future of the Crown Agents. First, the relevant Select Committee could undertake an inquiry. A year ago, it produced an excellent report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The Committee could do the House a service by providing a similar report on the Crown Agents.
Secondly, there needs to be thorough consultation of the interests of the principals, who, after all, provide the business. That should be done through ambassadors and high commissioners, and through Government-to-Government contact. I believe that the Commonwealth Secretariat would be glad to assist.
In my view, no solution will be acceptable unless it is based on meaningful consultation with the staff. Members of staff speak with special knowledge of their own relationship with those with whom they deal. They are the guardians of a valuable and perhaps extraordinary tradition, inherited by this country from the past, which must not be thoughtlessly thrown away. If it is thrown
500
away, many members of the staff will simply leave, taking their expertise with them. They have no desire to see all that the Crown Agents have stood for being prostituted to other purposes.
I very much hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will have an opportunity to speak in the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall call the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) to make a brief speech.
10.17 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: I am sure that hon. Members will wish to give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), who faced the consequences of the Crown Agents' involvement in the property market as soon as she became Minister for Overseas Development for the second time in 1974. I had the privilege of advising her at that time, and I know that she undertook a thorough review of their operations then, restructured them, and rendered them accountable to Parliament.
Since then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, (Mr. Barnett) has just stressed — and I endorse his arguments—the Crown Agents have had an excellent, if not unique, record in serving both Commonwealth Governments and development prospects around the world.
It is clear that the Crown Agents did not lose the Brunei contract through inefficiency. They had a consistently higher rate of return on their operations—with one brief exception in favour of James Capel — than any other company. I include Morgan Grenfell, which is now crawling over them like undertakers, apparently preparatory to privatisation.
The key question has not yet been fully addressed. Why, with that successful record, did the Crown Agents have the Brunei contract knocked from under them? The answer lies with facts that should be placed before the House. In 1982, the present Government threatened to withdraw the Gurkha batallions at the disposal of the Sultan. It is apparent that the Government, seeking to prop up their venture garrison in the Falklands, persuaded the Sultan that he could be undefended by withdrawal of the Gurkhas. Discussion on the matter was so acerbic that the Foreign Office commisioner withdrew from Brunei and returned to London. Another Foreign Office official was sent out quickly to smooth the waters. Meanwhile, the Crown Agents appear to have been the only stick which the Sultan had at his disposal with which to hit back at the Government for the threatened withdrawal of the Gurkhas.
I am sure that the Minister will wish to answer the following questions. First, when did the discusions on withdrawal of the Gurkhas begin, and when did they break down? Secondly, did the Sultan or his officials — directly or indirecly—suggest that the Crown Agents' contract could be in jeopardy if the Gurkhas were withdrawn? Thirdly, did Her Majesty's commissioner walk out, or was he returned home although it was known that the future of the contract with the Crown Agents was in question? Fourthly, was there a conscious decision by the Government that the interest of the Falkland islanders were paramount relative to the future of both the Brunei contract and the Crown Agents?

501
It appears that the Crown Agents are paying the price for the Government's neglect of political guns, and that the decision to wind them down or privatise them is not only political and ideological but a reaction to the loss of a contract, although the failure was the Governments rather than the Crown Agents'.
10.19 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Witney): I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Ministr for Overseas Development who is in Uganda or Zambia, I am not sure which, at the moment.
The hon. Member raised an issue of considerable importance to Britain's relationships with the developing world. It is one to which he has paid long and dedicated attention, as I recognise. It is also an issue which is important politically, developmentally and commercially. It is a subject to which the Government are giving serious consideration, but no decision in principle or substance has yet been taken. I can convey no fresh news. I regret that the Government's consideration of the matter is taking longer than we had hoped, but, because the Crown Agents' activities are so wide ranging and, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) have recognised, delicate and complex, it is right that the Government should examine them with the greatest possible care.
I should like to make it clear that the events of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which formed the subject of the Fay report in 1977 and of the Crown Agents tribunal which reported in 1982, are not relevant to the Crown Agents as they are today. The hon. Member for Greenwich and I are at one on that point.
Since 1975 the Crown Agents have confined themselves to performing their traditional role of providing services to overseas Governments and Administrations as well as to the Overseas Development Administration in the administration of our bilateral aid programme. The constitution and role 6f the Crown Agents and their relationship with the Government were defined and regulated by the Crown Agents Act 1979. The disengagement of the Crown Agents from the own-account activities in property and secondary banking, which were the subject of those reports, became, under the 1979 Act, the responsibility of the separate Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board, whose work is now largely complete.
Since its incorporation on 1 January 1980 under the 1979 Act, the Crown Agents have substantially overhauled and improved their organisation and structure, and have their efficiency under a keen and commercially-minded board, comprised largely of business men, under the chairmanship of Sir Sidney Eburne and, since last October, of Mr. Peter Graham, formerly chief executive of Standard Chartered Bank. Staff numbers have been reduced from some 2,100 at the beginning of 1980 to about 1,170 now.
Under the 1979 Act, the Crown Agents assumed a capital debt to the Government of £30 million, since reduced to £19·5 million, largely through the sales of office property released by staff economies. The Act enabled Ministers to permit the Crown Agents to progress gradually over a six-year period to full servicing of that debt. They were required to service the debt at 20 per cent.
502
of that figure in 1980 and 1981, 40 per cent. in 1982, 60 per cent. in 1983, and they are on course to achieve full servicing in 1985 as the Act required.
The Act also enabled Ministers to set financial targets for the Crown Agents and these were announced in the House on 26 March 1982 and covered the years 1982 to 1985. For the years 1982 to 1984, taken together, the rate of return was at a current cost operating surplus—I am sorry that these are fairly technical details—before the interest payable on the commencing capital debt of 0·5 per cent. of gross income over those years. For 1985 the target must be a surplus, similarly defined, of 6 per cent. of gross income, and within those targets the Crown Agents should seek to achieve an increase of 2·5 per cent. per annum in real and gross income per head of staff employed.
Soon after the announcement of those targets, in July last, the Government of Brunei terminated their agreement with the Crown Agents for the management of some £4 billion of Brunei's investments, and the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Vauxhall referred to that. It is only fair to say that the Brunei authorities assured the Crown Agents that this action was not taken because of dissatisfaction with the Crown Agents' performance, but because they thought it appropriate that, with the coming of independence this year, the management of these investments should be taken over by the Brunei investment advisory board, to be set up locally for the purpose.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall, who is renowned in the House for a certain enthusiasm for various aspects of the Falkland Islands issue, raised a number of other, if I may so call them, speculative suggestions about the reasons for the Brunei Government's decision. I cannot add to the knowledge of the House so as to shed light on the aspersions cast by the hon. Gentleman. I shall be happy to write to him in detail about the allegations that he made. I should find it surprising if the slant and spin that he put on that ball turned out to be the case, but I shall write to him on the subject.
The business of managing Brunei's investments had grown substantially in recent years to a point where, in 1982, it had provided about £3·5 million of the Crown Agents' total annual income, which was about £32 million. The Brunei income had therefore been important in enabling the Crown Agents to carry through a progressive reorganisation of their business in recent years, which they planned to continue. The sudden loss of this source of income would have placed the Crown Agents in a serious financial situation if corrective action was not taken.
After urgent and serious consideration, the board of Crown Agents submitted to the Government at the end of September proposals for the acceleration of the programme of change which was already in hand and for the financial restructuring of the business, with the object of achieving full financial viability by 1986.
The Government have been examining these proposals with great care, since before we could accept them we would need to be satisfied not only that the measures of reorganisation which the Crown Agents envisaged would be feasible in themselves but that, together with the current and likely future state of the world economy, particularly as it affects developing countries, they would carry the clear prospect of financial viability being achieved.
Our consideration of the future of the Crown Agents must, of course, be more fundamental than that. We must ask ourselves what a body like the Crown Agents should

503
do in the last years of the 20th century. In the first half of the century their role was clear and definite enough, but since the 1960s the Crown Agents have had to develop, as virtually all the dependencies have become independent, a new relationship with their principals. There has been great need for the Crown Agents to adjust to take account of the immense growth of the multilateral lending institutions.
We must also ask ourselves about the provision of services for the developing countries and for Britain, about the importance of assisting with the administration of the aid programme and about the important role of bringing business to British firms—a point raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
The Government fully recognise the need for an early decision, both for the Crown Agents as a body and for their staff, and the hon. Member for Greenwich referred to the
504
problems and loyalty of the staff. I, too, pay tribute to them. They have carried out their duties with remarkable efficiency and enthusiasm in circumstances of great and prolonged uncertainty, and this has been a period of considerable worry for them.
However, we are talking of important decisions, decisions which we must get right, and it would be imprudent for me tonight to promise to make a decision by a particular date. I can only say that the Government will take their decision as soon as they have carefully and fully weighed the various options that are provided, among others, by the Morgan Grenfell study, to which the hon. Member for Greenwich referred. It will be a wide-ranging study which will take account of all the aspects which have been raised in the debate and I hope that shortly it will be possible to bring to the House an announcement about those decisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Divorce
  Divorce
  Crown Court, Newcastle
  Crown Court, Newcastle
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  "Streamlining the Cities"
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Classified Documents
  Classified Documents
  Nissan
  Nissan
  French Prime Minister
  French Prime Minister
  Trade Unionists (Espionage)
  Trade Unionists (Espionage)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Republic of Ireland (British Citizens)
  Republic of Ireland (British Citizens)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  United Kingdom (Temporary Admission)
  United Kingdom (Temporary Admission)
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Voluntary Repatriation
  Voluntary Repatriation
  International Social Service
  International Social Service
  Humberside Police
  Humberside Police
  Offenders (Drug Treatment)
  Offenders (Drug Treatment)
  Standards of Conduct
  Standards of Conduct
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
CIVIL SERVICE
  GCHQ Cheltenham
  GCHQ Cheltenham
TRANSPORT
  Pilotage Commission (Byelaws)
  Pilotage Commission (Byelaws)
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Electric Road Vehicles
  Electric Road Vehicles
  Passenger Bus Services
  Passenger Bus Services
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Drink-drive Campaign (Costs)
  Drink-drive Campaign (Costs)
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Mersey Tunnel (Tolls)
  Mersey Tunnel (Tolls)
  British Rail (Talks)
  British Rail (Talks)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  M25
  M25
  Aerial Crop Spraying
  Aerial Crop Spraying
WALES
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
  Steel
  Steel
  Aberystwyth-Cardigan Road (Improvement)
  Aberystwyth-Cardigan Road (Improvement)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Higher School Bursaries
  Higher School Bursaries
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  "Water in Wales"
  "Water in Wales"
  Property (Rateable Values)
  Property (Rateable Values)
EMPLOYMENT
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Homeworkers
  Homeworkers
  Earnings Statistics
  Earnings Statistics
  Health and Safety Commission
  Health and Safety Commission
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Rotary "Brass Tacks" (Aston) Ltd.
  Rotary "Brass Tacks" (Aston) Ltd.
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Pipe Tobacco
  Pipe Tobacco
  Roofing Slates
  Roofing Slates
  Export Prices and Volumes
  Export Prices and Volumes
  Overseas Contracts
  Overseas Contracts
  Surgical Gauze and Dressings
  Surgical Gauze and Dressings
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Scented Products
  Scented Products
  British Technology Group (Regional Boards)
  British Technology Group (Regional Boards)
  GKN-AE (Merger)
  GKN-AE (Merger)
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Overseas Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Overseas Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Nissan Motor Company
  Nissan Motor Company
  Development Areas (Assistance)
  Development Areas (Assistance)
  Departmental Cash Limit
  Departmental Cash Limit
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Records and Library Books
  Records and Library Books
  "Water in Wales"
  "Water in Wales"
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hi-jacked Lorries (Compensation)
  Hi-jacked Lorries (Compensation)
  Committee on Disarmament
  Committee on Disarmament
  USSR (Official Discussions)
  USSR (Official Discussions)
  Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
  Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty
  Malta
  Malta
  Tibet
  Tibet
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
SCOTLAND
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Cavity Wall Insulation (Formaldehyde Gas)
  Cavity Wall Insulation (Formaldehyde Gas)
  Nuclear Emergency Centres
  Nuclear Emergency Centres
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Students (Travel Costs)
  Students (Travel Costs)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Freeports
  Freeports
  Pension Scheme Funds
  Pension Scheme Funds
  Surplus Staff
  Surplus Staff
  Members' Travel Warrants (Taxation)
  Members' Travel Warrants (Taxation)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Taxpayers
  Taxpayers
  Tobacco and Cigarettes
  Tobacco and Cigarettes
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Charities
  Charities
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Excise Duties
  Excise Duties
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Gravestones
  Gravestones
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  Family Action Information Rescue
  Family Action Information Rescue
  Trade Deficit
  Trade Deficit
DEFENCE
  Nimrod AWACS
  Nimrod AWACS
  Dockyard Study Report
  Dockyard Study Report
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  Falkland Islands (Ministerial Visit)
  Falkland Islands (Ministerial Visit)
  Bangladesh
  Bangladesh
  South Atlantic
  South Atlantic
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Grants Committee and National Advisory Body for Further and Higher Education
  University Grants Committee and National Advisory Body for Further and Higher Education
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Open University
  Open University
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Education Authorities (Expenditure)
  Higher School Bursaries
  Higher School Bursaries
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  Educational Institutions (Income)
  Educational Institutions (Income)
  Student Incomes
  Student Incomes
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Agricultural Exports
  Agricultural Exports
  European Community (Sales to Russia)
  European Community (Sales to Russia)
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Animal Cruelty
  Animal Cruelty
  Wildlife Conservation
  Wildlife Conservation
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
  Lamb Exports
  Lamb Exports
  Poultry Industry
  Poultry Industry
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Agriculture Industry (Wages)
  Agriculture Industry (Wages)
  Straw Disposal
  Straw Disposal
  Beef Cows
  Beef Cows
  Dairy Products
  Dairy Products
  Agricultural Prices
  Agricultural Prices
  Hill Farming
  Hill Farming
  Annual Review
  Annual Review
  Common Fisheries Policy (Inspectors)
  Common Fisheries Policy (Inspectors)
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Food Exports
  Food Exports
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  "Home Defence and the Farmer"
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Agricultural Tenancies
  Agricultural Tenancies
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Drainage Rates
  Drainage Rates
  Intervention Costs
  Intervention Costs
  Salt Substitutes
  Salt Substitutes
  Crop Spraying
  Crop Spraying
ENERGY
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Oil Production Licences
  Oil Production Licences
  Oil Exploration Licences
  Oil Exploration Licences
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Projects
  Aid Projects
  Namibia
  Namibia
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  Bangladesh
  Bangladesh
  Thailand
  Thailand
SOCIAL SERVICES
  General Practice
  General Practice
  Caesarian Section Births
  Caesarian Section Births
  Patients (Administrative Costs)
  Patients (Administrative Costs)
  NHS Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
  NHS Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Playground Equipment (Lead Content)
  Playground Equipment (Lead Content)
  Birth and Abortion (Statistics)
  Birth and Abortion (Statistics)
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Architects
  Architects
  Arthritis and Rheumatism
  Arthritis and Rheumatism
  Foetal Damage (Drugs)
  Foetal Damage (Drugs)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
  Doctors' Deputising Services
  Doctors' Deputising Services
  Clinical Psychologists
  Clinical Psychologists
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits (Misconduct)
  Benefits (Misconduct)
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Company Pension Schemes (Trustees)
  Company Pension Schemes (Trustees)
  National Insurance Fund (Treasury Supplement)
  National Insurance Fund (Treasury Supplement)
  Handicapped and Disabled People (Benefits)
  Handicapped and Disabled People (Benefits)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Heating Costs (Payments)
  Heating Costs (Payments)
  Health Authorities (Membership)
  Health Authorities (Membership)
  Support Services (Outside Contractors)
  Support Services (Outside Contractors)
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Private Medical Institutions (Charges)
  Private Medical Institutions (Charges)
  Patient Care (Expenditure)
  Patient Care (Expenditure)
  Private Patients (Charges)
  Private Patients (Charges)
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Salt Substitutes
  Salt Substitutes
  Health Promotion Research Trust
  Health Promotion Research Trust
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Human Organs (Imports)
  Human Organs (Imports)
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
ENVIRONMENT
  Paint (Lead Content)
  Paint (Lead Content)
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  AUTHORITIES WITH TOTAL EXPENDITURE GREATER THAN £IO MILLION IN 1983–84 BUDGET
  AUTHORITIES WITH TOTAL EXPENDITURE GREATER THAN £IO MILLION IN 1983–84 BUDGET
  AUTHORITIES WITH TOTAL EXPENDITURE GREATER THAN £IO MILLION IN 1983–84 BUDGET
  AUTHORITIES WITH TOTAL EXPENDITURE GREATER THAN £IO MILLION IN 1983–84 BUDGET
  (b) AUTHORITIES WITH EXPENDITURE ABOVE GRE ALLOCATION* IN 198–84
  (b) AUTHORITIES WITH EXPENDITURE ABOVE GRE ALLOCATION* IN 198–84
  AUTHORITIES WITH EXPENDITURE ABOVE GRE ALLOCATION IN 1983–84
  AUTHORITIES WITH EXPENDITURE ABOVE GRE ALLOCATION IN 1983–84
  AUTHORITIES WITH EXPENDITURE ABOVE GRE ALLOCATION IN 1983–84
  AUTHORITIES WITH EXPENDITURE ABOVE GRE ALLOCATION IN 1983–84
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Local Authorities (Services)
  Local Authorities (Services)
  Rates
  Rates
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Nitrogen Dioxide
  Nitrogen Dioxide
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Parish Precepts
  Parish Precepts
  Local Authorities (Population)
  Local Authorities (Population)
  Local Authorities (Rateable Values)
  Local Authorities (Rateable Values)
  Living Conditions
  Living Conditions
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Planning Permission (Compensation)
  Planning Permission (Compensation)
  Merseyside International Garden Festival
  Merseyside International Garden Festival
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Inquiries
  Industrial Inquiries
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  Dungannon District Council Elections (Staff)
  Dungannon District Council Elections (Staff)
  Electoral Expenses
  Electoral Expenses
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Industrial Development Board
  Industrial Development Board
  Minimum Pay
  Minimum Pay

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Lord Henderson of Brompton
Sir Peter Gordon Henderson, KCB, having been created Baron Henderson of Brompton, of Brompton in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and of Brough in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Shackleton and the Lord Home of the Hirsel, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Glenconner—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Viscount Marchwood—Took the Oath.

Consumer Council Guidelines
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 what progress has been made on the consultations held with the nationalised industry consumer councils and others concerned in the finalisation of the guidelines mentioned by the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1st December (col. 795); and whether they will make a Statement.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we are in touch with the councils concerned and with the National Consumer Council about the current position in work on the guidelines, which is being carried forward as quickly as possible.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, being in touch is perhaps a step forward, but does the Minister recall that, on 1st December last year, he repeated the assurance that he gave me on 27th October that these proposals were being considered? Does he recall that on that same day, 1st December, he said at col. 798 of the Official Report:
"it is precisely because discussions need to take place with the national consumer councils that it is necessary for a bit more time to elapse before the guidelines can be published"?
Following up those words, I should like to ask the Minister whether those discussions have taken place apart from merely being in touch, and also whether he could be a little more precise about "a bit more time" being necessary.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the exchange on 1st December is indelibly etched upon my mind. The
760
noble Baroness says that she is encouraged that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs is in touch with the nationalised industry consumer councils. I assure the noble Baroness that this is, indeed, the case, for only within the last few days my honourable friend has written to those directly concerned proposing that we focus now upon what the guidelines ought to say in three priority areas: standards of service, costs and prices, and individual customer complaints. The aim is to produce concise drafts for each industry which will share a recognised common framework. For convenience, my honourable friend is dealing first with the proposals from the two largest NICC groups, the electricity and gas industries.
So far as the timing from now onwards is concerned, I cannot give the noble Baroness an absolute time. I am sorry about that, but I would ask the noble Baroness to accept that my honourable friend's letter is in earnest and that he is in earnest about getting on with this important matter.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, without for one moment doubting the Minister's good faith—because I am sure that he wishes to help—may I ask him whether he realises that it has become rather difficult? I think that many of us in this House and in the consumer organisations really wish that the Government would say either that they intend to do something about having real discussions in Parliament or that they do not intend to do anything about it at all. Would it be possible for the Minister to publish the letter of which he spoke, or to put a copy in the Library? Or is it a private letter from the Minister to the councils concerned?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the letter was from my honourable friend to the deputy chairman of the National Consumer Council. It would be a matter for him to decide whether he could make it public. I will most certainly ask him if this is possible.

The Falklands: Land Reform
3.23 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the grounds for their belief that the Falkland Islands Legislative Council approved the gradual approach to reform of land tenure on the islands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in an address to the Legislative Council on 16th December 1982, the Civil Commissioner explained our belief that a gradual approach to land distribution was desirable. Councillors unanimously approved the speech on the understanding that the position would be reconsidered if the demand for land exceeded the amount available.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether the Legislative Council approving the speech of Sir Rex Hunt is precisely the same as approving one aspect of the contents of that speech—namely, the gradual approach to land reform.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if there was some important part of the speech which they did not wish to approve, they could have done so had they so chosen.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister say whether, in the light of the noble Lord's Question, there was specific agreement to the gradual approach or a blanket agreement to a speech? Have the Falkland Islands Government since made any recommendations on those lines? Is the noble Lord aware that there is some concern about the monopoly situation over the ownership of land with the Falkland Islands Company, and also that the information from councillors there and from others in the islands seems to indicate that there should be much greater speed of action on land reform in order to solve some of the problems? It seems that the majority of people support the recommendations of the Shackleton Report.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a problem, as the noble Lord suggests. In the Falkland Islands, there is a considerable quantity of land available for purchase by those who desire to do so. If a problem arises over the shortage of land, as I have said, the Government would be willing to look at the matter further.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Lord speak to his noble friend who has recently been to the Falklands and report on what she learned from her conversations with Falkland islanders who wish to acquire land but for whom finance—unlike the finance that is available to the Highlands and Islands Board—is not available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; my noble friend was recently in the Falkland Islands and raised this matter with a number of the people with whom she had discussions. Finance is available on various terms. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord giving some of the details.

Energy Conservation: Objectives
3.26 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the objectives underlying their present policy of energy conservation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the objectives of the Government's energy conservation policy are to encourage increased efficiency in energy use; to help all consumers to get better value for money from the energy they consume;
762
and, in particular, to increase industrial and commercial competitiveness.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Is he satisfied that sufficient resources have backed this campaign? In particular will he say whether, in order to encourage consumers of both the domestic and industrial market, some incentives of a financial nature will be offered?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed, we are convinced. We have an energy efficiency unit, which is well supported financially; and we are looking at various ways in which to help both the industrial and domestic consumer. In particular, we have a home insulation scheme, community insulation projects, home energy audits, energy efficiency survey schemes, and the energy conservation demonstration projects.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we, on this side of the House, very much welcome the establishment of the energy efficiency unit in his department, and generally support the objectives set for that unit? Would the noble Earl agree that money spent on energy conservation not only saves precious fuel reserves, but is also highly cost-effective, and has great employment potential—particularly for the unskilled and semiskilled? For those reasons, would he agree that the cuts recently made in insulation grants last autumn were, to say the least, unfortunate?
Finally, would the noble Earl the Minister say whether the new unit will be able to ensure that investment in both energy supply and conservation will be determined by similar criteria as investment funds directed to conservation projects, where these show a superior return on capital employed if the investment were made in energy supply?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I certainly would not cavil with anything that the noble Lord said at the beginning of his supplementary question—indeed, I agree with all of it. The noble Lord referred to the home insulation scheme. I can give him the good news that we have extended that to take into account the topping up, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment hopes to table an order before Parliament some time in the spring. On the noble Lord's other supplementary question, I am sure that the action we will take will promote the efficient use of energy throughout the country.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sun, the wind and the tides are waiting to be used for the benefit of us all? Will he tell us what research and development is taking place in order to achieve that end?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as regards the wind, we have recently researched a new windmill which has been opened on an island in the Orkneys. On tides, we are putting money into research being carried out into the Severn barrage. As regards the sun, it has not come out lately, so we have put it to bed!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that if home insulation grants have been reduced in England, they have been cancelled in Wales until the end of the year? Is he aware that there is a great deal of concern in the Principality because of this? Can he give the House an assurance that these grants will be reintroduced in Wales as soon as possible?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I understand it, the Welsh local authorities were set for substantial overspend in 1983–84 capital allocations, notwith-standing a £50 million increase in cash limits. This would have jeopardised next year's allocation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be pleased to hear that so far as the important thing is concerned, the Welsh home insulation scheme allocation for 1984–85 is nearly £4 million, which is almost twice this year's figure. Moreover, Welsh local authorities can incur commitments now for payment in 1984–85.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree, looking several years ahead, long after many of us will cease to be in operation, that it is a mistake to rely too much on coal development? In fact, we are wasting a great deal of coal for the purpose of producing energy which could be produced by the development of nuclear and other derivatives. Therefore, are the Government satisfied with the use made of coal at the present time? Would it not be better to use it for processing purposes, producing valuable other materials? Can the noble Earl say whether they are satisfied with the development of nuclear energy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord asked some broad questions. The 20 per cent. nuclear generation which we shall have when the new AGRs come on stream next year is part of a policy from both sides of the House, and I believe this to be about correct. The noble Lord would not wish me of course to talk about Sizewell, where an inquiry is going on at the moment. So far as the coal industry is concerned, the Government have a coal-firing scheme in operation at present which is encouraging industry to conversion to coal, which we believe is the right way forward.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, referring to the Minister's reply to the original Question, might I ask him how he suggests that consumers are to get better value when the prices have been increased for gas and electricity in view of the enormous profits which were being made?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, both the nationalised industries are helping considerably in our campaign for energy efficiency, and both the nationalised industries are supportive of the Government's initiative.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that when coal was privately owned none of the colliery companies had done any research whatsoever into liquefaction, and that this has only come about since the NCB?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his information.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the Government consider putting a requirement in the building regulations that the floors of new domestic houses should be insulated, particularly if they are made of concrete?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the energy efficiency office is in contact with the department about building regulations, and I will bring that to their attention.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there have been press reports that the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation might be disbanded? Would he indicate to us whether this is so, in view of the new initiative which the Government are taking in this field?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. The matter is currently under review and I understand a statement will be made shortly. I should like to pay tribute to the recent report from the ACEC which was a valuable contribution, and the Government are already carrying out a number of the Council's main recommendations. As the noble Lord will be aware, the creation of the energy efficiency office has produced a new climate in this field.

Angola: South African Military Operations
3.34 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 what measures they are taking to counteract the South African invasion of Angola.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we made clear at the time that we deplored the recent South African military operations and that Angolan sovereignty should be fully respected. The South Africans have now announced the disengagement from Angola of their forces. We hope this will be fully implemented. We hope, too, that renewed diplomatic contacts will help to reduce tensions in the region and help progress towards a Namibian settlement.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, and particularly for his recognition that this is an open and flagrant invasion of a sovereign terrritory by a foreign power. Can he tell the House what action the British Government have taken, or are proposing to take, at the United Nations, which was created precisely for the purpose of protecting the sovereignty of states against foreign invasion?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we of course supported Security Council Resolution 545, which referred to this matter in fairly trenchant terms. We are happy to see that the views of the United Nations, I presume, and of those who have made their views known to the

765
South African Government in other ways, have had some effect, and that the disengagement I have referred to is now taking place.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that this crisis would not have occurred, and that the future benevolent development of Angola might have been assured, had it not been for the intervention of the government of Cuba—at the behest, no doubt, of their Soviet friends—whose intervention has been entirely destructive and has had no relation to the plight of their own suffering people?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is of course quite right in saying that the presence of foreign troops in this part of the world, as elsewhere, in no way contributes to the solution of the problems we are talking about.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this is perhaps not the best occasion for discussing difficult questions of international law across the Floor of the House? Is he aware that in Africa it has become the custom of communist states to entertain raiders and assassins who go across the borders to raid their neighbours; that this is what has been happening in Angola; and that the South Africans, who are the protectors of Angola, have driven them out and have followed the international law right of pursuit? Is he further aware that it is for that reason that, in that most unhappy continent, South—West Africa is one of the few places which is not starving and is in fact prosperous, and that if we take any action at all here it should be to send our congratulations to the South Africans for their good services?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I never cease to be amazed, I must say, by the views of the noble Lord, speaking, as he does, from his position on that side of the House. Be that as it may, I think that the problems that we are discussing this afternoon—the various military operations, or invasions as some would call them—only point to the fact that a solution must be found. We believe it is best found not by violence but by discussion and by negotiation.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, are the Cubans going home?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while dissociating myself and my noble friends from the emotional views of my noble friend, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will answer a short, practical question? Could he say whether the talks which are to take place between the United States of America and South Africa will in fact occur before the ending of the current ceasefire?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that they will, but I cannot give an assurance that that will be so because, of course, it is not for me.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, arising from the supplementary question from my noble friend sitting by my side, could the noble Lord say whether
766
any representations have been made to the Angolan government, perhaps by the Group of Five, asking for the withdrawal of Cuban troops and their Soviet advisers from Angola?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we do not necessarily see a linkage between the matter to which my noble friend refers and other matters in that part of the world, but I can assure my noble friend that the Angolan government are in no doubt about our views.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the United States of America has joined with the British Government in a totally different view of why Cuban troops are in Angola from that offered by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, who made a most amazing statement? It would have been better if he had applied it to the CIA. In so far as both America and Britain now agree on an essential point, would it not be a good starting point for the five nations to try to restart discussions to get Namibia free of the grasp of South Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that matters are not as simple as he may imagine and that progress will not be made easily or, I fear, soon. The British Government stand ready to make whatever contribution they can to these discussions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister tell his friends behind him that, on the authority of no less than the CIA, the Cuban advisers and troops entered Angola only after the South African invasion? Does he agree that one of the major elements in any settlement for the future independence of Namibia now depends on the breaking of the linkage which the United States appears to continue to insist on between the withdrawal of Cuban troops and the application of the United Nations resolution for the independence of Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure where the noble Lord got the ideas which emerged from the first part of his supplementary question. I fancy he has been watching too many television serials. In relation to the last part, our position I made clear in the answer I gave to my noble friend just now.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lords saying that it has not been established that the Cubans only entered Angola after the South Africans?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was answering the question that I thought the noble Lord had put to me about the linkage between the withdrawal of the South Africans and the withdrawal of the Cubans. The answer that I gave was the same answer I gave to my noble friend Lord Bessborough.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not totally true that in South Africa, immoral and wrong though the internal policies may be, the Afrikaaners have a long history of settlement in southern Africa and it affects their very lives however badly and wrongly they are behaving, whereas the Cubans have nothing

767
whatsoever to do with South Africa? They have been sent over there as hatchet boys—it is as simple as that—by a gang of thugs in the Kremlin.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the important thing is that the people of Namibia should be allowed to choose for themselves what sort of government they require.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on sites for experimental freeports.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1984 will be taken.

