Sitting of 6 February 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Chesterfield, in the room of the right hon. Eric Graham Varley (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Airport Competition Policy
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Transport if the current consultation on airline competition policy will also include an investigation of competition between airports as well.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): In its consultation letter the Civil Aviation Authority indicated that it will be considering the competitive imbalance between airports as well as between British Airways and other British airlines.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no competition between airports at present? The Civil Aviation Authority designates the airport and the air service licence, and the operator has no choice. Is there any reason why, following the denationalisation of the British Airports Authority, which I trust is still high on my right hon. Friend's agenda, the rules should not be changed so that licences specify, for example, just London without specifying which airport, thus leaving the three London airports to compete for the airline's business?
    Mr. Mitchell: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are reviewing the options on how to introduce private capital into the British Airports Authority. Most air service agreements that are negotiated internationally merely designate London. In view of the pressure on Heathrow, the licence specifies the airport in order to steer operators away from Heathrow.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister take the opportunity of telling the House and British Midland Airways that he will not allow it to land transatlantic flights at Glasgow airport and thus kill off, by unfair competition, Prestwick airport and ensure its closure?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, but appeals can be taken to Ministers. It would be improper for me to make any comment at this stage.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will the consultations include a discussion on the absurd situation whereby the British
    586
    Airports Authority is sustained almost entirely by duty-free shops? Will there be consideration of the sensible proposal, which I have made a number of times already, that duty-free shops should be at the point of arrival rather than the point of departure?
    Mr. Mitchell: I take note of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but it does not arise at this stage.
    Mr. McCrindle: If, as my hon. Friend suggested, it remains the Government's policy and preferred approach to attract airline traffic away from the congested Heathrow, presumably towards the underutilised Gatwick, will he explain why the British Airports Authority is proposing to increase landing charges at Gatwick by 10 per cent. from April, while leaving landing charges at Heathrow unchanged?
    Mr. Mitchell: I would think that the landing charges at Heathrow are high enough as they are. It is for the British Airports Authority to choose how it gains its net income. It has a target which it is expected to achieve.
    Mr. Prescott: Did the Minister read this weekend the British Airways evidence to the CAA? It makes it clear that privatisation is irrelevant to competition or the sound development of the aviation industry in the United Kingdom. If the CAA comes to the same conclusion, will the Minister reconsider his obsession with privatisation, which does little for competition and robs the taxpayer of his investment?
    Mr. Mitchell: We are considering all the options at present for introducing private capital into the BAA.

    Motor Insurance
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the drafting of the European Community directive on motor insurance; and when he expects to lay the directive before Parliament.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am pleased to say that the directive was adopted on 30 December 1983. My officials are in touch with insurers with a view to producing workable proposals for its implementation, on which I intend to consult representative bodies.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend has been most helpful in the matter. She will know that, as the law stands, innocent parties to a motor accident can suffer unfairly. As it will be some time, I understand, before the directive, if it is agreed, can be implemented in member countries, will my hon. Friend keep an open mind and try to implement the provisions of the directive earlier in this country, if necessary?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to the directive. As he and other hon. Members may know, member states are required to amend their legislation by 31 December 1987 and to bring the changes into effect by 31 December 1988. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce the amendments as soon as we are ready to do so after thorough consultation in this country.

    British Rail
    Mr. Corbettasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail later this week to discuss matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Secretary of State tell the chairman that he does not think much of his attempts to muzzle the criticism of railway managers about the appalling level of investment in the industry? Does he not accept that it is ludicrous to claim that the railways have enough investment, when he has lopped £200 million off what they wanted, and when in 1981–82 the British Railways Board called for more investment? Does he accept that hon. Members, the railway unions and the travelling public know that more investment is needed for a proper service, and that we shall go on arguing that case?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The external financing limit, at £953 million this year, is unlikely to be reached by the railways. The level for next year, of £936 million, is exactly what British Rail asked for. We have not reduced the figure it sought. With regard to the future, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is no constraint upon investment by BR provided that that investment is viable.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reach agreement with the chairman of British Rail, and quickly deal with any obstacles that may remain, so that the electrification of the east coast line can proceed as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Ridley: I am still awaiting the final details of the inter-city strategy, which it is necessary to have before we can take a decision on the east coast main line electrification project. As soon as we receive them we shall move as speedily as possible to a decision.
    Mr. Pavitt: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Rail, will he undertake, if the subject of the possible change of the Marylebone railway to an express bus route is discussed, to receive at the same time a deputation, led by me, of the transport committee of the London borough of Brent, because its roads and services would be badly affected?
    Mr. Ridley: The first question in relation to Marylebone will be whether British Rail puts in an application to close the station and the line, in which case the matter will probably come to me on appeal. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to say anything in advance of those submissions. However, I am always absolutely delighted to see the hon. Gentleman and his friends on any subject at any time.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any intention by British Rail to promote a private Member's Bill for the construction of a rail link to Stansted, ahead of any decision by the Government to develop that airport further?
    Mr. Ridley: I am surrounded by such questions. I would be in a quasi-judicial position if I answered them. I cannot comment on anything to do with Stansted either. However, I confirm to my hon. Friend that no such application has reached me.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: In view of the letter which the chairman of the British Railways Board is supposed to have sent to the top brass and others, when the Secretary
    588
    of State meets the chairman this week will he tell him that his services are no longer required because he has let the railways and railwaymen down?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the chairman of British Rail. He has done a remarkable job since becoming chairman to pull the railway together and to improve its efficiency without restricting services in any way. The hon. Gentleman would further his cause a little better if he stopped taking such a negative and critical attitude.
    Mr. Soames: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he congratulate him on the excellent investment that is being made in the Gatwick line? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that that investment will be able to continue further down the line in future?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall be happy to pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations. Considerable efforts have been put into improving the service to Gatwick in every respect. As for further down the line, I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to the chairman. Especially after the kind words that he has said about him today, he might give my hon. Friend a favourable answer.
    Mr. Snape: With regard to the original question whether the chairman of British Rail was right to attempt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, to muzzle railway management, will the Secretary of State concede that Mr. Bob Reid has been a senior executive of British Rail for many years and presumably put his name to the 1981–82 corporate plan, which demanded more investment, and that for him now to say that there is sufficient investment in the railways shows that either he did not do his sums properly in the first place, or that kowtowing to the right hon. Gentleman is one of his conditions or terms of employment?
    Mr. Ridley: That allegation is also totally unworthy. It is not necessarily the case that the more investment the better. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to ground nuts. That was not necessarily a good thing. The investment with which the railways have been provided under the Government and the investment that it wants for the future will be provided, provided that the investment is sound.

    British Rail
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what were the amounts of Government subsidy to the British Railways Board for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, respectively.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Central Government public service obligation grant was as follows: 1979, £485 million; 1980, £576 million; 1981, £749 million; 1982, £817 million; 1983, £819 million, subject to adjustment.
    Mr. Flannery: When the Minister talks about the chairman of British Rail doing his best to pull the railways together, will he and his colleagues bear in mind that the attitude of the general public is that the chairman is doing his best to pull the railways apart? Is the Minister aware that, no matter how much it sounds as though investment is increasing, the reality is that lines are ready to close, people are fearful of their jobs, fewer trains run, there are fewer coaches per train and many lines such as that from

    589
    St. Pancras to Sheffield are now regarded by railway men and the public as in grave danger of disappearing because of the Serpell report being introduced by the back door, the Bow group report which was published today and many other reports, which seem to be emerging simply to destroy our railways?
    Mr. Mitchell: I resent the continuing attacks upon British Rail. Far from the chairman doing his best to pull the railways apart, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will find that no major changes in the timetable are anticipated this year and that there will be consolidation. Moreover, there have been substantial improvements as a result of the introduction of high-speed trains last year.
    Mr. Gregory: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the British Railways Board has secured the right amount of external financing limit? Will my hon. Friend encourage the board to invest up to that level, which it has not done previously?
    Mr. Mitchell: I do not expect that the external financing limit will impose any constraints on British Rail's investment intentions this year.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister tell British Rail that it must not go ahead with its proposal to close Ardrossan harbour station as that would clash very heavily with the Government's policy to help island communities? The closure of that station would adversely affect the tourist trade and local business men on the island of Arran.
    Mr. Mitchell: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Moate: Do not the figures that my hon. Friend has given indicate that, far from cutting the railways, the Government have increased support from the level of £485 million under a Labour Government to £819 million under this Government? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind the Opposition that the railway mileage was cut far more dramatically under the last Labour Government than it ever was under a Conservative Government?
    Mr. Mitchell: The increase in constant prices has been some £83 million since 1979. I can say to my hon. Friend that we do not regard subsidy as a virility symbol and we are delighted that British Rail anticipates being able to operate with less.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister, with some of his Back Benchers, look at the reality for British Rail, which is the adding together of its revenue returns and the PSO grants? If the hon. Gentleman adds those figures together he will realise the difficulty that British Rail has in raising sufficient money to meet its investment requirements. The EFL is not the requirement, it is the amount of money available for investment. That is the reality for British Rail, and it is about time the Government recognised it.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The problem is not the limitation on money, but finding viable investment projects that are worth while.

    Heavy Lorries (London)
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Greater London council in respect of its proposed ban on heavy lorries in the Greater London area at nights and weekends; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: I have made it clear to the GLC that I would want to consider very carefully all the evidence upon which a night time and weekend lorry ban was proposed. I would not support measures which inflicted damage on London's economy, and I will not hesitate to use my reserve powers if necessary.
    Mr. Hunt: I welcome that reply, but is my right hon. Friend aware that this proposed ban would have a particularly devastating effect upon the major supermarket companies, increasing their costs and their prices, and threatening at least 8,000 jobs in depots in the Greater London area? Will he continue to do all that he can to curb the GLC's madness in this respect?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. I gather, for instance, that Marks and Spencer, which has a turnover of £600 million in London, providing 14,000 jobs, has already decided to locate its next food depot outside London if there is such a ban, and Sainsbury's has said that 1,296 jobs would be at risk if the ban were implemented. Those are the sorts of considerations which I expect the GLC to take into account before doing anything rash.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there has so far been no substantive proposal from the GLC? Does he not agree that there is still room for improvement in the delicate balance between environment, transport and employment?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with the vague statement with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question, but I also point out that we have had no view from the Opposition Front Bench on this matter. Do we take silence to mean that the Opposition agree that the GLC would be making a grievous mistake if it pursued this stupid plan?
    Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it affects not just supermarkets, important though they are? All of us who rely on the Nine Elms fruit and vegetable market will start wondering how supplies will be brought into London at night time so that they can be bought during the day.
    Mr. Ridley: In view of that point, with which I entirely agree, I have asked the GLC whether it intends at least to hold a public inquiry into this proposal.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House at least are prepared to consider the views of the Wood report on the question and to let these decisions rest with the elected representatives of Londoners on the other side of the river? Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we are not interested in making political points in favour of heavy lorries in order to guarantee an even further boost to the Conservative party's treasury from heavy goods vehicle operators?
    Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman is finding such difficulty in combining a posture of sitting on the fence with being in the pocket of the GLC.

    Estuarial Crossings
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to estuarial crossings.
    Mrs. Chalker: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 October 1983 to my hon. Friend the Member

    591
    for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The policy of successive Governments has been that estuarial crossings should be paid for by users.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware of local concern about the completion of the M25 and its impact on the Dartford tunnel? Is she further aware that there has been support for the provision of finance for new toll booths at the entrance to the tunnel? Can she give an assurance that the toll booths will be manned on all occasions so that delays or bottlenecks are not caused on the M25?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the pleasing nature of the £17 million investment in the approach roads and toll booths. I well understand local consternation. As an occasional user of the tunnel, I hear the comments of those on either side of it. However, the manning of the toll booths is a matter for the tunnel authority. I am sure that it would not have come forward with proposals to extend toll booths if it were not prepared thoroughly to man them, in view of the amount of traffic passing through.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister explain why, if we as a nation are prepared to pay for major trunk roads as part of the general expenditure of the Department, we are not prepared to do the same with estuarial crossings, be they tunnels or bridges, when they link major roads?
    Mrs. Chalker: When the Department decides to invest in major trunk roads it takes into account any estuarial crossings that might be involved. But if a local authority builds an estuarial crossing on its own account with a debt of more than £140 million, which has now risen to £186 million, as in the case of the Humber bridge, it cannot expect the general taxpayer and the Government to take on the debts into which it freely entered.
    Mr. Bottomley: Whatever the merits of the argument for estuarial crossings, does my hon. Friend accept that there are alternatives to the Dartford tunnel, which would involve much traffic coming into London only to go out again to join the M25? Does she accept that there will continue to be a great deal of pressure on the Dartford tunnel?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. There is a great benefit to motorists in carrying on around the M25 and through the Dartford tunnel. However, the introduction of tolls has enabled us to have substantial additions to our transport infrastructure, and they must be paid for. What happens in future is a matter for further decision.
    Mr. Wareing: Has the Minister considered the proposal by the Merseyside county council for freeing Mersey tunnel users from charges to cross the river? Incidentally, that involves hon. Members coming from her constituency.
    Because of the damage caused to Mersey tunnel finances by Government policy and the erection of the bridge across the Mersey from Runcorn to Widnes, will the hon. Lady now consider the claim being made for compensation by the Merseyside county council to cover that damage— [Hon. Members: "Too long."] Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider the position with the Mersey tunnel? Should not it now become part of the trunk road network?
    Mrs. Chalker: Out of that lot, I must tell the House that the Runcorn-Widnes crossing existed long before the
    592
    second tunnel, which is why the Mersey authority now has a debt of £82 million. My right hon. Friend discussed the whole question of the Mersey tunnel tolls with representatives of the Merseyside county council when it visited us recently. We are awaiting proposals from it.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that if successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, had not approved the construction of many of the esturial crossings, and approved their financing by tolls, we would not have many of those crossings and the country and the motorist would be very much worse of?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Users of esturial crossings enjoy special benefits because of the saving in time and money that arise from using them rather than going round by a longer route. He is also right to say that without the investment made by individual authorities we would have a far less good road network.
    Mr. loan Evans: When will the Government make a statement on the repair work on the Severn bridge, and when will there be a statement on the second crossing?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I said to representatives from Wales last week, there will be a statement very shortly.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister not interested in administrative costs? Is it not true that the administrative cost of collecting £100 in tolls from the Forth road bridge is 14 times that of collecting the same amount through income tax?
    Mrs. Chalker: That is a question for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    A12 (Upgrading)
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider upgrading the A12 to motorway standard.
    Mrs Chalker: No, Sir. When schemes now under construction and programmed are completed, the A12 will be a high standard dual carriageway from London to north of Ipswich. We could not justify the cost in money and the effect on the environment of upgrading the road to motorway standard, which would include providing a separate facility for non-motorway traffic.
    Mr. Yeo: In view of the tremendous increase in trade through east coast ports to the EC and elsewhere—reflecting the success of other Government policies—and the huge increase in the volume of traffic using the A12, will my hon. Friend undertake to make a fresh study of traffic levels to establish whether there would be any justification for upgrading that important road to motorway status?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have taken the factors involved into account—including the growth of the east coast ports—in assessing the need for improvements to the A12. By the end of 1986 we shall have completed all the improvements except one small one, which is scheduled for the end of the decade. After 1986 there will be a continuous dual carriageway from the southern end of the A12 to the north of Ipswich, and that will help.

    BR (Southern Region)
    Mr. Snapeasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that the timetable changes proposed on British Rail southern region will not adversely affect the interests of commuters.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Timetable decisions are a matter for the Railways Board. It is seeking to improve the match between supply and demand.
    Mr. Snape: At a recent meeting between the general manager of British Rail southern region my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and myself, the general manager conceded that the reductions — the third in eight years in the south of England—are caused by having to match his potential for providing services with the finance available. He also went on to say that the reductions will lead to an occupancy rate of 135 per cent. in many commuter trains running into London, that it is southern region's intention to increase fares in real terms by 1 per cent. each year and that southern region's commuters, under this Administration, will face paying Pullman prices for cattle truck conditions.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has failed to take into account the fact that substantial improvements have been made in some areas of the southern region as the board of British Rail has sought to match supply and demand. For example, there are the services to East Croydon, Reigate, Horsham, Portsmouth, Hayes, Tonbridge and Dartford, and there is the new non-stop service to Gatwick. The hon. Gentleman insists on concentrating on the reductions. If one is to balance supply and demand, there will be improvements and reductions in service at the same time.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend not agree that press reports during the Christmas recess about the adverse effects of changes in the timetables were grossly exaggerated? Furthermore, is it not unfair for Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to refer to remarks made by people with whom they have had discussions, when those people are not necessarily in a position to confirm what was said?
    Mr. Mitchell: I confirm that there have been some scaremongering stories in circulation about the extend of cuts in services. In London and the south-east the cutback amounts to only 2 per cent. of loaded train miles. Across the country it amounts to only 1 per cent.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the Minister explain why so many of the planned cuts in southern region fall on southeast London, the forgotten corner of the city in public transport terms, which has no London Transport tube links to the centre and has congested road links? Why should people who depend so heavily upon British Rail find their services so seriously cut?
    Mr. Mitchell: Because of the changes in the pattern of travel to work. There have been considerable changes in the movement of people coming to and from work, and the railways have sought to match their services to it.
    Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that although I have criticised British Rail in the past for failing to consult local Members of Parliament when changing the timetables, I am now satisfied that it has gone out of its
    594
    way to consult local authorities and passenger organisations and is at least trying, as my hon. Friend said, to match demand with the new timetables, with at least a degree of success, save that it seems to think that life in London, including the Houses of Parliament closes at 11.30 pm?
    Mr. Mitchell: Some of us might wish that it did. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the consultation processes that British Rail has been going through. After the knocking copy that we have had from the Opposition, I am sure that when I pass those remarks on to the chairman of British Rail he will be grateful.
    Later—
    Mr. Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my supplementary question to question No. 11, I repeated certain figures appertaining to the future of British Rail. I was attacked for doing so by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who implied that I had acted improperly in repeating a conversation between myself and the general manager of the southern region of British Rail. The figures that I gave to the House—on the third cut in eight years in the rail service—are accurate and can be found in the 1983 corporate plan of British Rail. The 135 per cent. load factor for southern region trains — [HON. MEMBERS: "This is not a point of order."] Yes, it is. The load factor figure and the 1 per cent. increase in rail fares can also be found in the plan.
    If, Mr. Speaker, hon. Members on either side of the House—this certainly applies to Front Bench spokesmen —were not allowed to repeat conversations they have had with senior management of a nationlised industry to ascertain the facts for themselves, the reputation of the House would be diminished. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Member for Worthing will accept that I in no way acted improperly and that he will withdraw his allegation.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is more of an explanation than a point of order.
    Mr. Higgins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to say that he was quoting from a meeting that had taken place. It seemed to me that if those remarks were not verifiable they could be unfair. If the facts are as were stated, I accept that, but we shall wish to look at Hansard.

    Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the recent report of the Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency.
    Mr. Ridley: We are monitoring the position of the fund in view of payments being made following the Laker collapse, but I see no immediate need to increase it. There is still over £16 million left in the fund.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that that reply suggests appalling complacency in view of the stricutures in the report, which mentioned a £2 billion business, currently operating on exceedingly small margins and, therefore, with the probability of a collapse straining the fund and the ABTA/CAA bonds. Will the Minister adopt a more positive attitude to the searching report issued by Sir Kenneth Selby and the other members of the agency

    595
    and give a much better response, in view of the fact that we shall be debating this matter in an Adjournment debate later this week?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that even the Laker collapse cost the fund only £6 million. As I said, there is still £16 million left. It is right that I should give my view, because the hon. Gentleman has given his. Mine is that the fund is adequate for the present. The hon. Gentleman will be debating this complex and difficult matter with my hon. Friend. It will be possible to go into it much more deeply on Friday and there will be more to be said then. I want to reassure the public that, for the present, the fund is adequate.
    Mr. McCrindle: I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be unwise to be alarmist about this matter, but would he nevertheless concede that over the past five years the turnover of package tours has increased by about 300 per cent. while the value of the fund to which this question refers has increased by no more than 50 per cent.? If he is disinclined to agree to any additional levy, will he at least recommend that, although there is no immediate likelihood of a number of package tour companies going out of business, it would not be a bad thing for prospective holiday makers to effect the appropriate private insurance?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I particularly agree that it would be altogether better if individuals insured themselves rather than have the matter organised centrally. As the report has been made by Sir Kenneth Selby, to whom I pay all due tribute, I have carefully studied the problem. I shall be asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reply in some detail to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about how we see the way forward.