Companies Acts (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Order 1984
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this draft order is the first legislative step towards the consolidation of the Companies Acts. It has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which made no comment. The immediate purpose of the order is to make such amendments to the Companies Acts as are desirable to enable a satisfactory consolidation of the whole or the greater part of the Companies Acts to be produced. The power to make these amendments derives from Section 116 of the Companies Act 1981 and is exercisable only on the basis of recommendations by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission acting jointly. A report by the Law Commissions making joint recommendations was presented to Parliament in December, when the draft order was laid. The report explains the need for and the effect of each amendment. If the order is made, the amendments will come into force simultaneously with the coming into force of the consolidation Acts.
This draft order marks the start of a consolidation process which may be described as monumental. The legislation will comprise one very large Bill—some 600 pages and 700 clauses—together with an insider dealing Bill, a business names Bill and a consequential provisions Bill. We plan to introduce all these Bills by Easter under the normal procedures for consolidation Bills. Our target date for entry into force is 1st January 1985.
I commend this draft order as a necessary preliminary to the consolidation and I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st December be approved—(Lord Mackay of ClasItfern.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his short explanation of the series of provisions comprised in the draft order. These have been under careful examination not only by the legal bodies involved, but also by the profession to which I have the honour to belong. We have no observation to make upon them other than to thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing them here this afternoon. It would be helpful, however, if the noble and learned Lord could give any indication about whether the forthcoming consolidation that he has mentioned will be made in one volume or in two or three volumes, even though it may be part of the same consolidation measure. The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that 600 clauses, presumably with an index, will occupy a formidable amount of space and, I would imagine, consume a formidable amount of forest.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in a short speech thanking the Government for being so quick in their action on the consolidation of the Companies Acts? The professions and industry will very much welcome the progress that has so far been made in consolidating these many Acts. As a member of the Select Committee on Consolidation, I look forward to seeing this matter reaching us as soon as possible.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does the welcome news that the Government are proceeding with the consolidation of company law indicate the equally welcome thought that, for a short time, there will be a cessation of new company legislation? Those of us concerned in industry have had to cope with almost annual Companies Bills, which imposes a considerable administrative strain on companies. If the bringing forward of this Motion and the proceedings to consolidation indicate that there is to be a year or two of peace on this front, it will be extremely good news.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to this order. It would be right to say that this consolidation marks an important landmark in the development of statutory company law, but I tear that it will not be easy for me to prophesy how long a pause will follow thereafter.
I thought I had answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in my original statement when I said that the intention was that the consolidation would consist of one very long Bill of 600 pages and 700 clauses together with the insider dealing Bill, the business names Bill and a consequential provisions Bill. The noble Lord will know from what he indicated that the Government consulted widely upon the proper form of the consolidation and there was an interesting discussion about it, but the balance of opinion was in favour of the consolidation taking this form.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [H.L.]
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I am entirely in the hands of the House, but I would suggest that any general debate we have on the Bill should be taken on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, as I have four amendments down in my name which I would hope to discuss next. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Orders for payments which have been agreed by the parties
. For section 6 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 there shall be substituted the following section—
Orders for payments which have been agreed by the parties.
6.—(1) Either party to a marriage may apply to a magistrates' court for an order under this section on the ground that either the party making the application or the other party to the marriage has agreed to make such financial provision as may be specified in the application and, subject to subsection (3) below, the court on such an application may if—

(a) it is satisfied that the applicant or the respondent, as the case may be, has agreed to make that provision, and

(b) it has no reason to think that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exercise its powers hereunder,

order that the applicant or the respondent, as the case may be, shall make the financial provision specified in the application.
(2) In this section "financial provision" means the provision mentioned in any one or more of the following paragraphs, that is to say—

(a) the making of periodical payments by one party to the other,

(b) the payment of a lump sum by one party to the other,

(c) the making of periodical payments by one party to a child of the family or to the other party for the benefit of such a child,

(d) the payment by one party of a lump sum to a child of the family or to the other party for the benefit of such a child,

and any reference in this section to the financial provision specified in an application made under subsection (1) above or specified by the court under subsection (5) below is a reference to the type of provision specified in the application or by the court, as the case may be, to the amount so specified as the amount of any payment to be made thereunder and, in the case of periodical payments, to the term so specified as the term for which the payments are to be made.
(3) Where the financial provision specified in an application under subsection (1) above includes or consists of provision in respect of a child of the family, the court shall not make an order under that subsection unless it considers that the provision which the applicant or the respondent, as the case may be, has agreed to make in respect of that child provides for, or makes a proper contribution towards, the financial needs of the child.
(4) A party to a marriage who has applied for an order under section 2 of this Act shall not be precluded at any time before the determination of that application from applying for an order under this section; but if an order is made under this section on the application of either party and either of them has also made an application for an order under section 2 of this Act, the application made for the order under section 2 shall be treated as if it had been withdrawn.
(5) Where on an application under subsection (1) above the court decides—

(a) that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to make an order for the making of the financial provision specified in the application, or

(b) that any financial provision which the applicant or the respondent, as the case may be, has agreed to make in respect of a child of the family does not provide for, or make a proper contribution towards, the financial needs of that child,

but is of the opinion—

(i) that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to make an order for the making of some other financial provision specified by the court, and

(ii) that, in so far as that other financial provision contains any provision for a child of the family, it provides for, or makes a proper contribution towards, the financial needs of that child,

then if both the parties agree, the court may order that the applicant or the respondent, as the case may be, shall make that other financial provision.
(6) Subject to subsection (8) below, the provisions of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section which requires periodical payments to be made to a party to a marriage for his own benefit as they apply in relation to an order under section 2(1)(a) of this Act.
(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, the provisions of section 5 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section for the making of financial provision in respect of a child of the family as they apply in relation to an order under section 2(1)(c) or (d) of this Act.
(8) Where the court makes an order under this section which contains provision for the making of periodical payments and, by virtue of subsection (4) above, an application for an order under section 2 of this Act is treated as if it had been withdrawn, then the term which may be specified as the term for which the payments are to be made may begin with the date of the making of the application for the order under section 2 or any later date.
(9) Where the respondent is not present or represented by counsel or solicitor at the hearing of an application for an order under subsection (1) above, the court shall not make an order under this section unless there is produced to the court such evidence as may be prescribed by rules of—

(a) the consent of the respondent to the making of the order,

(b) the financial resources of the respondent, and

(c) in a case where the financial provision specified in the application includes or consists of provision in respect of a child of the family to be made by the applicant to the respondent for the benefit of the child or to the child, the financial resources of the child.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these first four amendments look fairly formidable but I hope to make them reasonably simple because they all relate to an undertaking which I originally gave to the noble Baroness, Lady David, in Committee, and I had to apologise to her on Report for not having them ready at that time. They relate to the proposed amendment to the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.
Amendment No. 2: Clause 42, page 32, line 16, at beginning insert ("With the exception of section (Orders for payments which have been agreed by the parties)").
Amendment No. 3: Page 32, line 19, at end insert ("and that section shall come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor appoints").
Amendment No. 4: Schedule 1, page 36, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert—
(" . In section 1 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 the words "(in this Part of this Act referred to as "the respondent")" shall be omitted.
. In section 7(5) of that Act, for the words "subsection (1)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2)(c)".
. In section 11 of that Act—

(a) in subsection (2), after the words "of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "on an application for an order under section 2 or 7 of this Act,";

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) Where by an order made under section 8(2) of this Act on an application for an order under section 6 of this Act, the right to the actual custody of a child is given to the party to the marriage who has agreed to make the financial provision specified in the application, the court may make one or both of the following orders, that is to say—

(a) an order that the other party to the marriage shall make to that party for the benefit of the child or to the child such periodical payments, and for such term, as may be specified in the order;

(b) an order that the other party to the marriage shall pay to that party for the benefit of the child or to the child such lump sum as may be so specified.";

(c) in subsection (5), after the words "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "(2A)" and for the words "section 3(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 3(3)";

(d) in subsection (6) after the words "subsection (2)(a)" there shall be inserted "(2A)(a)"; and

(e) in subsection (7) after the words "subsection (2)(b)", in both places where they occur, there shall be inserted "(2A)(b)".

. In section 19 of that Act, after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) Where an application is made for an order under section 6 of this Act by the party to the marriage who has agreed to make the financial provision specified in the application—

(a) subsection (1) shall apply as if the reference in paragraph (i) to the respondent were a reference to the applicant and the references to the applicant were references to the respondent; and

(b) subsections (2) and (3) shall apply accordingly."

. In section 20(8) of that Act, after the word "respondent" there shall be inserted the words "or the applicant, as the case may be,".
. In section 29 of that Act, at the end of subsection (2), there shall be added the words "or, in a case where there was made to the magistrates' court an application for an order under section 2 and an application under section 6 and the term of the periodical payments were or might have been ordered to begin on the date of the making of the application for an order under section 2, the date of the making of that application".")
The House will see from the somewhat lengthy amendments which stand in my name the reason which led me to find that the operation was a slightly more complicated drafting one than I had originally contemplated when making my original undertaking. I think I can speak to all of them most conveniently together, because that will explain the structure of the amendments.
The first amendment, which technically I am now moving, gives effect to my undertaking. The point which the noble Baroness made was that these orders under Section 6 of the Act to be amended are now made on the application of the recipient only. The effect of this, which one would think to be much simpler than appears on paper, was simply to enable the payer also to make such an application. It proved to be more complicated than we had thought.
The only two special features of the first amendment to which I ought to draw the attention of the House are, first, that under the new subsection (8) of the amendment we have tried to meet the point of the noble Baroness that where a case starts under Section 2 and develops into a Section 6 application during its course, the court would have power to backdate the resulting agreed order to the date of the making of the original application under Section 2.
Subsection (9), which is also to some extent new, deals with the case where the respondent neither
772
attends the hearing in person nor sends a legal representative to do so on his behalf. In such a case the absent party will have to provide the court with evidence of consent to the making of the order and the financial resources of the respondent and, where applicable, of the children.
Where the respondent is the recipient (that is normally the wife) who might also very well have the care of children, the court will be able to check whether the agreed financial provision specified in the payer's application is reasonable in the light of her means and those of the children. Where the payer is the absent respondent, the amendment makes no changes because the existing section already requires evidence of consent and resources so that the court can check that he has the means to afford the proposed financial provision.
I should like to explain how the following amendments fit in, because I shall then be able to move them together formally. Nos. 2 and 3 make a change in the commencement date. The original provisions provided for automatic commencement three months after Royal Assent. Unfortunately, the effect of the new amendment is that there will have to be changes in the court rules. I therefore have to allow time for the scrutiny of the new rules by the Rule Committee and the parliamentary procedure associated with subordinate legislation. That generally takes a minimum of three months, and we therefore thought it advisable to allow a little more time for the process to be carried out. I think that all the amendments set out in Amendment No. 4, although they are numerous, are consequential upon the first. I beg to move the first of the amendments standing in my name.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having carried out his commitment to put down an amendment of this sort. I had not envisaged that it would take about four pages to do it, and I quite understand why it was not ready for Report. I think the noble and learned Lord knows that I put down the amendment at the instigation of a friend who is a solicitor and who works in the domestic court a great deal. The noble and learned Lord having kindly sent me the amendments in manuscript form, I sent them on to her. She says she is entirely satisfied with what has been done and is glad that the opportunity has been taken to do a tidying-up operation. She says that the new clause will be very much easier to follow than the old one; so I can only express my gratitude for what has been done.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness for her kind words.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:
[Printed above]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it might be in order if I now move the other three amendments en bloc, because I have already explained them. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
In the Title: line 14, after ("in") insert ("the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which follows consequentially. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I was waiting impatiently for the noble and learned Lord to father his Bill to the very end, but no doubt he will give it his benediction, if that is a safe expression to use, in the fullness of time. To claim that this Bill, like the traditional parson's egg, is good in parts may be somewhat imprudent in view of the exchanges that took place between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Episcopal Bench. However, I think it is a true description of the Bill and it is, I fear, in some respects a Bill of lost opportunities. For instance, the provision in regard to the setting up of a family court, which I shall come to briefly in a moment, is an example of what I have said.
On the beneficial side, I will not list them but we note with approval, in particular, the provisions for financial relief after foreign divorce proceedings based on the recommendations of the Law Commission. Those provisions fill a gap in our existing legislation. For my part, during the discussions on the Bill I also approved of the very controversial provision in Clause 1. I hasten to add that there was of course no Whip on the Bill, and there was some difference of opinion on these Benches about that. But the provisions in Clause 1 impose an absolute bar of one year in place of the present discretionary bar of three years before presentation of a petition for divorce by either party.
As the law now stands, that discretionary bar can now be lifted in cases of,
"exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent".
In practice, attempts to use that provision have increased bitterness between the parties, have damaged their children and have reduced the possibility of a reconciliation between them by encouraging the use of the provision to rake up details—sometimes trivial, sometimes best forgotten—of the marriage. The concept of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity, in any event, as was pointed out during the debates, is unsustainable. Depravity is depravity, hardship is hardship and there are no normal standards of either of those conditions. I think that the Law Commission was right about that and it carried the approval of the House.
For most of those likely to be affected by the Bill, its most important part is Part II dealing with financial relief after divorce. On Second Reading, I ventured to stress the inadequacy of the available information about many of the factors which the court should take into account and has, indeed, to take into account. A number of us urged that, at the very least, there should
774
be a monitoring of the operation of the Bill to see how it works out in practice. Some noble Lords took the view that the Bill was brought in prematurely before the necessary information was available. But there emerged during our discussions the fact that the noble and learned Lord acknowledged that more information and knowledge about the financial consequences of divorce were needed.
He was good enough to send me a letter during the course of the proceedings stating that a feasibility study for a large-scale survey of the financial consequences of divorce will be undertaken. He added the interesting additional information that a research officer at principal level has been appointed to his department and that other inquiries are proceeding. This is important and, so far as it goes, reassuring information and we shall await eagerly the outcome of this work, the results of which we hope to see sooner rather than later, although it is obviously a big task.
The House discussed anxiously the issue of how far the conduct of the parties should come into the question of the award of financial provision in divorce proceedings. I do not propose to retraverse that ground now. Many of us felt—and I certainly still feel—that the Bill has not got it right and that as it now stands it could well result in the old mischief which arose, especially in cruelty cases, of digging up past incidents, creating bitterness and destroying the prospect of civilised behavour of the parties towards each other after divorce.
I think that, for the most part, we on this side regret also the retention in the Bill of the words that the court shall, in particular, have regard to any increase in earning
"capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire".
As my noble friend Lady Lockwood pointed out in a notable speech on Report, this has caused much concern to women's organisations and has contributed to their distrust of the Bill, which still persists.
Finally, while welcoming the provisions in the Bill which will increase the degree of transferability between the county court and the High Court, many of us regret that so little has been accomplished to bring into being a family court. We greatly hope that the work which the noble and learned Lord has indicated is to be done on this matter will be speeded up. Other jurisdictions in other countries have found family courts to be of very great value. We must not allow ourselves to be locked in the procedural relics of a hesitant past.
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in one or two similar thoughts. But, first, I should like from these Benches to pay tribute to the good things in the Bill and to the constant concern for detail, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has shown throughout this mini-marathon. I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, mentioned the curate's egg, because I once had to open a new church and, rather than have a large stone to knock on the top and unveil

775
as one often does, the architect—who was a modern architect—had produced something on the floor for me to act upon in some way. I drew it away and there was something like a golden egg with the words, "Maurice, our Bishop. laid me". I was helped by that opening illustration of the noble and learned Lord.
I believe that there are still three unresolved problems in this Bill. The first, the conduct area, has been touched on by the noble and learned Lord. I think that it is unresolved in your Lordships' House because, as I look back to the discussion on Report on 24th January—I shall quote a few columns of Hansard to make it easier for us to refer to them later—from col. 173 to col. 189, the result of our debate and Division on an amendment in that area was Contents, 59 and Not-Contents, 86. That shows that, at least, in that area of conduct—and I use that word as a form of shorthand—we have not yet reached resolution in this House and one hopes that it will be looked at carefully in another place.
The second area on which I believe we are not yet clear has just been mentioned and it stems from the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, which was debated at cols. 190 to 197 of Hansard of the same day. Of course, it was negatived, but I believe that the national women's organisations—and I mean the general and well-founded ones; I am not referring to any smaller pressure groups of any sort—are still distinctly anxious about the likely outcome of this Bill. We hope that our fears will be groundless, but not very much has yet been done to do away with our fears.
I know that many wives are in distress and I am sure that all of your Lordships have had letters, as I have done. Clearly, there is anxiety there. At Committee stage on 5th December—this was dealt with at cols. 965 to 980—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to allay those anxieties, and I should like to pay tribute to that allayment by the noble and learned Lord. He said that we have to be fairly evenly handed between the two parties to a marriage. That is good. In col. 977 he said:
"a wife's earning capacity is impaired, and perhaps destroyed, by the duration of the marriage and by the obligation to look after young children of which she has care and control."
That is clear and compassionate.
The noble and learned Lord has reminded us, in his vivid and occasionally repeated phrase, that this is not a one-man band. He spoke often of the immense work of the Law Commission behind him, so that we might feel that this is not in any sense simply a Lord Chancellor's Bill even though that, in its own right, is of major importance in our country. But, in the words which our children use at home, I feel that it is not a question of its being a one-man band, but that the backing group has not been as vocal as one would have hoped it might have been, if there had been wider support for this Bill throughout your Lordships' House.
It is worth remembering that the Law Commission said that greater weight is to be given to a divorced wife's earning capacity, and that both partners are to be encouraged to become self-sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, made a telling speech in that area, which I have read with a good deal of care. But the Law Commission must, I believe, bear responsibility for the underlying ethos of this Bill in certain parts.
776
Yet, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke, he said, at col. 162 on 24th January 1984:
"My Lords, I desire to support as strongly as I can Amendment No. 2—at any rate, the principle of Amendment No. 2—and my attitude to it has been eloquently and vigorously expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. I can therefore be brief. We are here considering an area of the law where there is a serious weakness, in practice and in principle, in the financial support available to a divorced woman".
I shall not weary your Lordships by reading the next paragraph in col. 163, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said this in the following paragraph:
"This option was considered by the Law Commission when I was its chairman. In retrospect, I am very sad that we did not put it forward. It is a very ingenious provision".
Your Lordships will remember that that ingenious provision is set out at length in col. 163. I have quoted that extract because I very much hope that in another place this second area will be looked at even more closely.
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for not having had time to digest the new amendments. It seems to me that the long amendment may well relate to this matter. Therefore I shall study it with great care to see whether it does in fact relate to it, otherwise it seems as though a certain inflexibility about the financial care provided for the divorced woman has not yet been overcome.
I can deal shortly with the third area; it is one which your Lordships have heard me speak on before. It concerns the continuing anxiety, well known on these Benches and voiced in particular by the Lord Bishops of London and Rochester and myself, about Clause 1, which deals with the substitution of the new Section 3(1) in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Your Lordships will remember that not only the Church but, I believe, many, many people are anxious about the health of marriage today and view this provision with great disquiet. The new Section 3(1) reads:
"No petition for divorce shall be presented to the court before the expiration of the period of one year from the date of the marriage".
I know that flexibility has been suggested. I remember that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that at one time he leaned a little towards the view which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave us of no limit, but this is what the Bill provides. We can work only on the actual words and decisions of Parliament. The nation finds it very hard, I believe, to differentiate between lawlessness and sinfulness. They are not directly related to this point, but the analogy between lawlessness and sinfulness is a good one. It is another way of saying that if, with the full weight of Parliament, it is agreed that something can be done, it is very hard for straightforward, ordinary people not to believe that it should be done. For that reason, I believe that the public image of marriage—not only Christian marriage but marriage as an institution in our land—is likely to be affected adversely by the Bill.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones pointed out, the Bill effects certain improvements in the way of jurisdiction and practice, and I welcome them. It has also, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, introduced one substantive improvement; namely, that in the financial provision the court shall pay first

777
consideration in future to the welfare of the children of the marriage of divorced parents. That seems to me to be a very real improvement. As for the rest, I can only say that I fully understand the apprehensions of the women's organisations. It seems to me that the Bill prejudices the position of divorced wives. Both my noble and learned friend and the right reverend Prelate have emphasised that the married women's organisations are worried. I respectfully submit that they have every reason to be worried.
On the face of it, the Bill effects no more than a marginal alteration in procedure and in the financial and property consequences of divorce. In fact, it does far more than that. It sweeps away the only safeguard that was inserted in what is now the 1973 legislation against the hardships and injustices that were inherent in the situation which was created in 1969. On the other hand, a number of matters of general consensus have emerged in your Lordships' debates: first, the necessity for much more knowledge and research. I share the satisfaction that, although there is nothing in the Bill about it, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was distinctly helpful and forthcoming.
Secondly, it is, I believe, now a matter of general agreement that a wife suffers economically by the very fact of marriage. That point was made in both of the speeches which preceded mine. It was notably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at Report stage. It was also made by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones at Committee stage. It is no argument against marriage. It does not necessarily involve injustice, provided that one condition is satisfied, as I believe it has been in your Lordships' minds; namely, the understanding that marriage involves a functional division of labour between husband and wife. In general, the husband is enabled to be the breadwinner because the wife devotes herself to her functional side as homekeeper. It follows (this has also been recognised) that, owing to this division of labour, the wife is entitled in justice—justice which ought to be buttressed by the law—to share in the fruits and emoluments of the labour. If she is denied that entitlement, it is an act of injustice. Moreover, anything which strikes against the position of a wife in marriage strikes against the institution of marriage itself and the institution of the family which is constituted by marriage.
It was next recognised that increasingly part of the emoluments of labour is postponed, to be paid in the form of a pension, specifically a widow's pension. It follows, if your Lordships have accepted what I have said so far, that anything which denies a wife her right to share in a pension or to enjoy a widow's pension is an act of injustice. We owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, to my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that that point is now firmly in the public gaze. Again, I welcome what was said about that matter by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
The next matter which I believe has general recognition is that the slogan "a clean break"—one of the many slogans which bedevil the development of matrimonial law—is virtually meaningless. As my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said, one cannot have a clean break if there are children. He added that children cannot divorce their parents. Also,
778
there cannot be a clean break, on the submissions that I have made to your Lordships, if there is a pension possibility. I trust that as this Bill is further deliberated upon, any idea of "a clean break"—except in a very small minority of cases—will not be taken as governing any matrimonial situation.
On my next point, I believe there is some division of view in your Lordships' House, but I should like to declare unequivocally that one cannot equitably adjudicate upon financial provisions for wives unless one takes conduct into account. It was at one time said, in many of the slogans, that there is no black and white in these matters. In the sense that saints and devils in human form are very rare, that slogan is true—but the fact that there is no black and white does not mean that there is no such thing as charcoal or off-white.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, went so far as to say, "In 90 per cent. of cases it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, if one knows the whole story". Of course, such easy cynicism means that one can shrug off any question of doing justice to a wife. I should like to quote one sentence only from a book written in 1971 by the most experienced matrimonial solicitor in London at the time, David Morris, which contained a foreword by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. David Morris wrote this:
"I agree that there are often faults on both sides but I believe that in many cases, if all the facts were known, most people would say that far more of the fault was on one side than the other".
My noble and learned friend added:
"That, too, has been my experience".
If I may so presume, may I add that it has been my own experience, too.
In my respectful submission, this Bill has the balance just about as right as it can be. The amendment which was pressed against it would have been deleterious.
The financial and property consequences of divorce cannot be considered except against the background of substantive law. The substantive law today dates from 1969. I will not go through all its provisions; but my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack opposed it strongly—and rightly—because it had an inbuilt injustice. So, too, was it opposed by Lady Summerskill, whose absence we regret so much on these occasions. She saw quite clearly the potentiality of injury to the interest of married women. There are many other aspects of that legislation which have a potential of injustice, and therefore it is incumbent upon us to be very careful to see that those injustices do not spill over into the property provisions.
The Law Commission saw the danger quite clearly. They wanted to work out the fundamental considerations of property between men and women. They did that. They produced a report, Family Property—A New Approach, which has been virtually disregarded. That was when my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman was chairman. The commission produced a second report which effected some marginal improvement in the law of inheritance. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, as Lord Chancellor, implemented that. But then came the

779
important third report, which argued the case closely. By that time, the Law Commission had a different chairman—the late Mr. Justice Cooke—and they worked on and implemented the theme which has been set out so clearly in the general report. They proposed three Bills.
The first Bill they proposed was of marginal significance. It improved the rights of occupation of wives in the matrimonial home. That has been implemented. The two other Bills, on the co-ownership of the matrimonial home and the co-ownership of its contents, have not been implemented. What has happened is that this Bill, as a result I think of the pressure group, has picked out those plums of the Law Commissioners' recommendations which are favourable to husbands and has disregarded those which are favourable to wives.
While the Law Commission was working out the fundamentals, it proposed the provision in the principal Act with which your Lordships are instantly concerned; namely, that the settlement after divorce—financial and property—should so far as possible and so far as is equitable put the parties back in the position they would have enjoyed if the marriage had subsisted. As far as it went, that was a considerable protection to married women. But it was adverse to the wives of second marriages and the divorced husbands who wanted to contract such marriages. There was immediately an enormous pressure group which grew, and which I am bound to say I think has seen its fruit in this Bill.
At Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, quoted an article in the Spectator, and, of course, that was ridiculously hyperbolic. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the so-called Campaign for Justice in Divorce has virtually achieved all its objectives in this Bill. The title of the campaign itself was brilliant. They went on to coin the phrase "alimony drones", with which, thankfully, your Lordships have not been afflicted and which I hope has been disposed of by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. But what a way for a man to talk about a woman to whom he made vows of loyalty and with whom he promised to share all his worldly goods! They went on further to talk about "a bread ticket for life"—again a most ugly and vicious slogan, particularly when one reflects that many of the men who were taking part in that campaign were no doubt cashing luncheon vouchers.
I was going to say something about family courts, but the time is getting on and my noble and learned friend has shown himself favourable to the concept. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, speaks with particular authority on the matter. I think he was probably a principal hand in the Finer Report, which is the locus classicus in favour of family courts. Opinion is now coming round in favour of family courts, particularly as the most effective vehicle of conciliation, as to which we have nothing effective in the legislation now.
May I conclude by quoting once more from David Morris's book? It is almost the last word:
"I cannot help thinking that the champions of women's rights have been asleep during the last few years and will wake up to find that the male has won the last battle in the 100 years war."
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to prolong this debate by more than a few minutes, because I feel this would not be popular, but I should like to take advantage of the opportunity, before this Bill moves on, to make one or two points. First, there can be no doubt that those of us who took part in all stages of this Bill can only be grateful for the concern and, indeed, the passion that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put into it. We have felt very relieved at the general welcome given to so much of it by the noble and learned Lords who have taken part in the debates.
From another aspect, I am bound to say that I believe I am not alone in feeling perhaps a little sad at the way in which many views put forward by noble Lords, genuinely and sincerely felt by them, have been rejected in (if I may say so without getting myself into trouble) a rather summary way by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. After all, I feel very strongly that, without there being at any time any party political points reflected in this debate, we have tried to show our concern for all of the ever-increasing number of Britain's families who, through divorce, are undergoing what must be one of the greatest crises in life, second only to bereavement. Those of us without the advantage of legal experience have listened to groups and associations concerned with marital break-up in order to help us to come to some informed decisions. Surely the members of those groups have offered this help and advice seriously and conscientiously, and only with a view to helping to find some just and equitable solution to this social dilemma.
Lastly, may I stress, from the point of view of the Bill itself, that there must be disappointment, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has said, at the opportunities which have been missed. For example, can there be any doubt of the need for procedures to minimise bitterness in these rising numbers of family breakdowns? Reforming the law without the introduction of family courts can only keep couples locked in adversarial situations while failing to protect their children. It seems a tragedy that the initial proposals which have already been prepared should not now be implemented as the first stage of the ideal structure. The omission of conciliation has been touched on by many of your Lordships, and I will not say more than that. But there is valuable evidence to show the importance of schemes to allow parents to resolve various conflicts themselves with skilled help, rather than fighting over children in court, as is the case at present.
Furthermore, the Bill does not tackle the chief financial problem, which is the lack of adequate financial support for one-parent families, and it does nothing to ensure that private maintenance obligations are met and enforced, nor to consider private and public maintenance together. The conduct clause has been discussed at very great length, but surely there is agreement that it will increase the likelihood of hard-fought disputes over the rights and wrongs of past behaviour rather than help families to look forward to something more constructive.
I hope my contribution has not sounded rather sour. The comments I have made are genuinely felt. I hope

781
they will be taken seriously and considered in the other place.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I wish briefly to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his willingness to promote research into an area of ignorance which caused the Law Commission considerable anxiety. It may well be that, in a few years, research in England will catch up with that being done in Scotland. There appears to be a notable discrimination between the two countries, in that the lack of resources which has bedevilled this work in England does not seem to have affected the Scots, who are able to produce a steady stream of admirable research on this subject.
I am concerned to draw attention to one point which could not have been raised during the earlier debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I put down an amendment urging the importance of improving the annual statistics of maintenance, and we mentioned the family proceedings of the summary courts. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then drew our attention to a statistical bulletin published by the Home Office on 19th January. In many ways this is an extraordinary document, because the statistics which it contains about the matrimonial jurisdiction of the summary courts were first published, I believe, in 1894. They were inadequate and uninformative then, and they so remained until 18th January this year.
This bulletin presents a battery of statistics about the summary courts: the number of maintenance orders, the number of suspended committal orders, the number of variation orders and their results, and the number of applications under different clauses. Indeed, we have a new wealth of information, and this will introduce another anomaly into our knowledge about maintenance. It bears directly upon Part II of the Bill, because we now have extensive knowledge of the financial results of summary jurisdication but we shall have no knowledge at all, at least for another two-and-a-half years, of the financial results of the jurisdiction of the superior courts. That anomaly can be cured only by an improvement in annual statistics. It cannot be remedied, other than in the very short run, by research of the sort which is currently proposed. Therefore, I appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to secure an improvement in the annual statistics.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his patience and receptiveness during the whole of the process of this Bill, right from the time of his anger during Second Reading to the modified rapture that he offered us on Report. I should also like to add my voice to those who have expressed concern that this Bill might at least increase and strengthen the use of matrimonial conduct in divorce cases, particularly in those which concern the allocation of the care and control of children. I know that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has chided me for neglecting the use of conduct under present law. All I ask him to do is to ensure that there is no strengthening of the use of that conduct, particularly when the future of children is at stake.
782
With regard to the comments of the right reverend Prelate, I do not share his doubts about the assurance that we were given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When we introduced the whole concept of the right of a wife to a share in her husband's pension, or lump sum, even after divorce, it was the noble and learned Lord who gave us sympathy and assurance. It was of great comfort to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who supported me on this issue, that the entire House agreed with the principle that a wife who has participated in the accumulation of her husband's entitlement to pension or lump sum has a right to share it, whenever it may be paid. We were further encouraged by the reception and response which that received from the noble and learned Lord. I should like briefly to quote his assurance. In col. 169 of Hansard for 24th January he said:
"I mentioned that my department was going to issue a consultation paper on the question of the allocation of pension rights on divorce".
We shall look forward to seeing this paper and to comparing it with the proposition that we put forward. In the following column, the noble and learned Lord gave this specific assurance:
"I certainly promise the noble Lord that I will draw the attention of the Government machine to what has been said and express my sympathy with that. There is no doubt that we must deal with this problem and this is wholly in accord with the report of the Law Commission, which we are putting into effect".—[Official Report, 24/1/84; cols. 169–170.]
I feel much more confident than apparently the right reverend Prelate did that the noble and learned Lord will feed this into the Government machine and that we shall see some action taken, either through the Law Commission or when the Bill appears in another place. I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance and look forward to seeing it put into effect.
4.48 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords. I will be as brief as I can because I think we have discussed the Bill exhaustively and I know the House is waiting for a Statement. However, I must answer some of the points which have been made.
I did say earlier, I think in the last Parliament, that one difference in being Lord Chancellor in 1979 and being Lord Chancellor in 1970 was the vast number of letters one was getting direct from the public or through Members of Parliament about what were called the injustices of our divorce laws. These letters come in almost equal quantities from wives, from second wives and from husbands. All expressed the experience of their own cases. None was prepared to admit that there was any other case but their own. All had irrefutable cases but none was prepared to admit the strength of the case on the other side.
I should have been absolutely shamefully neglectful of my office as Lord Chancellor if I had not taken immediate action to refer this matter to the Law Commission. I brought no pressure to bear upon it to come to any conclusion at all, and this Bill contains nothing, so far as I know, which the Law Commission did not in its wisdom, or otherwise, recommend in its reports Nos. 112, 116 and 117. The idea that I was favouring one side or the other must be dismissed from

783
everyone's mind, although I now confess that on the whole I am on the side of first wives if their marriages have been of long duration and if there have been children, for reasons we have now explored to the utmost. I have sought to protect their interests in every possible way and I shall continue to do so.
I should also like to ask the right reverend Prelate to do me the honour of reading my Second Reading speech—I think he was not present on Second Reading—and he will see that I have at least as great a respect for the institution of marriage and the family as any Bishop on the Bench of Bishops. The fact is that the situation had got wholly beyond control and I had to do something about it. What I did was to refer the matter to the Law Commission and to try to carry out its proposals.
As was said by a very distinguished predecessor of both myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—Lord Campbell, the 19th century Lord Chancellor—law reform is either by consent or not at all. I have had to push this Bill through rather harder than I should have liked. I have had as much difficulty from my friends as I have from those who were critical of the Bill, because they wanted to put into the Bill many things which would have killed it, either because I should not have obtained any Government time for it or because it would have required further work to be done. For example, I have always been a friend of the family court. I wanted to put more into the Bill about moving towards family courts by the amalgamation of the county courts and the High Court jurisdiction, but I could not do that, as matters turned out, and still less could I go the whole way to a full family court, which would have meant rejigging the whole of the summary jurisdiction in the magistrates' courts. I should have lost the Bill had I done that. Similarly with conciliation: that can go on without a word in any legislation anywhere. I did not put anything in the Bill about that because I intend to carry it on.
I also fully accept that we have to do something about occupational pensions. I can only repeat what I said before. It is my intention to do my best to see that something is done. But a lot more work needs to be done on that and it would not have been appropriate to this Bill.
On the subject of information, I accept of course that we want to know a great deal more than we do; but the Law Commission expressly reported that the present reforms should not be delayed because of the lack of information—although the more information that we can get the better. The amount of information that will become available, since we are running at the rate of about 170,000 petitions a year, will increase with time.
I am quite sure that I am right about conduct. The present situation in the Bill that conduct should not be regarded, except where conscience makes it inequitable to disregard it, is I am quite sure a reflection of the present case law up to the point to which it has gone. Anybody who has the smallest fear that the influence of conduct will be increased by what is in the Bill really should study the present case law. Wachtel is still the law, and for reasons which I described on Report, at much greater length than I shall now do, what is in issue is conduct in so far as it
784
is relevant to maintenance. That may be conduct during the marriage or it may be conduct after the marriage; it can be conduct of either party to it, and the conduct of the two parties varies enormously.
Equally it is quite clear that under the existing law an increase of earning capacity of either party ought not to be disregarded. There are husbands who deliberately go on the dole rather than pay their former wife anything; there are wives who, being well off because of the circumstances in which they are living, continue to harry their former husbands although they have sometimes an illicit partner.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich took the name of his right reverend friend—if that is the right phrase—the Bishop of London in vain. The Bishop of London both spoke and voted for Lord Denning in his amendment and not for the Bill, as the right reverend Prelate led us to believe that the right reverend Prelate was putting forward. There was another member of the Episcopal Bench who took the same view, although he did not make a speech.
I put this Bill to the House. It was no light task and it was no very pleasant task. I know the amount of bitterness and the amount of hardship that is involved in divorce. If you look at last week's Listener you will see a most misleading picture on the cover. There is a cake of enormous size being carved up by a judge, who, as usual when cartoonists depict judges, was wearing a full-bottomed wig instead of the wig that he normally wears on the bench. The point is that the cake was enormous. The shares could easily have given more than a meal to both the parties. This is just about the opposite of the situation with which we have to deal. We have to deal with a situation in which we allow divorce at the rate of 170,000 petitions a year and in which in the nature of the economic facts of life one breadwinner cannot afford to keep two families. The cake is almost always too small, except in a relatively small proportion of cases.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, at an earlier stage of the Bill gave us a very startling statistic. It was even more startling than I believed the situation to be. But it reflects the fact that the problem we have to face is that divorce is a licence to remarry. Many parties do. I have come to the conclusion—and I say this to the right reverend Prelate—that, despite my belief that marriage ought to be for life, if you have divorce, I think it is better that both parties remarry, and second marriages are often more successful than first ones. That is my conviction and it is based on the experience of my own life and others.
On the other hand, once you accept that divorce is a licence to remarry and that people take advantage of that licence, you have the situation with which this Bill is an honest attempt to deal. I do not claim that it is perfection, because on the whole it is not possible that divorce causes anything other than unhappiness to the children and to the parties who have suffered the trauma of divorce. That trauma is only partly assuaged by a second marriage. This I know from a long professional and a considerable personal experience.
But I must say at the end of it that any belief that is held that I have tried to be other than entirely even-handed between the unhappy partners to this traumatic experience is entirely without foundation.

785
What I would say is that much of the anxiety that has been caused—and I accept that it is genuine anxiety—is caused by the existence of these pressure groups which overstate their own case and cause anxiety among the opposite camp. We are trying to do our best. The best thing that I could do was to submit the matter to the Law Commission. I have done what the Law Commission recommended—neither more, nor, I think, less. I believe that was the right principle for me to work upon. I believe it is also the principle which the whole of Parliament should follow, recognising that we have not done with this question. There are pension problems and there are conciliation problems to be dealt with. There is the question of the jurisdiction of the court. I have not created a new heaven and a new earth. All I have said is that I may be alpha but I certainly am not omega. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Freeports: Sites
4.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement.
"Last year in the course of his Budget Statement my right honourable and learned friend announced that, in accordance with the recommendations of a working party chaired by the former honourable Member for Knutsford, the Government had decided to designate a limited number of freeports on an experimental basis.
"Subsequently on 27th July I informed the House of the terms on which freeport applications would be assessed and invited applications to be submitted by 31st October. Forty-five applications were received by that date. On 3rd November I listed the names in a Written Answer and I undertook to announce the successful candidates early in the New Year.
"Since November all 45 applications have been examined, first by officials and then by Ministers. As it was necessary to limit the numbers, it was not possible to satisfy all of the applicants. My right honourable friend and I, together with ministerial colleagues, have made our choice with great care and no little difficulty; and the House will understand that it would not be right—or proper, for reasons of commercial confidentiality—for me to attempt to explain why a particular application was successful and why another failed. Our selection achieves a mix of airports and seaports with a good geographical dispersion. This will enable the freeports concept to be properly tested, and, as we have said, each of the initial freeports will be closely monitored and formally reviewed after five years.
"We have chosen six sites. They are: Belfast (Northern Ireland Airports Limited); Birmingham (West Midlands Freeport Limited); Cardiff (Pearce (Wales) Consortium); Liverpool (Mersey Docks and
786
Harbour Company); Prestwick (Kyle and Carrick District Council and British Airports Authority); and Southampton (Associated British Ports (Holdings) PLC).
"The necessary enabling legislation will be included in the Finance Bill which my right honourable friend will introduce next month. Discussions will begin immediately with the successful applicants with a view to designating and bringing the sites into operation as quickly as possible. In some cases it may be necessary for the plans submitted to be modified to some extent for operational reasons".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. The announcement follows the initiative taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as one would expect, it primarily involves customs and other tariff matters with which the Treasury is normally concerned. The measure would seem to be essentially fiscal in origin, though obviously it has overtones involving other departments.
I should like to ask the noble Lord to confirm that the designation of a freeport does not involve any particular tariff advantage. I wonder whether such advantages that flow from having a freeport are of a non-tariff nature; that is to say, that there is a certain simplification of the various customs procedures, that there are certain advantages in a concentration of warehouse and other facilities, and that for importers and re-exporters on a large scale there may be certain cash-flow advantages in being able to attract large quantities of goods without having to pay out the duty on them. Those are the non-tariff advantages.
Of course one has no objection to the establishment of freeports of this kind. But I put it to the noble Lord that it might perhaps have been better for the Government themselves had they formulated a coherent policy for the ports of the United Kingdom as a whole and then related the freeport proposals to an organised, planned conception of what should be done with the ports of this country, many of which at this time are operating at under capacity.
Is the noble Lord aware that such attraction of activity as may take place at the freeports designated will probably be at the expense of other places in the country which are already suffering quite severely in terms of having considerable over-capacity? Will the noble Lord agree—and I do not in any way wish to be derisory—that to some extent the term "freeport" itself has a cosmetic quality, in that, no matter how much it may, one hopes, attract people to use the port, it does not really convey the true content of the operation as a whole?
Obviously we on this side of the House are not in a position at the moment to comment on the geographical selection or on the firms whose applications have been successful. We would assume that those matters have gone through the normal process, and we would have no particular wish to question them. But we shall keep a very careful eye on the whole project, and we trust that via parliamentary Questions and Answers

787
and other means we shall soon have more information based on experience as to exactly how the freeports are going to work.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I should like, for the second day running, I am afraid, to extend a full welcome to Government action—in this case in bringing in these proposals—and at the same time I wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. In case my welcoming Government proposals on two days running is embarrassing to the noble Lord, perhaps I should add that it is not only twice in two days, but also twice in 14 years. So that will put the matter in perspective.
I welcome the arrangement because, as I understand it, I see it as an attempt by the Government to provide circumstances in which exports from this country will be encouraged, and I regard that as a proper duty of government. As to the details, it will be for another place to make representations on a constituency basis with regard to individual ports. Nevertheless, I have certain questions which I should be grateful if the Minister would answer, particularly since the legislation in which the proposals will be framed will not normally come to this House for detailed discussion.
In the first place, can the Minister be a little more expansive on the reasons which led the Government to choose six sites only? It seems to me a very small number. One can understand the reason for limiting numbers somewhat, but six seems to me especially small, and, in that connection, would it be possible for the Government to reconsider the situation earlier than the period of five years after which they have said the matter will be reviewed? Surely it ought to be possible after, say, three years for the Government to form a view as to whether the freeports are working out well, and therefore to consider whether some further applicants ought not then to be admitted.
Secondly, I turn to the question of the modification of plans to which the Statement refers, saying,
"In some cases it may be necessary for the plans submitted to be modified".
Having regard to the need for the operation to be successful, will applicants be very fully consulted on the modification of the plans?
Finally, I wish to refer to the experimental basis which has been adopted, and which surely must appeal to our common sense as the right approach. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to have an experimental basis and at the same time avoid inhibiting those applicants who might wish to apply but who would regard five years as too short a period to cover the capital expenditure in which they would be involved. Therefore, in considering these matters, will the Government have regard to what might have to happen if the freeport arrangement were removed at the end of five years, to the embarrassment of those applicants who had incurred considerable expenditure in order to meet what is, after all, something that is in the best interests of the country?
5.8 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Diamond, for their
788
comments. First, perhaps I may apologise to both noble Lords for a slight error which appeared in references in part of the Statement—though not a part which I read out—to certain columns in Hansard. I think I am right in saying that at the start of the second paragraph there should have been a reference to cols. 451 and 452, and if that confused the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I am of course sorry.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked first about tariff benefits. I can tell him that freeports would offer no additional tariff benefits, and I hope that he is reassured by that. The benefits arise from the simplification of procedure and economies of scale associated with it. The EC rules do not allow imported goods to be processed free of duty specifically for the home market, which includes all member states. If diversion of that kind occurred, duty would be charged at the rate applicable to the components rather than to the finished article.
The noble Lord asked about the term "freeport" and wondered whether it represented a true picture of the ports. Of course I understand the point that the noble Lord was making, but I am sure he will appreciate that the term "freeport" perhaps seems appropriate to the reduction of bureaucracy which is certainly associated with the concept.
As to the question of ports as a whole, of course the Government have had to consider the matter of the ports generally in their assessment of those that would be fitted to meet the experiment, which is what this is. Because it is an experiment, it is not always possible to select those which might fit a wider pattern; which is what the noble Lord suggested.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for his welcome—indeed, his second welcome in a week to a piece of good news from the Government. The noble Lord asked a variety of questions which I shall try to answer and he particularly asked why there were not more than six. We recognised, I think rightly, that the fewer the number of sites, the better the chance of a successful experiment quite simply because too many sites would compete with one another. Again, I take the noble Lord back to the point that I made just now to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—namely, that this is an experiment.
As regards the time for the experiment and whether or not it is right to have a shorter period than five years or a longer one—which I think the noble Lord suggested towards the end of his comments—we think that five years is about right. It might be arguable either way, but five years has been chosen because it will allow time to assess how the freeports are doing in comparison with the forecasts upon which the designation has been based. Freeports are a new development and it would not be appropriate to give an open-ended commitment, irrespective of actual performance, to provide the official resources required to control the zones. The main purpose of the review will be to identify any freeports which clearly have no prospect of viability. Zones which are successful, or potentially so, have nothing to fear.
The noble Lord also asked about consultation as regards any variation of application. I can tell the noble Lord that, yes, we would expect that detailed discussions with the operators may result, to a greater

789
or lesser degree, in any modifications to the initial proposals. I hope that I have answered most of the points that the two noble Lords have raised. If I have failed to answer them, I shall write to the noble Lords.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, perhaps I did not make one question sufficiently clear to the noble Lord and that question concerns the period. It is not simply a question of whether five years is too long or too short. Given that we have a period of five years and that the number of applications granted is six out of a much greater number—I believe that there were about 40—would it not be possible for the Government to make an interim review of the situation prior to the expiry of five years with a view to considering whether further applicants might not then be reconsidered?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I do not think that that will be possible, but I am sure that my honourable friend in another place will note the noble Lord's views. Only a small number could be chosen and so inevitably many applicants have had to be disappointed. Some of them were good and some of them were not so good. But we are confident that we have chosen those experimental sites which give a reasonable mix to allow the freeport concept to be properly tested.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I welcome the Statement in general, but does my noble friend agree that not one of these freeports is on the east coast, and that in particular not one is on the north-east coast where there is much unemployment? Can my noble friend say whether that is because there were no applications? Does it not counter the Minister's desire to have reasonably distributed freeports throughout the country? Can the opportunity be given in the reasonably near future to have this point about the east coast considered?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think I made it clear when I repeated the Statement that there are reasons which really preclude my going into why any particular port was not successful in its application. I understand that there were two applications for the north-east. Newcastle Airport and Immingham are the two that would probably be in the area to which my noble friend referred, but I do not think that I can be drawn any further about the reasons why any particular site was or was not chosen. Suffice it to say that my honourable friend when considering all 45 applications took into account a great many factors, and we believe that it was right in the end to choose the six that were in fact chosen.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend a brief question. One recognises the need for freeports in such places as Liverpool and Belfast, which are areas of high unemployment, but have the Government taken into consideration the fact that permission has been granted—and, therefore, a decision has been taken—to provide a freeport in the Isle of Man? Because of the close proximity of these three places, will there not be, perhaps, undue competition?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, consideration was given to this matter. The Isle of Man freeport is being developed under existing freely available customs duty relief arrangements. There is an agreement between the Isle of Man authorities and the United Kingdom which requires a common approach to customs procedures, and so the designation as such of a freeport will follow the introduction of legislation in the Finance Bill.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent he thinks that the six freeports will divert traffic from other ports? Also it seems to me a little strange that, while Birmingham Airport gets this designation, Heathrow—with London as our capital—does not do so.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can only repeat in answer to my noble friend what I said to my noble friend Lord Gisborough: these factors were taken into consideration. It would be wrong of me—and I expressed this when I repeated the Statement—to go into any detail about why either was chosen, or why one was chosen and another was not.
Lord Hale: My Lords, as regards the Isle of Man, I understand—and I am subject to correction—that it comes under the Isle of Man Customs Bill which has, certainly throughout my membership of either House, been renewed every year merely to bring reciprocal duties into force as between the Isle of Man and the rest of the United Kingdom. However, if we are called upon to consider the Isle of Man would it not be equally meritorious to consider the Lancashire coast in that area, which is a centre of industry and a centre of communications? It may be that it was included in the list that was read out, but I did not identify it or recognise it with ease. However, I certainly would have thought that that was a matter for very real consideration and, indeed, it may have to be taken into account when considering the Isle of Man Customs Bill and the reciprocal arrangements.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am aware of course of the noble Lord's interest in the north-west. As I have already explained, I cannot really say any more about the reasons why any particular site was chosen. But this is an experiment and if the experiment is successful then perhaps in due time it may be possible to have a freeport in the north-west. However, the Isle of Man is tied, so far as I understand it, to certain customs procedures in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is why it will not be possible to designate the Isle of Man as such until the United Kingdom has legislated in the Finance Bill. I hope that that clears up the noble Lord's point.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
5.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 15 [Power to give directions]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 14, line 31, at beginning insert (" (1) ")
The noble Lord said: In view of the usual vast number of amendments which appear in my name, noble Lords will perhaps be glad to hear that, consequent upon discussions which we had earlier in the proceedings, I do not intend to move all of them because they are consequential. However, I shall tell your Lordships when we reach them. Amendment No. 92 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 94. Therefore, for the convenience of your Lordships it would probably be best if we take the two together.
Amendment No. 94: Page 14, line 40, at end insert—
(" ( ) This section applies to any licensed service to the extent to which programmes are included otherwise than by the reception and immediate re-transmission of broadcasts made by a broadcasting authority.")
This relates to the fact that the clause gives the Cable Authority very wide powers to give directions in relation to programmes. It is quite inappropriate that this clause should relate to the programmes which are carried under the "must carry" rule, and my amendment is designed to prevent this. If the authority has powers to give directions under this clause, then certain programmes or advertisements might be excluded, and the Cable Authority would be able to intrude into areas which are at present strictly the preserve of the broadcasting authorities. This overlap seems to be entirely unsatisfactory. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has said. The Cable Authority's powers to give directions should not extend to programmes and advertisements included in licensed services by way of the simultaneous relay of the broadcast services. It would clearly be wrong for the authority to have any say over the broadcast services when they are relayed by cable. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the possibility that Clause 15 as drafted might be read as giving the authority some jurisdiction over these services. The wording in his own amendment may not quite do the trick, but if he would agree to withdraw it, I can happily undertake to have an appropriate amendment ready for Report stage. How lucky that we broke at this stage on the last day, so that we could start in this tone this day!
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I am delighted that we have started in this way. With the assurance given by the noble Lord the Minister, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 14, line 31, after ("directions") insert ("in addition to any order issued by the Secretary of State affecting the Independent Broadcasting Authority").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the same clause and with the right of the Cable Authority to direct the licensees whether or not to accept certain types of advertisement. There is nothing new in this. I think that this applies equally to the IBA. For example, the IBA and the programme contractors, who are responsible to the IBA, do not advertise, for instance, the prospectus of a new company advertising for shareholders. That was done—and I think still is—by the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
However, if one looks back a few years one finds that the Independent Broadcasting Authority and its companies which are granted the franchises had quite a lucrative income from cigarette advertising. So far as I know, that advertising of cigarettes was not stopped by the authority at all but by an order from the Secretary of State at the time, or it may have been the Postmaster General.
My amendment is a probing amendment. It seeks to make quite sure that the restrictions placed upon the IBA concerning certain types of advertising, such as that of cigarettes, will apply equally to the Cable Authority. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has mentioned cigarette advertising and, as he pointed out, the advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco is ruled out by the IBA's advertising code. The ban originated with a direction made by the Postmaster General in 1965. The provisions in Clause 11(4) of this Bill mirror very closely those in Section 8(5) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, and the Cable Authority must consult the Home Secretary about types of advertisement and methods of advertising to be excluded from licensed services. The authority must give effect to his directions, either by making appropriate provisions in its advertising code, or if necessary by making directions of its own under Clause 15. I can give the Committee an assurance—which I think is what the noble Lord wants—that the Government have no intention of permitting cigarette advertising on licensed services and will be prepared to use his powers of direction to secure that. If in the future it becomes necessary for further categories of advertising to be precluded or in some way restricted, I can assure the noble Lord that if my right honourable and learned friend were considering making directions to the IBA I have no doubt that we would wish to consider carefully whether to make similar directions to the Cable Authority.
Lord Aylestone: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power to require visual and sound records etc.]:
Lord Glanusk Lord Glanusk moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 14, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
(" . If the Authority has reasonable grounds for believing that a person authorised by a licence to provide a diffusion service has failed to comply with any condition of that licence or any direction given by the Authority, it may direct that person")
The noble Lord said: Clause 16(1)(a) empowers the authority to call for visual and sound records to be kept by the operator on any or all programmes transmitted. But it does not say why or when this order can be called into effect. Such an order will place a very large and expensive burden on the operator, involving video tape-recorders on each and every channel and the heavy administrative task of cataloguing and storing the records.
Therefore, I think that it is only reasonable to specify in the Bill the occasions on which the authority is able to issue such an order, although I clearly recognise the need in some circumstances for such an order. We therefore tabled Amendment No. 95 limiting these occasions to those when the authority has reason to believe that the operator is contravening either his licence or the advertising code. To put it briefly, this means that the operator knows that, if he is a good boy and keeps his nose clean, he will not be required to keep these arduous records. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of his first amendment to this clause and hope that he will bear with me if, in some of my remarks, I allude to the subsequent amendments. His first amendment would mean that the Cable Authority could require a licensee to keep recordings only if it had reasonable grounds to believe that the condition of the licence had been broken. If it had no such grounds, there could be no such requirement.
I entirely understand and sympathise with my noble friend's anxiety to save the licensees from being buried under heaps of expensive tape. In fact, I hope to be able to give him a little help in this, but not I think in this particualar way. There are two reasons why I do not think that this is the best way to do it. The first is that it would open the way unnecessarily to litigation which could frustrate the authority in the swift and effective discharge of its duties, because it would be open to a licensee, whenever he received a direction under this clause, to respond with a claim that the authority either had no grounds to suspect a breach of conditions, or, in the alternative, that those grounds were not reasonable. The time taken to decide that issue could well prejudice the issue itself, as well as taking up a good deal of time and resources.
However, if that objection to the amendment were met or proved ill-founded, I am afraid it offers another drawback. It is quite simply this. The Cable Authority is to be the watchdog for the standards in the service, and we certainly do not expect it to have the capacity to monitor every channel or every system for every hour of every day and night. What it will do is to respond to complaints, and complaints can only be tested and either upheld or rejected in the light of a record of what is complained of.
Under my noble friend's amendment, if someone claimed that there had been an outrageous incident of indecency or biased news reporting on one of the very many channels, the only recourse the authority would have would be to say that the complaint gave it reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of the terms of the licence, and thenceforth the alleged offender must keep a record of what he sends out so that then the authority could keep an eye on it.
794
The Cable Authority is meant to be a watchdog, and this amendment would mean that it was a watchdog that was always asleep for the first burglary but growling loudly for the second. Even if my noble friend convinces me that that objection is misconceived, I have a more general one on similar lines. In order both to inform itself of what is going on on cable and to make it clear to the licensees that it is invigilating their observance of licence conditions, the authority ought, in our view, to have access as a matter of course to a record of any programme which has gone out for a reasonable period after it has done so.
My noble friend may not object, I hope, if I anticipate events by adding that that consideration also colours my view of his Amendment 96 wherein he seeks to reduce the shelf life of mandatorily required records from 3 months to 2 weeks. If he wants to address that point now, I am quite happy to sit down.
Lord Glanusk: No, thank you.
Lord Elton: I think this may be helpful. Two weeks does not, we believe, give the authority the scope it may need to choose and collect the material which it wishes to review.
My noble friend made some telling points at Second Reading and they did cause Her Majesty's Government to think very carefully about Clauses 16, 24 and 27. Clauses 24 to 27 contain the provisions about obscenity and incitement to racial hatred. We have considered in particular whether the Bill contains adequate provisions for their enforcement. In that respect we have had also to consider Clauses 31 and 32. These clauses contain provisions modelled on the Theatres Act 1968 relating to the treatment of scripts as evidence, and the power to take copies of scripts and records. We have come to the conclusion that while these provisions are necessary, they are not themselves fully adequate. A programme could be shown and, under the Bill as currently drafted, there would be no guarantee that the record would be available at all.
We intend to produce an amendment which will require licensees to ensure that recordings of programmes transmitted by them are available for inspection and reproduction within 14 days of transmission. I do not doubt that the Cable Authority would have wished to prescribe at least this period for its own purposes and my noble friend need not therefore feel that he has lost anything by the change.
In view of the implications for the enforceability of the provisions of the criminal law, we thought we had to put the matter beyond doubt. That said, I meant what I said in saying that we sympathise with my noble friend's concern for licensees. We realise that keeping recordings imposes a financial burden on cable companies, and we are therefore prepared to reduce the overall maximum period for which the Cable Authority may require licensees to ensure that recordings are available beyond the mandatory 14 days. We propose therefore that the period for which the authority should be able to direct that recordings should be available should be reduced from 3 months to two, and the 14 days would count against the two months' maximum.

795
We are also prepared to frame both requirements—that is the mandatory 14 days' requirement and the maximum two months' requirement—in terms of the licensee ensuring that recordings are available, rather than having in all cases to make the recording themselves. That I think—and I apologise for straying so far, but it does bring all the issues together—meets the gist of Amendment 97.
The licence condition will still have to apply to the licensee because it could not, as Amendment No. 97 would seem to suggest, be directed against a third party, but the licensee can meet it by satisfying himself that the recording is available rather than necessarily having made it himself. That obviously makes sense when a service is being distributed from a central point to a number of different operators.
Finally, we also agree that there is no need to oblige cable companies to provide recordings of relayed broadcast programmes, and we therefore propose to introduce an exemption from the requirements of Clause 16 for the simultaneous retransmission of broadcast programmes. I realise that we shall not meet all that my noble friend wants, but I hope on reflection he will consider we have gone quite a long way to help him.
Lord Mottistone: I think that my noble friend on the Front Bench has gone a long way towards meeting these amendments in which I am supporting my noble friend, particularly if he is going to produce these sorts of amendments himself at the next stage. It is still going to mean quite a hefty burden, I think, and I would have thought—I do not know what my noble friend thinks about this—that we will want to consider very carefully what my noble friend the Minister has to produce for the next stage. I wonder if he could be early with his amendment before the Report stage so that if we need to we can have a bash at that.
Lord Elton: I cannot say how overwhelmed with delight I am to hear my noble friend Lord Mottistone asking me to table amendments early. May I ask all Members of your Lordships' Committee to comply with that admirable advice. I shall certainly do my best.
Earl De La Warr: I think the noble Lord the Minister really means me.
Lord Glanusk: I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. He has gone a long way to meet us, and I think in view of his assurances I am more than willing to withdraw Amendment No. 95.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Winstanley: I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord the Minister to clarify something which arose in part out of the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Glanusk, has not moved. Under Clause 16(3)(a):
"the Authority may direct that person—
to provide the Authority in advance with such scripts and particulars of the programmes (including advertisements) as may be specified in the direction."
796
Subsection 3(a) relates to the circumstances at the beginning of the subsection:
"If the Authority are satisfied that, at any time during the period specified in a notice…the person concerned has failed to comply with any conditions of the licence—"
et cetera. Would I be right in reading into that that the authority do not have the power to require the cable operator to provide scripts in advance unless the cable operator has in some way committed some infringement as under subsection (3)?
Lord Elton: I think I can confidently agree with the noble Lord's interpretation. The intention of Clause 16(1) is to give the authority a power to give a direction to take the recordings if necessary. The intention of subsection (3) is to require the provision of copies of material to them in one form or another to verify, or otherwise, their suspicion that an offence has been committed. There is no question of their building up a free library, as it were, of scripts for the delectation of the members; it is merely in pursuit of their supervisory role that the power is in the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: I am sorry to pursue it, but I am still not entirely clear. There is clearly here a power for the authority to insist on the cable operator providing them in advance with certain scripts of programmes. That only arises if the cable operator has offended in some way and the authority has reason to believe that they have done this, that or the other. I was merely wondering whether in this clause, or in any other clause of the Bill, the Cable Authority has the power to require the cable operators to present scripts of programmes in advance of transmission.
Lord Elton: Clause 16(3) means exactly what it says: "If the authority are satisfied at any time", et cetera, then they can direct as the noble Lord suspects. There has to be a satisfaction that an offence has been committed before they can use the power.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Power of Secretary of State to give directions
. The Secretary of State may give directions to the Authority with respect to the transmission standard to be used in providing diffusion services and, if any such directions are given, the Authority shall direct all such persons as are authorised by a licence to provide a diffusion service to comply with those directions.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name. On Thursday, 19th January, the Government reaffirmed by an Answer from the Home Secretary to Sir Peter Emery that there was a commitment to C-MAC—I am sorry for using these abbreviations which no doubt have become familiar to most Members of your Lordships' Committee—as a standard for DBS and left open the question of the system which would be suitably applicable to cable. I understand—and I hope that I may be wrong—that the specifications of the transmission system for cable in the telecommunication licence will be granted, but provided the cable itself will come under the

797
Telecommunications Bill, and that they will be the people who will actually say what that specification is to be.
My amendment is designed to ensure that that power of specification of what the transmission standard should be should remain in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than be in the hands of Oftel, or the Cable Authority, or anybody else. On occasion those interests may conflict. At a later stage this evening we may come to some rather more forthright language about the way in which those standards may conflict as a result of this Bill not being the result of a single parent family. I shall perhaps have some other things to say about that later.
At the moment the reason why it obviously cannot be satisfactory that C-MAC might be certified for DBS whereas PAL might be specified for cable is that this would mean that the costs to the subscriber of additional equipment for C-MAC would be a great deal more expensive than that of the subscriber to cable, and would put the subscriber to DBS in a disadvantageous position, and thus also the supplier of the signal to the DBS, whoever he might be.
It must make sense for the two to use the same system. Quite apart from anything else, until we get a way in which the conversion does not happen at all at the set but happens entirely at the cable head—until in other words we get fully-interactive cable—it will mean that the person who is deriving his signal from DBS will be having to buy a piece of equipment which will be made in lesser numbers than it would be if the cable provider were also to have to adopt the same standard, and would therefore be more expensive. There will be fewer of them, and the number of subscribers to DBS would thus be fewer. It might turn out that the Government's ambitions to see a DBS service, already postponed by these difficulties for 1987, might not be fulfilled for many years, or not fulfilled in the ways in which they had hoped.
I fear that the Government have been grossly misled as to the extra cost of providing a relatively small number of converters from C-MAC to enable them to operate with ordinary sets, and I fear therefore that the extra cost in the case of DBS signals, unless there is a common standard, will be very large indeed. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Government accept that the question of transmission standards is an important one, particularly in relation to the relay of DBS services over cable, and that is the noble Lord's concern together with the question of compatibility. The technical standards by which programme services are transmitted relate to the running of a cable system and not to the content of a programme service. It would not therefore be appropriate for this power to be included in this Bill because this Bill is not concerned with the running of systems.
However, the noble Lord will find in Clause 7(3) of the Telecommunications Bill the provision which enables the Secretary of State to include conditions in the licences that he issues under Clause 7(1). The Secretary of State will be able to use this power to require a particular transmission standard to be used
798
over all cable systems, and we therefore do not see a case for introducing an equivalent power into the Cable and Broadcasting Bill merely to duplicate it.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I am still not entirely happy that there may not be a conflict of interest. The Telecommunications Bill itself says under Clause 7(1)(a):
"A licence may be granted—(a) by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Director",
and so on. It refers to the director. It is really thinking much more about telecoms—not British Telecom but telecommunications in general—than about the interests of the consumer. This may be denied by the Government, but I have my suspicions on this. We require to look at this again and have further discussions.
Lord Elton: May I add to what I said before? The power to issue telecommunications licences and thus to specify transmission standards resides with the Secretary of State. Oftel can be delegated the power to issue telecommunications licences but there is no question of Oftel being in a position to take a different view from that of the Secretary of State. If therefore I heard overtones of mistrust in what the noble Lord said about Oftel which did not reach as far as the Secretary of State, or his part of the Government, I hope that this will help him to be a little more reassured when he looks at this between now and Report.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I should like to read in Hansard what the noble Lord has said; but it sounds rather more reassuring than I had hoped. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Power to revoke licences]:
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("if—(a)") and insert ("(a) if").
The noble Baroness said: We are taking Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 with Amendment No. 100.
Amendment No. 101: Page 16, line 2, leave out from ("interest") to ("the") in line 4 and insert—
("(b) where the licence authorises the provision of a diffusion service, if").
Amendment No. 102: Page 16, line 5, at end insert ("or
(c) where that person is a body corporate, if any change affecting the nature or characteristics of the body corporate, or any change in the persons having control over or interests in the body corporate, takes place after the granting of the licence which, if it had occurred before the granting of the licence, would have induced the Authority to refrain from granting the licence.").
When we debated this Bill on Second Reading the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield referred to the need for the Cable Authority to be able to prevent the ownership of a licensed company changing hands without their permission. My noble friend Lord Elton expressed on that occasion the Government's belief that Clause 4(6), which enables the authority to include in licences any conditions which they consider