    London Transport Executive
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the London Transport Executive.
    Mr. Ridley: I saw Dr. Bright last Monday, when I looked at the latest London Transport developments on bus control and underground operation. I am always happy to meet him to discuss matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Dobson: When the Secretary of State met the chairman of London Transport, did he tell him that he intended to fund the new Regional Transport Authority at the much reduced levels of expenditure set out in December's transport support grant settlement? Did the right hon. Gentleman go on to explain that, in that case, it would probably be necessary to close more than 30 London Transport stations and to withdraw more than 30 London Transport bus routes?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman appears to have seen a misleading report in The Standard by something called the "Capital Group" in which it was wrongly stated that £100 million was all that would be available next year for London Transport. However, I can happily confirm that there will be £125 million of revenue support and £175 million of capital support, making £300 million in all. That is three times the amount suggested. As a result, no stations are on a list to be closed and no bus routes are likely to be withdrawn. I hope the hon. Gentleman now has it clearly in mind that that report was totally false and, in my opinion, mischievous.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Jannerasked the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Last Friday we discussed the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Janner: May I congratulate the Attorney-General on his prophetic powers and ask whether he discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the invoking of the criminal law against employees of GCHQ who may refuse to give up their union rights and accept the £1,000 bribe? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered what the Government will do about prosecutions that might arise, for example, if those employees refuse to accept injunctions or to comply with orders to leave the premises?
    The Attorney-General: That was not discussed. The matter will have to be considered if it arises.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the increasing unhappiness about his refusal to take cases to court under the Obscene Publications Act when those cases seem open and shut to ordinary people? At the next opportunity, will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the DPP our unhappiness about the fact that it would seem that the inadequacy of the Act is being disguised by his inability or unwillingness to act?
    The Attorney-General: That question is not quite fair to the DPP. He has initiated several prosecutions of films, magazines, and so on, and also of a number of video cassettes. Both he and I keep that matter under constant review.

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. John Morrisasked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to consolidate the law regarding directions given to nationalised industries.
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir.
    Mr. Morris: Is the Attorney-General aware that there is anxiety in the nationalised industries about the difference between a direction given under statute and a ministerial instruction? Will he consider with the Minister, in accordance with page 434 of "Erskine May", whether it is expedient for him to make known to the House any opinion that he may have given regarding the direction to dispose of Wytch farm, which was laid before Parliament on 12 October 1981, and the Minister's instruction on 30 March 1983 to carry forward negotiations with the Dorset group of companies? In particular, if the powers of direction under section 7 of the Gas Act are limited merely to a power to dispose—and not as to whom or as to what offer should be accepted — what will be the constitutional and fiduciary position of the British Gas Corporation if it misguidedly disposes of that asset at a price that it regards as below value?
    The Attorney-General: I had no notice of that question, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Minister needs my advice after I have considered the matter, he will receive it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Attorney-General considered the point that the Regional Transport Bill contains a proposal to remove the right of individuals to sue London Transport for any breach of duty? If not, will he undertake to do so and to bear in mind its effect on the general structure of administrative law, in that the Bill seeks to remove a fundamental right of citizens to be able to enforce the duties of a public authority.
    The Attorney-General: That cannot be a matter for me. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Chopeasked the Attorney-General why the contributions made by defendants towards the cost of their own criminal legal aid have fallen over recent years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The decision whether or not to make a contribution order in each case lies within the court's discretion. It is, therefore, not possible to be certain about what factors have influenced courts' individual decisions. In order to achieve greater consistency and efficiency the Lord Chancellor has introduced new arrangements, which will become effective from 1 March 1984.
    Mr. Chope: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he think that the new regulations will go some way to increase substantially —to about 10 per cent. for instance—the contributions made by people on legal aid, which remains at a paltry figure of less than 1·5 per cent?
    The Solicitor-General: There is a prospect of that. When a order is made for contributions from income, payments will be required forthwith instead of at the end of the case as at present, when enforcement is much more difficult. We expect that contribution revenue may well be doubled by the measure.
    Ms. Harman: Is not the real reason why the courts are ordering a smaller amount to be paid by convicted defendants towards their costs that an increasing number of people appearing before the courts are unemployed? Do not the Government's own figures show that the new scheme will recoup only about £3 million, without taking into account administrative costs? That is only a small sum for the Government to recoup. How can the Government justify it when weighed against the injustice that it will inevitably cause because some defendants do not take up the offer of legal aid in criminal cases as they fear that they will not be able to keep up with the contributions?
    The Solicitor-General: The most that can be said is that the courts have to order such contribution as appears reasonable, having regard to the defendant's resources and commitments. A wide variety of circumstances can lead the courts to make or refuse an order. Because there is some evidence that this jurisdiction has not been exercised entirely consistently, the Lord Chancellor is introducing the regulations to which I have referred.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the largest problem about criminal legal aid is that often the wealthiest defendants—the fraudsters and the drug conspirators — have their costs paid to an enormous degree? Does he agree that that is an abuse of the use of taxpayers' money? Is my hon. and learned
    598
    Friend also aware that during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill 1982, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) tabled an amendment which gave the registrar power to require the details of a defendant's means and to appoint an expert to examine those details if the need should arise? What use has been made in the last 18 months of that provision, and to what effect?
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. There are well-founded suspicions that people who could well afford to pay for their defence have been getting away with it at the expense of the taxpayer. The provision introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) is embodied in the regulations that take effect on 1 March. That will enable the courts, as distinct from the DHSS, to make the type of inquiries to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. I hope and believe that it will lead to a considerable improvement.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Solicitor-General assist the House by confirming or denying whether this miserable sum will be raised by taking into consideration child benefit and the wages of innocent wives?
    The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should make it clear whether he wishes to resile from the criterion that the sum should be "reasonable" having regard to resources when an order for legal aid is made. If only a small sum can be raised—I agree it is and will remain a small proportion of the total cost of the scheme—I should not wish us to depart from the "reasonable" criterion. The regulations will provide that the means of a spouse shall be taken into consideration. That is a long-standing practice and I think that it is proper.

    Law Society
    Mr. Blairasked the Attorney-General what information the Lord Chancellor has as to the further powers to be sought by the Law Society concerning the investigation of complaints against its members.
    The Attorney-General: The society's proposals include powers to enable action to be taken on bad professional work and, where appropriate, to require a solicitor to remit costs or to rectify an error at his own expense.
    Mr. Blair: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept than, even with those additional powers, the present system of handling complaints against Law Society members is open to serious public criticism? Does he further accept that that public criticism has not been allayed by the lay observer's report into the Glanville Davies affair, which largely exonerated that system of complaints? Will he accept that the only way of allaying that criticism is to have an independent system for investigating complaints against Law Society members, or at least a system with a substantial lay element, as was advised by the Royal Commission on legal services in 1979?
    The Attorney-General: It would be wrong to say that the lay observer did not make any criticism of the Glanville Davies case. He referred to a continued improvement in the Law Society's overall standards in dealing with

    599
    complaints and said that he had no reason to doubt the fairness or objectivity with which the society and its staff sought to approach the investigation.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    India
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds were made available for the Republic of India in the last three years for which figures are available; and how much he intends to make available for the corning fiscal year.
    Mr. Raison: For the financial year 1980–81, gross aid to India totalled £141 million; for 1981–82, £102 million; and for 1982–83, £110·5 million. Figures for the current financial year are not yet available. We shall shortly be discussing with the Indian authorities how we might spend a similar amount in 1984–85.
    Mr. Janner: Does not the Minister not deplore the decrease in aid to India since his Government came to office? Does he accept that what we give to that great democracy not only does a little to alleviate the mighty poverty and suffering there, but enables India to buy goods from us and therefore contributes to the vast imbalance of trade, under which India buys far more from us than we do from India?
    Mr. Raison: I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures about our aid to India. However, I fully agree that the aid programme to India is of great value both to India and to ourselves.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of the family planning element in our aid programme to India should not be underestimated? Does he also agree that, as part of the aid programme, consideration of the stress on technologically complicated and expensive helicopters is perhaps less appropriate than would be the consideration of stress on a more technologically appropriate aircraft, such as the Optica made by Edgley in Salisbury?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend raised two points which do not seem to be closely related. I have seen effective work in family planning in the state of Orissa, which we are supporting. As my hon. Friend knows, a project concerning helicopters is under active consideration at present. I have not yet come to a decision on the matter, but hope to announce one soon.
    Mr. Barnett: Does the Minister agree that a chief sufferer from the American failure to replenish the IDA properly will be India? Does he also agree that, whatever the outcome of the current Lomé 3 negotiations, India will continue to be discriminated against, unlike the ACP countries, which stand to benefit to a greater degree? In the light of that, will the Minister examine carefully his aid programme to India and make up for the discrimination by Lomé and the loss that India will undoubtedly sustain as a consequence of the failure of the Americans to replenish the IDA?
    Mr. Raison: I accept that a reduction in the size of the next IDA replenishment will have an impact on India. Although India is not part of the ACP system, the Community has a substantial aid programme in India, and that is all to the good.
    Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals there are for assistance to India.
    Mr. Raison: A number of new proposals for aid projects have been either agreed or are under discussion. They include assistance to forestry, housing, and the power and oil sectors.
    Mr. Budgen: Has there been an increase since Christmas in the number of letters coming from people in this country asking for aid to India?
    Mr. Raison: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question off the cuff, but I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration, in terms of new projects, to the 80 per cent. of agrarian development that relies on agricultural co-operative societies? Does he agree that the development of co-operatives should be an important part of the programme? How many members of staff at the high commission in Delhi are considering putting our money to the best advantage?
    Mr. Raison: Agricultural development is of great importance in our worldwide aid programme. However, the effectiveness of co-operatives in agriculture is a matter that is very much argued. We do not have a large aid staff in Delhi, but it is being increased and it is backed by strong help from my Department.

    International Development Association
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he now proposes to take in concert with other countries to make up the shortfall in the seventh replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association.
    Mr. Mark Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the current status of the negotiations for the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association.
    Mr. Raison: The Government have from an early stage made it clear that we favour a larger replenishment of IDA's resources for the next three years than the $9 billion agreed last month in Washington. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) on 27 January, we have decided that we are prepared to make a contribution to supplementary funding on the basis of the usual equitable burden-sharing among donors. The World Bank has welcomed our initiative.
    Mr. Holland: I am glad to know that the Government are seeking to prevent a United States boycott of IDA's replenishment. However, is the Minister aware that although the Government appear to be taking a cautious step forward, they are in fact taking a massive stride back, since the planned United Kingdom contribution to IDA at 6·5 per cent. is down by more than one-third from the 10 per cent. that we contributed to the sixth replenishment? Will he assure the House that any IDA replenishment will not be at the cost of the Southern African development co-ordination countries, as is suggested by reports of his recent refusal in Lusaka to increase aid to those countries?
    Mr. Raison: Although there will be a reduction in our total contribution as between IDA 6 and IDA 7, the

    601
    reductions will reflect a number of factors, including the total size of the replenishment and changes in the dollar-sterling relationship. However, if there is a supplementary fund, that will reduce the drop substantially. There is no truth in the suggestion that our attitude towards the SADC conference, and the amount of money I pledged there, is affected by the position of IDA.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that his remarks will be welcomed in Third world and Commonwealth countries, since this is the second time that Britain has stepped in to help the IDA replenishment, which is so important to the many countries that are trying to relieve themselves of the burden of overseas debt?
    Mr. Raison: I thank my hon. Friend and agree entirely with what he said. It is notable that at the SADC conference, to which the hon. Member for Lambeth, Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth paid warm tribute to Britain over its decision on supplementary funding for IDA.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this case America's attitude towards IDA is nothing short of appalling? Bearing in mind our excellent record on aid, can we not stress the point to America that no country with such wealth can be called civilised if it is willing to let 40,000 people a day die of starvation, when the great Western world has the means, if it has the will, at its disposal to prevent this?
    Mr. Raison: We have made clear to the Americans on several occasions our desire that they should contribute more to the next replenishment of IDA than they plan to do at present. No doubt we shall continue to make that point. However, I must point out that the American bilateral aid programme is increasing at present.

    Aid Programme
    Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he has for strengthening co-operation between British industry and the aid programme.
    Mr. Raison: I consider it important to improve liaison with the private sector and have taken a number of practical steps to bring it about. I have appointed a commercial liaison officer to act as a first point of call for inquirers and have arranged informal discussions with business men for the interchange of views and ideas.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance of this sector, British industry will be grateful for the steps taken by my right hon. Friend further to familiarise himself with the situation? Will he assure the House that he will take renewed steps in this direction, since many of my constituents have never heard of the aid programme?
    Mr. Raison: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for what we are doing. I assure him that there is no doubt about our determination to involve British industry more fully in the work of our aid programme. I am sorry that many of my hon. Friend's constituents have not heard of our work. If he wishes to ask me, I should be glad to visit his constituency and inform them.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: How many letters has the Minister's Department received from British industrialists since the Prime Minister quoted from St. Francis of Assisi?
    Mr. Raison: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of his reply, support the West Indian committee's private enterprise in mounting a trade mission to Grenada, which leaves Britain in the middle of this month? Does he accept that the Grenadian economy will thrive only if the private sector is put in a position to make a major contribution to the recovery of that island?
    Mr. Raison: I have no doubt that the private sector can help significantly in the recovery of Grenada, as in aid programmes generally. I should be happy to discuss with him the specific point made by my hon. Friend.

Lebanon (United Kingdom Force)
3.32 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider the immediate withdrawal of UK forces from Lebanon.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Fighting broke out on 2 February in Beirut between the Lebanese armed forces and the Shia Militia Amal. The fighting escalated on 3 and 4 February and continues today. Heavy Lebanese casualties have been reported.
The Lebanese Government resigned on 5 February but continues as a caretaker Administration. President Gemayel has begun consultations on the formation of a new Government and has issued an appeal to all parties in Lebanon to resume reconciliation talks.
The British contingent of the multinational force has not been the target of any deliberate attacks. Stray rounds have landed in or near the contingent's base. The contingent has suffered one minor casualty.
We are today consulting our partners in the multinational force and will keep the situation under close review. We wish to see an early end to the violence and bloodshed, an effective ceasefire, and more vigorous efforts by the Government of Lebanon and all the parties to settle their differences by negotiation. Against the background I have described, we must judge with other partners whether the MNF can still help in this process. We do not intend to withdraw our contingent precipitately.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in Riyadh on 11 January this year that the purposes of the multinational force was to help to extend the authority of the legitimate Government in the Lebanon. As there is now no such Government, as as it is most unlikely that there can be any such Government until such time as the May accord with Israel has been dumped, will my hon. Friend signify to our allies in the most effective way possible that there is no present purpose in our presence there?
Mr. Luce: On the last point there has been a great deal of discussion within and among the parties about the accord of 17 May. As my hon. Friend knows, the principal purpose of the accord was to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, which is one of the major and important factors which we support if there is to be success in reconciliation in the Lebanon, let alone other foreign forces.
If alternatives that are just as good or better are put forward as a compromise plan which allows for the Lebanon to be independent and sovereign, but at the same time caters for the security of Israel on the northern borders, we do not think it right for us or any other party to stand in the way.
Mr. Denis Healey: Is not the time long past for diplomatic gobbledegook on the Lebanon? According to the 1 o'clock news, there is now a complete collapse of law and order and the Lebanese army has disintegrated into its various Moslem and Christian components. Will the Minister now ask President Reagan to fulfil his mid-December undertaking to withdraw American forces from the Lebanon in the event of a
604
collapse of law and order in Beirut? Will the Minister encourage the President in that by immediately withdrawing British forces? Does he agree that when even the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia describes the American presence in Beirut as "shameful", as he did on Friday, the continued presence of British and American forces can only do immense damage to British and Western interests in the middle east as well as representing a totally unjustified risk to the lives of British soldiers who now have no conceivable role to play there?
Mr. Luce: Before answering the right hon. Gentleman's main question, it is important to reinforce what we have always said. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees, we have nothing but admiration for the work of those 100 men in the past few months in their two main tasks—to guard the ceasefire commission at the request of all parties and to patrol the main streets of Beirut.
We in no way underestimate the gravity of the events of the past few days. In conjunction with our partners in the multinational force, we are very carefully assessing and weighing the implications of what is happening in the Lebanon. The judgment that we have to make—it is a very difficult balance to strike — is whether, if the multinational force remains there, there is still a prospect of reconciliation among the parties and of the Lebanon being able to proceed towards independence, full sovereignty and stability, which is what we all want. That is one of the main criteria that we have to take into account. The safety of the men involved is, of course, a very important factor at all times.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very important half Supply day for the Ulster Unionists today. As there are still two more statements and two applications for debates under Standing Order No. 10, we should not spend too long on the present important matter.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister confirm yet again that the British troops are in the Lebanon for the purpose of supporting President Gemayel in the almost impossible task of restoring national unity and reconciliation, and for no other purpose? Does the Minister agree that the United States is making the task even more difficult by refusing to countenance changes in the peace treaty arrangements between Israel and the Lebanon which President Gemayel himself is seeking?
Mr. Luce: I must make it absolutely plain to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not there to take sides with one faction against another. That is not our objective. If we adopted that stance it would not be possible even to start to fulfil our objective. The objective is singularly important. It is to see what we can do in the greater Beirut area to assist the process of reconciliation and thus, indirectly, the prospect of greater stability in the Lebanon. It is against that background that we have to make a very careful assessment of whether we are making a constructive contribution.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend said that we were there to assist the process of reconciliation. What process is being served, in which direction is that process going, and for what possible purpose are our troops now being exposed to danger?
Mr. Luce: I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend, if he were in a position of responsibility, would agree that it would not be right to take a rapid and panic decision in the light of the serious events—there is no doubt that the events of the past few days are very serious—and then, without consultation with the MNF or anything else, say that we should immediately withdraw because those events had taken place. We must judge calmly and rationally whether we continue to think that we can make a constructive contribution.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister make it clear that we are not awaiting the permission of the United States to remove our soldiers from the dangerous and absurd position of purporting to sustain the authority of the Lebanese Government?
Mr. Luce: It is for us to take our own decision; we have our own responsibilities. However, it is right and important that the MNF partners should seek to act collectively if they possibly can, and that is our objective, because in that way we can bring most influence to bear.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Has my hon. Friend received any indication from President Assad about whether he has plans to withdraw the Syrian forces from the Lebanon?
Mr. Luce: We have repeatedly said that it is an essential precondition of any progress in the Lebanon that all foreign forces should withdraw. That presupposes, obviously, the Israelis and the Syrians. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I, when I paid a visit to Syria, made that point forcefully to the Syrians. There is as yet no indication that they are prepared to withdraw. We think that there is no prospect of peaceful resolution in that country unless all foreign forces withdraw.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in these tragic circumstances the first requirement is that the Americans should get the hell out of it because they have exacerbated the situation by taking sides—the hon. Gentleman made the point that we should not be doing that—in the factional fighting in Lebanon?
Mr. Luce: As I said, we are today in close touch with all our MNF partners. We are consulting closely about the present situation in the Lebanon, which is evolving rapidly.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent months we have argued that the MNF should stay in the Lebanon, for to withdraw it might lead to the fall of the Lebanese Government? Now that the Lebanese Government have fallen, is my hon. Friend arguing that the continuing presence of the MNF might lead to the emergence of a new Lebanese Government?
Mr. Luce: I do not recall that at any time we have linked our withdrawal or presence to a specific Government in the Lebanon. That has never, in my recollection, been the case, but clearly a serious factor which we must consider—I am sure that the House will be weighing this up carefully as one of the factors which we must consider—is what would be the effect of a precipitate withdrawal of the MNF at present. Would it, or would it not, help the situation in the Lebanon?
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will be aware that fewer than 200 yards now separate the American forces in Beirut from the National Salvation Front militia. Does he accept that the only way in which there will not be an outbreak of direct fighting between those forces is if the Americans put pressure on President Gemayel to accept the point that the National Salvation Front has been making namely that there must be a Government who involve all parties and are not dominated by one single party, if peace is to be restored in the Lebanon?
Mr. Luce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there will be no prospect of peace for the strife-torn country of the Lebanon unless there is reconciliation between the communities within the Lebanon, let alone the role of foreign forces, and it is absolutely essential and urgent that the parties should get together, reconcile their differences and allow conditions to be created for the withdrawal of all foreign forces.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the locus standi of the British forces in the Lebanon? If the Lebanese Parliament was time-expired before it approved Gemayel's presidency and Gemayel has not been elected by any electorate there, and as his writ clearly does not run in the country so that he is not de facto, and he appears not to be de jure either, by whose authority are British armed forces present in that country?
Mr. Luce: There is a caretaker Government, the members of which include the Moslems who resigned. It is being assessed whether a fresh Administration can be formed. We can work only on the facts as they are. There is a constitution, there have been elections and there was a Parliament which was originally elected, and through that system the president is elected. If we are to play a role in the Lebanon, there does not seem to be any other basis on which we can operate and consider the events.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Minister not evaded the legitimate question put by the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, by saying that he should go away and reflect? In what way can 100 men confined to barracks help any method of reconciliation?
Mr. Luce: I do not want to leave the House with the impression that the British Government are not reflecting. We are reflecting and considering these matters extremely seriously. As I have said, we are today in touch with the MNF partners. We attach the highest priority to those consultations. We regard the events of the past few days as extremely grave and against that background we have to make a judgment on whether we can play a constructive role. In our view it is not right and not sensible to panic in the light of the events of the past weekend and pull out in a precipitate manner without rational assessment.
Mr. David Crouch: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be tempted into feeling that there is a call this afternoon for retreat from our position in the Lebanon. We have a place in the Lebanon—a symbolic position to the Lebanese people and to the Government. The fact that we do not take sides is our symbol of impartiality. I hope that my hon. Friend will not heed the strident calls for retreat at this time.
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend's remarks are important and significant and have been borne out on the tours which I and my right hon. and learned Friend have undertaken in the middle east. Great credit has been paid to our soldiers who have carried out Britain's role over the past year in the Lebanon. That is because they are trusted by all the parties. There is a view held among many countries in the middle east that Britain has had a constructive role to play. Many countries are pleased that we have done it.
Mr. Healey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that when he talks about his 15 months of reflection it sounds rather like higher narcissism. Nothing has emerged from this reflection whatever except the genial features of the Foreign Secretary and his fellow Ministers. Of course it is the case that if the multinational force is to play a role it must act collectively, but is not the failure of the force due to the fact that the United States Administration have acted unilaterally in the military sense by intervening massively and continually on one side in the internal conflict, and in the diplomatic sense by refusing to use its presence to persuade President Gemayel to revise his regime to give a fairer share of power to the great Moslem majority in the Lebanon, and by refusing to use any influence to persuade President Gemayel to revise the Israeli-Lebanese accord, which is now rejected by every section of non-Maronite opinion in the Lebanon? In that situation, has the time not come when we should tell the Americans that we propose to do what we and our European colleagues think is best in our and Western interests?
Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must take the decision ourselves and do whatever we think is best in terms of British interests. We could have had an easy option at any time during the past several months since we first had a force in the Lebanon, which was a year ago. We could have decided when we were asked to make a contribution merely to turn our backs and not to do so. There have been many arguments in favour of doing just that. However, it was suggested to us that Britain could play a constructive role in that part of the world and we decided to respond. That was the basis of our decision. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we are taking extremely seriously the nature of the developments in the Lebanon and consulting closely with our MNF partners.