799
requisite or expedient having regard to all their duties under the Bill, was sufficient to enable them to take appropriate steps against undesirable changes in company ownership arrangements after a licence was granted.
It remains true that the authority will have a wide measure of discretion to insert conditions into licences under Clause 4(6) but we have given further consideration to the particular point which the right reverend Prelate made, and we have come to the conclusion that there would in fact be advantage in giving the authority an explicit power in respect of changes in the ownership or characteristics of a company after a licence has been issued. These amendments are designed to achieve that end.
They add to Clause 17 a further set of circumstances in which the authority may revoke a licence, namely where the ownership, control, nature or characteristics of a company change after the licence has been issued with the result that had they occurred before the licence was granted the authority would not have granted it. This means that the authority's power to revoke is not restricted to circumstances in which the change brings the company within one of the formal disqualifications set out in Clause 7 of the Bill. If, for example, the authority granted a licence following the normal consultation procedure and one of the unsuccessful applicants then attempted to buy out the successful company, the authority might well consider that this was undesirable, particularly if there were other unsuccessful applicants who were as good as, or better than, the one planning the take-over.
I should add that the new provision is based on Section 20(5) of the Broadcasting Act 1981. That provision gives the IBA an analogous power in relation to its contracts with ITV and ILR companies if there is an unacceptable change in the company's ownership arrangements after the contract has been awarded. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: The principle of this amendment is one that would be generally accepted by the Committee. The only doubt I have—I say this with great deference—is whether the Government have properly, fully and comprehensively covered the situation they intend to cover, and have done it with a sense of fairness. There may be a change in the shareholding control of a company and, as a result, the authority may wish to use the power contained in the amendment. But there is no provision in the amendment or in any part of the Bill about which I know—I may be wrong about that—which calls upon the company to give notice to the authority of a proposed change and have prior approval for it, in which case the clause would not apply.
Nor is there any provision that I can see in the amendment which would cover the situation which is not covered under the Broadcasting Act. The Broadcasting Act does not have the position where, under the broadcasting authority, whoever that may be, a series of contracts are entered into with members of the public, with operators of programmes, which may be automatically cancelled because the authority suddenly finds that it does not like the colour of the new shareholders. Thus there is no provision in the
800
amendment where there is a procedure for giving notice of change of control, where the authority can then say "Yes" or "No" and the operator concerned can decide, in the event of "No", that there will not be that change or that there will be a change which satisfies the authority.
Secondly, there is the position where the authority can arbitrarily decide that a licence will be revoked, and thus the position is completely uncovered, with all the contracts that would have existed, one imagines, with an operator who has taken it for granted that he is entitled to do so because he has a licence for X years still unexpired.
I should be grateful if these points could be dealt with by the noble Minister. I am sorry I was unable to give notice of my intention to raise these points on the amendment, and if the Minister would like further time within which to consider this then we still have Report stage to come and I should not unfairly press for an answer now; but perhaps the answers can be given.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I from across the Floor support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said? It is plain that these provisions could work a substantial injustice. I would have thought that some form of application procedure should have been built in and that this matter has not been thought out in appropriate depth.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I speak in semi-support of Lord Mishcon, but not for the same reasons. My reasons are that the clause in the 1981 Act is obscure and that that obscurity has been carried over by using virtually the same words in the Bill. Nobody knows in this context what the word "change" means. Does it mean a change in the identity of the shareholders, so that the clause will only bite when A sells his shares to B? Does it mean a change of any kind whatsoever in the shareholders' nature, so that the clause would bite if shareholder A diversifies his business into new fields or there was a change in the identity of the shareholders, for example?
In the past, I understand, the lawyers who have been advising some of the commercial companies have had extreme difficulty in giving advice on just what the provision in the 1981 Act means. This has led to a great deal of uncertainty and to real practical difficulties, as we have seen in some of the changes in the franchises which have taken place at various intervals over the last 18 to 20 years. What we need to do is to consider the provision in the Broadcasting Act 1981 as well as here to see whether there cannot be a more definite statement of what the Government intend the authority to do and, as has been suggested, a fairer system of implementing whatever the authority then decides to do.
Baroness Trumpington: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I am grateful to him for saying that he does not necessarily expect to receive a full answer now. I have also listened with interest to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. I would add two points. The authority's general powers to include conditions in its licences under Clause 4(6) will enable

801
it, if it judges it necessary, to require licensees to notify shareholdings. The second point is that the word "change" has to be read with the rest of the provision. The test is whether the authority would have refrained from granting the licence had the new situation obtained before it was first issued.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Baroness the Minister has been extemely courteous in her answers to the points raised, first by myself and then supported by other noble Lords. May I make my position perfectly clear? I only realised the points that I made while she was explaining the meaning of and reason for the amendment; otherwise, I hope she will realise that I would have been courteous enough to have given her advance notice of the points I intended to make.
The noble Baroness has not (and it was unfair to expect that she might) dealt with the principal points that I endeavoured to raise, and which other noble Lords have raised. That is understandable, and I hope that between now and Report stage, possibly by correspondence, we can clarify the points that have been made and deal with them. We shall then know whether further amendments will have to be put down at Report stage. The issues that have been raised in this discussion are of great importance.
Baroness Trumpington: Everything that has been said in debate here during the discussion on these three amendments will be carefully studied and noted, and we shall see what happens at the next stage.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Baroness finally sits down, she said that the matters will be considered. I have suggested that there should be correspondence among all those involved in this debate.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, indeed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his courtesy throughout this exchange.
Lord Winstanley: The matter is of some importance, and there are others who have not spoken in the debate who would be interested in precisely what takes place in the correspondence between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in trying to resolve this problem. There are others who would like to follow these negotiations, apart from those who have spoken in the debate.
Baroness Trumpington: There are many people who are not in the Chamber at the moment who would be interested. I do not know what I can do about that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 101:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: We have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 102.
[Printed earlier.]
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether, having regard to the nature of the points that have been made, the noble Baroness or the noble Lord would not consider withdrawing this amendment—and I have waited to make this observation until the main item came forward—until the matter has been clarified, bringing it back at Report stage if that was felt to be important. I would not like the Committee, with the obvious gaps in this amendment, to leave it as though it had been passed "on the nod".
Baroness Trumpington: I agree with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the amendment should come back when we have had regard to what has been said today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("or suspend it for such period as the Authority shall think fit").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I should like to include Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 in what I shall say to your Lordships.
Amendment No. 104: Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("or impose such penalty by way of fine as the Authority shall think fit and which shall be recoverable by the Authority as a civil debt").
Amendment No. 105: Page 16, line 9, after ("revoking") insert ("or suspending").
May I also make it perfectly clear from the outset that these are purely probing amendments. I would have thought that anybody who had studied them would realise that by virtue of two matters; certainly anyone schooled in the law would immediately recognise it. First, in talking about alternative penalties—and I will give the reasons for saying that they must be in the Bill—I have not provided for any appeal procedure under the Bill; and those much more learned than I would also realise that when you talk in terms of "recoverable as a civil debt" there has to be a determined amount before you can recover as a civil debt. That has to be as a result of contract, and therefore there may be difficulties in that connection.
The reason for the probing amendment is that all Members of the Committee, I am sure, will be concerned to see that conditions imposed in a licence are observed. That ought to be, especially when we are dealing with an unknown quantity and possibly, in some instances, a dangerous quantity of cable television. We must be sure that the authority has the teeth with which to bite if indeed a cable operator behaves negligently or in a way which is not serious. That must involve the use by the authority of its power under this clause to revoke the licence.
I cannot think of a more serious step for an authority to take than that of revoking a licence. As I mentioned in the previous debate, the revocation of a licence means by way of consequence the breaking of possibly very important contracts—quite apart from the contracts with the public—to give the programmes and the service of the cable operator. So one can take it for granted that this is almost the ultimate sanction to be used by the authority for a very serious breach or perhaps a continuance of a series of serious breaches of conditions of a licence.
What is the sanction given to the authority under this Bill by way of an alternative to the revocation of a licence? It is contained in the previous clause, which we dealt with very briefly. It is that if the authority has reason to think that under Clause 16 there have been breaches of the conditions of the licence, it may impose some regulations in regard to seeing programmes before they go out, and matters of that kind. That, your Lordships may think, would be because of a fairly trivial breach of conditions and not a very serious one. Indeed, your Lordships can immediately imagine that there can be breaches of the conditions of a licence which may have nothing to do with the showing of programmes at all. But there are other serious conditions imposed on the licensee of which he may be in breach, and the gap in this Bill is that there are no other sanctions between the minor one I have just described and the terribly severe penalty of the revocation of the licence.
It may be difficult in a matter of this kind for an authority to impose fines unless it be that Parliament gives that right. If it did, of course, it would have to see to it that the fines were notified presumably on some scale or other in the conditions of the licence. The licensee would have to be warned that fines could be imposed with certain maxima, or perhaps the Bill could provide for certain maxima—we obviously cannot leave the matter of fines at large—and in fairness there would have to be an appeals procedure so that there would be a full right for the licensee to make representations to the authority either against the imposition of the fine or against the severity of the fine imposed. That obviously must be done.
The alternative or the additional penalty I put here is one of suspension, which has not been mentioned in the Bill, where it is revocation or nothing: the licence either goes or it continues; there is no right given to the authority by way of sanction to suspend. I can well imagine that suspension of a licence can be extremely difficult for many people, again in regard to contracts and in regard to members of the public who may suffer and in respect of whom, presumably, alternative arrangements would have to be made during the suspension period.
Here again, obviously, one walks into difficulties; and the difficulties I found when I attempted to draft these amendments do not exclude by any means that there is this very substantial gap. There is this very big lacuna in the Bill, unless, as I said, it be a very minor matter or a very major matter; and the minor matter may not cover the condition that has been breached, because Clause 16 relates purely to programmes. This is something which ought to be looked at, and therefore, with my noble friends, I have introduced this amendment to open the debate on this matter so that perhaps wiser minds than mine (and they would not be too difficult to find) can think in terms of the solution of a problem which has to be faced. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: I am fully aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has spoken of his amendments as probing amendments but, having probed, he has elaborated his arguments in favour of the amendments fairly fully and I shall be interested to hear the reply
804
from the Front Bench opposite. I think it is fair to say that on these Benches we have some misgivings about these amendments.
I say nothing about the question of fines, which is a complicated matter, but the introduction of suspension is rather different. If we look at the Bill as a whole—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entirely right to say that revocation is the final and ultimate penalty; one accepts that—and if one looks at Clauses 16 and 17 together, it is clear that before any revocation takes place the authority has to go through a whole variety of procedures. Representations will have to be made by the cable operator and there will be various discussions, and time is allowed for a whole lot of steps which will have to be taken before the ultimate sanction is finally applied.
I have a faint suspicion that if we give the authority the right of suspension, it almost tempts the authority to use that power of suspension during the period in which negotiations and discussions are taking place. If that happened it would be regrettable, because the way in which the Bill spells out the procedure at the moment would be preferable. At the end of the day, while revocation is the ultimate sanction it might well be that there are companies which prefer to have their contracts revoked rather than to have them suspended, which could be very damaging indeed.
Earl De La Warr: Before I make my contribution, I must do what I have done before and declare my interest in—I think your Lordships know what. I was interested in the thoughts that the noble Lord has had. I agree with him that there seems to be a lacuna here, and one should think about the halfway house solution while trying to sort things out. Nevertheless, let us remember that during a period of suspension no alternative arrangements can be made. You are suspending the public, too; you are suspending all the customers. That, perhaps, would be the trouble. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, there were to be a question of revocation, then presumably there would be no lack of continuity in the programmes, because the operator would go on until another one had been found and appropriate arrangements had been made, so that there was no gap in the programmes, Nevertheless, if we can get over that objection this idea of having a halfway house is interesting, and I hope that the Government will think about it and we can discuss it further.
On the question of fines, I do not think I can go along with the noble Lord. Let us remember that when we are talking about the Cable Authority we are talking about a quango only, and I am not sure—I am no lawyer—that we are on very safe ground here in putting into the hands of a quango the power to fine people. But, as I said, I am grateful for both suggestions, particularly the first.
Lord Ardwick: There seems to be agreement that some kind of remedy, some kind of halfway house—
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord is moving efficiently on to a winding-up speech, perhaps I may intervene before he does so because I do not regard it as such an easy matter as I think he is going to suggest. I may be wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised a very

805
interesting concept. It is one that is already in use with independent television. Provisions for the suspension of the contracts of ITV and ILR companies are included in Section 21 of the Broadcasting Act 1981. But the position there is rather different. It is the IBA who transmit the ITV and ILR programmes, and it is therefore itself in a position to provide to viewers a service during the period of suspension.
If the Cable Authority suspended a licence, it would mean that for the period of suspension the customer, who had entered into a contractual relationship with the cable company, would be deprived of his service. My noble friend Lord De La Warr touched on this point. The Cable Authority cannot possibly provide a service itself; and who else will pick up that function when they know that they will have to drop it again as soon as the suspension expires with the reactivation of the licence? We think it very unlikely that it would find anybody else who was willing to provide a service during a period of suspension. It was that consideration which led us to decide that the otherwise rather attractive sanction, suggested to us rather persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was not acceptable. The victim would be the innocent customer, just as much as the guilty operator.
We realise, of course, that licences can be revoked under Clause 17 and that that could create a somewhat similar breach in service, but revocation is very different from suspension. It is not only an ultimate sanction which the authority may never have to use. If it is used, the practical difficulties about continuity of service will be less acute, because the person who is thinking of taking up a service in place of the man who has now been banished from the cable has no prospect of being driven off the cable-head when the period of banishment expires, because revocation is revocation and that is the end of the matter, so it is a question of having a new licence granted.
Those are the reasons which we have considered and which have persuaded us that, although there may appear to be a lacuna here, it is not one that can be conveniently filled—at least, by the means which the noble Lord has suggested. There are, of course, intermediate sanctions below revocation in the Bill—public warnings and the pre-vetting process—of which I do not suppose I need to remind your Lordships, because we have touched on them already.
If I may turn now to the noble Lord's second amendment—
Lord Mottistone: If my noble friend will allow me, am I to understand that under Clause 17, as unamended, there is still a possibility that the poor unfortunate customer may be deprived of a service for even a period? Is that still so?
Lord Elton: The provisions in Clause 17, in its somewhat embarrassing condition, will, when it is restored to the full symmetry of proper legislation, certainly allow the authority to revoke a licence. It would not have to revoke it overnight. It would revoke it, I imagine, after the intermediate sanctions, such as pre-vetting, and it would be up to the authority to establish how the revocation could be brought to a successful conclusion in such a way as least to harm the customers who have an interest, about which my noble friend is quite properly sensitive.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord sits down, he told your Lordships' Committee that the IBA had the power to suspend in relation to both ITV and independent radio. Will he confirm that the IBA has never, in fact, used that power?
Lord Elton: Yes, indeed I will, and that may be some reassurance to my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: I am afraid that I am rather unhappy with the reply of the noble Lord, the Minister. He sometimes leaves me in that condition—not always—and I am afraid that on this occasion he has done so. He has admitted that there is possibly a gap in the period of time between the revocation and the service to the customers—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—and has answered it by saying that there is not a provision in the Bill but the authority, one imagines, would allow a licensee to continue until other arrangements had been made. There may be such a dreadful, wicked licensee that that would be an impossible position for the authority to face, but there is nothing in the Bill which deals with that intermediate period. But the graver gap—although that is quite a grave one—is the very matter that I tried to point out. There is nothing between the penalties under the Bill, to which the noble Lord briefly referred. It may be irrelevant to the condition which is being breached, and I repeat that it may have nothing to do with programmes.
I have told the Committee that this is a probing amendment. I have humbly said that I have tried very hard to think of penalties that are relevant, and of a fair way of imposing them, and I could not do better than these amendments, of which I am not particularly proud for the reasons which I gave to the Committee. But the situation has been put to the Government in a way which your Lordships may feel should compel them to think very deeply about this matter and to deal with it between Committee and Report stages. I am continually getting the impression that we are dealing with an unknown future and we are not dealing with it in a very tidy, thought-out way.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that an offending cable operator will not be dealing with an unknown future. He will, if the order is revoked, be dealing with bankruptcy. It is therefore to be expected that he will do everything within his power to fulfil the conditions of the licence. I cannot conceive that he will start putting out defamatory or indecent programmes, secure in the knowledge that the authority will wish to keep something going into people's living rooms until somebody else can put something preferable in its place.
Therefore in considering this probing amendment I hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind that what we have provided will, I believe, adequately cover all the circumstances. When I said that there might be a lacuna I was using a term of debate. It seemed to us that there might be a lacuna. We looked at it and decided that what we had provided would meet all foreseen circumstances and any unforeseen circumstances, and that therefore there was nothing to fit the shape of the hole, because in the end we do not think there is a hole there.
Lord Mishcon: I must not prolong the debate. I sense that there is a feeling in the Committee—I hope I am not being impertinent in saying this—that there are gaps here which ought to be looked at. Perhaps therefore we ought to come back to it at the Report stage. I make only one observation. The noble Lord the Minister took it for granted, I believe, in earlier discussions that the authority would be careful to ensure the financial strength of the cable operator. In view of his assurance that this would happen, I was rather distressed to hear that the revocation of a licence would make a company go into liquidation or an individual become bankrupt. It was not the kind of cable operator that I thought we were looking at.
Lord Elton: I resumed my seat rather early, but I have not dealt with fines. I hope that the noble Lord wishes me to say a word to the Committee about fines. My noble friends have not heard it—nor, indeed, has he. The noble Lord's second amendment would enable the authority to impose fines on licensees who breach the terms of their licences or who do not comply with the authority's direction. It does not seem to us to be appropriate to provide for a fine where a licensee falls foul of Clause 7, because the ultimate sanction of revocation is available in these cases. Against that background, the authority will no doubt want and will be able to persuade the licensee to reorganise his affairs so that the ownership arrangements become acceptable. But I suspect that this is not the noble Lord's principal intention, and it is with that intention that we are principally concerned.
When considering his amendments we discussed the sanctions which are available to the authority, short of revocation, in cases where licence conditions are breached or directions ignored. It would be fairer to say that we mentioned them. Revocation is the ultimate sanction and one which we hope the authority will not use. But there are others. Clause 16 enables the authority to issue a public warning to a licensee who transgresses. It may then for a period require the licensee to submit part or all of his output for approval by the authority before it is shown. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Glanusk, who is greatly concerned with the difficulties of maintaining and producing records, will be aware that this is a considerable threat to a licensee who misconducts himself. In addition, the authority can direct that particular programmes shall be excluded from the licensee's service—that is, after they have done the pre-vetting. This is perhaps something we should have referred to in discussing the last amendment—we wrote this on the assumption that they would be taken differently—because it enables the authority, short of suspending the whole service, to direct that certain unacceptable parts should be removed.
It is worth adding that if the authority were to issue a direction to a licensee and find that he did not intend to comply with it, it would be open to the authority to apply to the courts in the normal way for an injunction requiring him to comply with the direction. Failure to observe an injunction issued by the court would place the licensee in contempt and thus liable to finance penalties. There is a gradation which my noble friends were looking at to reassure them that there would not suddenly be a headless chicken in the form of a cable,
808
with no company operating it. Both the report of the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, and the Government, in preparing their White Paper, came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to give the authority a power to impose financial penalties directly, as many of the judgments to be made by the authority, particularly in the area of programmes; are essentially subjective ones.
I think I have said enough to explain why I believe that fines are even less appropriate than the noble Lord's previous proposal.
Lord Mishcon: The problem still remains. The proper procedure for me to adopt is to ask for leave to withdraw the amendment, in the hope that more consideration can be given by the noble Lord the Minister to the problem we have discussed. It will give an opportunity to those noble Lords who are members of the Committee, and to those noble Lords who have not attended the proceedings this evening, to read the Official Report and to come forward with better alternatives than I have been able to provide. Nevertheless, I repeat that this matter has to be covered in one way or another. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: Your Lordships will be aware that because of the great courtesy and co-operation of my noble friend, we have moved and carried into the Bill either one or two of a group of three amendments and have not brought into the Bill the third. The Committee will be aware, therefore, that we are placing before the public, but gladly not on the statute book, a clause which does not make sense. I hope that those of your Lordships who attend the debate will be aware, in looking at the print when it comes to us at Report, of what has happened and will read the reprint of the Bill with it in one hand and the Marshalled List in the other, so that the missing parts of the clause will be in everybody's mind and noble Lords will know what is the intention of the Government at the Report stage. That is all I wish to say, except to thank your Lordships for what I hope I can say is the good progress we are making with the Bill.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Finances of Authority]:
6.27 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 16, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall not be required to pay any excess of revenue under subsection (3) until all advances under section 19(1) have been repaid.")
The noble Lord said: The Cable Authority, having been appointed, from the very first day will be involved in expense—expense of salary, rental and a number of other things—and will have very little revenue with which to meet it. Almost from the beginning there may be a small amount of revenue from those cable licensees who have already been

809
appointed. But the Government in their wisdom, and because it is necessary, have agreed to provide a certain sum of money—£2 million—to the authority to enable it to carry out its job.
Under the provisions of Clause 18, at the end of any financial year in which the Cable Authority has a surplus of revenue over its requirements the Secretary of State may, if he wishes, take the whole of it into the Consolidated Fund. On the other hand, he may take none of it, or only part of it. That is precisely the same position as with the IBA and independent local radio. But the difference here is that the Cable Authority will be functioning on almost no revenue, or on a very small amount of revenue, for a number of years and will be paying interest to the Government during that period on a loan. My amendment seeks to suggest to the generous Secretary of State that at the end of a financial year in which there is an excess of revenue the amount which is taken into the Consolidated Fund should be used to pay off part of the £2 million debt. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Cable Authority will depend for its income on the fees which Clause 4(6)(b) empowers it to charge in respect of the licences that it grants. In its early days its income from that source will not be sufficient to meet its expenses. For that reason, Clause 19 provides for the Home Secretary, whom the noble Lord has kindly described as generous, to make advances to the authority for use as working capital. Under the clause, he has to determine, subject to Treasury approval and after consulting the authority's chairman, the terms and conditions under which the loans are to be repaid. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 18 to which the amendment relates are framed to meet a situation in which the Cable Authority's income in any financial year exceeds its outgoings. The Home Secretary is empowered to direct how the excess should be applied and may require that it should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
The amendment is designed to safeguard the Cable Authority against Government depredations. It seeks to relate these two separate provisions by preventing the Home Secretary from directing the payment of the authority's excess revenues into the Consolidated Fund until such time as it has repaid any loans made to it. In practice such a direction is unlikely to be considered during the period while the authority is still supported by loan finance. We hope that this will not be for long and that the authority will be wholly self-supporting, having paid back any loans, within a short period of being set up.
It is, however, impossible to foresee all eventualities at this stage and it would be undesirable for the Bill to be unnecessarily rigid. We believe it is right for the Home Secretary to retain the discretion to direct all or part of the authority's excess revenues to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Such a direction would not be automatic, and it would be made having regard to all relevant circumstances at the time.
Lord Aylestone: I gathered from the noble Lord's remarks that at the end of the year, when there is an excess of revenue, the Home Secretary is hardly likely to take the whole of that excess or even part of it until
810
such time as the loan has been repaid. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Annual reports]:
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 18, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) a report of complaints received regarding the content and timing of programmes as provided for in sections 9 and 10 above and the action taken")
The noble Lord said: This subject is very familiar to my noble friend on the Front Bench. The amendment has the intention of requiring the new authority to have a similar obligation to that which has eventually been accepted by both the corporation and the IBA. Clause 21 makes reference only to financial matters in the annual report and, curiously enough, to an obligation under Clause 9(1) (d)
"that there are included in the programmes proper proportions of recorded and other matter which originates in the European Economic Community".
That is admirable, but it seems to be rather narrow, in these circumstances, in regard to what should specifically be in the annual report.
Amendment No. 107 will ensure that the annual report should include particulars of complaints on contents and timing, as set out very well in Clauses 9 and 10. There the obligations are very fully set out, but we want to make sure that complaints made to the authority are taken notice of and that the authority shall have an obligation to report what complaints are received and how it deals with them.
Our experience of dealing with this particular problem in regard to complaints made to the corporation and the IBA has shown that there is some reluctance to have such information included in annual reports. The Committee may remember that such an obligation was accepted and an undertaking given by both the corporation and the IBA following the debates we had in 1980. It has been a matter of rather sticking to that undertaking and of reminding both the corporation and the authority that such particulars should be in their annual reports. They have adhered to that undertaking in their last two annual reports, but not without there being public complaint in this House on more than two occasions.
Given all the circumstances, it seems to me that we should ask the new authority to include similar particulars in its reports, and that we should have it on the face of the Bill so that we may avoid the hassle we have experienced with the existing corporation and authority. Then everyone will know what complaints have been made and how they have been dealt with. The amendment is a very simple one, and I feel sure that my noble friend, with his customary sympathy with these matters, will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The Cable Authority's annual report, which the Bill requires to be prepared and submitted to the Home Secretary, will be the means by which the

811
authority will account to Parliament and the public for the way it carries out its work. It is therefore fitting, as noble Lords have recognised, that the authority should provide in the report as full an account as possible of its whole range of activities.
The maintenance of programme standards is at the heart of its responsibilities, and an area of undoubted interest will concern the way in which it meets the obligations imposed by Clauses 9 and 10. One of them relates to the inclusion of proper proportions of EEC material in programmes, and Clause 21(2)(b) specifically requires the authority to include in its annual report an account of the way in which it has discharged that duty. That is the only matter picked out for special mention in the clause, but the duty laid on the authority to prepare a general report of its proceedings is itself in wide terms.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford seeks by this amendment to single out complaints to the authority about programme standards and the action taken to deal with them as another specific matter to be covered in the annual report. He has reminded your Lordships that when the Broadcasting Bill—later, the Broadcasting Act 1980—was before your Lordships' House, the BBC and the IBA gave an undertaking to provide similar information in their annual reports—an undertaking which he will never allow them to forget.
Having listened to my noble friend, I am persuaded of the acceptability in principle of his proposal. It will ensure that the report covers a matter of very natural and proper public interest. When it comes to the actual wording, the formulation proposed by my noble friend will not exactly do as it stands. If he will agree to withdraw his amendment, I can undertake to bring forward at Report stage an amendment having the effect which he intends.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I hope that the format is not laid down in too rigid a form. I do not quarrel with the noble Lord's proposition that there should be the fullest information about complaints and the way in which they are met. When I was filling that post, I did my best to achieve that objective. The trouble is that this is not a matter which can possibly be dealt with on a statistical basis. Numbers alone mean almost nothing and therefore the wording must be very carefully considered. I am not in any way opposing the amendment but merely suggesting that the wording must allow for a certain fluidity in the reporting.
Lady Saltoun: The complaints section of the BBC's annual report does not of course reflect the true state of dissatisfaction or otherwise of the public regarding the content and timing of programmes. That is because people often do not complain because they feel they will get nowhere if they do and it will be a waste of time, or they telephone at once in a fury, then feel better, and take the complaint no further. Still, it is a step towards preventing complaints being suppressed.
Perhaps I may say that if there are any deficiencies in the wording of the amendment, the blame must be
812
laid entirely at my door because I put it down. I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to take the blame.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his generous reception to the purpose of the amendment. As both my noble friend and the noble Baroness must well know, no form of amendment proposed by a Back-Bencher is ever accepted by the Front Bench; but if its substance is accepted, then that is more than welcome. I should like to thank also the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, for his generous comments, as he was on the receiving end of some of my complaints and letters. I thank him for accepting that the amendment is right in principle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Glanusk Lord Glanusk moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation between OFTEL and Cable Authority. Telecommunications Systems
. After section 7(11) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 the following subsection shall be inserted—
"( ) Before deciding to grant a licence for the running of a telecommunications system upon any conditions which would permit the telecommunications system to be run by the grantee for the purposes of conveying sounds or visual images included a cable programme service (as defined in section 2 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984), the grantor shall consult with the Cable Authority for the purposes of that Act and shall take into account the opinions of the Cable Authority regarding the term of any such licence and regarding any matters falling within section 3(2)(a)—(h) of this Act, to the extent that the same are in the opinion of the Cable Authority relevant to the grant of any licence under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 to provide a licensable service, as defined in that Act, the provision of which would in whole or part be by means of the said telecommunications system." ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 108 standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. A cable consortium starting out to establish and run a cable system must first obtain two licences, as most of us know, one from Oftel for the installation of what we loosely call the hardware, and the other one from the Cable Authority for the software. But no provision has been made in the Bill, nor in the Telecommunications Bill, for these two authorities to consult together over the granting of the two licences to one consortium or one person. The Government clearly recognised in the White Paper that the Cable Authority was the more important, being the body most in touch with the customer, to whom we are all trying to give a reasonable programme. The White Paper, at page 28, paragraph 57, states:
"In the Government view, the key decision must be that of the award of a franchise by the Cable Authority, and the presumption will therefore be that an application to the Secretary of State for Industry by the franchisee or his nominee will be successful provided that the proposed system meets the necessary general technical specification and such other licence conditions as the Secretary of State for Industry, in consultation with Oftel as appropriate, may require."
The importance of these requirements for the two bodies to co-ordinate over the granting of licences is,

813
first, to ensure that the hardware licence runs at least as long as the Cable Authority's licence for the software; secondly, if two competing applicants apply for a franchise in the same area there is a danger at present, as the Bill is drafted, that Oftel could prefer the technical solution of applicant A, whereas the Cable Authority could much prefer the proposals regarding programmes from applicant B.
For this reason, I should like to see written into the Telecommunications Bill that Oftel, when granting a hardware licence for a telecommunications system which includes the ability to run a cable system, must consult with the Cable Authority first before granting that licence. As I said, I think the Cable Authority is the body which knows the market and knows the customers, and from the customer's point of view it is the programme he is interested in rather than the technical method of delivering it to his sitting room. I beg to move.
Lord Ardwick: I have a good deal of sympathy with this amendment. It really is an extraordinary situation; you have one set of companies, cable operators, who provide the programmes to the public; you have a set of companies called cable providers, and each of these kinds of company has to apply to different ministries for licences to work the system. But of course this is further complicated by the fact that many cable operators or would-be cable operators have also ambitions to become cable providers. It was these circumstances, where you have competition between several companies who aspire to both these aims going to the authorities, and one authority opting for one company and the other authority opting for another, that led the White Paper to say that there must be a priority, and the priority must be for the cable operating company, which is actually going to provide the services. The White Paper was very clear on the subject and the Notes on Clauses were even clearer.
One would have thought it was possible to put provisions into legislative form, but as far as I can see the only reference to the kind of co-operation that must take place between Oftel and the Cable Authority is contained in Clause 5(4); that, it seems, is done in a rather perfunctory way, and there is no attempt anywhere in the Bill to spell out these very necessary provisions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Glanusk for moving this amendment, for it is concerned with an attempt to bridge the gap between Oftel and the Cable Authority, to which I adverted on Amendment No. 1. It is the division of the indivisible; it is the division of the indivisible conceptual distinction between the facility and desire to send a message, which the authority deals with, and its actual conveyance by cable, which is under Oftel. The means of implementation—this proposed bridging operation—are in a sense two which come to the same thing: mandatory consultation and the taking into account of opinions. But no procedure is laid down. The applicant has no right to make representations or even to know the reasons on which a licence is granted, varied or refused. There is no requirement for any reasoned decision, and there is no safeguard by any appellate process. The amendment
814
then cannot achieve its desired object; it lacks legal efficacy. It is not appropriate that words of mere exhortation should appear in a statute. It is sought in Amendment No. 108B, which I propose to move in due course, to put before your Lordships for your Lordships' consideration procedural measures of safeguard which could give effect to the spirit behind this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: If I may intervene, as a neutral figure in this argument—neutral on this side. My noble friend Lord Campbell having given his version a run, which he will come to later, all I say is that I hope that the Government take the point, which noble Lords opposite have also made that there can be a difference of opinion. I am not concerned about the details because it is the principle which is at stake here. The White Paper had not just one paragraph but four going over this ground. There is not provision within the legislation to take care of the point that my noble friend Lord Glanusk made, that Oftel might prefer a particular provider of the cable and the Cable Authority might prefer a different provider of the programmes. As far as I can see, this particular difficulty is not resolved in either of the two Bills currently before your Lordships' House. It ought to be because in the long run, if not the short run, if the greater clarification which we seek is not written into the Bill it will lead to quite unnecessary confusion. We have these Bills and can sort them out.
Where it goes into the Bill and what the wording is I do not think is as important as getting it in somewhere, and the best people to do that are the Government. So I hope the outcome will be that my noble friend the Minister will say, "Yes, we agree with you in principle. We will take it away and come back with a spiffing amendment on Report which embodies all the bright ideas you have put to us". That is what I hope we get.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I rise to support what has just been said. I do not think that either Amendment No. 108 or Amendment No. 108B satisfactorily deals with what is a very difficult problem. It has a genesis—although I do not want to go into the history of all this—and has arisen from the fact that we have two quite separate departments, each having separate motivations and introducing two separate Bills which do not appear properly to interact. I believe that it is time they sat down again and thought about what on earth they want to do.
Undoubtedly within the department of the Secretary of State responsible for home affairs there is a desire—I am not neutral in this—to continue with the excellence of broadcasting. Undoubtedly within the other department dealing with this there is a desire to get on, for commercial reasons. Commercial reasons are often, as we have seen, entirely reconcilable with excellence. But the kind of confused and muddled thinking which has arisen both inside and outside Government over cable and broadcasting generally, and their relationship over the years, has led to very considerable difficulties.
I, for one, remain committed to excellence in broadcasting, and that includes cable; in other words, the programmes which come down the wire.