Mr. Mhatre
3.50 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short statement.
I deeply regret to have to tell the House that Mr. R. H. Mhatre, an assistant commissioner in the Birmingham office of the Indian high commission, was found dead at about 10 pm yesterday near Hinckley in Leicestershire. It is clear from the circumstances and the nature of his injuries that he was murdered. Mr. Mhatre had been kidnapped close to his home in Birmingham at about 6 pm on Friday 3 February.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy to Mr. Mhatre's family. The Prime Minister has sent a message of sympathy to Mrs. Gandhi, and I have sent a similar message to the high commissioner.
An organisation calling itself the Kashmir Liberation Army claimed to have kidnapped an Indian diplomat. It made demands for the release of prisoners in India and for the payment of money. It threatened to kill the diplomat if its demands were not met.
The chief constable of the West Midlands police has been in charge of the case from the beginning. I have been in close touch with him throughout and have given every assistance I can. The police have given the case the highest priority and are making every effort to bring those responsible to justice. I shall, of course, give the police any further assistance that they require in the investigation. Arrangements have been made to enhance the protection given to Indian diplomatic staff.
The seriousness with which this matter is being pursued and the fact that I have reported to the House at the earliest opportunity underlines the Government's determination to stand firm against terrorists and their violence. There can be no place whatsoever for either in this country.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We in the Opposition express our profound sympathy to Mr. Mhatre's family. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has sent a message of sympathy to Mrs. Gandhi. The Kashmiris in Britain have the reputation of being some of the most law-abiding people in our community and I am sure that they, too, condemn this brutal murder.
Did the Government or the police have any advance warning of the possibility of terrorist action by this group? If so, was information about such dangers communicated to the West Midlands police? Will the Government review carefully the arrangements for protecting diplomatic staff? While it is impossible to prevent all such grievous occurrences, it is important that special efforts are made to safeguard those particularly at risk. We in the Opposition utterly condemn such terrorist outrages. They are totally unacceptable in Britain. Every effort must be made to ensure that those involved are brought to justice.
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words of sympathy and condemnation.
The Government had no advance warning of any such threats. Indeed, we are not aware of any threats to Indian diplomats in the past. Of course there will be a review of the arrangements for the security of diplomats in the light of what has occurred, but I remind the House that in the

609
Indian high commission alone there are 72 people with full diplomatic status. The police have to make their professional assessment for each collection of diplomats as to what measures can and should be taken. As I have already said, their assessment has led to enhanced protection for Indian diplomats in the light of this event.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the chairman of the Indo-British parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who at the moment is on duty in a Select Committee, has already written on behalf of many right hon. and hon. Members in the group to express the sympathy and sorrow that we feel at this dreadful and tragic event? Will my right hon. and learned Friend leave no stone unturned to bring to justice the perpetrators of this terrible crime? Does he think that the West Midlands police have sufficient resources? He spoke of offering further assistance. Has he considered offering support from the Metropolitan police?
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for informing me of that further message of sympathy. I spoke to the chief constable of the West Midlands only yesterday, and contact has been maintained throughout. I am satisfied that he has the resources that are necessary. I remain ready to give any further assistance, should it be required.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary extend the sympathies of my right hon. and hon. Friends about this outrage and accept our condemnation of this appalling terrorist act? In the review of the protection of the diplomatic corps which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has undertaken to conduct, will he bear in mind the fact that primary responsibility for such protection in Britain has fallen upon the Metropolitan police, who are answerable to him, and that special advice might be necessary to police forces which are answerable to local police authorities?
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy. I should not want the House to think that any formal review has been instituted as a result of this event. Circumstances vary a great deal from embassy to embassy. However, the protection that is required for diplomats at each embassy must be kept under continuous review. It is obvious that the circumstances of what so tragically occurred yesterday will have to be taken into account.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us who represent the city of Birmingham think that it is appropriate that this appalling act should be made the subject of a special statement today? Mr. Mhatre was well known to many of us in the city of Birmingham for his humanity and good will. What he brought to Indo-British relations in Birmingham and the rest of the West Midlands will be hard to replace. It is a small but sad relief that his death was caused by the extremism of an organisation from the Indian subcontinent and not from at home, where Mr. Mhatre contributed a great deal to the relationship between the Indian and British communities. He will be difficult to replace.
Mr. Brittan: I am sure that my hon. Friend's personal and local observations about Mr. Mhatre will be
610
appreciated by his family and by the Indian Government. I am glad that the House has had the opportunity to hear them.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Home Secretary aware that everyone in the city of Birmingham wishes to be associated with the expressions of sympathy for the family of Mr. Mhatre and that this appalling murder is condemned by everyone, including all those who want to see a free, independent and democratic Kashmir which is established by peaceful means?
Mr. Brittan: I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman said and the stress that he put on peaceful means. I should like to make it clear that throughout this incident the Government have been in close touch with the Indian high commission and the Indian Government. They have made it clear throughout that they share our determination not to give in to terrorist demands.
Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend re-emphasise our sorrow at the tragic death of Mr. Mhatre? In doing so, however, in view of the re-emergence of the so-called Kashmir Front, following the call in the autumn of last year for Eelam in Sri Lanka, will he re-emphasise the need for the Government to make it clear to all Governments in the Indian sub-continent that we shall not countenance any terrorism or sub-terrorism in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Brittan: Our opposition to terrorism, even when it emanates from causes which are quite unrelated to domestic affairs, is shown by the inclusion of clause 12 in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which will give the police power to arrest and detain without warrant persons whom they reasonably suspect of involvement in acts of terrorism connected with international affairs, not just those connected with Northern Irish affairs. I hope that, even now, in the light of this incident, those who have opposed the inclusion of clause 12 will think again.
Mr. Robin Corbett: May I underline the fact that the sense of shock and outrage is shared by everyone in the city of Birmingham, not just the ethnic communities? Will the Home Secretary now pay special attention to the protection offered to diplomats who are stationed outside the capital and ensure that everything possible is done to enable them to go about their business in security?
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first remarks. The question of the proper level of protection for diplomats outside London is just as important as for those inside London, and I am glad to have the opportunity to reaffirm that.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: May I, as a fellow member of the all-party Indo-British group, associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)? May I, through the Home Secretary, say that, of all the embassies and high commissions in London, it is with the Indian high

611
commission that the Opposition Back Benches have perhaps the closest attachment and the closest association; and therefore not only the Government and the leadership of the Front Bench, but the whole House, extend sympathy to the family?
Mr. Brittan: I know that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be much appreciated.

Housing Benefit
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the housing benefit scheme.
I announced on 17 November last year that the Government proposed to make some changes to the housing benefit scheme with a view to containing the rapidly escalating cost of the benefit. As is required by the 1980 Social Security Act, I submitted drafts of the regulations giving effect to those changes to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am today publishing the committee's report, together with the Government's response to it. I am also laying before the House amended regulations that take account not only of the views expressed by the committee and local authorities, but also of the debate in this House last month.
Before moving on to describe the Government's new proposals, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Arthur Armitage, chairman of the committee since its inception, whose death very sadly occurred last week.
In its report, the Social Security Advisory Committee was particularly concerned about the effect of the proposals on lower income beneficiaries, and the possible cumulative impact of the proposals on a minority of families. It suggested a number of amendments to the proposals designed to alleviate these effects. At the same time, it conceded that there were some aspects of the housing benefit scheme that extend financial help further up the income ladder than anywhere else in the social security system, and that, if cuts in social security spending are essential, it might be reasonable to take resources from there rather than from the means-tested safety net.
I have considered very carefully the committee's report and all the representations that have been made. Clearly it is essential for the Government to maintain firm control of public expenditure, and in the last 10 years cash expenditure on the former rent and rate rebates scheme has increased tenfold, an increase of 140 per cent. in real terms. It is also reasonable to propose that, where a non-dependant is living in the house of someone claiming housing benefit, that non-dependant should be expected to make a contribution to housing costs, and that the housing benefit paid to a claimant should be reduced accordingly.
Nevertheless, in view of the representations made, the Government have decided to modify the proposed changes with three principal objectives: to lessen the scale of any reductions in benefit to be faced by individual families; to minimise the impact of the changes on those on lower incomes, including pensioners, and to simplify the changes which will have to be made. The revised proposals take full account of the administrative problems involved in the changes.
The Government now propose to make only two changes to the housing benefit scheme in April. First, the tapers for assistance with rents will increase from 21 per cent. to 26 per cent., instead of 31 per cent., as originally proposed, and for rates from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. This will have the effect of halving the losses resulting from taper changes in assistance with rent. Secondly, the deductions made for non-dependants aged 18 or over will

613
be increased, as originally proposed, but the qualifying period for modification of those deductions will be reduced from 90 days to 56 days, as proposed by the advisory committee. In addition, the proposed changes on the supplementary benefit non-householders housing contribution will go ahead. Other changes that were to have been made in housing benefit in April have been either postponed or dropped. This will allow time for families and for local authorities to adjust to those of the changes which still have to be made.
The remainder of the proposals therefore provide that there now will be no change in the minimum payments for the poorest claimants—those with income levels below their needs allowance. Increases in the minimum payment levels for other claimants will not take effect until November 1984, and the minimum payment for rent assistance will be set at 50p instead of £1 as originally proposed. The requirement for 16 to 17-year-olds not on supplementary benefit or youth training schemes to make a contribution to housing costs will not come into effect until November 1984, and will not apply to those in receipt of non-contributory invalidity pension. The modification to the criteria for eligibility for high rent schemes will also be postponed to November 1984, when current authorisations expire. The rent tapers will be increased in November, but only from 26 per cent. to 29 per cent., not 31 per cent., as originally proposed.
The restructuring of the proposals that I have outlined will reduce significantly the savings that can be made, particularly in 1984–85. I have therefore had to postpone the real increase in the housing benefit children's needs allowance that I had announced would be introduced from April. The allowance was to have been increased from £11·90 to £12·90. That cannot now be achieved in April. But I am glad to say that it will still be possible to implement an increase of 50p in November 1984, and a further increase of £1 will be made in April 1985. The children's needs allowance will then have been increased by £1·50 in real terms, compared with the increase of £1 originally proposed.
Taken together, these modifications will help about 1,300,000 households, and will mean that about 300,000 families will not now lose entitlement to benefit in April. Moreover, I propose to discuss with the local authorities how a limit on individual losses from the taper and high rent scheme changes can be brought into effect in November. All these changes will be accommodated within the Government's existing expenditure plans. But the enormous growth of housing benefit expenditure and the income levels at which it is paid require further consideration. Equally, the continuing difficulties which some local authorities are still experiencing in handling claims and payments is causing anxiety for individual families.
The Government feel, therefore, that a review of the scheme and its operation is required. Its main objectives will be to examine the structure and scope of the scheme to ensure it is as simple as possible, and that help is concentrated on those most in need, and to improve its administration by local authorities.
I shall be appointing a small review team under independent chairmanship to report to me so that I may consider urgently what action needs to be taken. I shall also ask the review team to consider the issues which the advisory committee identified as requiring further consideration.
614
The revised proposals I have described today will soon be debated. Nevertheless, I thought it right that, prior to that debate, I should describe in a statement to the House the changes that are being proposed. I believe that they represent a reasonable balance between the protection of individual benefit recipients and the need to bring under control expenditure on housing benefit which is now running at almost £4 billion a year.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that these minor ameliorations to yet another Government attack on the poor will still leave pensioners and some of the lowest income families in our society about £150 million worse off this April, and about £190 million worse off next November? Will he confirm that the cutbacks are still as large as that, even after the changes that he has brought to the House today? Will the Minister say what justification there is, even after these changes, for cutting the standard of living of pensioners by up to £2·50 a week, and for poor families by more than £3 a week, when in successive Budgets the Government have given huge tax reliefs to the rich who are on more than £30,000 a year, which, according to a recent parliamentary answer I received, now leaves them no less than a staggering £62 a week better off than in 1979? Will he confirm that low-paid workers, even after the changes that he has mentioned today, will still be in a deeper poverty trap than before, and will still be liable to a marginal tax rate of more than 70 per cent., when even the richest businessman in the country never pays tax above 60 per cent?
Since the Government are merely postponing, instead of dropping, some of the most offensive aspects of this scheme—for example, the non-dependant reductions of £3·10 a week—will he acknowledge that, when this is reinstituted in November, it will in effect be a tax on school leavers finding jobs, it will force up the benefit loss for many families to more than £6 a week and, contrary to the way the Prime Minister and many other Ministers have repeatedly misled the country, it will mean major cuts for thousands of families on supplementary benefit?
Is the Secretary of State also aware that there is abundant evidence throughout the country—10 months after the introduction of this half-baked folly — of unprecedented muddle, confusion and bungling? Is he further aware that thousands of beneficiaries have been deprived of fuel direct payments because of a switch to the scheme; that the scheme is too complex to deal with the comings and goings of non-dependants such as students; that even where substantial administration errors have been admitted, councils are still loth to waive charges wrongly made, and there has been no guidance from the Secretary of State about that; and that thousands are losing benefit to which they are entitled because local authorities —for example, Sunderland—have not the staff or the time to send out the necessary rebate forms?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Liverpool, to take one wholly characteristic example, people are still waiting for benefit after an eight-month delay—even in February 1984, 10 months after the scheme began? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in Newcastle a man who was told last April that his rent would be paid direct, and was not told that he was still liable for non-dependant deduction, just a week ago received an arrears claim for £749, together with a threat of eviction?

615
In view of the continuing administrative chaos, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as there are already—before the changes that he mentioned — up to 3·9 million standard cases in the pipeline due for individual review this April, further changes simply cannot be implemented before 1 April without an even greater shambles?
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore now completely withdraw the changes and carry out the full-scale review that is manifestly needed before proceeding with what is a fundamentally unjust and inept measure?
Mr. Fowler: That is an absurd response from the hon. Gentleman. He does not even have the courage to welcome the review for which he has been calling.
I shall take the hon. Gentleman's points in turn. On administrative problems, only two major changes are going ahead in April—the change in tapers and in non-dependant deductions. The other structural changes have been postponed until November. Our advice is that those limited changes can be implemented by local authorities. Indeed, the changes in the third order— which is the most substantial order, and which will be laid before the House—are at the request of the local authorities. If they do not want that to go forward, clearly we shall listen to what they say. But my advice is that that is what they have asked us to do.
On losses, 4·5 million beneficiaries will not be affected by taper and minima changes. Of those who will be affected, more than 50 per cent. of all claimants, and 60 per cent. of pensioners, lose less than 50p, and 81 per cent. of all claimants, and 87 per cent. of pensioners, lose less than £1.
The hon. Gentleman asked about non-dependant deductions. He must decide whether he is in favour of the principle that a non-dependant in work, rather than the taxpayer, should make a contribution to rent. I regard that proposition as unassailable.
What we have in mind for the inquiry is a small review team under an independent chairman. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of local authorities. One of the jobs of the inquiry will be to determine whether local authorities — perhaps the local authority that he mentioned — have been responsible for any of the problems with the housing benefit scheme. The hon. Gentleman should not prejudge the issue.
On the principle of housing benefit, the hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the previous arrangements were widely criticised, were recognised as unsatisfactory and that the principle of this change has substantial support in all parts of the country.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will have heard the Secretary of State say that there is to be a debate soon on this important matter. I have a duty to protect the subsequent business of the House—the motion to be moved by the Official Unionist party. I propose to allow questions to continue until 4.30 pm.
Mrs. Jill Knight: I assure my right hon. Friend that there will be a very wide welcome for what he has said this afternoon, not only from the Social Security Advisory Committee — to whose
616
advice he has listened so carefully and sympathetically —but from his many colleagues who are concerned that the poorest people might be disadvantaged by the previous arrangements.
My right hon. Friend said that something would be done about administration. Will he say a little more about that? Many of us feel that one of the great failures of the scheme was in that area, and that many poor people were badly disadvantaged by the length of time — in Birmingham and in other areas—that it took to sort out housing benefits.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for my proposals. I assure her that we are seeking to protect the interests of claimants, especially pensioners on low incomes.
Birmingham has had particular problems, some of which were related to the recent strike at the DHSS offices. That was one reason for some of the administration failures there. We want the inquiry to study how the scheme is being administered and to make proposals on how local authorities can improve the service for the public and for recipients.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State now admit that the scheme was hastily and badly conceived? It is no good blaming the increase in housing benefit need on anything other than the Government's economic policies, which have occasioned the need to give assistance to the poor elements in the community. Does he accept that the demand, both inside and outside the House from all parties will not be satisfactorily met by a concession to delay certain cuts in return for postponement of the children's needs allowance, and that the needs of the poorest in our community will not be met until tax credits and benefits are integrated into a proper scheme which will be simple and which will work both efficiently and fairly?
Mr. Fowler: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Before he goes too far down that road, he will have to tell us what the cost of the changes will be and how they will be afforded and financed. My advice on what he is proposing is that it would add substantially to the social security bill, which currently stands at £37 billion.
There will be a real increase in the children's needs allowance in November, and in April 1985 it will rise again beyond the point that we had originally proposed.
On the reasons for housing benefit, I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1979 it was estimated that, under the old scheme, there were 300,000 people who would have been better off if they had transferred. I cannot believe that that was a justifiable position. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is defending it.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for such clear proof that he has been flexible in accordance with the commitments that he gave to the House. Will he give us one further spot of information? It was estimated that a large number of people under the original scheme stood to lose up to £3 a week. Can he give an estimate of what the new figure will be?
Mr. Fowler: A small number of people will lose more than £3 a week. The figure has been cut substantially. From memory, I do not think that there will be any losses of more than £3 a week in April. For other recipients, only 1 per cent. of the beneficiaries will be in that position.
Mr. Brynmor-John: The Secretary of State has twice spoken of advice received about the implementation of this scheme on 1 April. Has he sought and received an assurance from the local authorities that they can implement on 1 April the changes he mentioned this afternoon?
Secondly, the Secretary of State says that he has scrapped the changes in non-dependant allowance in the case of those on non-contributory invalidity pension. Will those receiving invalidity benefit still be expected to pay the increase in non-dependant allowance?
Mr. Fowler: We have taken advice on the administrative problems from our own administrative consultants, a private company called Logica. Those consultants see no reason why the limited changes that we are introducing should not be implemented on 1 April. The Minister for Social Security will discuss the matter with the local authorities within the next few hours.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is, "Yes".
Mr. Andrew Bowden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as far as it goes. I particularly welcome the announcement of a full review of the housing benefit scheme. However, the statement requires careful study. Is it not true that over a million pensioners will still have their housing benefit reduced?
On the operation of the scheme through the local authorities, there are still 3,000 people in the borough of Brighton who are not receiving their full entitlement and whose cases have not yet been dealt with. That being so, I cannot say what my attitude will be when we debate the proposals.
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has been entirely frank and consistent throughout the discussion of these measures. I thought it right to announce the proposed changes in a statement to the House. All the relevant papers will now be available to my hon. Friend, and by the time of the debate I hope that I shall have persuaded him that the changes will substantially meet his objections.
Mr. Chris Smith: For all his talk of amelioration, will the Minister confirm that a pensioner with a small occupational pension, paying average rent and rates, will still be considerably worse off after these changes, although not as badly off as he would otherwise have been? Is it not true that a family with a low income and with dependents living in the household will also be worse off after April?
Mr. Fowler: The effect of the changes that I have announced is to reduce the losses that will be suffered. That will be the effect of the modification to the change in April, and of the reduction in rent taper from 31 to 26 per cent. Clearly we have not eliminated the losses for all groups, although 4,500,000 beneficiaries are unaffected by taper and minima changes.
At the moment, one in three households receives housing benefit. That is a very high figure, and we believe that this is one part of the social security budget that can and should be contained.
Mr. Charles Morrison: We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking account of the points made in the recent debate, and trying to meet them. I do not wish to appear ungrateful, but I and some of my hon. Friends
618
are somewhat surprised by his statement that the changes can now be made within Government expenditure plans. In that case, why was all the hassle necessary?
How long will it be before the committee reports, and will the committee consider not only housing benefit but also simplification of the social security system in general and the possibility of a tax credit system?
Mr. Fowler: The effect of the changes announced today is that the savings derived from housing benefit will be reduced. There will have to be other offsetting savings, and part of the finance will have to come from the contingency reserve.
I confirm that one of the aims of the inquiry will be to consider ways in which the scheme can be simplified. The Government would like to be able to simplify housing benefit, just as I should like to see a major simplification of the entire social security benefit system.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: When the Secretary of State describes today's changes as a "reasonable balance" the complete hollowness of that statement is perfectly apprarent. The changes announced in housing benefit and the concessions granted to certain categories of beneficiaries have been purchased by the Government at the expense of the housing benefit needs allowance for children. It is a sad epitaph on the attitude of the Government that progress in one area—made necessary as a result of pressure applied to the Government —is achieved only at the expense of another area. The elderly are benefiting at the expense of the children.
Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman listened to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), he has got it wrong and wrapped it round his neck. The introduction of the real increase in children's needs allowance will be postponed until November, but in April 1985 it will be increased to £1·50, which is more than we proposed previously. I reject what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Having listened to the concern expressed by some of my hon. Friends about the implications of the original scheme, the Secretary of State has done his best to improve and modify it. We appreciate what he has done. Will he recommend the same code of conduct to some of his Cabinet colleagues?
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of the changes he has announced this afternoon, no one below the needs allowance level will be now affected by the taper and minima changes? If he can, that is a substantial improvement.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I can confirm that there will be no change for those below the needs allowance. That concession will benefit 40,000 people—mostly pensioners—who will now not lose at all.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Government are to save £190 million by October on the backs of the poor. There are people in my constituency living in one room, who cannot afford to live, and it is those people who will pay the price. This £190 million is being taken away from the poor to fund concessions on capital gains tax and capital transfer tax, and concessions to the higher paid. That is a disgrace, and will further divide our society.
Mr. Fowler rose——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tell the truth.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should calm down and look at the proposals. He will see that 4,500,000 beneficiaries are not affected by them.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a sham.
Mr. Fowler: The people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will not be affected.
The hon. Gentleman must also understand that—I do not run away from the figures of the reduction in public spending — one in three households receives housing benefit, and the total cost is almost £4 billion. We propose a reduction of only about 4 per cent. in that total.
Mr. John Maples: As one of those who has had serious misgivings about the proposed increase in tapers, I find what my right hon. Friend has said today most welcome. If he ever finds himself in the position of having to find savings in this area again will he agree to seek them by increasing the non-dependants deduction, and not by increasing tapers? It seems not at all unreasonable that a working non-dependant should contribute about £9 a week. In fact, it should be much more.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. The principle that a non-dependant in work, rather than the taxpayer, should contribute to the rent is unassailable, although apparently the Opposition do not think so. Clearly, we shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State keeps saying that his justification for the proposal is that housing benefit goes to one third of all households. Is he aware that that is solely because the Government have deliberately forced up rents by so much? The Secretary of State has been extremely coy about the figures. He has given us the number of families who are not affected. Will he tell us the number of families that are affected, the number of pensioners who will be affected and the number that will lose more than £2 a week? Secondly, how many low-income families will be affected next November and how many will lose more than £2 a week? Will he explicitly tell the House what will be the total cut next November? Is it or is it not £190 million to £200 million?
Mr. Fowler: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says about the size of the cuts. The proposals will now save between £190 million and £200 million. There is no secret about that. With regard to the losses, there are about 6·5 million people in receipt of housing benefit at the moment. There are 4·5 million people who will not be affected. That means that something over 2 million will be affected. Of those, 53 per cent. of all claimants and 60 per cent. of pensioners will lose under 50p, and 81 per cent. of all claimants and 87 per cent. of pensioners will lose under £1 in April as a result of the proposals.