815
Therefore, I do not declare myself neutral. What I do say is that if we are to have an authority which is truly to act as an authority and which, although obviously not controlling every single programme that comes down the wire, nevertheless has the most important say-so on what happens with cable, then it must have the final say subject to the technical standards which Oftel will require being adhered to. I do not think it is good enough to say that those concerned must consult each other. I think that at the end of the day there must be someone who makes a decision.
Earl De La Warr: It is very clear from all sides of the Committee that there is considerable alarm about this whole business of dual control, particularly of a sunrise and high-risk industry into which a lot of money is being put without too much certainty of what will be the outcome. My noble friend Lord Glanusk dealt very concisely with the question of the potential muddle over the granting of a licence. I entirely agree. But I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this dichotomy of control will run right through the life of the licence and the life of the industry. Both authorities have power to vary or to modify. Both have power to terminate, either for offences or at the end of the period, when the criteria that they might use for granting a new licence could possibly differ. In short, this is an administrative muddle of a very serious nature.
I drew attention to this at some length in July, in the debate on the White Paper. However, I have to say that I took the view that the way it was being done was, under the circumstances, inevitable because I knew, and some of your Lordships may know, a great deal about the inter-departmental struggle, which raged long before my noble friend took his particular hot seat, between the Home Office and the Department of Industry, as it was then, on where control over broadcasting should lie. I do not think it would be particularly relevant to give a view about that. The arguments on both sides are very weighty; but I have a feeling—I had it then, and then perhaps it was relevant—that with the accelerating rate of increase in the technology of telecommunications, there is an inevitability that one day broadcasting and all the other aspects associated with data and the use of the television screen will come together under one department.
It was perhaps because of that feeling that I accepted the need to take things as they are now and accept that this was the only way it could have been done. Moreover, having read the White Paper very carefully, and in particular the sentences which my noble friend quoted, I took the view that there was a chance that this mechanism, arising out of a compromise, might succeed; but only on the basis set out in the White Paper, which quite clearly makes the Cable Authority in these matters the primus inter pares.
I could not believe my eyes when the Bill was published to find no reference, other than a little sentence referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, to cross-fertilization between the two authorities. There was a universal blank. Having referred to this little bit in Clause 5(4) which requires the broadcasting authority to refer to Oftel, I would say that even that is the wrong way round. That is not what we are after.
816
We are after something which makes it obligatory, as the White Paper promised it would, for Oftel to consult and at least take account of the views of the broadcasting authority on everything it does which is related to cable.
I feel very strongly about this, and I am very heartened to find that we have so much support in your Lordships' Committee. I am looking forward to the further aspects of this matter which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will advance at greater length later. I am sure that we shall be extremely interested in hearing him deal with the matter from a legal point of view.
I must just say this to my noble friend Lord Elton. We are demanding from him—that is a harsh word to use in a friendly series of debates but, in fairness, that is the right word—that he gives us assurances that the Government will take on board the fact that they have absolutely failed to live up to what was promised in paragraph 57 of the White Paper, and in doing so they have left the Cable Authority and cable operators to a large extent naked. This we cannot have and must have changed. I hope that my noble friend has taken those words to heart and that he will be able to say that he accepts some of what we have said and without any shadow of a doubt will go back, think about it, and come back with something which satisfies us.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether in his reply he will consider one aspect of the matter which has not been raised in the speeches on the amendment? On these Benches we all entirely agree that there must be adequate consultation and close co-operation between Oftel and the Cable Authority and that the difficulty of arriving at a uniformity of decision has to be resolved. We support noble Lords who say that the situation cannot be left entirely as it is. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, argued convincingly that the Cable Authority should have more authority than the other authority, as that was the way to ensure the maintenance of broadcasting standards. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said that the Cable Authority should have the overriding control.
However, it seems to me that there may be circumstances in which it could prove to be in the public interest that the cable provider should be the cable provider for a substantial area which may embrace two or more areas and contain a number of different cable operators. It might be economically or commercially advantageous for the cable provider to cover a region in which a number of different franchise holders operated cable broadcasting services. In those circumstances, Oftel might perhaps have the final say. It is a difficulty which could arise if the Cable Authority were made the total controller. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will deal with that point.
Lord Elton: The relationship between this Bill and the Telecommunications Bill is a matter of very general interest. I rather think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, refer to this Bill as the child of a one-parent family. Under the circumstances it is a good thing that we disposed of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill earlier this evening.

817
This is a matter of general interest. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, decided not to move an amendment to Clause 3 in anticipation of this discussion. My noble friend Lord Mottistone, before this evening, has drawn our attention to the difficulties that he foresees in ensuring that the two Bills interlink satisfactorily. I should explain how we expect the relationship between the two licensing authorities to work in practice. I shall try to give your Lordships a little detail, as this issue is of great importance. After all, the licensing arrangements will be successful only if the two Bills complement each other.
Perhaps at the beginning I could say a word about the length of licences. I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind as I elaborate on the context in which what I shall now say will operate. We recognise the need to ensure some compatibility between the length of the two licences. That is why we have said that the telecommunication licences will be for 12 or 20 years, depending on the technology used, and Cable Authority licences for 12 years in the first instance and eight thereafter. It would not be desirable to write particular periods into the Telecommunications Bill, because telecommunication licences can cover a very wide range of systems, many of which have nothing to do with cable whatsoever. There has to be flexibility.
To start writing in the periods for some types of licence but not for others would be inconsistent. Moreover, once a licence is issued, the Secretary of State cannot revoke or vary it at will. The Government are satisfied therefore that the licence periods will stay in step without the need for any further statutory provision. I hope that my noble friends will bear that undertaking in mind when they consider the merits of the rest of the effects of their amendments.
Under the present division of responsibilities between the Cable of Authority and the Secretary of State, both licensing authorities will have independent functions which are precisely defined by statute and which they must carry out guided by different criteria. On the one hand, the Secretary of State and the Director General of Telecommunications are responsible for licensing the running of telecommunication systems and authorising the provision of telecommunication services over them. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that there will be nothing to prevent a cable provider from having a telecom licence for a number of areas. No amendment to either Bill is necessary to ensure that. That is the telecommunication system.
On the other hand, the Cable Authority is responsible for licensing the provision of programme services. Both these licensing functions are necessary to enable a cable enterprise to get off the ground, and both licensing bodies will have what effectively amounts to a right of veto in any particular case. The Cable Authority, for instance, may be approached by a company wanting to provide a programme service to a particular area. The authority is then under two sets of obligations. The first is set out in Clause 5 and the second in Clause 6. Clause 5 deals principally with its obligation to publish information about licensing and to provoke and listen to local comments on the
818
subject. But it also requires the authority to consult with what are there termed:
"the licensing authorities for the purposes of Part II of the 1983 Act".
but which are, in plain English, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Oftel. So the first link between the two authorities is already in the Bill at Clause 5.
Whatever the Cable Authority's decision about who shall send out the programmes over the cable, the Cable Authority will make it in full knowledge of the views of those who decide who shall provide the cable over which the programmes are to go out. That may not seem to your Lordships to be enough. I am sure that mutters of, "Hear, hear", were delivered but they did not reach my ears. My noble friends may argue that consultation is one thing but agreement is another. The Cable Authority's prime concern is with the service. Perhaps a company may offer the prospects of a glittering service but propose to have it delivered over a system which falls short of the technical standards which my right honourable friend and Oftel would expect. Well and good. I accept that proposition, and so do the Government. Let us pursue our example a little further.
Having taken note of the reservations of Oftel during the proceedings which it is obliged to carry out under Clause 5, the Cable Authority next turns to discharge its obligations under Clause 6. This involves considering all matters that appear to be relevant and particularly those set at out in subsection (2) paragraphs (a) to (e). It may find that the range and diversity of programmes is so immense and the proportion of EEC material so high, that they include so much educational material, appeal so strongly to local tastes and interests and involve so many local people in the conception and production, that the related services will be so innovative, that all this quite outweighs any shortcomings which from their different perspectives Oftel and my right honourable friend might perceive in the system and telecommunication services.
At that point the authority could if it wished grant a licence to provide the programme, but what it could not do would be to grant a licence to provide the cable. That is for Oftel and the DTI. If it is a single company that seeks to do both things, it must satisfy both authorities, because it is two different things that it seeks to do, and the evaluation of each of them requires different skills and different resources of the licensing authorities. For such applicants this is a dual-key system. Quite frankly, I do not think that the consultation system will fail in the way that I have described, but supposing it did, there is no way that the Cable Authority could put a dud or dubious cabling company into business by by-passing the Secretary of State and Oftel.
The same is true the other way round. Sometimes there may be two companies working closely together. One will tackle Oftel about cables and culverts, and the other will tackle the Cable Authority about programmes. In other cases, as with some of the private projects, there will be a single consortium which comes together to do both. But the Bill is designed to ensure that the Cable Authority will grant a licence for the provision of a diffusion service only in

819
cases where the Secretary of State is also prepared to license the running of the associated cable system. What this means in practice is that, wherever it is intended to use a cable system for the purposes of conveying programme services, consultations will always take place between the authority on the one hand and the Secretary of State and Oftel on the other.
My noble friend's anxieties as expressed in his amendment do not concern so much the possibility that the Cable Authority will not consult Oftel, but rather the other way round: that my right honourable friend and Oftel will not consult the Cable Authority. But it takes two to make a consultation, and what I have already said must, I hope, have made it clear that wherever it is intended to use cable for putting out a diffusion service, both parties will of necessity be engaged in consultation of a very close and thorough kind. The fact that they do so at the initiative of the Cable Authority rather than of Oftel is something which I think may appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, but need not I think be of prime concern. In practical terms it will not make any difference to what happens. If cable is not intended as a vehicle for diffusion services, the Cable Authority has no reason to be consulted.
What I have tried to do—I hope with not too much excitement, nor at too great a length—is to explain to your Lordships' Committee what will actually inevitably happen under the Bill as it is drafted, and I am sure that it is what is going to happen under the Bill that concerns my noble friends and your Lordships round the House. What I have said coincides I think both with what they wish and what is set out in paragraph 57 of the White Paper, so aptly quoted by my noble friend. I shall not repeat the quotation, but the key decision is a dual-key decision and it is inevitably both fingers that are consulted.
Lord Mottistone: Why does my noble friend resist putting consultation into the relevant Acts? It seems to me strange. Why must we rely on the fact that those involved will naturally consult? Why can we not have that provided for in the legislation?
Lord Elton: I do not resist any such thing; it is already in the legislation, in Clause 5(4). That has been regarded as de minimis by my noble friends and I think the noble Lords opposite who have referred to it. It is no such thing. It covers the whole procedure. It means that the consultation must take place, because it is in the statute; and that is what my noble friend wants.
Earl De La Warr: I do not want to become involved in semantics, but I heard my noble friend say very clearly—he emphasised it—that this is a dual decision. Well, maybe it is. But at that moment I happened to be looking at the wording of the paragraph and I saw the words,
"In the Government's view…the key decision must be…the award of the franchise by the Cable Authority".
It seems to me that those are the key words, too, in what we are talking about; and my noble friend seemed to dodge that point.
Lord Elton: I did not intend to dodge it; I was trying not to dodge dinner for too long. But since my noble
820
friend draws my attention to the point, let me reassure him that our proposals do not contradict the key decision concept in the White Paper. Although cable is about much more than simply cable television, it is quite clear that at least for the foreseeable future it is with the programme services that the finances of cable stand or fall. In practice therefore it is the Cable Authority's choice of who is to provide those services which will be crucial to the way in which cable develops in any particular area.
All I have sought to reassure your Lordships on is that there is no prospect of it going out under defective technical arrangements because of ignorance of what Oftel and the DTI, with their different expertise, may already know. Equally, because they must be approached by the Cable Authority whenever there is a diffusion programme to go out over cable, Oftel and the DTI will always know, when they are making their decision, what is in the minds of the other licensing authority. Each of them can grant a licence; without both licences the programme cannot go out.
Lord Glanusk: I think that my noble friend on the Front Bench said that there will always be consultation between the two authorities. If that is so, why can we not put that in the Telecommunications Bill and make it quite clear to the Director General that he must consult? However—
Lord Elton: The answer to that question is that we are actually debating a different Bill. If my noble friend wishes to consider doing something else, at another time, and on another piece of legislation, that is of course open to him. But I can now tell him what will be the answer from my noble friend when he stands at this Dispatch Box. He will say that it is not necessary because whenever there is a diffusion service to go out over cable, Oftel and the DTI will have to be consulted by the Cable Authority. So the cosultation is there already in this Bill, and it works both ways.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like very briefly to ask my noble friend the Minister whether that was an example of dual-key consultation?
Lord Elton: Whether we are dealing with typewriters or cruise missiles, perhaps the phrase that I chose is not one that lends itself to brevity in debate.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may briefly deal with the noble Lord's point which he put with clarity but, so far as I was concerned, if I may say so, not with conviction. I can well understand that if one is able to point to two Bills and to say that there is an equal duty of consultation, one gets equality of treatment even if one does not get what the White Paper proposed; namely, the ascendancy, the primus inter pares, as one learned Member of the Committee put it, of the Cable Authority.
When there is a one-sided arrangement under which someone has to be subservient, it is usual to stipulate in a Bill that that party must consult almost his lord and master before doing anything. One gets duality and mutuality when there is laid down in two Bills an equal duty to consult. The noble Lord the Minister said that he thought he could anticipate the reply of his

821
noble friend. The noble Lord the Minister is a wise man, and possibly a prophet, and so we must take it for granted that the comment will be that in the Telecommunications Bill there is a duty for the Cable Authority to consult the Part II authority, and that that means mutuality. It means nothing of the kind. What it means is that in one Bill there is a duty to consult, in the other Bill there is no duty to consult, and therefore there is a complete lack of mutuality. It is not the primus inter pares of the Cable Authority; it is then the primus inter pares of the Part II authority under the Telecommunications Bill. If I may say so, that is the difficulty that the noble Lord the Minister has not faced up to.
Lord Elton: In his usual charming and courteous way, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made various charges. If there was a lack of conviction, it was not on my part, but on his. I am sorry to hear of it because I am quite convinced of what I am saying, and I find it very difficult to speak with such enthusiasm when I am not. As to the question of primacy, a principal ingredient in primacy is cash, and your Lordships know that the financing of cable is to come out of entertainment, and entertainment is to go out as programme services through diffusion over cable. That is the first leg of primacy.
Secondly, there is a requirement on the Cable Authority to consult Oftel whenever it proposes to license somebody to put out programmes over cable. So Oftel cannot be in ignorance of such a proposal. There will always be consultation when cable is to be used for this purpose. If it is to be used for other purposes, it is nothing to do with the Cable Authority. So Oftel can always count on knowing when cable is to be used for putting out programmes. That is not one-sided, except in one sense, which I think is a very trivial sense. I suppose that it might be thought courteous to have a reciprocal requirement in the Telecommunications Bill, but it would bring about the same effect. This is what I want to be understood. There is in the Bill a requirement to consult. It cannot be evaded if ever a cable is to be used by a licensee of the Cable Authority, and that licensee will not become a licensee until the Cable Authority, Oftel, and the DTI have been fully consulted.
I can give no further assurances. I wish that I could be more friendly to my noble friends, because I always like to yield. I like the rumble of—I regret to say—"surprised" sympathy when I say that I will take something away and they always assume that I will come back with what they want. The fact is that I would be misleading them if I did yield, because in my view thay have got what they want in the Bill. It is not put in such grandiose language; there are not so many lines of print; and the type is not so heavy as perhaps they would like to see. But the impact of it is there. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me, because we ought perhaps to move further down the Order Paper fairly soon.
Lord Mishcon: And I hope we will, because I hope that the noble Lord will be able at least to concede something, having regard to this debate. I was brought up on the principle that if you produce the same result,
822
first, by being discourteous or, in the alternative, by being courteous, the thing to do is to be courteous. Therefore, I use the noble Lord's argument when he said that possibly a courtesy would produce the same result. I should like to ask him at least to pass on to his noble friend—because I am not the mover of the amendment but merely supporting it—a request for the courtesy that he has mentioned, a request that there should be a similar provision in the Telecommunications Bill. To use his own words, that would have precisely the same effect as if it were not there, but it would be a courtesy. That would go some way towards satisfying members of this Committee.
Lord Elton: I would not wish to prejudice anything that my noble friend would want to say on another Bill; nor would I wish to elevate the request that the noble Lord has made into a difficulty. I will certainly ask my noble friend to add to his considerable preparatory labours by reading the exchanges which have occurred across this Table.
Lord Glanusk: I am most grateful to all members of the Committee who have supported me so nobly, and rather surprisingly. I do not agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I cannot see really why this cannot be put into the Telecommunications Bill via this clause. But I would rather read what has been said this evening and reserve the right to come back at the Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably a suitable moment to adjourn this Committee stage for the dinner adjournment. But before I move that the House do now resume, perhaps it would be helpful to those noble Lords who are interested in this Bill, to say that we will not resume consideration of this Committee stage until 8 o'clock? I am in your Lordships' hands, but this is a Thursday evening and there are quite a few amendments left.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps ten past eight?
Lord Denham: Until ten past eight, then. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1984
7.24 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these draft regulations amend certain provisions in the regulations governing the detailed operation of the assisted places scheme. This scheme was placed on the statute book with the purpose of widening the educational opportunities available to children from

823
less well-off families. Now in its third year of operation, it is running smoothly and successfully, and apart from the provision to amend the parental income scale, the draft regulations before us tonight are mostly of a procedural rather than a substantive nature.
Regulations 1 and 2 are entirely technical, and I shall not trouble noble Lords with comment upon them here. Regulation 3 is intended to make the administration of the scheme less burdensome for schools. It reduces the two months' notice which schools must give of any intended fee increases to one month, and the month in which the Secretary of State must give directions to a school if he has doubts about the proposal is reduced to one week. The present timetable is often very hard for schools to meet, and in the light of experience in the very occasional use of this power, we see no problems in shortening it.
Turning to Regulation 4, for the current assessment of fee remission, the income of both parents is taken into account—unless the parents are divorced or separated, or one of them cannot be traced, or something of the sort. Under the existing regulations, it is not enough for this purpose for parents to be separated by simple deed: there has to be a formal court order or some such. Separation under a deed is however sufficient for income tax purposes, and draft Regulation 4 will make it sufficient for the purposes of the assisted places scheme as well.
Regulation 5 will relax the conditions under the existing regulations in which a child may take up an assisted place at other than one of the school's normal ages of entry. A child will now be allowed to take up a place at any age above the school's minimum, provided that he (or she) is going to be in a class with other assisted pupils.
Regulation 6 provides for the updating of the income scale used for assessing the amount of parents' contributions towards the fees, in line with increases in earnings. Families with average incomes will be liable to pay just under £500 towards fees in 1984–85, but the three-quarters or so coming forward who have lower incomes than the average will pay less. Those with relevant incomes below £6,046 will enjoy full remission of fees.
Regulation 7 is proposed purely to clarify the application of a regulation which received the assent of this House a year ago, under which a teacher barred from teaching in a maintained school is automatically barred from teaching in an APS school. Regulation 7 simply makes clear, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this applies only to those who have been barred on grounds of misconduct.
Finally, Regulation 8 makes three changes of a more or less technical nature to the rules for assessing income. Regulation 8(1) simply updates the reference to relevant income tax legislation in the principal regulations. Regulation 8(2) in effect excludes the first £25,000 of any redundancy payments from the calculation of parental income (in line with Inland Revenue practice) and provides also for the exclusion from the calculation of any adoption allowances.
I have described briefly the purpose of each of the amending regulations. If noble Lords wish further
824
clarification on any point or wish to raise queries on the principal regulations, I shall endeavour to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th January be approved.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
7.28 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very brief explanation of the amendments to these regulations. They seem to me perhaps a little more than procedural, as he said at the beginning. The noble Earl well knows the attitude of the Opposition to the assisted places scheme because I think he took part in all stages of the discussion on the Education Act 1980, so it will be no surprise that I do not really receive these amendments very warmly.
The chief effect of these regulations—and perhaps the intention—is to water down the conditions governing applications for assisted places, so that the best pupils in the state schools can be more easily siphoned off to private establishments. In other words, it is yet another example of the Government's underhand practice of loading the dice against the state system.
Gradually since the passing of the Education Act 1980—which under Sections 17 and 18 enabled pupils to take up places at independent schools and have their fees paid by the Secretary of State—the Secretary of State has, with succeeding regulations, made it easier to attract pupils to the independent sector. The assurances given at the time of the passing of the Act and the safeguards in the first regulations, which made the scheme a little more palatable to the doubters, have been whittled away. For instance, last year the provision under Regulation 6(3), that a child registered as a pupil at a school maintained by a local education authority should normally only be eligible for selection for an assisted place at sixth form level if the authority agreed, was revoked. I believe that that condition was originally included because of fears expressed by Lord Butler and by the local authorities that sixth forms in comprehensive schools, which were developing very nicely, might be weakened if some of their brightest pupils were tempted away.
The financial arrangements have always been updated generously. Last year the allowance for dependants was increased from £800 to £850—over 6 per cent., when inflation was 5 per cent. This year the means test for the remission of fees is relaxed, and the level of income at or below which fees are to be wholly remitted is set at £6,046 instead of, at present, £5,616—and that is contained in Regulation 6. That is an increase of 7¾ per cent. The table in Regulation 15 of the principal regulations (scales of remission) is similarly increased all the way up to 7¾ per cent. The official inflation rate for December 1982 to December 1983 is, again, 5 per cent. I hope the Minister will reply to the question: why should this extra advantage be given to these people when the students' grant is to be increased by only 4 per cent., which is 1 per cent. less than the rate of inflation?
Again on the financial side, in the rules for the computation of income in the schedule to the 1980 regulations, the provision in paragraph 5 (under which

825
payments on retirement or removal from office or employment are to be treated as part of a person's total income) is revoked, so that the first £25,000 of any such payment will be excluded from the computation of such income. This astonishes me. The reason the Minister gave was that this brings the regulations into line with the current Inland Revenue practice. But, surely, if the scheme is, as Ministers are so constantly saying, intended for the least well off, those with a nice little capital sum of £25,000 should not be specially kindly treated. What about those on supplementary benefit? It seems hard and unfair that the disregards limit for supplementary benefit is only £3,000. This revocation is another example of easing the conditions.
Then there is the amendment to principal Regulation 5(2). Previously a child could go into an independent school and take up an assisted place only at the normal age of entry to the school. Now the children are to be allowed to go in at any age—11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and, I dare say, 17, too—so long as there is already an assisted pupil in the class. I see this as an added inconvenience and nuisance to the maintained schools, which will have greater difficulty in being sure of their numbers.
There is also the question of the increase of fees at the independent establishment. To date the period of notice which the school is required to give to the Secretary of State is two months, and the Secretary of State has to reply within one month. Now that is to be changed so that only one month's notice from the school is necessary and the Secretary of State has one week in which to respond. I simply cannot understand the reason for this. Can the Minister please enlighten us when he replies? Surely any school has to give the parents at least a term's notice before fees are raised, and that really means three months' notice, so that even the two months in the original regulations was being very co-operative. As for the Secretary of State replying in a week, if it is a matter of school closures or amalgamations, or something like that, of vital consequence to a local authority and its planning, months very often pass. The Secretary of State seems to me to be falling over backwards to be obliging to the private sector.
Can the Minister tell us how much extra cost is involved as a result of these changes in the regulations? I should like to have that question answered. I notice that the cost of the whole scheme nearly doubled between 1982–83, when it was £8,689,942, and 1983–84, when the sum was £16,470,000. I agree that those are provisional figures, but I expect that the outcome will be very close. How much bigger is the subsidy to the private sector to become, and is there to be an upper limit? I gather that 15 per cent. of the total intake of independent schools is now made up with assisted places pupils, so the subsidy to them is really quite considerable.
It seems very hard that at the very same time as the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill is going through Parliament—the Bill which, if passed, will take some £50 million from the educational part of the rate support grant—the Secretary of State can find the money to increase the spending on those pupils gaining assisted places, and thus subsidising even more the independent sector. One cannot wonder at local
826
education authorities feeling resentful and angry about the way in which central government are treating local government. At a time of shortage of funds, it is surely fairer for what money there is to be spent for the benefit of all children and to raise the standards in the state schools, which the majority of children in this country attend. It was for the raising of standards that the Secretary of State pleaded in his Sheffield speech at the North of England conference. The assisted places scheme received no mention there.
I end by wondering just why it is that there is such a relaxation of the conditions at this moment. I do not agree with what the Minister, Mr. Dunn, said in another place when he referred to the amendments as "ironing out some minor wrinkles". I think they are a good deal more than that. Is the answer that fewer people are applying than was hoped? What are the Government's estimates of the numbers gaining assisted places in the next two or three years, and what will the cost be by then?
I was interested in one statistic which I collected from my own local authority. In Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire there is a collegiate board to which all pupils at the age of 16 apply for a place in one of the 16-plus establishments, and the board allocates the places. In 1981, 151 young people transferred from the private to the maintained sector—9 per cent. of the total enrolment; in 1982, 181 transferred—10 per cent. of the total enrolment; and in 1983, 186 transferred—12 per cent. of the total enrolment. I am told that all these pupils were of very high quality indeed. Is the Cambridge experience evidence that the natural tide is flowing in a direction against the Government's wishes? Is this the reason why in these regulations they are busy digging little artificial trenches to make the water go the other way?
7.38 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the noble Earl for explaining—I was about to say "whisking through"—these regulations. We are not, of course, discussing the substantive legislation, but from the outset we on these Benches have had very serious reservations about this scheme. We appreciate, of course, that it is popular with families that are benefiting from it, and we understand that there are now some 13,000 children in assisted places—that is to say, real children in real schools—whose education obviously should not and cannot be disrupted.
However, we are very far from convinced that this is the best use that £16.5 million of public money can be put to, especially at a time when financial pressure on local education authorities is very great. According to the Secretary of State on 17th November, a net reduction of £2 million in Vote expenditure on education is predicted for 1983–84. This net reduction is taking place at a time when there is insufficient money for new reading schemes in primary schools, insufficient money for the maintenance of buildings, insufficient money for remedial teachers in primary schools, and insufficient money for much needed promotion of the languishing adult and continuing education in this country. In these circumstances, it is hard to be sympathetic towards the diversion of £16.5 million of public money for the assisted places scheme.