Bogside Mine, Fife
4.32 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implications of the decision by the National Coal Board to close the Bogside mine in Fife."
Last Monday, at column 9 of Hansard,I told the Secretary of State for Energy of my anxiety about the current position of the dispute in the industry and that it could be used by the National Coal Board as an excuse to threaten pit closures. My anxiety related to the position reported to me at local level of the relationships between management and men, in particular at the Bogside mine in my constituency.
I understand that on Friday last, 3 February, officials of the National Union of Mineworkers and others were summoned to the board's office in Scotland and abruptly told that, because of the deteriorating conditions at the mine, it would undergo closure.
There is of course, a process of redeployment of manpower and an indication from the NCB that certain work will be undertaken at Bogside in relation to salvage, and so on. As it affects the Bogside mine, the matter is specific. What makes it doubly important is that the NCB's action is the latest manifestation of closures in Scotland, designed to reduce capacity and manpower.
There are important questions to ask the board and Ministers, not the least being who makes the decision by management in Scotland not to request cover for safety, maintenance and emergency purposes. The cover is requested, provided and agreed in England. One can only assume that the board's decision not to cover it in Scotland was at the highest level. I think that this is an important aspect that should be ventilated.
Vital public assets are, apparently, being misapplied and wasted. This industry is not owned by the Coal Board or, for that matter, with respect, by the miners. It belongs to the nation. I urgently request Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to state their views on this vital matter. I estimate that between 500 and 800 jobs will be lost in my area and that the future of the whole of the Longannet complex and adjacent mines is threatened. These issues are of immense importance.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implications of the decision by the National Coal Board to close the Bogside mine in Fife."
I do not in any way underestimate the hon. Gentleman's argument. He knows that my decision is whether the matter should have precedence over the business today or tomorrow. I have listened carefully to what he has said, but I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time within 10 days that a pit closure in Scotland has been announced. We have

621
had no statement from the Secretary of State for Energy or the Secretary of State for Scotland. The mining industry in Scotland is in a state of trepidation and anxiety. Those fears must be allayed one way or another, and I ask you, most respectfully, to ensure that the Secretary of State of either of those Departments comes to the Floor of the House and explains what is happening.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for statements, but the Leader of the House is present and I am sure that he will have heard what has been said.

Oman University (Prime Minister's Conduct)
4.36 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to a contract to build a university in Oman."
The matter is specific as it concerns the dealings of the Prime Minister, her son and her husband, in relation to the Oman contract. It specifically concerns the interest and knowledge which each member of the family had of the other member of the family and the family's interest. Specifically, it concerns how the Prime Minister came to be involved in this contract in the first place, when we now know that there have been corrupt payments and share dealings by Omani and other interests. It is important because, as the Attorney-General said in 1948:
"Unless you secure the very highest standards and propriety at the top of public life, you cannot expect to have good standards at lower levels."—[Official Report.]
The matter is important because for the past three weeks the Prime Minister has appeared to be saying to the House that her family is above the constitution, whereas Members of the House have been trying to say that her family is perhaps becoming the unacceptable face of democracy.
What makes the matter urgent are the precise revelations over the weekend about corrupt share dealings and payments by Omani and other interests. This matter is now damaging British credibility abroad and is the subject of intense speculation, not just in the middle east, but in America and France.
Every member of the House knows that the aura of suspicion spreads widely and tends to attach itself to the innocent and guilty alike. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the dignity of the House by saying that this is a matter which should have precedence today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the conduct of the Prime Minister in relation to a contract to build a university in Oman."
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I listened carefully to what he said and to the exchanges in the House last week and the week before. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Foreign Secretary (Statement)
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this matter, but I ask for your guidance. Has the Foreign Secretary made any request to make a personal statement? If not, could you give myself and the House some guidance? You will recollect that on Friday morning I tabled a private notice question and that the Foreign Secretary came to the House to explain the omission of certain critical information from his statement on 26 January.
In the course of a supplementary answer to the Foreign Secretary he referred to an interview on Thames television the evening before. He said that
"The television company concerned has apologised for having put the question in an inaccurate way." —[Official Report, February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 526.]
Later on, as the Foreign Secretary will be aware, the Tape carried a denial of that from the television company.
Later in the day the Foreign Secretary's officials had further meetings with the television company. I understand from a telephone conversation that I had an hour and a half ago with the television company that it had still not issued any apology to the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, that on Friday afternoon it even refused to go as far as issuing a joint statement in conjunction with the Foreign Office.
If, as seems to be the case, no request has been received from the Foreign Secretary—who on Friday made great play of the fact that he had come to give an explanation of his previous mishap— how can we ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the Floor of the House to make a statement clarifying the statement that he made on Friday, clarifying the statement that he made on 26 January?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have no power or authority to ask the Foreign Secretary to come and make a statement. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Leader of the House has noted the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Official Report
4.41 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order about what should, or should not, appear in the Official Report, I should be grateful if you would give consideration to a matter arising out of an incident on Wednesday 1 February. "Erskine May", quoting a previous Speaker's ruling, says:
"The Official Report is a full report, in the first person, of all speakers alike, a full report being defined as one 'which though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted'".
On Wednesday there occurred at the beginning of an Opposition Day debate a slight hiccup—as it is called in some quarters — when the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was not in his place at the moment when he had intended to move the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. All was not lost, because the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) — like Horatio on the bridge—moved into the appropriate place and made the necessary remarks to get the debate under way.
It was, therefore, a little surprising when, having seen newspaper accounts of this incident and the sterling conduct of the hon. Member for City of Durham, I looked to check the precise record in the Official Report, only to find that it had not happened at all. There was no reference to the hon. Member for City of Durham. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney appeared to have opened the debate uninterrupted by any such incident. I made inquiries about it and discovered that there was, indeed, an accurate record of precisely what had happened when a Principal Assistant Editor of the Official Report wrote to me and said:
"The facts are these. Mr. Shore, who was to have moved the Opposition motion, was not present. Mr. Mark Hughes rose instead and said exactly the following words: 'It is with some surprise that I find myself moving the motion in our name, but clearly there has been a minor mix-up. My right hon. Friend had anticipated a vote on the recent ten-minute rule Bill and therefore was not quite in his place. With permission, I would wish to give way to my right hon. Friend.' Mr. Speaker then said: 'I think that I had better help the hon. Gentleman by proposing the question again'."
There were brief further exchanges which I shall not trouble to read, and in his letter the Principal Assistant Editor said:
"I believe that the report as I chose to edit it more faithfully reflects both the occasion and the mood of the House."
I must submit that the report reflected neither the occasion nor the mood of the House, which clearly enjoyed this minor incident and would have expected to find it recorded.
I want to place on record, Mr. Speaker, that at no time did I suppose that either the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney or the hon. Member for City of Durham had in any way sought to have this incident removed from our annals. Indeed, I read in my own local paper a day or two later an item headed, with a touch of humour—
"Lost forever—my finest hour"
in which the hon. Member for City of Durham was interviewed and was described as being
"more than a bit miffed"
when he was "mysteriously excluded" from the Official Report. He said:
"It seems I have become an unperson."

625
I should not like such a fate to overtake the hon. Gentleman.
When looking for some kind of guidance or explanation for the way in which these things are dealt with, my mind went to the fact that with a sedentary intervention the Official Report sometimes finds it necessary to quote it because it has influenced the course of the subsequent debate and an hon. Member has referred to it. However, I am bound to say that, on looking at recent copies of the Official Report, that does not seem to be a governing practice, because sedentary interventions are reported quite extensively on very many occasions. On this occasion, however, it is clear that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was aware of what had happened and referred to it in his ensuing remarks when he said:
"I begin by apologising to the House. I feel a little better about this apology in view of the slight touch of the late delivery problem with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) today." — [Official Report, 1 February 1984, Vol. 53, c. 293.]
Therefore, in this case the matter was referred to subsequently in debate, which strengthens the argument for its inclusion in the normal way. I ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, after consideration, to advise the House on what should, or should not, be included in the Official Report, on whether, in particular, hon. Members who are called to speak by you and who rise at the Dispatch Box or in their places to speak should be recorded, and perhaps on whether on all occasions those who interrupt from a sedentary position should have the same facility.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me, because the chance of ephemeral immortality is very rare. I believe that the Editor and you, Mr. Speaker, were quite entitled to take the view that what I said on that occasion did not materially change the activities of the House. But, as a fellow historian of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I believe that Hansard should check very carefully what it chooses to delete on terms simply of editorial discretion.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will welcome the presence and learning of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on this occasion, and the great and assiduous attention that he has paid to this matter. I must say that I share his view that this is an important issue. First, I do not think that posterity should be denied the words, however brief, of wisdom that were contributed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), who intervened so effectively, if so briefly, on Wednesday afternoon.
The important principle that lies behind what has been said so far concerns whether or not matters that are within the recollection of the House should be recorded and printed in Hansard. I believe that such matters should be so recorded and printed, and I very much regret that they were excluded. I very much hope that they will be included in the bound volume and that those responsible will take full notice of what has been said this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for raising this matter as a point of order. He quoted from page 263 of "Erskine May", but he did not complete the quotation. May I remind the House of the well-known words about Hansard given in "Erskine May"? It is that it should report that
626
"which though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument."
Within those restrictions a certain amount of discreet tidying-up is done by the editors, which is to everyone's benefit.
I support the decision not to record the momentary confusion in which last week's proceedings began, but I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman's second point, which is of some concern to me and, I think, to other hon. Members. A remark was made last week by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—who is not in the Chamber at the moment—which I did not hear. I do not always hear at this end of the Chamber exactly what is said below the Gangway. Had I heard it, I should have ruled it out or order.
One of the problems that the House faces is that of our proceedings being recorded as well as being taken down by Hansard. I hope the House will agree that remarks delivered from a sedentary position or in an otherwise disorderly manner should not normally be included unless the hon. Member in possession of the House specifically comments upon them, or if the expression requires comment from the Chair. That is why an hon. Member serves best the interests of the House and himself by ignoring such interruptions.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully submit to you that the reference to "mistakes" in the passage in "Erskine May" on editorial discretion does not refer—and in this context does not refer — to the occurrence which was the subject of the original submission to you? It relates to errors such as the substitution of one word or one name for another used by an hon. Member in the course of his speech when he obviously intended something else than that which he was heard to say. It cannot be held to cover the events in the course of proceedings in the House when, owing to one right hon. or hon. Gentleman not being present, another hon. Member, on being called by the Chair, validly addresses the House. In that sense I respectfully submit that it was not a mistake but an actual event and proceeding in the House which in this case was editorially omitted.
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will take time to consider whether in this case, for the purpose of precedent, a direction should be issued to the Editor of the Official Report to restore some reference to a matter which became public knowledge.
Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred in your ruling, for which I am grateful, to the hon. Member "in possession of the House". Will you give further consideration to this incident in relation to that phrase? My submission was that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) was in possession of the House at the time. He was the person who had been called by you. No criticism could be made of him for having intervened from a sedentary position. On the contrary, according to your ruling he had been given the status of the person whose words should be recorded.
I should like to put a secondary point to you, Mr. Speaker, for your leisurely consideration. If an hon. Member's remarks have been left out of the Official Report, is he entitled to go to the Official Report and ask

627
for a correction reintroducing those remarks if he was the Member in possession of the House at the time? Would that right extend to other hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for raising the point. I do not think that I need give any further consideration to it. I am the servant of the House. It is obviously a fact that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) did rise and speak to this motion last week. I shall see that the report is corrected in the bound volume.

Official Report

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Opposition Day
[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Northern Ireland Agriculture
  4.45 pm
  Mr. William Ross: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting that agriculture in Northern Ireland is faced with disadvantages which do not confront farmers elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that costs to the intensive sectors have increased dramatically, that the overall impact of European Community membership has been increased productivity without increased profitability, and that the twin pillars of efficiency and stability set out in the Agriculture Act 1947 have been set aside, calls upon the Government to counteract the damaging effects of European Economic Community membership on the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland which directly and indirectly provides a minimum of 13 per cent. of the employment in Northern Ireland.
  We are grateful to the Official Opposition for granting us half of a Supply day. If we reach the stage when a half day consists of two hours seven minutes, the workers will be most grateful, but I think that that time is far away.
  When we were given the opportunity to choose a subject as usual a number of problems confronted Northern Ireland, such as constitutional issues, the fury over the weekend visit by a member of the royal family to Northern Ireland, the change of name from Londonderry to Derry, the security problems and the Maze prison. The business managers have ensured that we shall have a detailed examination of the problems in the Maze on Thursday. We shall have opportunities to discuss the other issues from time to time so we thought it right today to discuss a bread and butter issue that affects the lives of so many citizens in the Province.
  Agriculture provides employment for about 13 percent. of Northern Ireland's population and that percentage is not restricted to those who farm the land or are directly involved in farming. It covers all those employed in ancillary industries, but not including the people who service and supply the machinery that is universally in use throughout the Province.
  We were further moved to choose this topic because of the recent publication by the Northern Ireland Economic Council of "Public Expenditure Priorities: Agriculture", which examines many aspects of agriculture. It does not make many new proposals that are of direct benefit to the working farmer.
  The report notes the decline in agriculture's contribution to the general economy of Northern Ireland. The reasons for that decline become apparent when one reads the report, but it was already apparent to those of us closely involved in the farming community.
  The report draws attention to the fact that there has been an 11 per cent. fall in the value of inputs to agriculture in the last decade. That decline in the value of inputs must relate to the losses that we have suffered in the intensive sectors, and the shift to land-based production and the considerable increase in production from milk and other fatstock and grass-based industries.
  It is interesting that potatoes seem to have remained stable in value, but that other production has declined fast, principally in the intensive sector, which consists basically of poultry and pigs.

  629
  Our motion does not call for a complete reversal in Government policy. It asks the Government to take measures to counteract the detrimental effects of EC policies that concentrate production in a decreasing number of sectors in Northern Ireland.
  The diversity that Northern Ireland enjoyed has been eroded and we are beginning to have far too narrow a base for our comfort and for the welfare of the agricultural community. We do not condemn the Government for the measures that they have taken. They have been not only welcome, but necessary. We are trying to advise the Government that special measures are justified. We want fire-fighting measures to take care of a short-term problem, which should be dealt with in the short term but the long-term problems cannot be dealt with simply by putting a little ointment on the boil.
  We call upon the Government to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the roots of the decline in agriculture in Northern Ireland. We call upon the Government to take clear policy decisions, which are understood by the agriculture community, for the long term, and to pursue those policies for the benefit of the farming community and for the Province in general.
  Employment prospects in agriculture go beyond the working farmer. Let us examine the effects of the decline in the intensive sector on the people beyond the farm gate, because that is where the greatest loss in employment has occurred and will continue to occur.
  The pig industry is in serious difficulty. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will draw attention to those problems in detail later. I shall deal with the general effect of the steady decline in the number of pigs and the lower throughput to the factories. All the benefits of volume and mass throughput are lost, but the overheads remain; therefore, the processing cost increases, the product in the shops becomes less competitive, less is sold and the demand decreases. That vicious circle goes back to the producer on the farm and to the chap who processes the pig in the factory. That inevitably leads to fewer jobs and reduced employment prospects in that sector.
  By the same token, as less money goes into the agriculture industry there is a backlash on the amount of machinery and feeding stuffs that is bought and the total input into the industry—that is where the 11 per cent. fall-off must have arisen. As a result, there must inevitably be a loss of employment in the feed processing industry, and right hon. and hon. Members have had drawn to their attention the problems faced by the millers and their employees.
  Agriculture is a basic industry. It is, perhaps, the only employment where the individual always buys on the retail market and always sells on the wholesale or manufacturers' market. Therefore, he always buys at top cost and sells at basic cost. It does not take much to go wrong to place him in serious difficulty. For that reason, we urge the Government to consider the problem with care and to formulate a long-term, cohesive policy. The root problems must be understood and the appropriate measures taken to remedy them.
  To my surprise, the Government have seen fit to put down an amendment which refers to the advantages as well as the disadvantages that have accrued to Northern Ireland agriculture. The Minister will undoubtedly have come well prepared and will be able to tell the House in great detail what the advantages to Northern Ireland are, and which sectors have benefited from those measures.
  630
  However, the only two sectors to have gained any real advantage from it have been the milk industry, which is already running into serious problems, and the grain sector, which involves probably not more than a few hundred farmers in Northern Ireland. The grain-producing areas are very small in extent and the number of people who produce only grain are few. I know that, because I have some in my constituency. It is fortunate that some areas in my constituency are suitable for that product.
  The intensive sector, where real employment possibilities exist, has been most severely hit. Large highly mechanised grain farms are of no advantage to the economy of Northern Ireland in the long run. Prairie farming—as it has been described in Great Britain—shows no real benefit to the economy because too few people are employed in it and too few people benefit from it. Our aim should be to support small family farms that would give employment to a great many people and would increase the number of animals, which have a high value factor in the factories, which is to the benefit of many people outside the direct farming industry.
  One or two areas could be profitably explored. We export most of our sheepmeat live on the hoof. Why have steps not been taken to process it in Northern Ireland? Why have we not tried to protect and expand our poultry market instead of allowing it to be run down? Why have we allowed the loss of cheap grains, which were the basis of our intensive sector, and why have we not taken a hard look at ways around that? Why has there not been far more intervention grain available and at far more reasonable prices than has been the case hitherto?
  The Minister wrote to me on 6 January in reply to our previous Appropriation debate on 8 December 1983. In his letter he said:
  "On farm income estimates I can of course confirm that 1973 was the peak year in the whole of the last decade. I thought you might find it helpful if I set out the figures for the years since 1970 to show the full pattern of change. Using as an indictor farm business income in real terms and taking 1978 as 100, the pattern has been as follows: 1970, 135; 1971, 127; 1972, 128; 1973, 149; 1974, 82; 1975, 76; 1976, 91; 1977, 107; 1978, 100; 1979, 69; 1980, 49; 1981, 75; 1982, 93."
  If we use the figures published recently in the annual review of agriculture, the figure for 1983 will be 75, which is back to the 1981 figure.
  At the end of the letter the Minister said that he could not agree with my apparent conclusion that lower incomes could be ascribed to the United Kingdom's entry to the Common Market. It is mighty funny that they cannot be ascribed to that, because I can see no other reason than the tremendous changes that perforce had to take place in agriculture arising from that entry. It does not matter which year or index is used from 1970 to the present because on every occasion since 1973 there has been a dreadful decrease in the farmers' incomes. With the exception of one or two sectors, that is true throughout the United Kingdom. Hon. Members can check those figures in table No. 26 of the annual review of agriculture; they are quite horrific.
  We cannot and should not allow our love of the EC to blind us to the damaging effects that it has had. Agriculture needs stability and has not got it. It needs efficiency, as was set out in the 1947 Act, and the efficiency in which fanners are interested is profit. We have been steadily increasing production without a corresponding real or even partial increase in profits over that period. The Government must create conditions that make a real profit