827
Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions. Can he tell us what effect the scheme has had on the sixth forms of maintained schools? Can he confirm that early returns in the 1982–83 school-leavers' survey indicate that the proportion of pupils in England reaching minimum school-leaving age and staying on in the first year sixth forms this autumn was 31½ per cent., which is a fall of 1½ per cent. on the previous year? Does he not think that this fall could be attributable to the assisted places scheme through the removal of the LEA veto on sixth form transfers which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to? And would he not agree that shrinkage of sixth forms in this way will be self-perpetuating, as reduced classes will lose their entitlements to teachers and resources?
Next, will the noble Earl say whether there is any truth in the report that schools operating assisted places schemes have been lobbying against the setting up of sixth form colleges by two local education authorities, on the grounds that such colleges would attract pupils away from the independent sector?
What of the future? We understand from the Under-Secretary of State in another place on 6th December last year, that the scheme is intended to reach 40,000 children when fully implemented, and that this will not fall far short of 15 per cent. of all the pupils of the 223 schools in the scheme. If I am correct, I think the noble Baroness, Lady David, was slightly incorrect. I do not think the figure has reached 15 per cent. yet; but I think we would reach that 15 per cent. if and when we come to the full implementation of the assisted places scheme.
Baroness David: If the noble Lord would allow me to interrupt, I obtained my figure of 15 per cent. from the speech of the Minister when he was introducing the regulations in another place, so if I am incorrect it is because he was incorrect.
Lord Kilmarnock: I apologise to the noble Baroness. We certainly will not enter into a passage of arms on a statistical detail because I think basically we are both saying the same thing.
Can the noble Earl tell us what the eventual resource implication of the expansion of this scheme to 40,000 pupils is? What will the cost of the scheme be when it is in full flower? Where is that money to be found? What other parts of the maintained sector are the Government planning to cut back in order to provide the money for this expansion of the assisted places scheme?
Finally, I am slightly confused as to the intention of Regulation 5. I should like to have confirmation from the noble Earl the Minister as to whether Lady David's interpretation is correct. Is it the fact that rather than restricting a transfer at 11, 12, 13 or 16-plus, that Regulation 5 will enable transfer at any age from the maintained sector to an independent school? Is this designed to speed up the rate of transfer from the maintained to the private sector?
7.45 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I should like to begin by asking one question which has not been raised at all so far, concerning Regulation 7. I put my question as
828
simply as possible. What kind of teacher is it who is barred under Regulation 24 as it now stands but will not be barred when Regulation 24 is altered as is proposed in these amendments? There is nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum, and by reference to the principal regulations I could not understand what is meant. But there may be a quite simple explanation.
In general, I will not attempt to repeat the arguments which have been set out very powerfully by my noble friend Lady David, but simply say in general that there is no doubt at all that the effect of these amendments is to enlarge and strengthen the assisted places scheme. The effect of the assisted places scheme is to try to take more able children—so far as they can be defined at an early age (and that has always been a matter in dispute)—from the public sector of education, and put them in the private sector where it is assumed they will get a better education. That is the philosophy behind it. This has always been of course the Conservative view of education.
The right honourable Lady, the Prime Minister, said once when she was Minister of Education, that she considered it her duty to look after remarkable people. One would have thought that to a Secretary of State for Education all children ought to be remarkable: that, at any rate, is how their parents always do and always will quite properly regard them.
There is this philosophy that certain children ought to be specially looked after and given indisputably a better education: in the sense of enabling them to get on in later life better than the rest. That is one effect of the assisted places scheme; or will be if it does at all what it is intended to do.
The other effect, of course, is to damage the state system of education: partly by the fact that it spends money which we could do with very badly indeed for ordinary educational purposes in the state system; and it can sometimes of course upset the organisation of a school and a number of its teachers. A comprehensive school may find, as a result of the assisted places working, particularly with the alterations made here, that it gets a certain number of children taken away from it, and that may reduce the number of teachers to which it is entitled. It will become a less efficient school on that ground.
We have to decide, I think, what our philosophy of education is. Do you assume—as we do on this side of the House—that the object of the whole thing is to provide for all children the best education possible? Some will make more use of it than others (that is unavoidable); but you should do the best you can for all of them. Alternatively, do you take the view that there are some children who are definitely better than the rest and who will profit from a better education, and that your job is to spot them in advance and make provision for them? That is what the argument is about, and I think all the evidence is that the second choice, (the second philosophy) is the wrong philosophy.
The Secretary of State himself recently, was, somewhat grudgingly, admitting that there had been a general improvement in educational standards in recent years. It came out rather cautiously and unwillingly but indisputably, and that is all the more important, of course, because it is in recent years that

829
our philosophy on education has been prevailing more. It has been prevailing so much that the Conservative party has never wanted to make a frontal attack on it (at least, not any longer), but has sought various ways round it, and this I am afraid is one of them. That is why the Minister cannot expect from this side of the House any great enthusiasm for these amended regulations.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, something I must admit straight away is that it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that these regulations have been received quite as they have by noble Lords opposite. I am rather surprised though that they persist in their opposition to this scheme. It is now into its third year, and its success and popularity are transparent. Noble Lords opposite have often enough complained about the exclusivity of public schools. The assisted places scheme has changed all that. On average, about one-third of each intake in a high proportion of the best independent schools in the country now come from low or very low income families. That is all thanks to the assisted places scheme.
There are now over 13,000 pupils benefiting from the scheme and nearly three-quarters of them are from families with below average income Forty per cent. of them come from families whose gross combined income is less than £6,000. Those who complained that the scheme would be little more than a subsidy for the rich have long since lost that argument. I must admit here—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady David, said in her opening speech—that I was one of those who thought this would be the result of the scheme; but I am very glad to say that I have been proved wrong along with a lot of other people.
Neither is the scheme a means of sustaining those, albeit of a lower income, who would somehow have their children in independent schools anyway. Schools are asked, under the principal regulations, to ensure that at least 60 per cent. of their assisted pupils attended maintained schools immediately before taking up the places. Most schools have not the slightest difficulty in meeting this and frequently attain a much higher figure, especially at 11 to 13 entrance. The pattern at sixth form level has been distorted by the power which local authorities had until last year to veto transfers from maintained schools; but I am pleased to say that with the veto removed, things are quickly settling down. Sixth form recruitment is well up this year, and at the same time I can assure noble Lords that there has been no evidence of the sort of jeopardy to maintained sixth forms that caused us to adopt the veto provision in the first place.
I was asked a number of questions, and I shall do my best to answer them. If I find at the end that I have missed any, I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I write to them when I have studied Hansard. I think both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made a special point about the removal of the sixth form veto. The Government concluded a year ago that there was no justification for keeping this veto. A lot of authorities themselves saw no need for it and never used it. Of those that did, it is clear that some abused it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State undertook to the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts last
830
February that he would keep the matter under review. This he has done. On the latest evidence there seems to be little ground for any fear that assisted places schools would damage maintained sixth forms by poaching large numbers of pupils from them.
Across the whole country less than 200 pupils transferred at sixth form level last September from maintained schools to assisted places in independent schools. That, if you like, is a measure of the strength of the maintained sixth form market; and I am delighted to say that. It seems to me quite sufficient that we limit assisted place admissions to sixth forms to five a year at any school, as we do now.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, also asked about the cost of the scheme. The cost of the scheme in the current financial year is likely to be about £16,500,000. The cost to the Government for an assisted pupil is not very different from the average cost of equivalent provision in the maintained sector. The cost is more than justified by the significant increase in opportunities for able children from less well off families which this has brought about.
I think perhaps noble Lords on our side of the House would perhaps regret this, but this may cheer up some of the noble Lords opposite. There are no resources currently available to expand the scheme. Certainly if resources became available we should see merit in some expansion, though we should not want to do so to the point where we diluted its scholarship character. In the meantime, we have to concentrate on improving the match of supply to demand, as we have been doing this year, with a marginal redistribution of places to strongly recruiting schools already in the scheme and a handful of new ones.
The noble Baroness asked about the 7¾ per cent. increase in the income scale. This is directly in line with the average increase in earnings, seasonally adjusted, between June 1982 and June 1983. She also asked about the cost of the revisions of these regulations. The cost will be negligible. Disregard of redundancy payments is a simple substitute for what is a common practice now under which parents in these circumstances offer a current year assessment of income and achieve much the same effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about lobbying against sixth form colleges. I personally have absolutely no knowledge of this taking place, but I shall look into it. If there is any truth in it I shall be delighted to write to the noble Lord. He asked about the effect of removing the LEAs' power of veto on sixth form transfers from maintained schools, and I have already answered that. The noble Lord also asked about Regulation 5. The purpose of this is simply to remove an obstacle to transfer in the rare cases where a child wants to move to a school at other than the normal age of entry.
I think I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, in view of the rather powerful speech he made against the scheme, that one of the reasons why the Government brought it in was that the party opposite did away with direct grant schools. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, asked me about the meaning of Regulation 7. This is intended purely to underline that the earlier regulation does not apply to anyone other than a teacher barred for misconduct. It does not apply, for example, to unqualified teachers.

831
I hope I have answered as many of the questions as I can. If I have missed any I shall write to noble Lords. I am not going to be taken up on the education support grants Bill. It is appropriate that that is coming to a Committee of this House on St. Valentine's Day. I hope that then all will be sweetness and light across the Chamber with the noble Baronesses opposite.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, in view of his remarks that there are no new resources for the moment—I think I heard him correctly—for this scheme, what is one to make of the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Bob Dunn, of 6th December, that when the scheme becomes fully implemented, with children progressing right through the schools, the total number will grow to nearly 40,000. Is that no longer the Government's objective?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, that is the objective in the long run. There was always meant to be a gentle build-up of this scheme. The build-up is going on as was envisaged but there are no extra resources to give it a boost, as it were.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I follow that up and ask whether that means that the money for the scheme in the next year, that is 1984–85, or in 1985–86, will still be £16,500,000?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I think as envisaged originally there will be an additional £7 million next year. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 until 8.10 p.m.]

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 108A:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Offences
.—(1) Any person who—

(a) dishonestly obtains one or more of the programmes included in a pay service with intent to avoid payment;

(b) by the reception and re-transmission of any such programme or programmes, dishonestly distributes a pay service to any other person or persons with intent to avoid or permit or facilitate the avoidance of payment; or

(c) imports, exports, sells, lets on hire, offers for sale or hire, publishes or otherwise makes available to any person by way of trade any apparatus of information designed or adapted to enable any person to do one or more of the acts described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection and with intent to enable him so to do,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(3) Any person who, without the consent of a broadcasting authority or, as the case may be, the provider of a pay service as part of a cable programme service—

(a) obtains one or more of the programmes included in the pay service;

(b) by the reception and re-transmission of any such programme or programmes, distributes the pay service to any other person or persons otherwise than in circumstances to which the provisions of section 12(3) of this Act apply: or

(c) imports, exports, sells, lets on hire, offers for sale or hire, publishes or otherwise makes available by way of trade any apparatus or information designed or adapted to enable any person to do one or more of the acts described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection,

shall be deemed by so doing, to have infringed a proprietary right of the broadcasting authority or, as the case may be, the provider of the service and all such infringements shall be actionable at the suit of the authority or, as the case may be, the provider of the service; and, in any action for such an infringement, all such relief, by way of damages, injunction, accounts or otherwise, shall be available to the plaintiff as is available in any corresponding proceedings in respect of infringements of other proprietary rights.
(4) In this section, "pay service" means a broadcasting service or a licensed service by virtue of which the broadcasting authority or, as the case may be, the person authorised by the Authority to provide the licensed service, receives money or other valuable consideration in respect of the service from those to whom the service is provided.
(5) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and it is proved that the offence occurred with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(6) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (5) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
(7) Where a person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above, the court by or before whom he is convicted may, if it thinks fit, direct that any apparatus and any article in which information is embodied which is designed or adapted to enable any person to do one or more of the acts described in paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above and which is in the possession or control of the defendant (whether or not the offence of which he was convicted concerned that apparatus or information), be forfeited.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause is necessarily long and somewhat complex and, inevitably, the Government spokesman will say that it does not do what it sets out to do and will have to be reworded to achieve that. This is one of the penalties of not having the massive support of parliamentary counsel which is available to others. The thinking also breaks some new ground which makes matters a little difficult, because it is a cross between provisions covering the theft of services and provisions covering the theft of intellectual property is a relatively new concept, the law on which is not yet fully developed. Most of it has hitherto been dealt with through copyright, but it is recognised that the copyright law does not cover all we seek to cover.
In this case the broadcasting of a subscription service, whether that be an ordinary pay service covering everything that is coming down the line or

833
through the satellite, or whether it be pay per view, poses some unique problems which are not covered by the present law. I am certain that there is no effective legal means in this country to prevent the unauthorised reception of subscription services or the production and sale of gadgets or apparatus, whatever one may call it, or information published in papers about the design of such equipment, which enables such interception to take place—in other words, the design of decryption devices.
The absence of any legal remedies against what amounts to the theft of services, or the marketing of the means to steal them by these gadgets, could undermine the commercial viability of a DBS service or of any other pay service. It would affect not only the amount of income to be collected, but also the willingness of those who own the rights of films, for example, to licence films for those services. We all know that one of the most attractive features of any service, whether it be cable or DBS, will be the availability of newer films than those which have hitherto been available on ordinary terrestrial television.
It is true that a broadcast pay service is likely to be much more vulnerable in this respect than some cable services where subscribers, especially of any form of star switch system, can readily be cut off from the signal if they do not pay. I say "readily" but this is one of the chief problems that has been encountered in the United States—finding out that people have not paid for so many weeks and managing to cut them off. It has been found that people can obtain services for a substantial length of time without having paid.
The broadcast signals both in DBS and satellite which may deliver signals to cable heads will be encrypted so as to make unauthorised access much more difficult. But it is almost impossible to achieve a standard of security which cannot be relatively easily defeated, except at absolutely prohibitive cost. Even so, it seems unlikely that even the most expensive and sophisticated systems are wholly incapable of being decrypted. What we believe to be happening at GCHQ illustrates that even the most sophisticated governmental services can eventually be broken.
It is true that when we come to addressable converters—I am sorry to use all this jargon but it is essential in this context—we shall reach a position where absolute security can be obtained. But it is also true that electronic ingenuity, particularly of the very young, knows almost no bounds. Almost as soon as a device is produced which it is believed cannot be defeated, someone will produce a device which can defeat it. There must be special measures to combat this form of theft.
In the past we know that the Post Office, before it became British Telecom, was constantly faced with this problem of people devising methods to ring up, say, the United States and talk for several hours with a girl friend at what should have been enormous cost to the person making the call; but because the person had discovered a way to defeat the mechanism of the call box—not by jamming it but by electronic means—he was able to make the calls for nothing.
The new clause that I have put down as an amendment defines not only criminal penalties but
834
civil remedies. The civil remedies are important because they provide the broadcasters with the means to take anti-piracy actions with Anton Pillar orders and injunctions, which have proved surprisingly effective in the video field where they have resulted in a substantial diminution in the amount of piracy which was such a worry as little as 18 months ago. It is still a worry, but it is not as great a worry as it was.
I have been encouraged in proposing this to discover that in California, where they have more experience than we have of pay services, state laws have been introduced in the last few years which have created both criminal and civil remedies in relation to the theft of pay cable services. I believe that New York may also have done so. Of course, each of these states has some years' experience of pay cable services and it would seem also that Florida has similar laws. I will not detain your Lordships for too long but I would briefly like to read an extract from the Entertainment Law Report of December 1983, a report of Storer Cable Communications, Inc. v. Rodrigue which states:
"Dade Cable Television, Inc., an affiliate of Storer Cable Communications, has been granted permanent injunctive relief against two companies which were engaged in the unauthorized sale of equipment intended to intercept Dade Cable's transmission of programming to its subscribers and to decode the transmissions for reception on a standard television receiver. Upon installing the equipment, a purchaser would be able to receive Dade Cable programming without paying the requisite fee for the service.
A Florida county court first found that state statutes proscribing the theft of pay cable television service had been violated. The court noted that in decisions under the frederal counterpart to one of the applicable Florida statutes, the 'overwhelming weight' of authority suggested that the Florida companies had violated the law. Further-more, the companies were causing substantial and irreparable damage to Dade Cable's business by the loss of potential as well as existing customers. And Dade Cable had shown that it had no feasible means of detecting non-subscribers who were receiving programming via the use of the unauthorized devices.
The court concluded that an injunction would serve the public interest in that the possible discontinuance of Dade Cable's services would be prevented. Therefore, a permanent injunction was issued, and the court also ordered that the companies provide Dade Cable with all customer lists and other material which would aid in identifying any purchasers or suppliers of the unauthorized descrambling equipment".
I read this out only because it shows that I am trying to consider a practical problem and not something which may occur in the future, "maybe". It is something which will be with us as soon as we have cable services in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in the course of the Second Reading debate that the Government were aware of the difficulties over pay television services and were considering whether there was a need to bring forward additional provisions during the passage of the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, repeated the substance of that statement on the first day in Committee, but went a little further. But we have no indication when this will happen or as to whether the requisite legislation will be written in time, before the Bill leaves your Lordships. I would hate it to leave this Chamber without some such provision in it. I do not say that I am in any way distrustful of the other place, but the pressure of legislation upon the Lower House may be such that if we could be certain that it was included before it left us then I, for one, would be very much happier.
I think it is worth adding that the new clause proposes not only that the importing of decoding information should require the consent of the provider of the pay service, for which precedents exist (for example, the importation of articles embodying copywright works is an infringement of copyright), but also that their export should be restricted in this way. It may sound a bit hard to do that, but it is to prevent unauthorised access to the pay services in satellite overspill areas which are beyond the jurisdiction of our courts and therefore beyond the reach of the provider of the services. It is unusual, but not unprecedented, for exports of particular items to be restricted or prohibited. They may be, for example, military equipment or items as diverse as the national heritage, cattle and cocoa products, which are all subject to control and/or licensing.
Without controls of this sort persons overseas, such as French cable operators, might have ready access to decoding equipment and might distribute the decoded signals in satellite overspill areas to large numbers of viewers. If the service were a film channel, this would undermine the market for the films in that part of France. The result would be that the film companies would make their films available to the cable services instead of broadcasters, which would give cable an unfair competitive advantage. Finally, there is also at least one precedent for the forfeiture provisions at the end, which are modelled on Section 4 of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960.
I was able to suggest that this should be included as a result of knowing that in Scotland a poacher can forfeit a car from which he has carried out his poaching. That is a considerably greater deterrent than the fines he would otherwise be liable to pay. In other words, you could lose not only your little black box but the television and aerial system which goes with it. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, is perfectly right in saying that the advent of cable television will create a whole new area of opportunities for dishonest and unacceptable behaviour. Those investing in these new developments will want to be sure that there are appropriate legal safeguards to deal with those people who try to acquire services without paying for them. In particular, they will wish to see effective provisions against those who try to make a business out of supplying pirate decoders and the like. The phenomenon of video piracy is certainly a warning that where there is money to be made out of using new technology for dishonest purposes people are going to make it unless we provide adequate safeguards.
The Government are currently considering what needs to be done, and I can give the noble Lord an assurance that before this Bill reaches the statute book we shall want to ensure that new provisions are in place to deal with the problem. Whether they can be ready for inclusion in your Lordships' House is another matter, because the Report stage itself would be a late stage, with none of the free to-ing and fro-ing in discussion that we have at Committee stage when introducing a major new provision without the precise notice that I think ought to be given. If we are able to
836
do it, we will. But before the Bill leaves the Palace of Westminster we expect to have a provision in the Bill that will extend the protection that the noble Lord is looking for.
The BBC, who have I think given the noble Lord some assistance in his drafting, have already had discussions with the Home Office, and further work is now in hand. The exact form of the new safeguards is not yet decided, but before we create new offences or new civil rights we need to think carefully how they might fit into the existing framework of the law.
One area which needs to be explored further is the interaction between the offence provision which already appears in the Telecommunications Bill relating to the dishonest use of a telecommunications system and any provision we put in this Bill to cover the specific dangers to which the noble Lord has referred. I can reassure him that we shall be taking steps to deal with the substance of his concern. We are grateful to him for his valuable contribution to our consideration of this problem, which we shall study with care. I hope that he will be content with that to allow us to get on with this work and that he will not
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I have certainly no intention of pressing the amendment. We tried to lay it out in full in order to show the various aspects that need to be dealt with. I think a shorter amendment would not have dealt with the problem in quite the way we believe it ought to be dealt with, because it is very important that we should have both civil and criminal remedies. That is an essential part of what we should seek in order to safeguard the interests of the cable operators and of the broadcasters who provide the pay services in the future.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I express the gratitude of my noble friends and myself for his having raised this point. We did not think of it, and we are most grateful to him for having brought it before the Committee.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 108B:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Procedural Measures of Safeguard.
.—(1) A decision to grant, vary, or refuse a licence the subject matter of an application under the provisions of this Act or of the Telecommunications Act 1984 shall not be made unless and until—

(a) consultation shall have ensued between the Authority and the Director:

(b) written observations as to terms and conditions of grant, variation, or grounds of proposed refusal shall have been exchanged between the Authority and the Director;

(c) a copy of such written observations together with all subsequent relevant correspondence between the Authority and the Director shall have been supplied to the applicant; and

(d) the Applicant shall have been afforded an opportunity of making written and oral representations on such observations and correspondence in support of his application.

(2) The decision mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be a reasoned decision in writing which shall be subject to full review on the merits by appropriate judicial process.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause which stands in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and myself. Already, on Amendment No. 108, there has been much discussion germane to the subject of this amendment, and so I shall be brief. It is quite plain from what has already been said that this Committee is indeed most uneasy about the situation, and rightly so.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has rightly said—I quote his words because I took them down as he said them—that there must be a decision. If there is to be a decision, there must be due administration. If there is to be due administration, there must be some rules of the game laid down in order to ensure fair play for the applicant and some revisory or appellate machinery. At this hour, I lack the hubris to seek to foist my do-it-yourself drafting upon your Lordships' Committee, particularly in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, with his experience, has said that the drafting is perhaps not appropriate. I am fully prepared to accept that the wording may not be appropriate, but what I shall never accept is that the principle behind it is unsound.
I wish to canvass your Lordships' general support on the question of the principle at stake, in the hope that my noble friend the Minister may consider the position and give some measure of comfort and assurance. The principle is so simple that it hardly needs stating. I ask your Lordships to forget the argument about words. The principle is simply this. The applicant must know what are the objections that he has to face after this so-called consultation. The applicant must be entitled to make representations in support of his application, knowing what those objections are. The applicant must be entitled to a reasoned decision and there must be some form of review procedure.
My noble friend the Minister seemed at one time to think that this was just a question of whether a dud is put into business—it is not. The question is whether a worthy applicant is unfairly ousted or refused, contrary to the established principles of natural justice, because the Minister would have it that this is within the realms of absolute, unchallengeable executive discretion, and that I, for one, will not have. That is the principle which is at stake before your Lordships. It is the elementary principle of fair play. It must be built into the statute. Ministerial assurances as to how such an absolute discretion will be exercised afford no substitute for building the minimum appropriate provisions, whatever they may be—forget about the wording—into the statute, and nothing less than that, as a matter of principle, will be acceptable to your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun: I am far from expert in technological advances in the fields of telecommunications and television; but I know that such future developments as tele-banking and tele-shopping, which we do not already have, and Prestel, which we do already have, involve a combination of telecommunications and cable and they are inextricably entwined. For this reason, it is a great pity that the Cable Authority and
838
Oftel cannot be a joint body, but if they cannot be married it is quite vital to the consumer's interests that they should be obliged, and obliged by law, to maintain close contact with each other.
In view of the fact that lack of co-operation between Government departments is, to put it mildly, rather frequent, I consider it absolutely necessary that a duty to co-operate should be clearly written into both this Bill and the Telecommunications Bill. I would add that British Telecom themselves have told me that, while they are in general happy with the Telecommunications Bill as it stands, they are not at all happy with the proposed dichotomy for the very reasons which I have briefly given. I therefore hope—and it is a very forlorn hope—that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: We have already debated the question of whether there should be two-way consultation between the Cable Authority and what I have called the Part II authority of the Telecommunications Bill. I do not think that your Lordships would welcome at this time a repetition of any of the arguments and we can, at least, spare the noble Lord the Minister a further reply on that issue, because he will have heard what was said in the previous debate.
If I may limit myself, therefore, to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which are always received with respect in this House, and certainly received by fellow lawyers with respect, I can well see—if I may say this with deference—the worthiness of an amendment which tries to secure that all applicants for licences have a fair deal. If the wording were to that effect and there was no more in this amendment, I do not think that the Committee would have very much difficulty in finding in favour of that principle, and any safeguards that there might be of a practical nature to procure that that principle was honoured.
I do not think that my objections to the amendment moved by the noble Lord and supported by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, are merely to words. I am afraid that my objections are to principles in the amendment. The first principle that I come across is that the worst thing you can do in a Bill is to put down so many detailed requirements, which are a burden upon two authorities, so that the mere slip-up of one of them, or a legal argument in relation to something that has been directed by this Bill to be supplied, can give every single applicant a right to go to the court in an attempt to set aside the grant of a licence to a competitor.
I give these examples in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. He said that all correspondence which is relevant must pass between the authorities. What a lovely opportunity for a lawyer to say that a letter which is worded, "We are in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant for which we thank you" was relevant but did not seem to have found its way from one authority to the other! But on top of that, the correspondence and all documents, including privileged communications—I have no doubt bank references and goodness knows what in regard to financial strength—must be supplied to the applicant. What an embarrassment that is in regard to an authority which is trying to get all the information it

839
can, confidential and otherwise, in regard to an application.
But my major objection, if the noble Lord will forgive me, is my third and, I promise the Committee, final point. He wishes to make the final arbiter in regard to this matter some judge, by virtue of a judicial process. I have no doubt that there are some licences which could go through a process of that kind. But it is not just a question of going to the judge on the impropriety of the way in which the authority has behaved.
The amendment says that you can go to the judge on the merits of the case, which makes a judge in those circumstances the arbiter as to whether or not a cable licence of this kind should be given. I can envisage many of the very notable members of the judiciary resigning immediately upon hearing that they are to be given a job of this nature, which is completely outside their experience and quite outside the area with which our judges would normally be expected to deal. And I am not so sure that applicants would be so very happy to have a judge of the High Court decide, as between various applicants, whether or not one of them ought or ought not to have a licence. It is on those major objections, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that I quarrel with his amendment; but if he comes before the House at Report stage with those considerations in mind and purely in order to get, by his amendment, real fair play, as he put it, for the licensee in a practical way, I am sure that he will have much more support from these Benches.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to give a certain amount of support to my noble friend. Whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, supports him in principle I am not sure. Without wishing to return to the argument which we had on Amendment No. 108, I have to say that I am still uneasy about the requirement for communication on one side or the other. I have put down an amendment, a mirror image of this, on the Telecommunications Bill, because the weakness, I believe, lies in this area. When arguing his case on Amendment No. 108 my noble friend said that in the Telecommunications Bill there are licences to cover such a wide area that to pick out just the cable connection would be unjustifiable. I suggest to him that that is not quite right.
I know that my noble friend will not be taking the Telecommunications Bill through its various stages; but I wish to put it on record that cable will be an important new development in the application of telecommunications, which itself needs to be specially considered in this general area of intercommunication. It is complicated by the ridiculous business of having two ministries dealing with similar subjects. We all know that there is no immediate answer to that problem, which is where the difficulty lies. In the meantime, the legislation has to take care of the anomaly of two almost autonomous republics, known as departments of state, which, when dealing with the same subject, are faced with this problem. I do not support my noble friend's argument that the Telecommunications Bill does not need to take special note of the relationship between the director general of Telecommunications and the director of the Cable
840
Authority. I believe that it does. We shall return to the charge.
Law is needed in order to create fairness. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that we are all agreed about the need for fairness for the person who is ultimately to be covered by this law. It is in that area that my noble friend's amendment is more relevant than some of the others. It tries to bring in the power of the law to introduce fairness. Although its wording may be totally wrong—though who am I to comment on legal luminaries?—the fact is that, somewhere there, there is an important point which has not yet been picked up but which needs to be picked up. Whether it is picked up in this Bill or the other Bill I do not know, but it needs to be picked up in one of them. If I had my way, I would get hold of the officials of the two ministries, bang their heads together and tell them to produce something useful.
Lord Elton: My noble friend is too modest about his drafting. It is extremely good and clear and answers the limited purpose which he has given it, of setting out the principle. It is to the principle that we are addressing ourselves, not to the drafting, so I congratulate my noble friend on his lucidity. He wishes, first, to introduce a legislative requirement for consultation between the two departments of state. Secondly, he wishes to codify the procedures which have to be gone through before a decision is taken on the granting of a licence. Thirdly, he wishes to make what is decided after that process, and therefore the process itself, justiciable on its merits.
Saving the grace of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, we covered, I believe, the matter of consultation at great length, and on my part with some vigour, before dinner. I say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who has put his own feelings very clearly and helpfully after dinner, that I have undertaken that my noble friend who is to take the Telecommunications Bill through your Lordships' House will be made aware of the strength of feeling all round the House on the matter. I shall also make sure that my noble friend's postscript to that debate will be included in what is brought to his attention. Whether that will produce the results which my noble friend on the Back-Benches requires in the mind of my noble friend on the Front Bench, obviously I cannot say.
This brings me to the codification of procedures. I do not wish to elaborate upon what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said about it. Although I do not often pray in aid speeches coming from the other side of the House, who, indeed, am I to intervene between legal luminaries? I think that the severe difficulties of detail and the endless litigation which could arise from the codification of procedures, and their being wheeled before the judges to decide, are dangerous. We are trying to produce a compact, efficient body which will come to practical solutions quickly. But of course we want it to be done fairly. We have already discussed that to some extent.
The third thing which my noble friend would like to do is to make the decisions of the authority not just justiciable but justiciable on their merits, which means that they can be called upon to decide, not whether the authority went beyond its powers or failed to observe the letter of the law in its proceedings before it came to

841
a conclusion but whether the conclusion itself was right. I would add just this to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. His comment assumed that there was only one applicant. I read it as that and probably I was wrong. But it could be taken to mean that there was only one applicant and he was protesting that he had not been given a licence. There may, however, have been 63 applicants, 62 of whom will not have been given a licence. All of them could say that they ought to have been given licences. That will not speed things up and make them cheaper. Therefore it is not going to be in the interests of either the consumer or of the cable companies.
May I reassure your Lordships that I have taken not only the question of consultation firmly on board. There is also no question of our trying to shelter the authority from the law. There are procedures in the statute which we are now passing that we have discussed in detail in the various clauses as we came to this point in the Bill, all of which are a legal requirement on the Cable Authority in coming to its conclusion. And the law is what the courts enforce. If, therefore, the authority does not observe the due procedures that we in Parliament have said that it should, the courts are there to put it right. That is the reassurance which is already in the Bill. I hope my noble friend will feel that that, shall I say, distillation of the rather lengthier view I was going to put before your Lordships had we come to it before dinner is in fact an answer to his case.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, replies, may I say that I hope he will not be put off unduly by the Minister's fairly predictable response to his amendment. The Minister's case is—and I speak as someone who has a high regard for those who work in Whitehall and around it—that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best. He is defending a situation whereby the authority will be given an absolute discretion. Without in any sense supporting every particular subsection of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is putting forward, I believe that we need to look at this matter far more seriously; I hope we shall have an opportunity to do so at Report stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the applicant must know what the objections in reality are. The Minister did not deal with that point at all. It seems to me wholly reasonable that an applicant should know what the real objections to his application may be. Also he deserves to have a reasoned decision; a reasoned explanation from the authority, if he fails in his application, as to why that has happened.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, this is a matter of natural justice. I assume that he will not press his amendment tonight. I believe it would be desirable for him to look again at the last part of his amendment, dealing with the judicial process; and that was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I hope that we shall not rule out ultimate judicial review of cases of this kind. If the authority were to decide, for instance, not to renew a licence after a particular organisation had held it for a number of years, it seems wholly reasonable that, first, the authority should be compelled to explain why it has found against the applicant; secondly, in the final analysis, that, as in
842
Australia, there is an opportunity for recourse to the courts.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I really should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I shall take the advice offered by them all gratefully. I shall think about this matter again, consider and consult—with a view to bringing back to your Lordships' House an amendment which might be acceptable on Report. It may even be acceptable to the inconceivable unholy alliance between the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend the Minister. On the understanding that this matter will receive objective consideration on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Copyright in cable programmes]:
8.54 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis Lord Lovell-Davis moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 19, line 15, after ("in") insert ("the transmissions of").
The noble said: In moving this amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Mishcon and Lord Ardwick, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak also to a whole battery of consequential amendments which number 15 in all. This is a course of action which I feel will commend itself to the Committee at this stage in the Bill and at this hour. The additional consequential amendments are Amendments Nos. 110, 125 to 131 inclusive, 133 to 137 inclusive, and 139.
Amendment No. 110: Page 19, line 43, after ("in") insert ("the transmissions of).
Amendment No. 125: Page 42, line 24, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 126: Page 42, line 27, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 127: Page 42, line 30, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 128: Page 42, line 34, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 129: Page 42, line 38, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 130: Page 42, line 42, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 131: Page 42, line 45, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 133: Page 43, line 28, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 134: Page 43, line 32, leave out ("a cable programme service") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").
Amendment No. 135: Page 43, line 36, leave out ("those programmes in a") and insert ("the works in the transmissions of the").
Amendment No. 136: Page 43, line 40, after ("in") insert ("the transmissions of").
Amendment No. 137: Page 44, line 19, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service").

843
Amendment No. 139: Page 44, line 34, leave out ("a cable programme") and insert ("the transmissions of a cable programme service")
Schedule 3(6)(1) to the Bill, together with various consequential amendments I have mentioned, replaces the expression in the Copyright Act 1956:
"causing the work to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service"
by the new expression,
"the inclusion of the work in a cable programme".
By virtue of Schedule 3(5)(2), a cable programme means,
"a programme included in a cable programme service".
The term "programme" itself is not defined, and it is far from clear that it would include all forms of sounds or visual images which may be transmitted via cable service. For instance, what about copyright work such as music which might be played during the interval in a cable programme service? Is the linking material itself—which may be just fill-in music, as I have said, or even an announcement about a forthcoming programme—a programme?
Similar difficult questions could arise in respect of services such as Oracle, Ceefax and Prestel. When a cable operator retransmits the broadcast made by the BBC and the IBA, as he will be required to do under the "must carry" franchise requirements, his subscribers will have access, through their television sets to the Oracle and Ceefax services. It is not clear that copyright works contained in those services will properly be regarded as having been included in a cable programme.
The transmission of the Prestel service raises similar problems, but perhaps it illustrates the central difficulty more clearly. As your Lordships will know, the Prestel service is a cable transmission service and so the problems of interpretation are not complicated by the broadcast element which is present in the Oracle and Ceefax services. In the case of Prestel, subscribers have access to information held in some central data bank which is transmitted on the demand of the subscriber, via cable, to his television set. In a Prestel-type service there is no constant transmission to which the subscriber may tune in; it is the subscriber using equipment made available to him by the Prestel service who activates the transmission by an electronic request to the central data bank which generates the transmission to him.
To avoid all these doubts, it is not only desirable but essential to amend the description of the restricted act. One way of removing the doubts which I commend to the Committee will be to expand the new description of the restricted act in the way I have indicated in these amendments by re-wording the relevant phrase to read:
"the inclusion of the work in the transmissions of a cable programme service".
However, in proposing Amendment No. 109, I have to recognise—not least because the noble Lord the Minister in his reply may deploy the argument in his reply—that the definition in the Bill and that proposed in the amendment are affected by the fact that the class of cable operators to which they will apply would, by reason of Clause 2(1) and 2(7) of the Bill be entirely
844
dependent upon the provisions of the new Telecommunications Bill which deals with the licensing, in the regulatory sense, of telecommunications systems. I do not believe, however, that it is desirable for copyright control to be linked with a separate Act regulating telecommunications licensing. I still consider that this is a necessary amendment, and I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I have listened with great care to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, because he is talking about a matter with which, however technical, we are in broad agreement. The noble Lord's amendments deal with the scope and terms of the rights of copyright owners under the Copyright Act 1956 to control the inclusion of their works or other subject matter in cable programmes, and thereby negotiate remuneration for their use in such programmes.
The Bill amends the terminology in which these rights are expressed in the 1956 Act to bring it into line with the terminology of the Bill. It also extends them to broadcasters and makers of sound recordings who have not previously enjoyed the right to control the diffusion of their broadcast and recording in cable programmes. The fear has been expressed that the way in which the right is drafted—namely, the right to control inclusion of a work, et cetera in a cable programme—leaves room for doubt as to whether copyright protection extends to certain categories of works when diffused through a cable system, because the transmissions in question cannot be called programmes in the ordinary sense of that word. Examples of such transmissions are Prestel and other text services, and linking items, such as short musical excerpts that may be interposed between scheduled programme items. The 1956 Act, as amended by the Bill, states that a cable programme is a programme included in a cable programme service, but does not define the word "programme" itself.
I can confirm that it is the Government's intention that such cable transmissions should come within the expression "cable programme" and that copyright works, films, sound recordings or broadcasts should only be included in them with the copyright owners' consent, unless, of course, the transmissions take place in circumstances which are specifically exempted by other provisions of the 1956 Act (for example, subsection (3) of Section 40). The Government's belief is that the noble Lord's apprehensions are unfounded and that the meaning of the term "cable programme" can be construed widely enough to embrace the types of transmission he has referred to. If this were not so, then not only would there be a need to amend the copyright provisions of the Bill: the terms "cable programme" and "programme" are used extensively elsewhere in the Bill in a sense which includes all the transmissions of a provider of a service, as indeed the word "programme" is used in broadcasting legislation generally. Even in the sphere of copyright the noble Lords' amendments would not be sufficient to correct matters if their premise is accepted, since they do not cover all the copyright instances where the term "cable programme" appears, for example, Clause 23, page 20, line 38 and Clause 23, page 20, line 42.
As I have said, I do not believe there is in fact any

845
danger that reliance on the word "programme" will allow certain types of cable transmission to escape either copyright liability or other controls provided by the Bill. I am, however, prepared to consider the matter further in the light of what the noble Lord has said to ensure that this is in fact so. If the noble Lord is correct and what I have said is not, I can undertake to consider what adjustments might be made to secure the objectives on which we are all agreed. In the light of this undertaking, I would invite noble Lords to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure we are all very grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. May I ask whether she will give possibly added attention to what my noble friend has already said in support of this amendment in the knowledge that it has the full support of the British Copyright Council, whose views have been paraphrased by my noble friend? In those circumstances, of course, he has a very weighty source. May I also ask the noble Baroness whether in the course of her consideration, without wearying the Committee with arguments for the necessity of it, she would consider the words:
"the communication of the work to the public by any means of cable diffusion"?
These are words, too, that have been advocated by the Council and she may therefore like to give attention to what they have to say. I know that they have been in communication, possibly not only with the noble Baroness's own Ministry that she so adequately represents but also the Department of Trade and Industry.
Baroness Trumpington: I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. As I said, these are very complex and technical issues. If the noble Lord reads in Hansard the very carefully prepared statement which I have just made I think he may find an answer to his question; but, if not, we can return to the subject at a later date.
Lord Lovell-Davis: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for that reply. The purpose of this amendment, as I am sure she appreciates very well, is to redefine the new description of cable use as one of the restricted acts under the control of the copyright holder. The matter of definition is a key element in this Bill. I feel that something along the lines of my amendment or the suggestion put forward by my noble friend should be considered. It was my intention to draw attention to this matter. I am very glad the noble Baroness has heard me. I think the matter should be given further consideration. At this stage I shall not press the matter, but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 19, line 45, at end insert (", if it is seen or heard by a paying audience.")
The noble Lady said: The words which this amendment adds to Clause 22(8)(c) appear earlier in the clause in subsection (56)(c). I am at a loss to understand why they do not reappear, unless it is a drafting error. I wonder whether there is some explanation. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The purpose of the new Section 14A of the 1956 Act is to give cable operators a copyright of their own in programmes which they themselves originate and transmit, separate from and additional to any copyrights which may subsist in the material included in those programmes. Since the position of cable operators putting out original programmes will be very much akin to that of broadcasters, the drafting of Section 14A follows closely the wording of Section 14 of the 1956 Act, which deals with broadcasters' copyright in their broadcasts. Thus the inclusion in Section 14A(5)(c) and the omission from Section 14A(8)(c) of the words,
"if it is seen or heard by a paying audience",
will be seen closely to mirror a similar inclusion and omission in Sections 14(4)(c) and 14(7)(c) of the 1956 Act. The inclusion of these words both in Section 14(4)(c) and in Section 14A(5)(c) derives from the need to avoid institutions such as hotels and clubs having to clear a multiplicity of public performance rights whenever they switch on a TV set in, say, a lounge or a bar.
However, Section 14(7) of the 1956 Act, which is mirrored as to cable diffusion by the new Section 14A(8) introduced by Clause 22, is for a different purpose. It is designed to make clear the limits of the "private purposes" for which video or sound recording of broadcasts is allowed without the broadcaster's consent, under Section 14(4)(a) and (b). There was never any suggestion that recording of broadcasts should be allowed for purposes of playing or showing in public, in hotels or anywhere else, without the broadcaster's consent. The purpose of Section 14(7) was to make clear that a film or recording of a broadcast made "in private" could not truly be said to be "for private purposes" if the real intention was to sell it, broadcast it, or cause it to be seen or heard in public. The new Section 14A(8) applies the same principle to recordings of cable programmes.
I hope that the noble Lady, and indeed noble Lords, will feel reassured to know that the whole question of exceptions, both to public performance rights and to other copyright, is under review as part of the general revision of copyright legislation which the Government hope shortly to introduce. I hope that in the light of my explanation and final remarks the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I do not think that my noble friend has answered the noble Lady's question at all. She has answered the question that she thought the noble Lady was asking, and it did not relate to what was asked in the first place. It is an awful pity, and perhaps my noble friend can help us.
Baroness Trumpington: First, I should like to say to my noble friend that I answered the question put, I thought, by the noble Lady when she asked whether there was a drafting error. Perhaps if my noble friend would care to read Hansard tomorrow he may think of writing to me.
Lady Saltoun: I personally am immensely reassured by that explanation, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the trouble she has taken to give it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 20, line 35, at end insert ("save that that expression shall include any such service where the matter sent is data whether alone or in combination with any sounds or visual images".").
The noble Lord said: We have a series of amendments here which I need not dwell on for very long because many of them arise, in a different context, from points I have made earlier in the proceedings. We are, or have been, talking about copyright, and I start with my well-known act of trying to make sure that the definition of what is included shall include what I have now started to call "data"; in other words, things which are not moving images and are not sounds. It is my endeavour that that should be included at this point.
I do not think that it would be totally helpful at this stage to try to pick up from the rest of the amendments, of which there are a great many, those which directly relate to this amendment. I think I should move them one by one in order not to get into too much of a muddle. However, if the Minister prefers to deal with them in a batch, I have no objection.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether I can help the Committee. I do not want to prevent the noble Lord from being specific about his concerns, but I think I probably know what they are. I shall respond now, if I may, with what I propose to say, and at the end of my intervention the noble Lord can decide whether or not he need go on.
I was going to start by saying how grateful I was to him for raising an important matter—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment proposed:
"Page 20, line 35, at end insert",
the words as printed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I realise the amendment we are discussing, which is the one that has just been put to the House, but what other amendments are we taking at the same time? I am not wholly clear what we are discussing.
Lord Elton: I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the gaucherie of my earlier intervention. My understanding was that we should probably be addressing ourselves not only to Amendment No. 111A but to Amendments Nos. 112A, 112B, 112C, 116ZA and 132A.
I wanted to give a very douce answer, and, having said how grateful I was to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, (and only in parenthesis saying that I wished he had given us rather longer to consider such a complicated matter) to say that the broadcasting of what he terms data is a new phenomenon. It is not surprising that neither the Copyright Act nor the Bill explicitly allows for it. The Government agree that when computer programs and other matter falling outside the terms "sounds" and "visual images" are broadcast, the broadcaster should receive the same copyright protection as he would in relation to anything else that he puts out over the air. Cable operators should be similarly treated when they
848
include such matter in cable programmes. We shall certainly consider how best to ensure that this is achieved. I think this was the objective of all the amendments in the group, although I am open to correction.
As they stand, the amendments raise a number of questions, The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that in their present form we are not entirely happy with them. One obvious question to be looked at is the implication of the amendments for the rest of the Bill and, indeed, for broadcasting legislation generally. The amendments bear only upon the Copyright Act; but of course the terms "sounds" and "visual images" are used elsewhere in the Bill—for example, in Clause 2—and also in the Telecommunications Bill. Where the expression "cable programme service" is used in contexts other than copyright, is the term to be understood as excluding or including what the noble Lord calls data, and so on? Also, the definition of data is itself a highly intricate matter, which we discussed at great length during debates on the Data Protection Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich will remember—which is still to solidify onto the statute book and with which we may well find that we need to remain consistent.
I am a little anxious at the idea of committing ourselves to a specific definition at this stage of the Bill, but we are very much aware that this really rather new phenomenon ought to be embraced in legislation in terms which are clearly understood. I hope the noble Lord will find that helpful.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I find both sections of the noble Lord's reply extremely helpful. The only other point that comes under the same heading is the question of other rights owners such as the authors either of computer programs or books. They ought not to be deprived of copyright protection against the cable distribution of their works if the transmissions do not consist of sounds, and so on. It is the same old point. If a computer program is downloaded over a cable, or where a book is accessed by a subscriber from a data base which is controlled by a cable operator, there ought to be copyright protection. It is I think one of the most difficult areas in which we are dealing in the whole Bill. If your Lordships will allow me to continue on this basis, because we seem to be getting the answers as we go along, the other point is contained in Amendment No. 113, but your Lordships may prefer to leave that until we have dealt with the amendments up to Amendment No. 112C. May I withdraw Amendment No. 111A, and also not move the other amendments up to Amendment No. 112C?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Other amendments of 1956 Act]:
9.19 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 20, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 14 of the 1956 Act is hereby amended by the addition after "the Authority" of the words "or any other person licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to broadcast programmes for general reception".").
The noble Lord said: I have to move Amendment No. 112 in order to be able to move Amendment No. 113. The point here is that at present the only people who have so far been regarded as authorities or broadcasters have been the IBA, the ITC companies under it and the BBC. In the future I think it is almost certain that consortia will be formed, whether between the various ITCA companies and the BBC, among the various ITCA companies themselves or between the IBA and the BBC, in connection principally with DBS. Your Lordships all know what the problems of DBS have been and are likely to continue to be.
What we are anxious about is that, in addition to the BBC and the IBA, we should have a class comprising,
"any other person licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to broadcast programmes for general reception".
I hope that that is clear. Indeed, I shall now sit down in order to find out whether I have made myself clear on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has made himself crystal clear. I believe that the ground of this amendment was covered during discussion of a number of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, sought to make to earlier clauses. The principal purpose of those amendments was to pave the way for the future by replacing the references in Clause 12 to "DBS services" by references to "pay services", and by replacing references to the BBC and the IBA in all other statutes by references to people,
"licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to broadcast programmes for general reception".
As the noble Lord has explained, the present amendment is consequential on the second of those changes and would ensure that copyright subsisted in programmes broadcast by anyone licensed to broadcast.
As was explained during the discussion of the noble Lord's earlier amendments on this subject, the developments foreseen by the noble Lord are entirely hypothetical. I have no doubt that if in the future an organisation other than the BBC or the IBA were authorised to broadcast—as the noble Lord has suggested—it would be possible at that time to make all the necessary adjustments to the Copyright Act and to other relevant pieces of legislation. But that is something for the future. On that basis I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: With all respect to the noble Baroness, I would say that there is a precedent for this kind of definition, which is contained in the British Telecommunications Act 1981, and it also appears in Clause 6(5) of the Telecommunications Bill, which we are shortly to consider.
Baroness Trumpington: That is as may be; but the point is that if the supposition which the noble Lord earlier presented materialised in the future, there would have to be new legislation.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I cannot say that I find that an entirely satisfactory reply, when we already have such a definition in other legislation
850
produced by a different Ministry. I do not see the difficulty in inserting in all the appropriate places this extra definition to which I have referred at various stages. I am not quite sure whether I have withdrawn the amendments concerning it—this is one of the problems—because the point to which it relates occurs so often throughout the Bill, and one has to keep on trying to insert the definition in all the appropriate places. I think the fact that the definition occurs in the British Telecommunications Act and in the Telecommunications Bill is a very good precedent for it to be included in this Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: While I accept that in the context of DBS the possibility of new arrangements in our broadcasting structures may not be quite as hypothetical as I may have suggested, nevertheless I think that we should be unwise to provide for the future until we know a little more clearly what it will look like. I take the point about the definition having appeared in other forms elsewhere, but I still do not see any reason to anticipate a point that can easily be legislated for prior to its occurrence.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I am sorry; the noble Baroness says that it could easily be legislated for, but I know how long Ministries have to wait for legislation. It may well be that, by refusal to accept such a definition, it will not be possible to get DBS on the air. The only hope of getting DBS on the air may be to have some type of consortium of this nature between either the commercial companies in ITV or the IBA itself and the BBC. There may be no other way of doing it. If we are going to do it we have got to move fast. It is no good waiting for further legislation to allow us to do it.
Baroness Trumpington: I bow to the noble Lord's very superior knowledge on this issue. I would be glad to take the matter back and to have a look at it.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I thank the noble Baroness for saying that she will take the matter back and have a further look at it. In those circumstances; I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 112A, 112B and 112C not moved.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 21, line 3, at end insert ("unless the broadcast is made in the course of providing a pay service to which section 12(3) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 does not apply.
(8B) In this section"pay service" has the same meaning as in section 12 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984".")
The noble Lord said: This amendment again arises as regards copyright. It concerns circumstances where Clause 12(3) does not apply and it does not apply in certain specific cases where the cable is being provided on a limited basis. There are so many definition of cable services that I shall try not to use one of the technical ones. But where, for example, we have a block of flats and a single aerial on the top and a down lead to each individual flat, it is likely to be an

851
exempted service as regards which Clause 12(3) will not apply.
Clause 12(3) enables the broadcaster to get into a relationship with the cable operator who is covering his DBS service. It enables him to come to terms with him as to how they share out the payment for that service. But where it does not apply, there does not appear to be any means or mechanics whereby the broadcaster can get into that relationship with an operator who is distributing his "pay" service.
This amendment would provide the necessary protection. I believe that the detail relating to this matter was sent to the Home Office a considerable while ago and the Home Office, therefore, is not without knowledge of the difficulties which will be faced here. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: It is simply lovely for me to be able to agree that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has raised an important point. We are willing to take the matter back and to have another look at it. I should give our reasons for not being able to accept the noble Lord's amendment and also flesh out the information that he gave us from the Government's point of view. The Government agree that it would be inappropriate for cable operators to enjoy the right to diffuse broadcasts within their intended reception area free of copyright royalties, where the broadcasts so diffused are subscription broadcasts and where the operator, because exempted from the need for a Cable Authority licence, is not subject to the operation of Clause 12(3). I do not envisage that there will be many such cases but it is right that they should be provided for.
There is a problem here which needs to be tackled and we would like to reflect further on whether the approach in the noble Lord's proposed amendment could provide the basis for a solution. We do, however, see certain difficulties in the amendment as drafted. First, it bears only upon the right of broadcasters to control the inclusion of their broadcast in cable programmes. But authors and other copyright owners have (or will shortly have) similar rights in respect of the inclusion of works, sound recordings and films in cable programmes, and these are suspended in respect of simultaneous cable diffusions of broadcasts within the intended reception zone by virtue of Section 40(3) of the 1956 Act, just as broadcasters' rights are so suspended by virtue of Section 14(8A). Thus, for consistency a similar amendment would also be required to subsection (4) of this clause. Secondly, I question whether the noble Lord's amendment is correct in referring to DBS services to which Section 12(3) of the Cable and Broadcasting Act does not apply; the reference should, perhaps correctly be to Section 12(1). In the light of what I have said and my undertaking to consider the point, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: As the night advances, the noble Baroness becomes more and more accommodating. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 21, line 14, after ("comprising") insert ("or including the whole or any substantial part of").
The noble Lord said: This is largely a drafting amendment. It is intended to improve the drafting of the proposed new subsection (3) of Section 40 of the Copyright Act 1956, which is set out in subsection (4). That says that the copyright is not infringed by its inclusion in simultaneous "in-area" broadcasts. However, this applies only where a programme comprises the work, and there is some doubt about what that word "comprises" means. For example, where only part of a work is used or the work constitutes less than the whole programme it might be possible for the author to contend that the programme did not comprise his work and that no infringement had occurred. It is not dissimilar to something we were discussing only a few minutes ago. We recognise that similar wording in the existing subsection (3) of Section 40 has not led to challenges of this kind in the past, but in the present circumstance, where commercial interests are becoming of ever greater magnitude, I fear that it may lead to problems and I hope that they might be avoided by my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The Government share the objective of this amendment, but believe that the apprehensions of the noble Lord are unfounded. Government drafting is often mysterious, but in this case it is surely unduly narrow to interpret the word "comprise" so as to rule out the sense "include". To support this contention the word "comprise" is specifically listed as one of the meanings of the word along with "embrace", "contain", "extend to" and "cover" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The word is used in the wider sense in other intellectual property legislation, notably the Patents Act 1977. To add the word "including" in line 14 would therefore be unnecessary repetition.
As to the remaining words contained in the noble Lord's amendment, I suggest that these are rendered unnecessary by Section 49(1) of the 1956 Act. This makes clear that:
"Except in so far as the context requires otherwise"
—which in this case it does not—
"any reference in this Act to the doing of an act in relation to a work or other subject matter shall be taken to include a reference to…a substantial part thereof".
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: He is so inclined.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 21, line 14, after ("an") insert ("adaptation of such a work, or an")
The noble Lord said: This next amendment may seem pettifogging, but we are supposed to be revising and getting these things absolutely right because we know we are going to get them "righter" than the other place, so let us make sure that we do. This deals with adaptations of copyright work. They are mentioned in

853
the penultimate line of the subsection, and they are therefore presumably meant to be covered. They ought to have been mentioned earlier in the subsection as well as at or near the end. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: In order to go speedily, may I hastily say that with regard to Amendment No. 115 the noble Lord, Lord Howard, is quite correct, and I am happy, therefore, to accept the first of his amendments.
I submit that the noble Lord's second amendment is not necessary. Apart from the addition of the word "recording", the words "infringement of the copyright (if any) in the work, recording or film" repeat without changing the words of the 1956 Act. No reference to an adaptation is necessary at this point because infringement of the copyright in an adaptation of a work involves infringement of the copyright in the work itself. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his second amendment.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: The answer to the first amendment was absolutely splendid; the answer to the second I shall read in Hansard. As to the second amendment, when we reach it, I shall not move it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 116ZA not moved.]
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Amendment etc. of law relating to obscene publications.]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 116ZB:
Page 22, line 16, leave out from first ("programme") to ("of") in line 17 and insert ("consisting")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 116ZB as printed. This ensures that once a programme has been broadcast by the BBC or the IBA it will retain its privilege against liability under the Obscene Publications Act in the event of a subsequent non-simultaneous transmission on a cable service.
The wording, I suggest, goes a little further than this and extends the privilege to video sales in Amendment No. 116ZC. I am not altogether sure about this myself. I mean, I am moving an amendment in which I have not absolute confidence. I have complete confidence in the first part of it; that is to say, the non-simultaneous broadcasting by cable companies. I think we are still in considerable difficulties over videos, and I, for one, find it extremely difficult to make up my mind about exactly what we should do. I think I know what I shall have to do when it comes to it, but at the moment I should like to move No. 116ZB.
Lord Elton: It seems to me that in fact amendments Nos. 116ZC, ZD and ZF hang inextricably with this one, and I shall speak to these as well on the assumption that I shall dispose of them all at the same time. The Government, I regret, cannot accept that this extension of the broadcasters' special position under the Obscene Publications Act is either necessary
854
or desirable. So far as the broadcasts themselves are concerned the broadcasters have their own particular obligations to ensure that what they put out does not offend against good taste and decency. That is a more stringent requirement than simply having to avoid what is obscene.
The broadcasters have to have regard to the way in which taste can change over the years. In addition, they are in a position to ensure that material which might perhaps be acceptable for transmission at midnight is not shown at six o'clock in the evening when large numbers of young people are watching. None of this applies when the broadcasters supply a programme for subsequent showing on cable or for distribution through video shops. They can then have no direct control over how and when the material is made available to the public, and it would seem inequitable therefore to treat it any differently in law from material supplied by other programme sources.
Clause 24(2) is merely designed to avoid the anomaly which would exist if a broadcast were exempt from the Obscene Publications Act when it was transmitted over the air direct to the home but within the scope of the Act as soon as it was relayed over cable. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition and is in effect merely making sure that the existing position in relation to broadcasts is not altered as a result of the introduction of cable. To go further and extend the exemption to anything which had ever been broadcast would in the Government's view be wrong, and I do see why the noble Lord did not have full confidence in his amendment.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: This is a case where I am particularly glad to have the Government's reasoning and thoughts on it because they are to me quite convincing, particularly those in relation to the different timings of particular programmes. No doubt all broadcasters will consider carefully when it is suitable to repeat a programme which has been originally broadcast very late at night, but they cannot be at all sure that cable programmers will necessarily exercise the same care. In any event, they have no control over what they do with the thing when they have got it. With your Lordships' leave I will withdraw Amendment No. 116ZB.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116ZC and 116ZD not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Application of the 1959 and 1964 Acts to Northern Ireland]:
[Amendments Nos. 116ZE and 116ZF not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Incitement to racial hatred]:
[Amendments Nos. 116A and 117 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Freedom of Expression
.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorising or requiring any act to be done by the Secretary of State or the Authority which infringes the right to freedom of expression of any person within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
(2) In this section the right to freedom of expression means freedom to receive and impart information and ideas.
(3) For the purposes of this section an act shall be taken to infringe the right to freedom of expression if and only if it interferes with such freedom in a manner or to an extent which is not necessary in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Aylestone and Lord Winstanley. Our purpose today is to begin a debate on this issue. Particularly in the light of the lateness of the hour I do not think it would be appropriate to try to press this matter today. We shall obviously decide in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, says subsequently what action we shall take at a later stage of the Bill.
The central purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State and the new Cable Authority exercise their powers in full conformity with United Kingdom obligations under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I will deal first with the precise terms of the amendment. Subsection (1) refers to the right of,
"any person within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom"—
because Article 1 of the convention obliges the high contracting parties to,
"secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of the Convention"—
including the rights and freedoms defined in Article 10.
Subsection (2), in defining the right to freedom of expression, uses the relevant part of the definition in the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Subsection (3) adopts the test of necessity contained in Article 10(2) and the grounds set out there upon which it is permissible for the State and for public authorities to interfere with the right of free expression.
I turn now to the merits of the case. I recognise at the outset that it will be argued by critics, "Why not leave the Bill precisely as it is because", it will be said, "the powers of the new Cable Authority are similar to those already possessed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority". To that argument I will reply in advance. First, the IBA model is not an appropriate one to adopt in the context of cable broadcasting which, as has been repeatedly said in the course of the debates in Committee, differs in important respects from public service broadcasting. Secondly, it is possible that some of the practices of the IBA, even when they had the benevolent leadership of my noble friend Lord Aylestone, in some respects contravene Article 10, as I will attempt to demonstrate. It is no justification for a policy which breaches the international obligations of the United Kingdom that those obligations are
856
similarly contravened by the United Kingdom in other respects.
I deal first with the comparison between the IBA and the new Cable Authority. As I have indicated already, the powers accorded to the IBA under the Act and the powers accorded to the authority under this Bill are similar. The basic position is that in each case Parliament establishes a body to control access to broadcasting and gives that body wide discretionary powers to regulate the identity of licensees, the content of broadcasting, and the quantity and the quality of advertising. The powers given to the new Cable Authority in the Bill largely replicate those possessed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and in Clauses 4, 9, 10, 11 and 15 the authority is given sweeping powers which are defined only in the most general terms—a point touched on in the debate on an earlier amendment. I do not believe that the IBA model of broad discretionary powers to impose limitations on freedom of expression is appropriate for cable broadcasting.
First, the IBA is providing public service broadcasting. Section 2(2) of the Broadcasting Act imposes on the Independent Broadcasting Authority a duty,
"to provide the television and local sound broadcasting services as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment".
To achieve these purposes the IBA needs closely to regulate programme content. We know the IBA devotes an immense amount of time and resources to that. By contrast, cable broadcasting serves a different purpose. The Government's White Paper points out in paragraph 5, that Cable technology,
"poses a particular and exciting challenge because it has the potential both for removing many of the previous limitations on the number of programme services, television and sound, which can simultaneously be transmitted to the home and for increasing the range of interactive telecommunications services available both domestically and at the office.".
Whereas Section 2(2) of the Broadcasting Act sets out the objectives which the IBA is asked to attempt to achieve, this Bill does not explain for what objective the Cable Authority is given such broad powers of regulation.
Secondly, in cable broadcasting, by contrast with public service broadcasting, the White Paper says:
"It will be consumers from their own purchasing power who will decide whether they wish to buy the range of new services which cable will offer".
If I may say so, I think that is entirely right but, that being so, the Government should aim to leave it to the consumer to decide whether to purchase the service. I think that regulation should be designed to facilitate choice and not to exercise that choice for the consumer.
As I have already indicated, even if it is appropriate to compare the IBA with the new Cable Authority for the purposes of developing a regulatory régime for cable broadcasting, it is likely that it could be argued that in some respects the IBA itself is in breach, in terms of the power conferred upon it by Parliament, of some of the requirements of Article 10 of the European Convention. For example, the IBA code prohibits advertising by charities or advisory services related to consumer problems. I believe that these

857
existing restrictions are difficult to reconcile with Article 10 of the Treaty, to which this country has subscribed. Yet the White Paper, in paragraph 100, goes no further than to say this:
"It may be possible for some products or services to be advertised on specialist cable channels which would not be appropriate for independent television".
To the extent that the Government ask us to believe that the IBA's powers and the new Cable Authority's powers are already consistent with Article 10, they cannot logically object to the Bill containing a provision requiring an authority to comply with Article 10 in the exercise of its powers. Of course, the Government may be satisfied that these powers will not be abused in the near future; but I think it is desirable to impose legally binding restrictions to prevent any possible future abuse.
Lastly, let me say this to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I hope that we will not hear from him those bland reassurances that have been given by Ministers of different Governments in the past. This Chamber and another place have been constantly assured that various pieces of legislation favoured by the Government of the day are entirely consistent with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights—and just as consistently they have been proved totally wrong. In case after case this country has been dragged to the Commission and subsequently to the European Court, and has lost. No other country which subscribes to the Treaty has lost so many cases of such high importance.
To take only one example to demonstrate this, 80 cases have been declared admissible against the United Kingdom and only 37 against West Germany. And the disparity is a great deal greater than that, because West Germany accepted the right of individual petition 11 years before the United Kingdom. Most recently, as will be within the recollection of the Committee, the British Government assured us that the foreign husbands' rule in immigration cases was entirely consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, but, as we all know, the European Commission found against us. Today, we are seeking to avoid a repetition of further episodes of this character which have, I believe, in the last few years quite needlessly damaged the reputation of this country. We are seeking to ensure today that the new Cable Authority is specifically required to observe the terms of the Convention. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before putting this amendment, may I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that Schedule 1 was agreed to some days ago?
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has raised an extremely important question concerning freedom of expression. As the noble Lord has made clear, his new clause is based on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention was ratified by the United Kingdom many years ago, and for some time now individuals have had the right to address petitions alleging violation of the rights and freedoms defined in the convention to the Commission of Human Rights.
858
We also recognise the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights.
The noble Lord has eloquently elaborated both his motives and the effects of his amendment, and, if I can summarise what we see as those effects, they would be to incorporate a part of that convention into a part of our law. As to incorporation of the whole convention, the Select Committee of your Lordships' own House, which examined the possibility of a Bill of Rights in 1978, was divided on the desirability of legislation to incorporate the convention. We do not think that it would be right, on a matter of such constitutional importance, to proceed without a broad measure of agreement to the principle.
The whole question of incorporation into domestic law of the convention raises profound issues which go far wider than the scope of our present, modest Bill which we are considering today. This may not therefore be the occasion for considering the underlying questions of principle concerning incorporation. But whatever the outcome of such reconsideration might be, I think your Lordships will agree that it would be quite wrong to incorporate parts of the convention into domestic law piecemeal, as the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do.
Let me add very emphatically that the Government's disagreement with the amendment does not result from any lukewarmness on the question of freedom of expression. We entirely accept that people should have the right to express themselves freely, subject to the constraints of the law, on cable as elsewhere, and to do so under the shelter, as it were, of the convention. The new clause talks in terms of acts done by the Secretary of State or the Cable Authority which might infringe the right of individuals to freedom of expression. In fact, the Bill gives the Home Secretary no locus at all in the area of programme content except in so far as he may issue directions concerning classes of advertisements or methods of advertising which may not be employed.
I do not know whether the noble Lord regards that as an addition to the series of bland assurances from successive Governments. As he stood at this Dispatch Box, speaking with the authority of a member of the same department as I speak for now, in that succession, I am sure he will not want to press me further on that. Neither will the Cable Authority be in the business of censoring cable, although it does perfectly properly have duties to enforce programme standards in areas such as taste and decency.
We are firmly wedded to the principle of free expression. It is one which I rather think we in this country were committed to as a nation long before other European countries got around to considering this convention at all. Indeed, we exported it to America before the United States or the European Communities had come into existence. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the opportunity to reaffirm that commitment on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but the Government's view is that the question of incorporating it in statute goes very much wider than a Bill with the limited purposes of that which is now before us, and that it would be quite wrong now to embed a reference fragmentarily in such a Bill without a debate which could not possibly