  631
  and a reasonable standard of living possible for our farming community. At one time EC policy aimed to give industrial incomes to fanners, but it has not worked, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever do so. The Government should start down the road of protecting our farmers' incomes through national measures, for that alone will be the way to future prosperity.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  5.8 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "acknowledges the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy and that there have been advantages as well as disadvantages to Northern Ireland agriculture as a result of European Community membership; welcomes the special provision of aid to ameliorate that industry's special disadvantages; and calls on the Government to continue to recognise the special problems of Northern Ireland agriculture."
  I echo what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said as a preface to his remarks: it is a matter of great regret that we have such a short time to debate this important subject. It is no reflection on the Chair or on the other subjects for debate. We are rather too used to discussing Northern Ireland matters at dead of night; today we have been given an opportunity to debate them at a reasonable hour, but find that our time has been cut by one third. Therefore, I shall try not to take too long making my remarks, but I have much to say.
  I was interested in the way in which the hon. Gentleman spoke to his motion, because I detected a somewhat different tone in his remarks to the way in which I interpreted the original motion. I was delighted that, among other things, the hon. Gentleman said that he was not condemning the Government for their action. He made a sensible point about the problems of Northern Ireland agriculture and its tendency to greater concentration. However, since the motion seemed to be condemning the United Kingdom's policies and the consequences of EC membership, the Government decided to put down an amendment.
  Throughout many decades United Kingdom policies have been the bedrock on which a prosperous agricultural industry in Northern Ireland has been built. The annual review, the price guarantees, the capital grants, the marketing boards and the special arrangements for the hills are policies which conditioned the growth of Northern Ireland agriculture before entry into the EC. Today United Kingdom agricultural policies include continued help to the hills, continued capital grants, a continued system of marketing boards, a beef variable premium scheme, and a whole raft of aids and policies which contain some United Kingdom finance. They continue to provide a firm base for Northern Ireland's agricultural prosperity.
  It is, frankly, nonsense to suggest that the stated purpose of the Agriculture Act 1947 — the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry—has been set aside, either as a consequence of United Kingdom policy or as a result of joining the European Community. Through its system of price support, with general price levels held substantially above
  632
  those obtaining in world markets, the common agricultural policy has underpinned rather than undermined the security of agriculture in the Community. Northern Ireland farmers could not survive without some protection or income support, and no right-minded person would contemplate for a moment a return to the open market conditions of, for example, the 1930s.
  I accept, as does the amendment, that EC membership has not been an unmixed blessing for Northern Ireland agriculture, and later I shall discuss its advantages and disadvantages to farmers. However, it is worth remarking that farmers stand to gain from the wider advantages for the Northern Ireland economy and people which flow from EC membership. One example is the enlarged home market for Northern Ireland goods, with all that that means. Another example is the revenue from the social and regional funds — about £90 million this year — the size of which recognises Northern Ireland's special regional needs. Above all, the Community has made a contribution to the preservation of peace and democracy in western Europe.
  One clear consequence of EC membership—the hon. Gentleman referred to it—is an increase in the price of cereals and of feedingstuffs. That has undoubtedly had an impact on the intensive livestock sector, especially on pigs and eggs. However, it must be remembered that the other member states have experienced similar price increases, and it can be shown—this is not fully appreciated—that Northern Ireland's relative position, at least vis-a-vis Great Britain, has barely changed, if at all, since we joined the EC.
  Nevertheless, the intensive sector, despite massive Government support, has declined, which has led to the greater concentration of agricultural production into a few sectors, as the hon. Gentleman said and as the recent report of the Northern Ireland economic council pointed out. The intensive sector would benefit from a freeze in cereal prices, as proposed by the Commission, which would represent a reduction in real terms. Those protagonists of the Northern Ireland intensive livestock sector will have heard with some interest what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said during Question Time on Thursday about the Government's preference for a cut rather than a freeze in cereal prices.
  It has been suggested that Ministers have not fought hard enough in Brussels on behalf of Northern Ireland agriculture. The facts refute that nonsense. Successive Ministers of Agriculture have made sterling efforts on behalf of Northern Ireland during negotiations in Brussels. Ministers have laboured time after time towards special arrangements for Northern Ireland. A few examples would include the feed price allowance, while we were allowed to operate it, the movement last year to Northern Ireland of 50,000 tonnes of intervention grain, the special arrangements defraying national insurance for some industries, the calculation of gross indigenous production under the sheepmeat regime, the meat industry employment scheme and the milk consumers subsidy. I could continue to list the schemes which have been negotiated by Ministers to favour Northern Ireland.
  The motion argues that Northern Ireland agriculture has been damaged by United Kingdom and EC policies. In comparison with what is it claimed that Northern Ireland agriculture has been damaged? In comparison with the past? In comparison with Great Britain? In comparison with other industries? Or is it talking about the future? Let

  633
  me make my case. I have already referred to the effect on feedingstuff prices of joining the Community; and I said that, relatively speaking, the position of Northern Ireland against that of Great Britain has not changed since the years immediately preceding entry.
  I was interested to read in the first paragraph of the report of the Ministry of Agriculture for the year ended 31 March 1968 that
  "The differential between the price of feeding stuffs in Northern Ireland and Great Britain continues to be a serious disadvantage to Northern Ireland livestock producers. Mainly for this reason the recovery in pig production has been rather slow."
  That was the report for the year ended 31 March 1968, but it could have been similar to what I or anyone else might have said from the Dispatch Box in the past year or two. The differential existed three or four years before entry into the Common Market.
  The 1969 report recorded the Ministry's welcome for the policy directives given by the United Kingdom Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1968 together with the financial incentives provided to implement them at the 1969 annual price review. Northern Ireland agriculture was always dependent to a substantial extent on United Kingdom policies, even under devolution, and some of the problems faced then, outside the EC, were the same in kind if not in degree as they are now. If Northern Ireland were not subject to EC or United Kingdom policies, it would not have had access to as many resources to assist its agriculture as has been the case in the past.
  What about the comparison with Great Britain? Much play is often made of this. The effects of the peripheral location of Northern Ireland in relation to the main United Kingdom markets have been recognised for many years. They led to a disadvantage comparing Northern Ireland with Great Britain in respect of certain important agricultural inputs and outputs. Special aids in Northern Ireland, above those available in Great Britain, have been paid subsequently, amounting to more than — in some cases much more than — £20 million a year in recent years from both United Kingdom and Community sources. Those payments do not close the whole gap between average producer prices and average feed costs, but they make a significant contribution to bridging it. It must never be forgotten that other disadvantaged groups and regions in the United Kingdom do not so benefit. I regard this as additional evidence to the effect that, on balance, United Kingdom policies are far from damaging to Northern Ireland agriculture in relation to agriculture in Great Britain.
  I mentioned the comparison with other industries. Although throughout the Western world the recession has bitten deep and taken its toll of small manufacturing businesses and jobs, farmers in most places, including Northern Ireland, have been spared the worst effects of that recession. To the extent that United Kingdom and EC policies have been effective in so sparing them, those policies have been well advised. But it behoves those who attack such policies in the motion to consider how farmers in Northern Ireland would have fared without the safeguards of minimum prices for imported agricultural produce, export restitutions to help exports, intervention purchasing for some products, aids for consumption, and the working of the green currency system.
  What of the future? What about the effects of the reform of the common agricultural policy? I could
  634
  speculate for some time about that, but it has already been made clear that the Government are committed to changes that will reduce the ever-increasing burden of the cost of the common agricultural policy. The Community cannot continue to produce excessive surpluses which must be disposed of at a penalising and unacceptable cost. Rather than speculate, it would be wise to wait to see what emerges. Of course, the Commission's present proposals would, if implemented, be damaging. They would hurt every member state's farming interests, not just those of Northern Ireland. It is clear already that the eventual compromise will look different from what the Commission originally proposed. Inevitably, there will be some pain, especially in the milk sector, but we believe that it is possible to reform the policy to allow the efficient to prosper and the taxpayer to gain. Yet we are still charged with damaging policies.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East drew attention to dairying, and I suppose that dairying is at the heart of Northern Ireland's agriculture. What is the comparison with years gone by? In 1965, when Northern Ireland had its own devolved Government, there were 196,000 dairy cows in the Province, and in 1983 there were 294,000—an increase of about 50 per cent. The numbers rose virtually without pause throughout that period. In 1965, the average yields of Northern Ireland diary cows were 10 per cent. less than the United Kingdom levels, and in 1983 they were 5 per cent. less and closing. Surely that is a sign of improving efficiency. Yet the motion said that efficiency has been "set aside". In 1965, milk production was 580 million litres and in 1983 it was 1,403 million litres. I should think that the milk industry is in a pretty healthy condition.
  This year we shall be exporting more beef outside the United Kingdom than ever before—30 per cent. of total production or 45,000 tonnes. About half of it will go to the EEC and the other half will probably be helped by export restitution payments. That looks like a success story for the beef industry.
  Has EEC entry damaged the sheepmeat industry in Northern Ireland? It does not look like it has, according to the figures and to those who know anything about that matter. In 1965, there were just over 1 million sheep in Northern Ireland, and in 1978—just before the Common Market regime was brought in — there were slightly fewer than 1 million sheep. By 1983, the number of sheep had increased to more than 1·3 million.
  There have been reductions in pig numbers and in egg-laying poultry, but a substantial increase in poultrymeat production. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East rightly referred to the need for greater added value.
  Have not the processing plants benefited from FEOGA payments and from Government grant aid to assist them to expand? They clearly would not have received the money from FEOGA if Northern Ireland had not been in the Common Market. Time and time again, we can see the advantages that have come to Northern Ireland from Common Market membership. Capital investment has been forthcoming, and there have been special grants in aid to supplement what has been forthcoming from the national Government to help those in the less-favoured areas.
  There can be no doubting the importance that the Government attach to agriculture in the Northern Ireland economy as a source of economic and social stability, but we must all be aware of the critical years ahead for farmers

  635
  throughout the Community—on the Continent, in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland — as the financial pressures to bring supply and demand into a better balance become irresistible. The Government have a good record in recognising the special disadvantages facing Northern Ireland agriculture and in taking action to ameliorate them through the provision of special aid.
  Today, Northern Ireland agriculture, with some obvious exceptions, is in a relatively healthy condition in terms of output and animal numbers. Every major sector is operating at a higher level than in the mid-1960s— apart from egg-laying and pigs. That is due in no small part to the support and assistance that the industry has received from Government in material form and through the careful and vigorous pursuit of the industry's interests in Europe and elsewhere. As negotiations proceed in the coming days, and possibly weeks, I assure the House and the farmers in the Province that the special and continuing problems of Northern Ireland's agriculture, which, understandably, cause anxieties, will not be overlooked.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: The official Opposition also regret the fact there is relatively little time in which to debate this important subject. Agriculture is of central importance and will continue to be so in Northern Ireland long into the future.
  I read with considerable interest the motion moved by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on behalf of the Official Unionist party, and the Government's amendment. There are two remarkable features about this issue. Both the Government and the Official Unionist party, who normally strongly support a monetarist approach to policy and do not like support systems for industry, are only too keen to support this approach to agriculture.
  On the Government's part that approach might have something to do with the fact that they have always supported the farmer and the Cabinet is full of part-time farmers. On the part of the Official Unionist party, it has much to do with the realities of economic life in Northern Ireland. Official Unionist Members recognise the importance of Government and EEC subsidies to agriculture. Although both the Government and the Official Unionist party are committed to the free market, as they call it, there is never any delay in rattling the collection box under the nose of a British Minister or, in this case, an EEC Minister.
  I recognise that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said—I believe that I am recalling his words correctly—that he saw it as the Government's responsibility to create a position where farmers could make profits. That is an interesting view of economic policy from a member of the Official Unionist party. It is the view which would, incidentally, be supported by the Government, although they do not like to admit that.
  Another remarkable feature about the motion and the amendment is that they make no mention of agriculture in the context of the island of Ireland. One would almost think, after listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East and the Minister of State, that nothing exists south of the border except the Atlantic ocean. In fact, the link in agriculture is crucial and is becoming more important daily. I shall have more to say
  636
  on that point as I go through my speech, which I shall keep fairly short in view of the number of Back-Bench Members from Northern Ireland who wish to speak.
  It has been said that agriculture in Northern Ireland provides about 10 per cent. of employment and about another 3 per cent. if the ancillary industries are added. Northern Ireland has had lower labour productivity than Great Britain, but that reflects small-scale and part-time farming and, therefore, is not strictly comparable.
  The Labour party has always recognised that the EEC was formed partly to subsidise inefficient agriculture. It was recognised that that was a crucial measure to take in Europe's economy. The EEC was not designed to subsidise inefficient industry. It comes as no surprise to me, therefore, that Britain did not benefit. Within the terms of United Kingdom membership Northern Ireland was in the worst possible position, yet it not only received no subsidies for inefficient industry, but less support for its agriculture.
  The Minister asked about comparisons, whether we were comparing Northern Ireland industry with the past, with other industries or with Great Britain. The one aspect with which he did not invite comparison was the South, but if one makes that comparison one finds that the South has done much better.
  The EEC has brought about the concentration of production. It is significant and relevant to note that beef production has risen by 28 per cent. and milk production by 34 per cent. The agriculture industry is thus extremely vulnerable to EEC policy directives and changes of policy. A recent example is the super levy on milk. I shall not go into detail on that in view of the shortage of time, as I think that everyone knows the arguments — the threat to doorstep deliveries, associated industries, and so on.
  The intensive livestock sector was based on cheap cereal imports. With the more expensive EEC grain, things are now more difficult for Northern Ireland farmers. As the Minister and others have acknowledged, this has caused difficulties for pig producers. Indeed, I have seen figures suggesting that pig producers lose about £3 per pig because of feed import costs.
  The EEC recognises that Northern Ireland has special problems. Consequently, 45 per cent. of agricultural land is now designated as a less favourable area and it is intended that the proportion should increase to 75 per cent.
  Although Northern Ireland has not done well out of the EEC, the Republic has done well. That is the comparison that the Minister should have made, but which he failed to make. The Republic has had the second highest growth rate in the EEC — about 3·8 per cent. — for the past decade. At the same time, and of crucial importance, the differences in the economic structures of both North and South Ireland have been diminishing.
  When I talk about harmonising the economy of North and South, as I have done on many occasions, I am simply recognising the hard facts of economic life. Usually both the OUP and the Government are anxious to stress that political philosophy must take account of the hard facts of economic life, but they do not seem to be doing so in this case, as we know that the two economic structures have been coming closer together and becoming consistently more interdependent.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I give way with some reluctance, as I am conscious of eating into the time available for Northern Ireland Members.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Republic is receiving EEC subsidies to the tune of £1 million per day. Northern Ireland receives nothing like that amount. That must surely be damaging. When one takes into account additionality as well, it is a different ball game altogether.
  Mr. Soley: Precisely. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he may end up agreeing with me—much to his horror I suspect — that there is real scope for co-operation. He should also bear in mind the real benefits obtained by the South and extended to the North either at the direct request of the South or through direct or indirect support. Examples are the suckler cow premium, the calf premium and export refunds for beef. Various other developments of direct or indirect advantage to the North have been obtained by the South and handed to the North by the South, or encouragement has been given to linking them — sometimes with opposition from the British Government until they changed their position.
  It is of considerable political and economic significance that Northern Ireland's guaranteed prices and deficiency payments were replaced by the famous CAP payments at the same time as Northern Ireland lost its preferential trading position with Britain. Again, that put Northern Ireland in a losing situation. The OUP motion is right to state that Northern Ireland has done very badly as a result of both British and EEC policy. It has had some benefit from EEC policy and some benefit from British policy, but it could have had far more benefit from both if the British Government had considered the matter in the context of the needs of the agriculture industry in the island of Ireland.
  This is the key comparison which the Minister failed to make. In the North, net farm incomes have declined in real terms by 20 per cent. since the 1970s, whereas in the Republic they have increased by 44 per cent. It would be a brave person who sought to argue that the 44 per cent. increase in the Republic was not due in large measure to EEC membership. It is therefore valid and proper to ask why the same benefit has not accrued to Northern Ireland.
  In the short term, subsidies are necessary to allow structural change to take place. I suspect that the Minister agrees about that. If so, perhaps he will try to persuade the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues that the same applies to industry. They are quick enough to pull the skids out when industry seeks subsidies, but they do not take the same attitude to agriculture, which I believe is the most heavily subsidised sector of the British economy. We never hear complaints from the Government about that, despite their anxieties about BL, BR or any other area of industry receiving subsidies.
  We recognise that subsidies are necessary initially to allow change to take place without excessive hardship. In the long run, however, we must examine the economic requirements of Ireland's economy as a whole, and agriculture and related industries must play a central role in that. However much Unionist Members may dislike it, at the end of the day they will have to face dreadful consequences in the economy, with a falling standard of living and rising unemployment, if they do not meet the challenge of co-operation with the South to benefit farming and related industries on both sides.
  638
  The Northern Ireland Economic Council report states that resources need to be redeployed to encourage agriculture and ancillary industries to diversify. We have much sympathy with many of its recommendations, such as expanded local cereal acreage, opposition to the milk superlevy, the overhaul of priorities in research and development and the link with industry, perhaps through a food sector research committee, an idea which seems to have good potential. The report also emphasises the importance of the processing industry and stresses the need to increase agricultural output with, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, higher value added in the processing activities. That is extremely important.
  We must, however, consider the potential of Ireland as a whole. It should be a world leader in agriculture. The South already has a good position and is improving it. The North should be part of that, because agriculture is the dominant sector of the economy of the North. The North should be benefiting, but it is not benefiting sufficiently. In that sense, I find myself in sympathy with the OUP motion as far as it goes.
  The Republic, as a food exporter, sought devaluation of the agricultural refund rate so as to obtain maximum prices. The United Kingdom, as an importer, delayed devaluation. As a consequence, Northern Ireland suffered. Indeed, it is reasonable to argue that if Northern Ireland had its own pound, that pound would be grossly overvalued. That, too, must be taken into account and its consequences evaluated.
  The need for co-operatives also affects both North and South. In the South, 24 per cent. of landowners are organised in co-operatives. The proportion in the North is only 1 per cent. I suspect that there is considerable potential for the smaller and part-time farmers in the North if more consideration and perhaps financial assistance were given to that kind of development. Big farmers do well out of the EEC. Small farmers receive some protection—as I have said, the EEC was designed to protect them—but the smallest farmers and the part-timers obtain the least total cash benefit. That aspect should therefore be considered.
  I recognise that in this context the boom in the South ended in about 1980, but that makes the need for co-operation between North and South even greater. As I have said, there is already a certain amount of co-operation. Drainage schemes, animal and plant health and Lough Foyle are good examples. Returning to the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), however, the key area for close and detailed co-operation is in approaches to the EEC. Nothing could be dafter, more counter-productive and less helpful to the farmers of Northern Ireland than to have the South putting in its case while the British put in a case primarily for Britain and Northern Ireland loses on both. That is why Members of the Official Unionist party have tabled the motion. It is the result of what has been happening to them; they have been squeezed between the Republic and Britain, and they need to get their act together and recognise that, with the South, they could greatly improve the position of agriculture.
  Joint applications to the EEC for agricultural support and uniform currency arrangements would be of great benefit. Co-operation between the intensive sector in the North and the cereals sector in the South, and particularly trade between the two, should be looked at as a major area.

  639
  Closer liaison between the meat marketing commissions in the North and South, and the exchange of scientific, commercial and training personnel, would be of benefit.
  This is an important debate, too important to be packed into the short time that is available. In all seriousness, I urge Unionist Members to accept that they have failed to draw attention to the all-important fact that they have been squeezed between the successful policy of the South and the policy of the British Government, which has not put the needs of Northern Ireland farmers first. They have come second, and that is why they have tabled the motion, which is critical of the Government, and why the Government have defended their position in their usual terms, by more or less ignoring the special needs of Northern Ireland and claiming that they have done a little to help. It has been a little, but a very little.
  Every time that we hear about the Prime Minister taking her wheelbarrow to Europe to get it filled with cash to bring back here so that she can disperse it all over the place, what happens? She returns with an empty wheelbarrow, and I am reasonably sure that when that wheelbarrow does come back with some cash in it, first it will not be much and, secondly, that what there is will not be going to Northern Ireland. Personally, speaking as a London hon. Member, I find that sad and a reflection on the duties of the Government.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. John David Taylor: As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, this debate is about one of the most important issues in Northern Ireland. I have had occasion to speak in the House already—because of the problems of Northern Ireland—for one cannot take one's time to make one's maiden speech in the way that one would like. I have had to participate in Question Time and I had to make a statement following the assassination of my friend and colleague, Mr. Edgar Graham. Today, therefore, I rise to make my formal maiden speech, but I gather that I am in good company in that the Prime Minister took 14 months before making her maiden speech. In other words, a maiden speech is not something into which one wants to rush.
  I wish at the outset to place on record my appreciation of the way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker have received us in this House. Mr. Speaker made us most welcome as new hon. Members, and that made me recall the first occasion when I entered Parliament in the Northern Ireland House of Commons in 1965. I was reminded of the kindness and generosity that was extended to me, as a very young Member in those days, by the then Speaker of Stormont, Sir Norman Strong, who regrettably has since been assassinated by IRA terrorists in the Province.
  This is not my first maiden speech but my third; not in this House, of course, because my first speech took place in 1965 in Stormont; my second was in 1979 in the European Assembly, as the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) will recall; and this is my maiden speech in this House.
  It is normal that one pays tribute to one's constituency when making a maiden speech. Mine is a new constituency which was cut out of the three existing constituencies of Down, North, Down, South and Belfast, South. On behalf of my constituents I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the
  640
  Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) for the way in which they have represented the people of Strangford.
  The Strangford constituency starts in the suburbs of south Belfast and extends up through the market and commercial centre of the main town of the constituency, Newtownards, and then down through the Ards peninsula, which surrounds the attractive area of Strangford lough. The constituency has a large farming interest as well as a considerable fishing interest, and I regret that the Minister did not refer to the problems facing the fishing industry in Northern Ireland as a result of the EEC's present common fisheries policies. Tourism is an important subject in the constituency, and all hon. Members who know Northern Ireland will agree that Strangford lough is the most attractive tourist area in the Province.
  Above all, the best tribute that I can pay to the constituency of Strangford is that it has the best record in Northern Ireland for being law-abiding. Would that the whole of Northern Ireland was as law-abiding a society as is my constituency. That is the ambition that we all have for the areas that we represent in the Province. But although it is a hard-working, go-ahead community with a good record for maintaining the peace, I regret to say that even during the short period when I have been a Member of this House — since June of last year — and even though there have been no incidents of terrorism in my constituency, three of my constituents have been killed, one only last week, as a result of IRA terrorist activities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) pointed out how vital agriculture was to Northern Ireland, and the figures have been quoted. I know that well in my other capacity as a European Member for the whole of Northern Ireland. Agriculture takes up more of our time in the European Assembly than does any other issue. It is vital to the Province not only because it is a large industry but because the area is suffering from over 20 per cent. unemployment. There are no alternative jobs for our people and it is, therefore, important that the viability and growth of agriculture is encouraged.
  Agriculture contributes 6 per cent. of our gross domestic product and employs 15 per cent. of our people. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, and even the Minister, agreed that membership of the EEC had damaged agriculture in Northern Ireland — albeit the Minister was selective in the presentation of his case, for having said that some items had been damaged, he concentrated on the few items in the industry which may have grown during the last 10 years or so of our Community membership. It is important, therefore, that we record just what has been the effect of our EEC membership on agriculture.
  In terms of constant 1975 prices, gross output has increased by only 2 per cent. That has been the net result, as recorded by the Northern Ireland Economic Council in its publication, "Public Expenditure Priorities: Agriculture." Since we joined the EEC, net farm incomes have declined and employment in agriculture in Northern Ireland has fallen by 19 per cent. Those general figures show what has happened and it is misrepresenting the issue and misleading the House to concentrate on the few items

  641
  that have prospered, and to imply that there has been a general growth in Ulster agriculture because of membership of the EEC.
  If we look further into the publication by the Northern Ireland Economic Council, we find, for example, on page 11 that since joining the Community, in volume terms the output of our fruit industry has fallen by 20 per cent., vegetable output by 21 per cent., pigmeat by 38 per cent. and the production of eggs by 40 per cent. The Minister concentrated on the way in which milk production had grown, and I agree that the figures for milk show that output has grown by 51 per cent. since we joined the European Community. However, the milk industry would have grown in any event.
  There was a shortage of milk in the United Kingdom when we joined the Community and there was great opportunity for growth within the industry. Since then we have spent so much money on financing inefficient milk producers elsewhere in the Community — we have sent British taxpayers' moneys to other countries—that we have ended up with a surplus of milk within the Community, which will damage the Northern Ireland milk producer from this year onwards. It appears that the Minister has no solution to the problem. The pig industry, the egg industry and the intensive sector of agriculture have all been hit and now it is the turn of the milk industry, which has prospered over the past 10 years, to enter a period of great difficulty.
  We know why the intensive sector has been damaged. The House will recall that at one time MCAs worked against Northern Ireland. By joining the EC, our access to cheaper feeds from America was terminated. Since then the EC has almost closed the door to the availability of feed substitutes such as manioc from, for example, Thailand. Since last year the EC has clamped down on those imports. We know that the EC's intervention operation has failed with the one exception—it was a one-off occasion to which the Minister referred—of the removal of intervention grain to Northern Ireland last year. We welcomed that decision, which was taken by the Community in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government. Regrettably, however, it was a one-off act and the Minister is unable to say that the resulting action will continue. The intensive sector of agriculture in Northern Ireland needs further assistance.
  The dairy and fatstock sectors have benefited in the past, but the fatstock industry is now facing problems. The Community is moving towards the abolition of the beef premium scheme which is under attack. Unless the United Kingdom Government succeed in presenting a good case, one of the main aids to the beef industry in Northern Ireland will be removed.
  I regret that the Minister did not refer to fishing, which particularly affects the constituencies of Strangford and Down, South and the ports of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. Portavogie is in my constituency in the Ards peninsula and it has benefited from the European regional development fund, which has permitted the modernisation of the harbour and the erection of a covered market.
  Difficulties are created by membership of the EC. For example, our waters are now open to other nations and the Isle of Man is proceeding with a 12-mile limit. Under the allowable catch system, the quota system, the Northern Ireland fleet has an over-capacity of about 40 per cent. It is not good enough for the Government to present the odd thing that has done well. It is important that the
  642
  Government should consider the overall situation and recognise that there has not been the advance in agriculture that we would have liked. There has not been an advance in the fishing industry, and, indeed, there have been great difficulties. Against that background, the Government should say, "This is how we shall solve the problem." Instead, not one solution has been presented to the House this afternoon in answer to the problems that beset the various agricultural commodities.
  I am sorry that the Minister did not refer to the vegetable industry. The industry has declined and I should like to hear how the Government intend to improve it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the possibility of developing forestry in Northern Ireland.
  Agriculture is an important issue in our Province. It is one which requires special recognition. We do not ignore the fact that the Government have carried out various measures that have given special assistance to the farmers in the Province. Nonetheless, we believe that farming there requires more of the attention of Her Majesty's Government and the European Community.
  When Ulster agriculture is being specifically considered at a meeting of the Council or by a meeting of Agriculture Ministers, it is unfortunate that a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office with responsibilities for agriculture never accompanies the United Kingdom Minister. Such a Minister should be part of the team when Northern Ireland is specifically on the Council's agenda. I regret that that is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government, and I should like them to give further consideration to including a Northern Ireland Minister.
  It is clear from the amendment that the Government recognise the problem of Northern Ireland agriculture. We now ask them to demonstrate that they have the vigour and the will to overcome the problem.
  5.57 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on making his maiden speech. I did not hear his maiden speech in Stormont because I was not then a Member of that place. However, I heard his maiden speech at a meeting of the Northern Ireland Convention. I know that in the first Northern Ireland Assembly he vowed that he would remain silent, which pleased his enemies and perhaps his friends as well. I heard also his maiden speech at the European Assembly and I listened with great interest to what he had to say to us today.
  The Northern Ireland Economic Council has issued an important report. The council cannot be presented by any stretch of the imagination as a farmers' body. It is largely weighted with representatives from industry and trade unions that are associated with industry. However, page 7 of the report, which I commend to the House, includes an important report on agriculture. I do not go along with all of the council's recommendations, but one passage in page 7 states:
  "In general therefore the situation of the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland is quite unique in the context of the United Kingdom: producers face disadvantages which do not confront their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom."
  The House needs to face that important fact. The disadvantage results partly from the fact that Northern Ireland is on the periphery of the United Kingdom and on the periphery of the Community. However, decisions have been taken by the United Kingdom Government and also

  643
  by the Community that have been detrimental to Northern Ireland's agriculture. It is important that we consider it as it was and recognise what has happened to it during our membership of the EC. It is important also that we consider the present position.
  Before our entry into the EEC, Northern Ireland agriculture had a most successful intensive sector, especially for pigs and poultry. There was a reason for that. The reason was that Northern Ireland people are hard-working. They still are. Some of them inherited small farms. There was no alternative employment so they decided to work hard and to do their best to make an income from which they could bring up their families and be responsible citizens in our community. I praise the industry of the small farmer in Northern Ireland. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his industry, courage and dedication.
  There was only one thing that the small farmers could do—develop the intensive sector of agriculture and go into pigs and poultry. That they did. The main prop of the intensive sector for those hard-working small farmers was, of course, access to the world market for feeding stuffs, and being able to purchase them at a reasonable cost, although it was above the cost of what was available to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, with their industry and dedication, they made a success story of pigs and poultry.
  I shall look at the figures. In 1973 there were 112,000 breeding sows and in 1983 there were 69,000. That shows the devastation that has taken place. It is the same in the poultry industry. In 1973 there were 7,125,000 egg layers but today there are 3,750,000. Therefore, almost 40 per cent. of our intensive sector has been destroyed. No amount of platitudes from either the Government or Opposition Front Bench can alter those sad and terrible facts.
  What is left in the intensive sector, both in pigs and poultry, is now threatened. If we could be assured that we could save what we have, I am sure that Northern Ireland representatives would be happy. However, we are not sure whether we shall retain even what is now left.
  Therefore, we must ask why Northern Ireland has fared so badly. People who are familiar with farming conditions in England have great difficulty in appreciating the difference in Northern Ireland, which is due to the lack of a significant cereal alternative to grass. In England cereals represent over 36 per cent. of the area of crops and grass, whereas in Northern Ireland they represent less than 7 per cent. In spite of generally higher prices in Northern Ireland than in England, the cereal acreage has fallen marginally, while in England there has been a significant increase. That must be emphasised. Because of unsuitable conditions, most of our farmers cannot take advantage of the most profitable sector for farmers in the EEC, and cereals cannot be regarded as a viable alternative to grass in Northern Ireland. Let us put it firmly on the line. We are at a grave disadvantage. EEC membership has reacted against the intensive sector of our industry.
  Not only this Government but other Governments have failed to take effective steps to cushion the effects of our membership of the EEC. Some 40 per cent. of that valuable sector of agriculture has been destroyed because of that. The intensive sector still provides employment for
  644
  10,000 people. Therefore, what is left is an important sector. We should like to hear what steps the Government will take to protect, defend and maintain it.
  Evidence was presented to the agriculture committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Ulster Farmers Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association, the Minister of State, Lord Mansfield, the Pigs Marketing Board, the Milk Marketing Board, the Livestock Marketing Commission and the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association. The conclusion, based upon that evidence, was that
  "the Government should … accept that Community cereal prices be brought progressively into line with world prices."
  Until we get that, we cannot maintain our intensive sector. The committee stated that the Government should also accept that
  "the gap between the intervention price for minimum quality breadmaking wheat and feed wheat be reduced … argue that intervention stocks of cereals should be available on equal terms to all regions and attempt to obtain the transfer of intervention grain to Northern Ireland on an on-going basis … oppose vigorously any suggestion that a cereals-deficit area such as Northern Ireland be denied access to cereal substitutes at competitive prices … seek to secure for the benefit of both the cereals and intensive livestock sectors, a scheme to encourage the incorporation of cereals in animal feed, operated under the aegis of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce."
  I trust that the Government will take some of those steps to help us in this time of need.
  I was rather surprised to hear the Minister talk in the way he did about beef. He said that it was a success story. However, when one looks at the figures, one does not see the success that he sees. In 1974 we had 339,000 beef cows in Northern Ireland. Let us remember that this is said to be a success story. In 1983 we had 197,000. I fail to understand how the Minister can tell us that that is a success story.
  As the right hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted in his maiden speech, if the United Kingdom beef variable premium scheme is eliminated, that will be serious for Northern Ireland. As an alternative to substantial intervention, the beef variable premium scheme forms the mainstay of the support for producers' returns. It is also a benefit to consumers because beef is supplied at reasonable prices. If the scheme is removed—it is proposed that it should be—there will be serious implications in Northern Ireland, where access to intervention is already restricted by the physical limitations of handling and storage facilities. Therefore, beef is not a success story.
  I was surprised when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) painted a picture of the Republic's farmers being in paradise. When I read their journals, it seems that they are in "Paradise Lost" rather than paradise. The hon. Gentleman seems to know what is happening in the Irish Republic as every time the House discusses matters relating to Northern Ireland he directs his eyes to Dublin first and then to Belfast. He might get a squint if he keeps directing his eyes in that direction. However, if he knows anything about what is happening in the Irish Republic he will know that all is not well with farmers there.
  I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that the farmers of Northern Ireland are under no obligation for what has happened in Europe because in Europe I have seen the representatives of the Republic fighting the very things that would be beneficial to farmers in Northern Ireland. I should like to say with all my strong convictions as a

  645
  traditional Unionist that I would not vote in the European Assembly against anything that would benefit another part of Europe, provided that it was not detrimental to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Hume: Give an example.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The beef variable premium scheme. They try to destroy it because they want to put their beef into intervention the easy way and do not want to produce the quality of beef that Northern Ireland is able to produce and sell in Europe. Moreover, let no one think that Ministers from Dublin are lining up in the Council of Ministers to support Northern Ireland farmers. They definitely are not. I have mentioned the attitude of those representatives in the Assembly. Northern Ireland farmers do not need to say thank you to Dublin.
  The basis of the Community is to deal with regions rather than with countries. It deals with regions that have similar problems. That is exactly what happened in regard to the calf premium. It was not introduced in the Republic first. It was introduced first in a place which is very like the Republic—Italy—some 10 years ago to arrest the decline in herds there. I shall not go on to say why I think Italy is like Southern Ireland. I shall leave that to hon. Gentlemen's imagination. The premium was extended to Greece, then to the Republic and to Northern Ireland in 1982. To hear the hon. Member for Hammersmith, one would think that people in Dublin were carrying a flag to help the farmers of Northern Ireland. That is not so.
  What the farmers of Northern Ireland have got they have got by their own diligence and through their own representatives. Even the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has occasionally been in a lobby different from that of the representatives of the Irish Republic. With regard to the beef variable premium scheme he associated himself with the right hon. Member for Strangford and me. I am glad to see him nodding in agreement. That was a vital matter. We owe nothing to the representatives from Dublin, all of whom voted against it. We should not think that because the South gets something and the North also get it that we are obliged to the South. That is just part of the Community's regional policy.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will remember that the move to abolish the calf premium will be disastrous for our beef. We shall lose at least £10 million if that proposal goes ahead. There is also the proposal in the revised intervention arrangements, on which the Commission has not yet fully elaborated but which could apply to a restricted group of classes of carcases, which are described in accordance with the EC carcase classification grid, especially if the classes prescribed are predominantly continental in type. All of those things would tend to act against Northern Ireland's agriculture, which is not in a happy state.
  This afternoon the Secretary of the Ulster Farmers Union issued a statement in which he said:
  "if the levels of inputs and outputs remain the same there will be a nil net income from the present proposals, price adjustments, green pound and the CAP reform."
  That is a serious statement. The milk sector has known prosperity but great pressure will now be put on it. The choice of 1981 as the year on which to calculate the supplementary levy on milk will be disastrous for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Hammersmith might say that that is what they are shouting about in Dublin. Of course they are. People are shouting about it elsewhere in
  646
  the Community. Selection of 1981 as a base year would be disastrous for Northern Ireland dairy men. It would mean that, out of total receipts of £189 million, the dairy industry would lose £25 million. I say without apology that if the Government of the Republic of Ireland are excluded from proposals on milk and do not keep to that base year, we in Northern Ireland are entitled to the same consideration.
  Mr. Hume: Hear, hear.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman's support on that issue. It will not be Dublin that delivers the goods. The people in Dublin are interested in themselves, Sinn Fein—"We, ourselves, alone." We are interested in getting the best possible deal for the farmers of Northern Ireland.
  I wonder what the Government will do about the milk issue. I trust that some of the recommendations that the agriculture committees made will be studied and accepted.
  It is important to highlight Northern Ireland's fishing industry. It is an important part of agriculture. Those of us who have some knowledge of it know that boats are being sold and that the size of the fleet is being depleted. We also know that some people carry on for the simple reason that there is no alternative employment. The same is true for other sectors of agriculture. There are people who would be out of agriculture if they could get another job. As the Pigs Marketing Board said recently, they will hold on to the end and "will" stay to "the death".
  The Minister should be aware that the fishing industry in Northern Ireland is in crisis. All of its representative bodies say the same thing. They gave evidence a few days ago to the Northern Ireland Assembly's agriculture committee. The Minister must take a hard look at Northern Ireland's agriculture. Although we are grateful for all that has been done for it and for all that the farmers have done for themselves, today we stand at a crossroads. It should be remembered that the key industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture. If it declines, the whole economy declines with it. I welcome the fact that, even in the amendment, it is recognised at long last that agriculture has a special place in Northern Ireland. I trust that the Government will take immediate steps to safeguard that industry and, especially with regard to intensive farming, to save what is left of that extremely valuable part of the agriculture industry.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. John Hume: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this subject in the House today, and to the party that tabled the motion, although I have to confess to having very little sympathy with the anti-EEC sentiments in the motion. We find ourselves in the company of the party of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Provisional Sinn Fein who are opposed to membership of the European Community -stop the world, they want to get off.
  Agriculture is the largest industry in Northern Ireland and therefore must figure largely in any debate on the economy of Northern Ireland. This is becoming increasingly necessary as our manufacturing base continues to contract and it becomes obvious that, for our economic salvation, we shall have to rely increasingly on small and medium-sized industry and, indeed, on our own resources. Agriculture will loom very large in that kind of

  647
  development. For that reason, there is an urgent need for a rural development plan in Northern Ireland to be considered, to cover not only the issue of direct aid to farmers and farming, which has already been raised in the debate, but the maintenance and development of the rural community as a community.
  It is no longer enough to encourage the drift from the land to the urban areas, which can only swell already swollen dole queues. A positive effort must be made to maintain and develop the rural community by methods such as the development of forestry and afforestation. In such development not only is use made of existing mountain land, providing immediate employment, but the foundations are laid for some powerful industries of the future in afforestation and in tourist-related industries, such as the craft industry, thus making the rural towns centres of small industry.
  Mention has been made of the damage that is being done to the intensive sector in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North rightly referred to the existing 10,000 jobs that need protection. It is generally agreed that the cause of the decline in this sector is due to the high price of feeding stuffs and cereals. The suggestion has been made repeatedly to the Minister, and to the Department, that one way of dealing with the decline is to have a permanent intervention store in Northern Ireland. While we welcome the one-off 50,000 tonnes proposed last year, there is no reason why there should not be a permanent intervention store in Northern Ireland. This is a simple way of getting a hidden transport subsidy to offset the heavy transport costs that have to be paid in Northern Ireland because of its geographical position.
  The major weakness in the membership of the European Community in relation to Northern Ireland is the absence of a regional policy. Regional funds are not regional policies. There is no regional policy in the European Community, and Governments in the Council of Ministers have prevented the development of regional policies. In considering the changes that have to be made to the common agricultural policy, I believe that greater regionalisation has more to offer Northern Ireland than any other reform, particularly if that is applied to some of the problems currently faced in Northern Ireland.
  I am not one of those who think that the common agricultural policy has been an unmitigated disaster. I happen to think that it has been one of the few successful food policies anywhere in the world. I am puzzled by people who complain about food surpluses. Would they prefer scarcity to food surpluses? The achievement of surpluses is proof that the European Community's common agricultural policy has attained self-sufficiency in food production, which is the objective of the policy. Northern Ireland is one of the few areas of the world where that has happened. There is undoubtedly a problem in relation to dairy surpluses, and something will have to be done about that. However, the proposals that are being put forward must be fought tooth and nail in Northern Ireland, because they will be very damaging to our dairy industry.
  Northern Ireland's only raw material is grass, and all that we can produce from that grass is milk or beef. If there are to be penalties for over-production of milk in the European Community, those penalties should be placed on regions which, because of climatic conditions that are better than those in Northern Ireland, can turn to many
  648
  other products. In Northern Ireland we cannot change from milk or beef. That is what I mean by a greater regionalised approach to the problems; an approach that takes account not only of the specific problems of regions, but of the specific natural resources of the regions.
  A major issue in Northern Ireland agriculture for many years has been the extension of the boundaries of less-favoured areas. The absence of such an extension has been a major injustice against those farmers whose lands have been excluded from the schemes for less-favoured areas. Since our entry into the European Community, 75 per cent. of the land of Northern Ireland has met the criteria for inclusion in the less-favoured areas, yet only 45 per cent. has been included in existing schemes.
  It was only after a great deal of pressure on an issue in which the farming community and the political community in Northern Ireland were united that Northern Ireland demanded a survey to prove that our allegation was correct. The survey found that our allegation was correct, and recommended a substantial increase in the size of the less-favoured areas. The delay in the implementation of that extended scheme is intolerable. I should like the Minister to confirm to the House that, when the scheme goes through the Council of Ministers, the Government will not be slow in committing their share of the cost of an extension for the less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland.
  My final point concerns one of the great problems of farmers today, particularly small farmers, and that is the level of interest rates. In some parts of the European Community farmers have the benefit of rural investment banks and low interest rates. In the Republic, the Agricultural Credit Corporation is used as the agent of the European Investment Bank to provide low-rate loans to farmers. I do not see why something similar cannot be applied in Northern Ireland.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. James Nicholson: The situation in Northern Ireland agriculture has been deteriorating in recent years. No hon. Member who has listened to the debate could doubt that. The two sectors suffering most since United Kingdom entry into the EEC are pigs and poultry. Farmers in Northern Ireland built a thriving intensive industry based on cheap grain imports from north America. The average farm in Northern Ireland is smaller in size than farms in the rest of the United Kingdom. The farms are mainly family farms and, to make their farms viable, farmers expanded in the intensive sectors. Since United Kingdom entry into Europe, the numbers of pigs and poultry kept in Northern Ireland has been halved, with a number of consequences. One consequence is a drift from the land and resultant loss of jobs in ancillary industry. Many farmers have been forced to concentrate mainly on the grass-based sector, specialising in one sector, which they now find threatened by EEC proposals, especially in the milk industry. This has caused grave concern throughout the industry, and with good cause.
  As to the problems connected with pigs and poultry, I believe the present crisis in Northern Ireland to be the most serious for many years. The input costs play a major part in this situation. I am reliably informed that it costs £4 per pig more to produce a pork pig in Northern Ireland than it costs on the United Kingdom mainland.