859
be confined within the limits of the Order Paper to which we are now addressing ourselves.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I agree with what the Minister has just said, It would be a mistake to continue to reproduce different definitions of "free speech" in different statute law dealing with different aspects of our affairs, If we are going to do this, we should do it comprehensively arising from the convention and let it be the general umbrella under which our freedom of speech is centred.
My objection to the amendment as it stands is that while subsections (1) and (2) are all right, subsection (3) gives far too much away. It begins to qualify in numerous directions the extent of free speech. If noble Lords will underline them, they will see how many there are.
What is more, one has to refer back to Clause 9 of the Bill which deals, under the duties of the authority, with the general provisions as to programmes. What do the authority have to do? They have to ensure that nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste—if anybody knows what that is—or decency, or is likely to encourage or incite to crime, or to lead to disorder, or to be offensive to public feeling—all that, plus what is in subsection (3) of the amendment which deals with national security, territorial integrity, public safety: the lot. If you are to be confined by all these restrictions, there is nothing left to say except "Boo" to the goose. And if you said "Boo" to the gander you would probably be caught, because it would be an incitement to disorder. It is so ludicrous, it seems to me, to come forth like a knight in shining armour with "freedom of speech" emblazoned on the shield and then, at the back of it, to have a whole string of qualifications which seem to reduce the right of free speech to the conventional exchanges of goodwill between one man and another.
There are aspects of the censorship of broadcasting which need to be examined in relation to other aspects of free speech. I believe that the chief culprit here is the IBA rather than the BBC. However, at this hour I do not intend to stand between the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, who is entitled to unimpeded progress, as they call it, and to the resumption of the debate on more meaningful amendments. However, I hope that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will not press his amendment. It does not do what he intends it to do. There is far more involved here than can be dealt with either in this amendment or in this debate. On another occasion I shall outline to this or to another committee some of my grievances against the IBA—the subtleties of the censorship of broadcasting and all the rest. That is a joy to come.
After four hours of saying nothing in this Committee I was reflecting upon what might be 'a parliamentary heaven and came to the conclusion that, as a Minister in charge of a Bill, it would be where there was no more moving of amendments: and my idea of a parliamentary hell would be where the Minister in charge of a Bill was faced with no limit to the number of amendments and with no withdrawal of any of those amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As I indicated earlier, I do not propose to detain the Committee at considerable length; I realise that it is the general wish of the Committee to make as much progress as possible. But I look forward at some stage to debating this matter at rather greater length with the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. He and I are allies on most issues, though not, unhappily, on this. I repeat to him that if we do not move in the direction in which this amendment endeavours to move—towards incorporating in the Bill our treaty obligations so far as the European Convention on Human Rights is concerned—this country will continue to have the worst record in Europe of being dragged to Strasbourg in one civil rights case after another. That, as we all know, is the reality of it. Having made that point, the hour is late and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. We may well return to it, however, at a later stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Power to make copies of scripts and records]:
On Question, whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.5 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: New as I am to the procedures of your Lordships' Committee, I am not sure whether this is the correct moment for me to rise, but at the nod of the Deputy Chairman of Committees I believe it is, to tell your Lordships why I believe that Clause 32 should not stand part of the Bill.
The only precedent that I have been able to discover for the powers which are described in this clause are those contained in the Theatres Act 1968, where similar powers are given to the police in relation to the production of scripts. The Obscene Publications Act does provide for powers of search and seizure, and these can be issued by a magistrate to allow a constable to search premises and various stalls and vehicles, and to seize and remove articles which a constable has reason to believe are obscene and kept for publication for gain.
Presumably the mischief with which those powers are intended to deal consists of large stocks of obscene articles which, if not seized, would find their way into circulation. Indeed, in a sense they work in the criminal law in the same sort of way that the Anton Pillar action and judgment acts in civil law.
The Public Order Act 1936, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, contains no such powers or any similar power. The Theatres Act 1968 is not and has not been assimilated into either the Obscene Publications Act, the Race Relations Act, or the Public Order Act. Obscene performances and threatening, abusive or insulting words which are likely to stir up racial hatred are subject to specific provisions under the Theatres Act 1976—although that, of course, relates only to stage plays.
What is being suggested is that if the obscenity laws are applied to cable, then it follows—although I do not quite see why—that the enforcement provisions

861
applicable in obscenity matters should also apply to cable. If that is the reasoning behind this clause, then the force, if there is any, must come from the existence of the Theatres Act 1976 as a precedent. It does not come from the principal Acts because no such provisions appear in them.
It is perfectly true that there is greater similarity between theatre and cable than between books and cable, but there is not necessarily all that much similarity between a live theatrical production and a cable production, even if the cable production is in itself live. Whether one is seeing a filmed version or an immediately staged version of a play makes very little difference. It may do so in the case of sporting events; but there some different psychology applies, because one wants to know who is going to win. There are differences anyhow between theatre and cable. It is not necessarily right to control cable in the same way as the stage, and the one is not necessarily a guide to the other.
Broadcasting has developed in this country to a very large degree independent of Executive interference. My experience as both a governor and chairman of the BBC—and I spent 11½ years in those two positions—was that virtually never was pressure brought to bear, either overt or covert, upon the broadcasters to change what they were proposing to do. I can remember very few instances indeed, and those very few instances, which certainly could be counted on half a hand, were in fact all connected with the Foreign Office and the effect the Foreign Office, always wrongly, thought particular programmes might have upon subsequent foreign relations. "Death of a Princess" was not, of course, a BBC production, and may have had a different effect.
The great strength of our broadcasting has been the fact that it has been free of pressures, political pressures in particular, and because of the wisdom of excluding directly sponsored programmes it has been to a very considerable extent free also of commercial pressures. One of the reasons why independent television as it has grown up has been able to produce some marvellous programmes has been the lack of pressures upon it, as well as having plenty of money to produce them, but that is another matter.
If that has been so—and it is perfectly true that neither the BBC nor the IBA have ever been required to show scripts or tapes of programmes to anyone before broadcasting—we are about to have a third force in that market and cable is to be that third force. They will be competing with the BBC and the ITV for viewers, with unforeseen results, which we can none of us predict, upon the quality of our programmes. But in regard to what the viewer sees, it does not matter to him whether it is delivered by cable, DBS or from a terrestrial station. However it arrives, it is still the same television picture at the end of the day.
It is a sister service, and we have to regard it as such, to those which broadcast and supply. Because it is a sister service what applies to it will sooner or later—and I am absolutely certain of this—be proposed for broadcasters. If it applies to cable, cable will be given as a precedent to support its being applied to broadcasters just as much as to cable operators. So the fear is that giving the police powers to require the
862
production of scripts and tapes will be the thin end of a wedge which will be driven into the principal pillar of broadcasting independence.
On both sides of this Committee we have had those who have been responsible for broadcasting who have been very zealous in defending its independence and its ability to work for itself. I have frequently heard Ministers say, "That is not for me to answer; the BBC (or the IBA) is responsible for the contents of its programmes". Parliament receives a report once a year from those authorities. Ministers are not directly responsible, nor are the police. If I sound rather pompous it is because I believe passionately in what I am saying; it will be a sad, sad day if that independence is interfered with by giving the police certain powers in relation to cable which inevitably would lead to what I can only call a slippery slope leading to the same powers being given over broadcasters.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. There are some important issues here relating to broadcasting freedom, not only to the cable authority but the BBC and the IBA. We are conferring extraordinary powers for which, so far as I am aware, there is very little precedent. In Clause 32(1) we are giving a superintendent of police the power to,
"make an order in writing under this section relating to"
a particular programme and a particular person.
First, I certainly have a warm regard for superintendents of the police but I would be interested to know what precedent there is for the police to be given such a power. Is there one? I am sure we would all like to hear about it. Secondly, I assume that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been consulted about this, but I am sure we would all like to know whether that is so.
Although in this Bill we are only talking about cable, I believe that the noble Lord who raised this matter, with all his wide broadcasting experience, is entirely right. In years to come there is a real risk that people will refer to the power conferred in this Bill and use it as an excuse to recommend similar powers being used in other areas of broadcasting. That seems to me to be a pretty serious matter and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be able to reassure us on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: I am sorry that such an important matter as this is being raised at this late hour. It is not a subject which can be properly debated, if I may respectfully say so, in such an attenuated Committee. The obvious fear of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe—and he expressed it clearly—is that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the broadcasting authority and independent television may be faced with precisely the same powers which many of us might think in those circumstances to be somewhat objectionable. We must obviously endeavour to see whether there can be some assurance in that regard upon which one can rely.
There is obviously a great difference between the multifarious channels that may be let loose upon this island of ours as a result of this Bill—the commercial elements involved; often the lack of responsibility, subject of course to what is said in this Bill, about the sort of things which will be televised which in many

863
cases will be contracted for from outside—and one can therefore see that there are dangers in the two fields of obscenity and race relations which the Government may well want protection against by a Bill of this kind.
As I have said. I do not think this is the time fully to debate this but I throw one thought at the Government which could perhaps be considered between now and Report if, in their kindness, the Government are prepared to do so. If it is found that such a power should be in the Bill—and I can see the need for it, although I share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—then I would hope that this power will not rest upon the discretion of a superintendent of police but that at least an order of a magistrate will need to be procured. With that thought, I will not detain the Committee any longer on what is undoubtedly an important debate.
10.19 p.m.
Lord Airedale: I should like to throw one more thought to the Government very much following what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said. There is a contrast between this clause and Clause 30, which we passed on the nod just now, Clause 30 being the clause about entry and search of premises. Both clauses begin with the supposition that there is reasonable ground to suspect that something is wrong; but, whereas in this clause it is the police officer himself who decides whether his grounds of suspicion are reasonable, in Clause 30 ("Entry and search of premises") it is the magistrate who decides whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.
I should have thought that any police officer would have been only too pleased to go before the magistrate for a warrant, because, if any question subsequently arose upon a complaint that the police officer had not reasonably suspected an offence, he would have the support of the magistrate in defending himself against that complaint. I should think that in almost every case there would be time to go before a magistrate for a warrant, but if in an exceptional case there was not time, conceivably one might have a clause allowing the police officer to act without a warrant expressly when there was no time to go before the magistrate. Otherwise, I should have thought that there was every reason for bringing Clause 32 into line with Clause 30 and requiring the police officer to go before the magistrate for a warrant. For the reason that I gave, I think a sensible police officer would be only too glad to go before the magistrate.
Lord Elton: This has been an interesting debate on an important point. May I start by making two things clear, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, will find very relevant to what he said when he reads through Hansard, as perhaps will other noble Lords. First of all, and as a background, we must recognise that Clause 25 creates a free-standing offence provision of sending an obscene live cable programme. It is not part of the Obscene Publications Act and so separate enforcement provisions are necessary in the Bill. Similarly, in Clause 27 is the free-standing offence of incitement to racial hatred. It is not part of the Public Order Act. There again we have to have the
864
enforcement provisions in this Bill. That is what makes the analogy with the Theatres Act so relevant. I am glad that that is the springboard of much of what the noble Lord said.
The Theatres Act has been on the statute book for some 16 years. What is proposed is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, so extraordinary as all that, with respect. Section 10 of the Theatres Act gives a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above the power to require the person suspected of having committed or of being about to commit one of those offences to produce a copy of the script of the play, and failure to comply with the order is an offence. So this is not new. I am not aware that the police have ever yet had cause to invoke the power; but it seems entirely right to us that when we create offences we should also provide sufficient powers to enable the enforcement authorities to enforce the legislation.
Clauses 25 and 27 of the Bill create new offences for cable which are analogous to the provisions in the Theatres Act relating to obscenity and incitement to racial hatred. We have therefore provided for analogous enforcement in Clause 32, which gives the police no greater powers in respect of cable than they already have in relation to the theatre under the 1968 Act.
Your Lordships fear that this is rather draconian. I should like to reassure your Lordships. I think that the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was looking for can be found in the Bill. First, a prosecution under Clause 25 can be brought in England and Wales only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. For an offence of incitement to racial hatred under Clause 27, under subsection (8) the consent of the Attorney General is required, and that suggests that we are not dealing with the kind of offences where prosecutions would be numerous, or even vexatious. These are serious offences where prosecutions can be initiated only with the consent of the DPP, or the Attorney General, as the case may be. If cable licensees are staying within the bounds of what the Cable Authority permits, it is hard to believe that they will come anywhere near falling foul of the criminal law.
The second consideration is that Clause 32 does not confer any powers of entry—I hope that that is noted. It does not confer any powers of search, it does not provide any powers of seizure, it does not permit fishing expeditions for undesirable material. The police must not only have reasonable suspicion; they must address the order to the person suspected of the offence, and they must then wait for him to hand over what is specified in the order. They cannot just go and get it, and that is why it is not necessary to go to a magistrate. If they want to go to get it, they need a warrant, and that means going to a magistrate.
I do not expect Clause 32 to be invoked often or other than on very serious occasions. But we are rightly providing that if ever there are cable programmes which are obscene, or which incite to racial hatred, they ought to be caught by the criminal law. That means that we have to make sure that the police are in a position to be able to take the necessary steps to bring the offenders to court. There is no way

865
I think in which on reflection your Lordships will find this a draconian measure, one which invades privacy, one which is likely to get out of hand, or one that is likely to be used more than very rarely, if ever.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that the assurance that I sought—and I borrowed the point from the noble Lord, Lord Howard—was that this was not the thin end of the wedge, and that it would not be used as a precedent for a similar provision to be used at some time against the BBC and ITV. This is not my point—I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for it—but that was the assurance that I in turn sought.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I asked the noble Lord about the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord. If I may first deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am not aware of consultations with ACPO. But of course the police are being asked to do no more and no lesss than they have been asked to do under the Theatres Act, which, when one looks up the record, appears to be remarkably little.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked for an assurance. I would certainly give the assurance that the provision is not intended as the leading edge, as an opening up of the law in other areas, but as I have striven to make clear, it is not a precedent. On cable we are merely doing what we have done on the theatre. It seems to me that that is fairly innocuous and is not the way that the type of tyrant which, at another stage, on another day, I was accused of being, would address himself to that kind of campaign.
Lord Airedale: The noble Lord the Minister does not mean that this is not a precedent; he means that this is not breaking new ground, that it is not unprecedented. No Minister can ever say that a particular matter shall not be taken as a precedent because that belongs to those who follow us.
Lord Elton: Of course the noble Lord is right. I do not seek to bind successive Governments, or even colleagues. All I can assure the Committee of is that this is not part of a plan on our part to open up broadcasting to new regulations.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: For my part, I have been very interested to listen to the answer by the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government, and I shall certainly want to consider very carefully what he has said. At this hour I should not wish to invite any of your Lordships to proceed through the Lobbies.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Interpretation of Part I]:
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 121 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Provision of DBS services]:
[Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Amendments and repeals]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 35, line 18, at end insert—
(" ( ) It is hereby declared that neither the sending as part of a cable programme service nor the broadcasting for general reception of sounds or visual images or both is an exhibition to the public for the purposes of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937.").
The noble Lord said: I thought that by moving this amendment we might at least come to something of an oddity at the conclusion of our proceedings this evening—at the conclusion of a lot of hard work whereby we have received a lot of assurances of great interest to the Cross-Benches, the Opposition and, indeed, the Government themselves. It has been very much an all-party argument.
This is a very odd point. The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 prohibits, as a criminal offence, the exhibition to the public of any film organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal, or the cruel goading of any animal to fury. I suspect it is an Act which has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. It is not clear whether it would apply to cable programme services. If it did, it would indeed present the cable programme operator with considerable problems. This is because the offence relates to things done in the course of the production of a film or other programme which, in the vast majority of cases, would be quite outwith the cable operator's knowledge or control.
A cinema operator has a similar problem, but it is manageable because he deals with wholesalers who have to look at the films beforehand, and he only shows one or two films a week; and, anyhow, they have been through the British Board of Film Censors. With a cable service with a mulitplicity of channels and an extensive programme schedule, it would be quite unmanageable.
Similar considerations apply to broadcasting, and increasingly so as the number of channels increases with the advent of DBS. It is thought that the Act does not apply to broadcasting, although it has never been entirely clear. There has never been a test case. I submit that this Bill is an admirable opportunity to make it clear that the Act does not apply either to cable or to broadcasting.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This is the amendment for which I have been waiting, because I have a very close interest in what it wants to achieve. I have encountered the problem of the 1937 Act and the broadcasting of scenes which, in a film-showing, would contravene the 1937 Act, but the BBC, particularly, have claimed that it did not bind them.
I complained bitterly on one occasion to the BBC when they were running a series of programmes relating to novel careers upon which adventurous young people might embark. One such career was to

867
go in for rodeos which I found, both in Canada and elsewhere, particulary disgusting. I complained to the BBC that had it been shown in a cinema I thought that there was a pretty strong case for saying that it was a contravention of the Act. I received a suitable letter from the BBC about it and a promise that they would not show that sort of film again.
Just recently there has been a film—I did not see it myself, but I saw it referred to in very disparaging terms by critics—entitled "I Want To Be a Matador", and it is about the aspirations of the Spanish youths who want to become bullfighters. The criticism that I read was that it was particularly disagreeable. That is one aspect of the matter.
However, there is another. There are some things that one would like to see in broadcasting, particularly in regard to experiments on animals, particularly in regard to conditions in slaughterhouses, particularly in regard to other forms of cruelty to animals which need to be exposed for the public to understand what is involved in commonplace activities which very frequently are not fully revealed either to the public's vision or even, apparently, to its imagination.
Recently there have been some films dealing with animal experiments. They are relevant because the Government are now considering the updating of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, and there is an increasing interest in nature, in wildlife, in domestic animals and in animals generally throughout the community. Animal books, animal films, animal pictures and animal calendars galore have a good sale. I think that every firm of publishers wants to have a good animal man, naturalist and traveller—a Bellamy—on its list of authors.
Obviously there is some advantage in this. This is not all evil, and although some of it may be disagreeable it is probably desirable that the public should try to steel themselves to see it so that they cannot discard this shrug of the shoulders, "I don't want to know; don't show it to me" attitude that one encounters on matters of this kind. Of course, the BBC and the independent broadcasting companies have been concerned at the point of tolerance; they say that if you show scenes of extreme suffering of animals, the knobs will be turned off throughout the country, people will not be able to stomach what they see and, therefore, it defeats the object of what you are trying to convey to the public about the use of animals under modern conditions. So there is a dilemma here.
In certain circumstances I think that it would be a pity if the conditions laid down in the 1937 Act restrained the broadcasting authorities from doing some things with a good aim in mind: for purposes of enlightenment, though not pleasant viewing. On occasions of this kind people would naturally be warned that some of the scenes will be unpleasant to watch and that those who do not wish to continue viewing should turn off. I think that all that is perfectly legitimate.
Therefore, the dilemma is that we have the 1937 Act on the statute book; we have the broadcasting authorities which probably, as of now, cannot be said with certainty to be covered by the 1937 Act; and we have before us an amendment which wants to remove
868
that uncertainty. I am very loath indeed to agree to removing that uncertainty under this amendment at this time without being sure where this would lead. Will it lead to making the 1937 Act virtually obsolete, or will it place restrictions on cinema film-showing that are not imposed on the broadcasting authorities?
There is one particularly long and difficult film which was shown in cinemas to the public, but which was advertised for that purpose, and those who went there knew that they were going to see a very unpleasant film indeed. I do not know whether, in technical terms, that was an infringement of the 1937 Act, but I do not think it is a good idea to take a step on a new situation which virtually renders a previous Act of Parliament obsolete but which is still there and under which prosecutions can take place. Presumably no court could decline to hear or even decline to convict if a charge was made under the 1937 Act against cinema showing of animals suffering. It does not talk about unnecessary suffering; it is cruel infliction of pain or terror upon any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury, which means that you cannot show a bullfight at a cinema. Not that I would want to see bullfights on television, except to dissuade people who go to Spain for their holidays from going to look at a bullfight to see what it is like. This is the dilemma, so all I can suggest to the noble Lord is that he might withdraw his amendment now, and give us an opportunity of considering the matter a little further before we come to a subsequent stage of the Bill.
As a matter of fact, I had seen this only today and I am saying this completely off my own bat because I am personally involved in so much of this that I thought this was the step I ought to take at this stage. I would not like to see a clearance given to the broadcasting authorities, much as I want them to be able to do constructive work, however unpleasant. So long as it is acceptable to the viewer and to a civilised attitude towards the animal kingdom, I am all for it, and would not want the broadcasting authorities to be stopped by the literal terms of an Act of Parliament of 1937. On the other hand, I think we really ought to clear this up for cinemas, too, if we are going to do it for the broadcasting authorities.
That is my point of view, and I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that he might leave us a little more time before pressing the matter. There is no haste about it. This Bill has to go to another place, so there is even more time for us to consider how this dilemma, which certainly exists at the present time, might be resolved.
Lord Elton: We have a long tradition in this country of protecting animals from ill-treatment, and it seemed to Parliament in 1937 that specific protection was necessary to prevent the showing of films in this country which had been made here or abroad and included scenes organised or directed in such a way as to involve the infliction of cruelty or pain or terror on any animal, or the goading of it to fury.
That is a strong test, although it does not catch films which involve cruelty to animals which would have existed even had the film not been made, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—who spoke off his own very impressive and elegant bat at short notice—referred to one or two examples of that.

869
The point about the Act, however—and this is why the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, seems, if I may say so, not quite right to us—is that it applies only to the exhibition of a film, and I quote from the Act,
"when and only when it is exhibited in a place to which for the time being members of the general public as such have access whether on payment of money or otherwise".
That seems a very good description of what happens in a cinema but not a very good description of what happens in broadcasting or the provision of cable services to the home.
I realise I have addressed myself to the mechanics of the amendment rather than to its merits or intentions, but I think the intentions do need to be clear before I can address myself to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I feel that they range rather wide and may be fairly evenly balanced. In view, therefore, of the inappropriateness of the amendment, I hope that we need not pursue it further at this late hour.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I certainly would not wish to press this amendment. I thought the matter needed clarification, but it has been suggested—particularly by those many societies and associations which do admirable work in the protection of and prevention of cruelty to animals—that this Act does apply to broadcasting. This is one of the reasons why we wish to see this matter clarified.
I suppose it is just possible to suggest that where people are gathered together in a pub watching a large screen television, they could be said to be gathered together for the purposes which the noble Lord the Minister has just described, particularly if it is a film rather than a video transcription which is being shown on the screen although broadcast by us.
I do not think that the Act is intended, or ever was intended, to apply to what one might call (I hesitate to call them crusading programmes) programmes which endeavour to show what cruelty there is to animals, to argue the pros and cons of vivisection, and so on, many of which have been broadcast both by the IBA and the BBC and some of which have caused protest and some of which have not. Nor has it anything to do with even greater cruelty practised on human beings by their fellow men. Under the circumstances, I do not wish to press this matter. However, I would ask the Government to look themselves and decide whether they think the Act covers broadcasting, and, if so, whether cable and broadcasting should be exempted from its provisions.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed co.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 131 not moved.]
10.47 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis Lord Lovell-Davis moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 43, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (8).
The noble Lord said: In speaking again in the names of my noble friends Lord Mishcon and Lord Ardwick,
870
I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak not only to Amendment No. 132 but also to No. 138, since No. 138 follows on by stating what we feel should replace sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3, which we ask to be removed by Amendment No. 132.
Amendment No. 138: Page 44, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In section 48(2) of that Act, for the words from "broadcasting by wireless telegraphy" to the end of the subsection, there shall be substituted the following—
"transmitting, by the emission of electomagnetic energy otherwise than over a path that is provided by a material substance, visual images or sounds, or both, for reception by the public, notwithstanding that—

(a) subsequent to the initial transmission, but before reception by the public, the images or sounds may be carried on a path provided by a material substance;

(b) the public receiving, or capable of receiving, the images or sounds is in a country other than that from which the original transmission took place;

(c) no member of the public actually receives the images or sounds, provided only that members of the public could, if in possession of suitable apparatus, receive them." ")

Sub-paragraph (8) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 amends Section 14(10) of the 1956 Act, apparently to clarify the question whether the up-leg of a broadcast by satellite is to be treated as an act of broadcasting for the purpose of copyright. So far as the proposed change goes, I welcome it, but it appears to be unsatisfactory in three respects. First, it is contained in a section of the 1956 act which is exclusively concerned with defining the rights in a broadcast as a matter protected by copyright as opposed to defining the restricted act of broadcasting, control over which is given to the copyright owners of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works under Part I of the 1956 Act.
Secondly, the expression "technique known as direct broadcasting by satellite" is so imprecise as to be quite unhelpful as a definition. It should not be beyond the skill of parliamentary draftsmen to devise a clear description of broadcasting by satellite. Thirdly, and most important, the change relates only to direct satellite broadcasting, whereas the need for clarification is just as great, and perhaps greater, in the case where programme-carrying signals are transmitted via a satellite to a receiving ground station and then are distributed to the public either by cable or wireless for onward transmission. In this form of communication via satellite the owners of the rights in copyright works will be seriously prejudiced if they have no right of control over the initial transmission to the satellite.
An example of the serious prejudice which would be suffered by copyright owners if they do not have control over the initial transmission to the satellite would appear, for example, from the following case. An enterprise in the United Kingdom may transmit programmes via satellite to a cable distributor in another country. Virtually the entire income for the United Kingdom company will come from the sale of advertisements, and will be paid and received in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom enterprise will in fact make its transmissions available to the foreign distributor by providing the necessary decoding equipment for a nominal charge. This means that the cable operator will not need to increase the charge it makes to its subscribers, save perhaps by a nominal amount.
In such a situation the owner of the copyright in a work included in such transmissions may have no enforceable rights against anyone. If he proceeds against the overseas cable operator, the cable operator will contend that the commercial value to him of the programmes contained in the copyright work in question were nominal, that he has received little or no income from his transmission of them to his subscribers; and therefore any payment to be made to the copyright owner should also be nominal. If, on the other hand, the copyright owner proceeds against the United Kingdom enterprise, he is likely to be met by the argument that the latter is not broadcasting and, therefore, has no liability whatsoever.
This is clearly an intolerable and unacceptable position for the copyright owner to be placed in. If his interest is to be properly protected by law, the clarification in the Bill relating to direct satellite broadcasting should be extended to cover point to point communication by satellite, as expressed and recommended in the Whitford report.
Having regard to all considerations it seems essential that a comprehensive definition of "broadcasting", covering both kinds of satellite communication, should be included in the Bill for incorporation in the 1956 Act. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: More haste, less speed. The noble Lord has proposed an extremely interesting solution to an extremely difficult problem. It is a fairly new problem and the Government accept that it is important that authors and other copyright owners should have copyright protection in respect of the communication to the public of their works by means of point to point satellite transmissions which are included in cable programmes. Unfortunately, there are a number of difficulties with this solution. In the first place it is a general solution for a problem which may in practice be fairly limited.
When such transmissions are received and communicated to the public in countries in which the broadcasting or cable diffusion of copyright works is a restricted act, such an approach is unnecessary. Even where such countries exempt cable operators from the need to obtain copyright clearance when they are diffusing broadcasts within the so-called service area, it is still generally a restricted act to diffuse by cable point to point satellite transmissions originating abroad. This is the case with the United Kingdom and most West European countries and in those countries, if the amendment proposed had the intended effect, it would create a double liability for copyright payment—once at the point of injection to the satellite and again when the signals were distributed by cable.
I am not at all sure that the noble Lord's scheme would have that effect. The new definition of "broadcasting" for copyright purposes contained in Amendment No. 138 relies on the concept of transmission of,
"visual images or sounds, or both, for reception by the public".
But point to point satellite transmissions are not themselves directly receivable by the public at large nor are they intended to be. That is not altered by the fact that they may be intended for reception and
872
subsequent diffusion. Nor would I think that the qualifications in the subsections in Amendment No. 138 would suffice to counterbalance that.
The result would be to render the scheme inoperative. We are in new and difficult country. Noble Lords have made a highly imaginative and determined attempt to plot a path through it. The degree of difficulty is illustrated by the number of snags the proposal has turned up and I must mention one more because there are implications in it.
The last is that any definition of broadcasting for copyright purposes, which included communications satellite transmissions, would risk including a wide range of everyday transmissions between broadcasting organisations and even within a single broadcasting organisation not intended for public reception. That would create grave difficulties for the broadcasters, I mention this because it would mean there would have to be wide consultation by the Government before they could accept this approach to the problem.
I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord not to go ahead with this amendment. The Government will certainly look further into this to see whether the problem can be solved. If, in spite of the many difficulties we have already encountered, it proves possible to bring forward amendments during the course of the Bill's passage, we will do so. But there are wide issues and we may have to wait until we come to the general reform of copyright legislation which we are hoping to introduce before long. The noble Lord has tried and we have tried. We have both failed, and we are going to go on trying, and I hope that he will let us do so.
Lord Lovell-Davis: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for what he has said; I hope I have followed and understood it. I certainly recognise the difficulties. These are very complex issues—all copyright matters are—and I will not delay your Lordships at this stage by going further into that area. They are vital to copyright holders and to everyone involved, not least because the Bill should make the situation absolutely clear wherever it can, if only to avoid unnecessary litigation in the future. Failure to achieve clarity is going to lead us into great complication.
I raised the matter so that it could be looked into. As I understand the noble Lord's reply, not only has he been looking into it in considerable detail but he intends to continue to try to resolve the matter. I must say I am very pleased to know that. I greet it with great satisfaction and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.57 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 43, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (8) and insert—
(" (8) In that Act "television broadcast" means visual images or data broadcast by way of television, together with any sounds broadcast for reception along with those images or that data, and "sound broadcast" means sounds or data broadcast otherwise than as part of a television broadcast; and for the purposes of this Act a television broadcast or sound broadcast shall be taken to be made by the body by whom, at the time when, and from the place from which—

873

(a) the visual images, sounds or data in question, or any combination of them, as the case may be, are broadcast; or

(b) in the case of a television or sound broadcast made by the technique known as direct broadcasting by satellite, the visual images, sounds or data in question, or any combination of them, as the case may be, are transmitted to the satellite transponder.")

The noble Lord said: I think, but am not sure at this hour of the night, that this is probably the exact opposite of the previous amendment and has exactly the opposite effect. It is certainly concerned with the up-leg and the down-leg—I shall restrain myself from any ribaldry at this hour of the evening. It is certainly concerned with the complications of point-to-point satellite broadcasting. I shall be very content if the Government, in common with much else, would have another look at the problems involved here. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If memory serves, the noble Lord and I both spoke to this amendment on No. 111A, and I would refer him to my answer in Hansrad, which applies to this amendment.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133 to 139 not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 46, line 39, at end insert—
("The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967
In section 6(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (interpretation of Part I)—
(a) after the definition of "television dealer" there shall be inserted the following definition—
" 'television programme' means a television programme broadcast for general reception or included in a licensable service within the meaning of Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984"; and
(b) in the definition of "television set" the words "wireless telegraphy" and "broadcast for general reception" shall be omitted.").
Amendment No. 142: page 47, line 42, leave out ("cease to have effect") and insert ("be omitted").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 140 and 142 are technical amendments to adjust the definition of a television set to make it appropriate where it is adapted to take signals over cable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 47, line 25, leave out ("cease to have effect") and insert ("be omitted").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is purely a technical one, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 142:
[Printed above.]
The noble Baroness said: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 142. This also is a purely technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 143 and 144:
Page 50, line 36, leave out ("complainant") and insert ("a broadcast").
Page 51, line 21, leave out ("complainant") and insert ("a broadcast").
The noble Baroness said: Both of these amendments are technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 55, line 5, at end insert—

("1967 c. 72.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967.

In section 6(1), in the definition of "television set", the words "wireless telegraphy" and "broadcast for general reception".").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: The Committee stage of this Bill—which has taken quite a long time—has now come to an end—I hope a gracious end. I should like, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his very courteous attention to this Bill and to all of us who have tried to help amend it. I include the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in that word of appreciation.
I was not quite sure that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Howard, when he said "as the night advances, the noble Lady becomes more and more accommodating". I had extraordinary visions of what might happen at 11 o'clock, when the noble Lord made that remark about an hour and a half ago. But I thank both of them. I also thank noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber, who have participated with us in trying to improve the Bill—and may I be allowed to include my noble friend Lord Ardwick, who has helped me so much in regard to the various amendments that we have put forward.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is more than kind. In this unusual little ceremony, I should like to reciprocate what he said and to say that we could not have got to where we are without support from all round the House—that certainly goes for me—and, on two occasions, without support from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, himself. I am grateful to your Lordships for your patience and courtesy. I do not wish to delay the proceedings further.
Clause 45 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  INTER-AMERICAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION
  INTER-AMERICAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION
  EXERCISES: NOTIFICATION
  EXERCISES: NOTIFICATION
  ISCHAEMIC HEART DISEASE: DEATHS
  ISCHAEMIC HEART DISEASE: DEATHS
  PARLIAMENTARY RECORDS AND BOOKS: STORAGE
  PARLIAMENTARY RECORDS AND BOOKS: STORAGE