  649
  I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on the decrease in the number of sows in Northern Ireland. Had he been with me at Portadown pig market last Wednesday he would have been amazed, because it was full. The farmers are getting out as quickly as they can because they want to ease their meal bill and salvage something from the serious position. I must tell the Minister that if something is not done quickly in that sector, in six or nine months' time he will have to cite figures to the House that will cause a few red faces on the Government Benches.
  Northern Ireland producers carry an intolerable burden, which emanates from Britain's entry into Europe. That deprived Northern Ireland of access to cheap North American grain. Northern Ireland farmers were always able to cope with higher input costs better than other parts of the United Kingdom, but the current difference has become too great a cross to bear, too steep a hill to climb—especially when we read of intervention grain going to other countries. That grain should be used to benefit United Kingdom farmers. The time has come for the Government to stand up for their farmers. They should worry less about what other countries may think of them, because other countries are prepared to protect their farmers at all costs. We need look no further than to the attitude of the French as proof of that.
  If Northern Ireland is not to evolve into an agricultural economy based predominantly on grass, some way forward must be found to obtain grain at a more competitive price, and there must also be a more serious study of transport costs. Some form of assistance, especially to the pig industry, would be an unfettered supply of cereal substitutes, especially manioc. The problems in Northern Ireland are not only agricultural but social. Directly and indirectly, agriculture is responsible for 13 per cent. of employment in Northern Ireland, and that must be protected.
  The Athens summit failed to reach agreement, which increased the concern and anxiety of the agriculture industry. When the Commission published its price proposals for the 1984–85 marketing year, it allowed only for minor price adjustments, yet the United Kingdom's significant green pound revaluation will sharply reduce support levels. That has been further magnified by the Commission delaying payment on intervention purchases and export restitutions, and the failure of the Council of Ministers to overrule the directives that have held up the hill land compensatory amounts and certain capital grant payments. That has caused serious cash flow difficulties for many farmers, especially hill farmers.
  The poultry sector has recently been helped by an improvement in egg prices. That was much needed as the industry had suffered many months of loss of profits. But it still requires many months at current levels to recuperate. Like the pig industry, the poultry sector suffers from high input costs of grain and will require similar help if it is to have any future.
  Since United Kingdom entry to the EC, there has been a marked departure from the mixed farming enterprise. More and more farmers have specialised in milk or beef—indeed, they have been encouraged to do so by Government inducements. Many were told that as Northern Ireland could grow grass better and conserve it more efficiently than anywhere else in Europe, we should be prepared to produce more milk and beef. The super levy proposals will have a disastrous effect, especially if they
  650
  are introduced on 1981 levels of production. The proposal not to renew the variable premium would set back the beef industry considerably, and would have spin-off effects for milk producers and consumers. I am concerned that many farmers now have all their eggs in one basket, and if that commodity fails they will immediately find themselves in a serious position.
  Agriculture in the whole of the United Kingdom faces many difficulties. The future of agriculture in Northern Ireland is made more difficult by its remoteness, and entry into the EC has made that remoteness greater. Decisions that used to be made here are now being made in Brussels. That helps to alienate Northern Ireland farmers. Many of them wonder whether their views are considered at all. EC membership has not been beneficial to Northern Ireland farmers, and more consideration of our remoteness must be given.
  The position of the monetary compensatory amounts in Northern Ireland will always be open to abuse while the frontier with the Irish Republic remains open. If the Government are not prepared to control the security of the border in the interests of the citizens, we can expect little control of those determined to abuse the system.
  The importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland and its economy cannot be over-stressed. It requires much greater foresight than at present, and a greater awareness of the problems faced in such a peripheral area. I hope that there will be a greater awareness from the Minister that will lead to a strengthened industry.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Agriculture is the most important industry in Northern Ireland, and nowhere is it more important than in my constituency. In production, processing and marketing, agriculture is the largest employer. It is, therefore, vital that the contribution that agriculture, in all its aspects, has made to the economy is not allowed to diminish any further than it has since we entered the EC. That point has been well made by other hon. Members this afternoon.
  The steady decline in rural Ulster's main industry is having a devastating effect on the community, where 40 per cent. of males are already unemployed. That was not the case when market forces were allowed to prevail and our farmers built up a thriving intensive livestock industry based on grain purchased openly on the world market. Now the EC-imposed threshold price has decimated that aspect of farming.
  One can continuously quote figures to prove that point. For example, about 10 years ago there were more than 1 million pigs in Northern Ireland, but there are now only 600,000. The number of farmers employed in pig production has dropped from 17,500 in 1972 to fewer than 6,000 in 1982. The reduction in pig production has had a devastating effect on marketing, as evidenced in the Unipork factory in Enniskillen. When the new factory killing line is established in Cookstown, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), a considerable number of pigs will be diverted from Enniskillen to sustain the new plant. The danger is that the hinterland of the Enniskillen factory will not be able to supply the factory with a sufficient number of pigs. The farmers in Fermanagh are generally small producers, and they are being driven out of work by EC policy. The Enniskillen factory employs 400 to 500 men. It is efficiently run and supplies shops and supermarkets

  651
  all over the British Isles with a variety of products. The future of the factory is at stake, as are the jobs of the employees.
  Farmers face other problems, too, in connection with marketing. Milk producers are concerned about the future because of the talk of the imposition of super levies and quotas and suggestions that the base year for any quota system should be 1981. That would hit milk producers hard, because 1981 was a poor year. The years 1982 and 1983 would have been much more representative.
  Since we joined the Common Market, policy on agriculture in Northern Ireland has been subject to fluctuations. The change in capital grant schemes announced on 30 November 1983 will reduce the rate of grants on buildings by 2·5 per cent. and grants on road and drainage by 10 per cent. That is most unwelcome. Furthermore, when announcing that change, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland said that the rate of grants under the agricultural development programme—a scheme for the benefit of farmers in the less favoured areas—would remain unchanged for the time being. I hope that the Government will not find it necessary to reduce the rate of grants under that scheme. That is an example of the uncertainty that our farmers have to face all the time.
  A problem of widespread concern, affecting all schemes, is delay in the issue of grant payments. It seems to be caused by confusion between our own Department of Agriculture, the Treasury and the EC directives. It is claimed that in normal circumstances a delay of six months is the minimum that one should expect. This delay not only reduces the rate at which further development can take place, but means that the farming community has to pay heavy bank interest. There are various explanations for the delays, one being the complexity of the schemes and the difficulties involved in their administration. A farmer may benefit under a variety of schemes, and it is necessary for the Department of Agriculture to check and cross-reference all schemes before payments are made to ascertain that the two-year expenditure limits and six-year farm business limits are not being exceeded. There is an urgent need for simplification of the rules governing the schemes to make possible speedier administration.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the matter was raised in December we received some assurances of a speeding-up in payment of grants approved and due. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's experience is the same as mine, but in my constituency there has been no improvement whatsoever, and I am still forwarding a steady stream of complaints to the Minister as I was six months ago.
  Mr. Maginnis: Sadly, I have to concur with my right hon. Friend.
  The continuity so necessary in an industry which requires high investment has been missing, as the EC agricultural policy stumbles from crisis to crisis with little appreciation of Northern Ireland's capabilities or problems. When I remember the stability and confidence that pervaded farming in Northern Ireland before the curse —if I may so describe it—of EC membership imposed the uncertainty that permeates the system today, I fail to understand why we continue to accept diktats which enforce higher production costs so that France and other
  652
  European countries can compete by producing food that is inferior in quality and in hygiene and originates in areas where animal disease which we eradicted years ago is still endemic.
  I hope that the Minister responsible will take appropriate action to remove the serious administrative difficulties. I refer in particular to EC money for funding a Blackwater drainage scheme which would benefit farmers in my constituency. For some reason, when the Department decided to pursue this scheme, it turned to London for a consultant to deal with the matter. We do not mind competition, but we have adequate and able consultants in Northern Ireland—consultants who, if asked to draw up a list of firms to tender for the scheme, would not have left out the name of the largest earth-moving firm in Northern Ireland, which is based in my constituency, although two firms from the mainland and one from Eire were included.
  When I inquired about the omission, I was given all sorts of reasons. I knocked down the reasons one by one. The firm has plant worth £3 million and has completed a £4 million scheme on the Naas bypass in the past year. Such a firm is eligible to tender for the Blackwater drainage scheme. Lord Mansfied was unable to give me a satisfactory explanation, and so was the Secretary of State. The Northern Ireland Office told me that the firm might not be up to the job financially. That is a ridiculous allegation to make against a firm which has honoured every contract it has been given over the years and is able, without recourse to an insurance firm, to get a bond for £600,000 from the bank with which it deals. If there is such ineptitude in the awarding of agricultural contracts, what confidence can we have—right across the board—that we are dealing with people who understand Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Where such a situation has arisen over the obtaining of a tender and awarding of a contract, surely the only honourable thing to do would be to add to the list the name of the company that has been disfavoured or, if that is not acceptable, to go through a fresh tendering procedure.
  Mr. Maginnis: I agree. If there was any real feeling for the plight of the unemployed in my constitueny, where there is 40 per cent. male unemployment among men who are familiar with agriculture, a different approach would be taken to the problem.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I have listened with interest since the beginning of the debate to my colleagues on both sides of the House. They have made a plea on behalf of agriculture in Northern Ireland to the Minister. I suggest to the Minister that he heeds what hon. Members have said and goes to Brussels when Northern Ireland issues are discussed. The same is true of Wales and Scotland. Secretaries of State never attend meetings in Brussels, and they are to blame, in my view, for what happens. They are responsible for agriculture in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will heed what has been said tonight.
  I have pressed agricultural matters in the House, and perhaps the Minister will take note of what I have to say, from this side of the water. Many years ago we had a

  653
  deficiency payments scheme for pigs. It worked well. I have pressed successive Governments to introduce a scheme for pig producers similar to that which we have for sheep producers in Northern Ireland and this country. It would benefit everyone.
  The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) spoke about the capital grant, and the credit system that now operates within the EEC. It is well known in Brussels that, if farmers in Northern Ireland or any other part of Great Britain could have the option of a capital grant scheme or cheap credit, many small farmers in Northern Ireland would prefer to have cheap credit facilities for a period until they had established themselves. Our counterparts in Europe are willing for us to have that, and I hope that the Minister will listen to our sentiments.
  After listening to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have no choice but to support the motion in the Lobby.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Butler: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly I shall not have an opportunity to answer every point. As usual, I shall try to do so as appropriately as I can through correspondence.
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on his maiden speech. I have seen the slightly unkind comments in the press, and as this appears to be his third maiden speech he can now forsake the wooden spoon for the triple crown. He spoke with considerable authority and it was only to my annoyance that I was unable to intervene. Another time will come when, perhaps, I will be able to do so. I want to deal with two small but relevant points. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised the subject of the selection of contractors for the Blackwater scheme and there was plainly some support for what he was saying. As far as I am aware, the procedures in that case have been properly followed, but I will draw the attention of my noble Friend Lord Mansfield and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Gentleman's words and the expressions of sympathy for his view that came from other hon. Members.
  I appreciate the problem associated with grants. It is a matter of cash flow for the farmers. We are talking only about administrative problems that we have experienced in Northern Ireland. I am told that additional staff have been allocated and that overtime is being worked. It is hoped to reduce the time taken to process the claims shortly. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement about EEC grants on Thursday, and I need not add anything.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) had his little bit of a legpull about monetarism. He then went on to sing the praises of a united Ireland. I do not believe that that is relevant to this debate. The example of agriculture within the Republic of Ireland at present is not one upon which I would necessarily wish to base the future of agriculture elsewhere.
  It is also a matter of fact that the major increases in prosperity in agriculture in the Republic as a result of entry into the Common Market came about largely because of the smallness of the base, and the industry's relative inefficiency, particularly in the dairy sector, where milk productivity was half of what it was in the North at the time.
  654
  The hon. Member referred also to the green pound and the detrimental effect that that had on agriculture during a certain period in the 1970s. As I recollect it, and I hope that I am not wrong, it was his Government's deliberate policy not to revalue the green pound that had a serious impact on farmers' income at that time. The benefit to agriculture then might well have been improved if his Government had not taken that line.
  The original motion, as I said earlier, criticised United Kingdom agriculture policies and their effect on Northern Ireland, and the impact of Common Market membership on Northern Ireland agriculture. Frankly, despite the number of voices that have been raised in support of the motion, I do not find the case made out that the trouble stemmed from joining the EEC.
  We can argue facts and figures across the Floor, as we did, and, if I may say it immodestly, I believe that my facts and figures were better and more persuasive than those of some of my opponents. The serious point, I believe, that is acknowledged on both sides of the House by anyone who knows anything about agriculture in Northern Ireland is that agriculture is too concentrated and based on grassland production. It must be a matter of fact that a decline in the intensive sector brings about a greater concentration, as the Economic Council report made clear. We must see how we can reverse that trend. The intensive areas were mentioned liberally and frequently by many speakers. I noticed, however, the absense of reference to the poultrymeat sector.
  If one takes the poultrymeat sector into account, one sees that the number of chickens for poultrymeat and egg laying is greater than it was in 1965, not less. There is a better prospect for the intensive sector there. A number of useful ideas were mentioned. The Government would wish to see cereal prices moving nearer to world prices. That must have an impact. I cannot promise a full-time store for intervention grain, but we shall use every opportunity to move intervention grain to the Province, as we have done in the past.
  One of the best prospects to help the intensive sector and the dairy, beef and sheep sectors is the excellent way in which the processing side is developing. Employment is increasing, even in pig processing, the hardest hit sector in Northern Ireland. It has increased by about 10 per cent. if one adds beef and lamb slaughtering and processing. Markets within the Common Market, especially for beef and lamb, are opening up and that is yet another benefit.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford properly drew attention to the importance of forestry. There, thanks to about £5 million a year that is going into that industry, the output of Northern Ireland forests is increasing substantially.
  Although I belive that the anxieties expressed about Northern Ireland agriculture are real, and that the industry's problems will continue, I do not believe that the position is as gloomy as some speakers made out. I do not attribute the difficulties to membership of the EEC. In fact, I have pointed out the advantages that have been gained. It is essential, and I give this assurance, that the Government should continue to pay special regard to the special needs of the industry in the Province.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 208.

  Division No. 152]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Beggs, Roy

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Beith, A. J.

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cartwright, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Freud, Clement

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Howells, Geraint

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wainwright, R.

  McCrea, Rev William

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  McCusker, Harold

  Wallace, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Maginnis, Ken

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Mr. William Ross and

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

  Nicholson, J.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ground, Patrick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Grylls, Michael

  Amess, David

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Ashby, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bottomley, Peter

  Harris, David

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harvey, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hayes, J.

  Browne, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Heddle, John

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hill, James

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Holt, Richard

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Coombs, Simon

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fox, Marcus

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Knowles, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Knox, David

  Fry, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Galley, Roy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lightbown, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lilley, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Gorst, John

  Luce, Richard

  Gow, Ian

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gregory, Conal

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  656

  Maclean, David John.

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Major, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Silvester, Fred

  Malone, Gerald

  Sims, Roger

  Maples, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marlow, Antony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mates, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speller, Tony

  Merchant, Piers

  Spencer, D.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stern, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Moore, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Sumberg, David

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Newton, Tony

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Normanton, Tom

  Thurnham, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tracey, Richard

  Osborn, Sir John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Waddington, David

  Parris, Matthew

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Walden, George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waller, Gary

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Watson, John

  Porter, Barry

  Watts, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Powley, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wheeler, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Whitfield, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wood, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Yeo, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ryder, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House acknowledges the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy and that there have been advantages as well as disadvantages to Northern Ireland agriculture as a result of European Community membership; welcomes the special provision of aid to ameliorate that industry's special disadvantages; and calls on the Government to continue to recognise the special problems of Northern Ireland agriculture.

  Dartford Tunnel Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Those of us who in 1971 served on the interminably long Committee stage of what is now the Local Government Act must feel that our misdeeds will haunt us for ever. Were it not for that legislation we should not today be faced with the Dartford Tunnel Bill. The problem is technical. We are being asked to renew existing powers because of that Act's provisions. The House is not asked to consider significant new proposals or new policies. We are asked by the Kent and Essex county councils for powers to continue to operate and maintain the twin Dartford tunnels and to collect tolls as hitherto.
  Although we are discussing only a renewal of powers, hon. Members are given the opportunity to raise matters of considerable principle and of national policy. I understand why some of my hon. Friends and the petitioners—notably the local authorities and motoring organizations—will seize the opportunity to register their views on a matter of importance to many people. However, I hope that, following the debate, the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, both on the merits of the case—which I believe to be strong—and because of the grave consequences for Kent and Essex if the Bill does not succeed. I shall do my best to answer detailed questions later, but I do not claim an omniscience about the details of this 49-page Bill or about the tunnel management.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the promoters' statement and know something of the history of the tunnels and of the legislation. This is the eighth Dartford Tunnel Bill. The first Dartford Tunnel Act was passed in 1930, but the first tunnel did not open until 1963. That tunnel was so successful that Parliament, in the Dartford Tunnel Act 1967, authorised the construction of a second tunnel. That Act also provided for the whole of the cost of the second tunnel to be defrayed out of toll income. The tolls in 1963 were set at 2s 6d. They are now 60p which is considerably less than they would be if the ordinary rules of indexing for inflation had been allowed to operate. If those rules had operated, the toll would now be 79p or 80p.
  It is important to note the date of the Act which we are being asked to renew. It is 1967. That was when a Labour Government were in power. I hope that tonight's debate will not be partisan, but we must remember that previous legislation of this kind was supported by different Governments of different political complexions. I concede that there are plenty of valid and logical arguments on both sides about tolls for estuarial crossings, but we are entitled to remember the record of previous Labour Governments in relation to other legislation. I refer, for example, to the Tyne tunnel legislation which was re-enacted in 1976, the Tamar bridge legislation of 1977 and the Mersey tunnel legislation which was deposited in 1978. Labour Members must understand that the application of estuarial crossing tolls has been supported by both sides of the House.
  I am ready to accept that when in Opposition parties may change policy. That is often done. All that I ask of Opposition Members is that, when considering the consequences for our county councils, please let us not have a U-turn in the Dartford tunnel.
  658
  I shall state what I understand to be national policy which established the Dartford tunnel in its present position. I understand that the Government's view is that such expensive crossings which provide attractive alternative routes for travellers and opportunities for journeys which otherwise might be uneconomic should be paid for by the users rather than by the taxpayers. I understand that it has been the policy of successive Governments that tolls should be charged on estuarial crossings which provide exceptional benefits to users.
  We must understand the context of that national policy because I believe that in all respects the Dartford tunnels meet the criteria. Having understood the national policy and the existence of the tunnels as toll crossings, it is right to point out that the Kent county council and, I suspect, the Essex county council would be more than pleased if the Secretary of State overturned that national policy and took over the tunnels and all the debts. Even if the Secretary of State were to take over all the responsibilities of running and maintaining the tunnels, tolls would not necessarily cease. The Government might well pursue the same policy as that which applies on the Severn crossing, for example, and toll them in the same way.
  It is right to record that no one in either of the counties is enthusiastic about carrying these responsibilities. Why should they be? No motorists are enthusiastic about tolls. Why should they be? That is to state the obvious. Nobody wants to pay tolls, any more than they want to pay taxes. That is not the practical question which we are called upon to consider. We have to be concerned, as have successive Governments, with the practical question of how best to finance these outstandingly expensive estuarial crossings.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: One of the problems for a number of hon. Members is that many of my hon. Friend's constituents coming from London can save half an hour or an hour on a journey by avoiding traffic jams on the Rochester way in my constituency since the Government have rightly allowed the GLC to build the relief road. The same applies to people going round what will be the M25. They will save only about half an hour's journey if they use the Dartford tunnel rather than coming in on the A2 using the Blackwall tunnel and going back out to Essex.
  Mr. Moate: I fully understand my hon. Friend's argument. It has been deployed extensively and is a legitimate argument to explore, but I do not believe that anybody would divert for a half-hour journey, especially into congested conditions with the consequent petrol cost and agony of driving in heavy traffic, to avoid a toll of 60p.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I know well the road system referred to by my hon. Friend. From experience I would have thought, especially in the conditions of congestion which one encounters in the Greater London area, that the delay would be considerably more than half an hour.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that anybody who were to divert from the Dartfort tunnel because of the toll and enter London traffic would spend much more than half an hour, and very much more on petrol than he would save on the toll, by not going through the Dartford tunnel.
  I fully understand the arguments about this matter, which causes anxiety to all those concerned with London

  659
  traffic, but, frankly, I have seen no credible evidence—I have read much of the evidence that has been submitted—to suggest that a large volume of traffic would be diverted because of the toll. Experience of tolls shows that when they have risen there has been almost no effect upon traffic flow. Even if the toll were eliminated, I suspect that it would make almost no difference to the volume of traffic in the Dartford tunnel. All hon. Members can speak subjectively as motorists, and I believe that the convenience of that and other crossings is so great to the motorist that he is prepared to pay reasonable tolls to utilise them.
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to congestion which, as a frequent user of the A13, I experience when I travel to and from my constituency. However, to support the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the degree of congestion depends on the time of day. After the evening rush hour has subsided, if one wished to go into London through the Blackwall tunnel and out on the A13, one would encounter very little traffic. Drivers of heavy vehicles might consider making that detour to avoid the tunnel, and could do so providing they were travelling down the A13 to Essex after about 7 o'clock in the evening. There are times during the day when traffic is light on that road.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Lady is right that there are times during the day when the general figures for the extra cost do not apply, and when the deviation would be less time-consuming. However, it would be a most uneconomic detour in terms of fuel. If a heavy vehicle were to make the complete detour of about 15 miles each way, the additional cost would be more than £10 per heavy lorry. That is £10 for time and fuel consumed, which is a considerable additional cost. Without going into all the massive detailed evidence, I suggest that the vast majority of drivers of private cars and heavy lorries will always find it much cheaper to use the tunnel than to divert back into London. That is why we have those crossings in the first place. They are attractive to the motorist and confer benefit on him. The Dartford tunnel confers exceptional benefit on the motorist.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I agree that the crossing confers benefit on motorists, but not only local motorists and commuters. It also benefits motorists from all parts of the country who must use it.
  Mr. Moate: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer that point later. It is one of the key arguments in the matter. The more one examines such arguments and all the estuarial crossings, the harder it is to find a clear and logical pattern that applies throughout the country. However, with the Dartford tunnel we have found a practical answer that works. We cannot consider now whether it works well in other areas or whether we should apply tolls on other crossings. Although my hon. Friend may argue his case for other areas, I urge him to accept that the Dartford tunnel is beginning to work well.
  It would be ironic—I hope that it is a hypothetical proposition—if, when the finances of the tunnel appear to be looking good, we should change the scenario and
  660
  deny to the county councils the powers that they seek. If it is not too much of a pun, I could say that, financially, we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel.
  The statement from the promoters states clearly that
  "Toll levels are limited by the Act of 1967, and must be no more than is sufficient to allow over a period of time for the repayment with interest of loans made for the construction of the tunnel and the maintenance and running costs. Under the Act of 1967, and under the Bill, the power to charge tolls would cease when the capital debt has been paid off and maintenance and reserve funds have been established."
  It is impossible to be precise about when that will happen, but we must believe the statement that all hon. Members have received from the promoters, which states:
  "On present estimates it is predicted that tolls will cease to be chargeable under the Bill early in the next century having regard to the predicted increase in the flow of traffic through the tunnel."
  There was evidence given in another place to suggest that we could reach that position even earlier. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) might laugh, because it sounds like a long time ahead. However, in the context of general Government finance, a period of about 16 years during which time a debt of £68 million is expected to be extinguished is not a long time. In the context of financing such an operation, it is a reasonable period that justifies the philosophy of charging tolls and allowing the user of such an exceptionally expensive crossing to bear the cost of doing so.
  Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman talked about early next century, but that will be too late for those of my constituents who now spend £6 a week in tolls alone while travelling to and from work. They will either be happily retired, or may even have gone to the other place, before the debt for the Dartford tunnel is paid off.
  Mr. Moate: When the hon. Lady refers to the other place, I presume that she means not the other Chamber but some other destination. Everyone becomes impatient with such forecasts, but we must relate the matter to local government finance generally. I still say that if we can finance trans-estuarial crossings—crossings that might not otherwise be in the Government programme—on such forecasts, that justifies the entire policy. Had we not built the Dartford tunnel on the basis of toll revenue, it would not exist today. That was the basis on which it was financed and on which powers were originally given to the councils, and it is the basis on which we seek renewal of those powers.
  The House should consider the problems that would arise if the Bill were not renewed. I understand that many hon. Members hope that, if the Bill is not renewed, the Government will take responsibility for the tunnel and that all our problems will be over. However, it is not that simple. If the Bill does not succeed and the councils lose their toll-raising powers, the first and most likely consequence would that the burden of paying for the tunnel would fall upon the ratepayers of Kent and Essex. I have seen forecasts of the rate consequences, and I do not believe that they have been up-dated for this year's calculations. Having made that proviso, I offer them to the House: the tunnel would cost Essex ratepayers 3·8p in the pound and Kent ratepayers 8·6p in the pound. Why should the ratepayers of Kent and Essex bear the burden of this tunnel when that tunnel was built in the expectation that it would be paid for by the users?
  Mr. John Prescott: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the Humberside precept for rates for the financing of that debt will be about 50p?
  Mr. Moate: I am not sure of the hon. Gentleman's point. He may be supporting my case that it would not be an acceptable proposition. The hon. Gentleman is supporting the case that we do not wish to transfer this burden to the ratepayers.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Not even at 8p?
  Mr. Moate: Certainly not at 8p. I shall not go into whether it was right to have a Humber bridge built at three times the debt of this project because that is a different argument.
  The next alternative is that the Government should take over the £68 million debt and that it should be borne by the general taxpayer who bears the major burden of road construction. The cost of building an ordinary motorway is perhaps £2 million a mile. We are talking about a tunnel of a little under a mile to be built at £40 million a mile. We are entitled to say that that is an exceptional cost, that a large proportion of the benefit is obtained by the local users and that some other way should be found of financing that proposition. I do not believe that we are justified in placing the cost on the general taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom.
  If the Government were suddenly faced with that £68 million debt, presumably the Department of Transport would have to carry the cost from its budget, and so £68 million would have to be found from the general roads programme. I do not believe that the Department of Transport could suddenly take over a £68 million debt without having to find cuts in the programme to match it. That would mean that we would perhaps lose the M20 extension, for which we have been fighting for so long, and many other cherished and desirable road schemes for which hon. Members have been clamouring. I should have thought that the consequences would be unacceptable to all involved and that there would be no case for not continuing to use a revenue-raising method that is working quite effectively.
  I put it to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that if the only way in which we can get the second Severn crossing—which I know many people feel is urgently necessary—is is by a toll-based financing operation, surely we would all want it. If the only way to get a new Dartford tunnel would be by applying tolls, even those motorists who do not like paying tolls would welcome that proposition. That takes us to the heart of the matter. The only way in which we will get this type of crossing, as successive Governments have acknowledged, outside the broad roads programme is to have tolls.
  Mr. Porter: If it is true that such projects will be financed by tolls, how does my hon. Friend explain the tunnel at Conwy on the A55?
  Mr. Moate: I shall resist the temptation to consider all the other crossings, because, as I said earlier, there are anomalies and this is not a satisfactorily clear and logical picture. Successive Governments have applied a policy which they would have described as flexible, but I believe that that policy is essentially practical and that, where local circumstances and the practicalities allow it, tolls have
  662
  been charged. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, will say that in each case there is a consistent argument that applies tolls in some cases and not in others and each area must argue its case. In this case it works, and that is the best possible reason for continuing the present system.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is it not time that he got down to the basic question which is that this year motorists have contributed £10,000 million to the Exchequer and only a quarter of that amount is spent on road improvement? In other words, three quarters of that huge amount goes towards general Exchequer expenditure. The hon. Gentleman, because of an anomaly on the estuarial crossing, is putting the motorist in the role of supplicant, where he is paying hand over fist.
  Mr. Moate: I do not believe that that is the basic question. If it is, it is such a hairy old question that I thought we had stopped arguing it. I suggest that we cannot argue that revenue raised from the motorist should always be spent on roads. We do not adopt that type of financial policy of hypothecated revenue—I believe that is the right phrase. It does not work, no Government have ever used it and no Government can. If the same logic were applied to revenue from excise duties on whisky, the tax raised would be spent for the benefit of the whisky drinker, and that might be popular. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we know that petrol duties and the like are a way of raising revenue, just as are income tax, value added tax and any other source of revenue. We should resist the temptation always to relate revenue raising to expenditure on roads.
  Expenditure on roads is at a high level and is increasing substantially. We do not need to be ashamed of the money generally being spent on the roads programme. How can we finance the additional requirements for the immensely expensive crossings—I refer again to the Severn estuary—at the expense of the road programme? Should we find additional ways of raising revenue on terms similar to those that we are discussing?
  The Bill has excited more interest than it might otherwise have done because of the virtual completion of the M25. That project has shown up starkly the presence of one toll on perhaps the most exciting road project this country has ever conceived. The Dartford tunnel is the one point where tolls will be raised on this superb new orbital road. I do not believe that that is an argument for getting rid of the tunnel. It would be an argument if there were major and unacceptable delays caused by the raising of tolls, but the collection of tolls once is not an argument of great principle. I believe that this road will cost £825 million and will be of immense benefit to London and the whole country, and especially the south-east. I do not think it unreasonable that a fairly modest toll should be charged at one point on that motorway.
  One may pursue the point that as a matter of fact there will always be a delay when collecting a toll. There will be a minor delay, but I have never heard it argued on the major highway networks on the continent that the tolls charged are uneconomic or in some way undermine the impressive nature of the autoroutes and major motorways. If a delay is not caused on the continent, why should we assume that there will be a delay here?
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that in France there is considerable controversy about the tolls on the motorways and, in fact, it has been found that most of the money raised by tolls goes to financing the operation of the tolls.
  Mr. Moate: I understand that the system works quite effectively in financing many of those roads. If the hon. Gentleman can show me where tolls on the French autoroutes are being scrapped, I believe that he would have a case.
  Mr. Prescott: So many jobs are in it.
  Mr. Moate: I see. Generally speaking, in countries where tolls are charged they are not seen as a major obstacle to the strategic network—indeed, if they cannot be applied there, they cannot be applied anywhere.
  Are delays caused by the Dartford tunnel? As hon. Members with adjoining constituencies may wish to point out, there have been delays, but those delays were mainly caused by construction work. I understand that a 100 per cent. Government grant has now been earmarked for what is romantically but unsuitably called the "toll plaza" and that once the number of toll booths is increased and the approach roads completed there should be no delay at the point of collection other than the ordinary delay for collection of the toll itself.
  There will be occasions on which motorists will be frustrated and irritated by the formation of queues at the toll booths. Clearly that must be considered in Committee, but I understand that the only constraint will in fact be that a three-lane motorway will be going into a two-lane tunnel. To avoid congestion in the tunnel, delays will sometimes be caused deliberately at the toll booths in the interests of everyone's safety. As I believe my hon. Friend the Minister of State recorded in Hansard recently, the assumption is that delays caused by the collection of tolls will be eliminated save for the brief moment of payment. Delays would certainly be unacceptable and it is right to insist that there should be none. We therefore welcome the Government's grant for the expansion of the toll plaza.
  I think that I have dealt with the major objection about diversion of traffic into the London scene, which I do not believe is a major difficulty.
  At other stages of the Bill and outside Parliament there has been some discussion about the east London river crossing. If and when that crossing is built and the decision is taken whether it should be tolled or toll free, that will be the time to consider the other river crossings if that proves necessary. At this stage, however, I believe that we should proceed on the realistic, practical basis of the renewal of these powers without looking too speculatively into the future.
  On the rights of appeal against toll increases, the law at present provides that anyone objecting to proposals for the revision of tolls may require the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry. Clause 23 would make that a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State. The absolute right for objectors to demand an inquiry will be removed. There is little doubt that the previous procedure was wrong and unworkable. In one case that was quoted an inquiry was ordered—the Secretary of State having no discretion in the matter—and the objector who had caused it to be held failed to appear at the proceedings. The result was eight months delay and a very substantial loss of revenue. That increase was merely to cover inflation. The Bill
  664
  provides that the holding of an inquiry should be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, but an amendment was accepted in another place requiring the promoters to consult Thurrock and Dartford borough councils. I believe that that has now produced an arrangement satisfactory to all parties.
  In conclusion, national policy is flexible and holes can be picked in it, but in the context of the Dartford tunnel the situation works well. The tunnel has been a great success and a great tribute to Kent and Essex county councils. We can at last look forward to a time when the debts will be cleared. That may be a long way ahead, but the system is working well. It would be ironic indeed if we now deprived those councils of the power to operate in the way that they have operated so successfully until now. I submit that it is right to grant the promoters, Kent and Essex county councils, the powers sought in the Bill.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The pleasing manner in which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) introduced the Second Reading of the Bill tempts me to describe him as the Dartford tunnel warbler, but I am not sure that the arguments that he so ably deployed are as strong as he suggested.
  Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to the complete change in the function of the tunnel due to the building of the M25. Unquestionably, when the tunnel was first opened in 1963 its purpose was predominantly — I stress that word — to enable the inhabitants of Essex to go to Kent and the inhabitants of Kent to visit Essex. The construction of the M25 completely changes that, making the tunnel a national asset rather than one shared by those two counties.
  I appreciate the logic behind the Bill in that it is a repetition of the previous legislation, but when the tunnel was first opened its function was of direct interest primarily to the two counties concerned, which is presumably why they originally prompted it. Now, however, the Government are rightly pressing ahead with the construction of the M25 right round London. That will be a magnificent asset both to London and to the country at large. Unquestionably, the use that will be made of the M25 and of the Dartford tunnel will be national rather than regional or local.
  The hon. Member for Faversham rightly referred to the arguments for and against tolls and I accept his comment that there is no apparent logic or hard and fast rule of Government policy on which to base a decision. Perhaps today's debate is a good opportunity to suggest one. If the tunnel is primarily of use locally there may be an argument for part of the cost to be borne on the rates or through a toll or for some system covering both forms of income. If it is a national asset, however, as it is bound to become, I cannot see any sensible argument for a toll. The purpose of a toll is so that those who predominantly use the tunnel and thus stand to benefit from it should pay for it. If it is a national asset, however—like the M25 or any other motorway or main road in the country—it must make reasonable sense for the nation as a whole to pay for it.
  In that way, therefore, I dispose of the argument that there is any logical case for a toll once the M25 is complete, because that stretch of the road which passes under the estuary of the river Thames will be of enormous value to people—to private drivers, firms which send lorries and so on to and from the north, Wales, Scotland

  665
  and all over the country — and will be an asset to continental firms which bring their merchandise in through one of the channel ports.
  It must be seen as a national asset, but it is also an enormous asset to the citizens of London, particularly those who live in my constituency and in my borough. The hon. Member for Faversham said that he had seen no credible evidence to suggest that the existence of a toll, or the queues that might build up on either side, might have a deleterious effect on other parts of London and might throw traffic on to London's roads.
  I understand that some work was done in 1975 by an inquiry into the possible results of an increase in tunnel tolls. That work showed that the likely transfer, as a result of increased tolls, of existing traffic using the tunnel on to other river crossings could be substantial and that the effect on some roads could be significant, for instance, on high street north in Newham, on Rochester way in Greenwich and on the East India Dock road in Tower Hamlets.
  The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is not at present in his place, referred to the Rochester way, which runs through his constituency and mine. Anybody who travels down the A2-M2 knows that at present the Rochester way is a considerable congestion point, and it is likely to remain so until the relief road is built about two years hence. Therefore, any additional traffic passing through our two constituencies would create immense problems. There are frequent blockages in the Blackwall tunnel and anyone who tries to reach outer London through Leyton and Leytonstone knows the difficulties in that area.
  Mr. Tim Brinton: The hon. Gentleman referred to some work that had been done on what people's attitude might be if the tolls on the Dartford tunnel were raised. If I were approached by a pollster and told that tolls might be rising and asked what I would do about it, it would be like asking me if I were against sin. I would obviously try to pretend that if the tolls were increased I should divert so as to avoid paying the extra. What was the size of the sample and what sort of questions were asked in the survey to which the hon. Gentleman referred?
  Mr. Barnett: I cannot give that information. I have not studied that piece of work in detail and I referred to it only because the hon. Member for Faversham suggested that no work had pointed to that possibility. Indeed, I believe that we in east London have every reason to fear the possibility of delays at the Dartford tunnel, which might tempt people to move away. The possibility of tolls is also a reason which, curiously, dissuades people from taking a particular route. Admittedly, in a couple of years' time, the Rochester way relief road will, I hope, be open; I am not sure whether it will be open that soon, but we are looking forward to that possibility. It is right to point out some of the dangers that would arise if the M25 were completed and there were still tolls at the Dartford tunnel.
  The hon. Member for Faversham said that the Government had generously offered £15 million so that a plaza could be laid out at each side of the tunnel to enable the money to be collected. We need to question the Government about that because I understand that the amount owing on the tunnel at present is £62 million, so that that £15 million could pay off one quarter of the sum owing.
  Mr. Moate: I believe that the figure for the toll booths in terms of Government grant is £3·5 million.
  Mr. Barnett: Then I was misinformed; I was told that it was a good deal more than that. Nevertheless, it seems that any work done on the toll points, and the wages that would have to be paid to those operating them, would all involve costs, so we should be told what costs are likely to continue to be involved in the collection of money, apart from the capital cost, which I understand the Government have made available so that toll booths and a plaza may be laid out.
  Another point needs to be put forward, particularly on behalf of east London. The hon. Member for Faversham fairly pointed out that the rest of the M25 would be toll-free. The Government have allowed the link between Staines and Egham to be toll-free on the west side of London but, curiously, have not seen fit to take over responsibility for the link at Dartford. That is unfortunate because anyone who knows anything about London knows that there is a considerable contrast between standards of wealth and deprivation in west and east London. Some of the most deprived boroughs in the Greater London area are on the east, rather than on the west, side, and I need only name Islington, Hackney, Southwark and the other dockland boroughs to illustrate the point. Therefore, it seems unfortunate that the Government should have agreed to the financing of a free road on the west side of the M25 but should have accepted no responsibility for the Dartford crossing.
  In addition, the hon. Member for Faversham mentioned the proposed east London river crossing. I oppose that, and the borough in which my constituency is situated also opposes that development. However, I understand that if it were to take place, the idea would be not to have a toll on that road—it would be interesting to know what arguments there might be for that—while retaining a toll on the Dartford crossing.
  Those are serious arguments against the continuation of tolls at the Dartford tunnel. I emphasise that this is now a national asset; it is transformed into a national asset by the construction of the M25. There can be no argument about the national recognition of the need for the M25, for the sake of London and for the national economy as a whole. For those reasons it is wrong for the Government to expect Kent and Essex to continue the responsibility that they now have for the Dartford tunnel. I should have thought that for that, if for no other reason, we should vote against the Second Reading. That would be a statement by the House that we regard the Dartford tunnel as requiring national, rather than local, financing.
  8 pm
  Mr. Tim Brinton: I listened closely to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). His final words filled me with considerable consternation on behalf of every ratepayer in Essex and Kent. If the Bill were to be defeated, I do not believe that in the present climate there would be the slightest chance of the Government taking over the Dartford tunnel. The hon. Gentleman has suggested, in effect, that the ratepayers of Kent should pay an extra 8·3p in the pound in two years' time, and that ratepayers in Essex should pay an extra 4p in the pound, to maintain a tunnel which caters for traffic which comes from Scotland or from the other end of the country, from Dover, and travels up and down the country. The traffic is largely national and not local.

  667
  I must admit to a considerable feeling of bewilderment. If the Government were prepared to take over the tunnel I should be delighted. As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, the tunnel has lost its local need. It does not provide a service that is confined to those who wish to travel from Kent to Essex and Essex to Kent. The service that it provides is entirely different.
  I support the Bill with a somewhat heavy heart, for it is essential to the two counties if the ratepayers are not to be unduly penalised. I am perhaps the only Member in the Chamber who is avowedly and enthusiastically in favour of motorway tolling. I wish that the Government and previous Governments had adopted the practice of France and the United States, so that those who use the generation of super roads could make a contribution to their provision.
  The tide is running with that thought in the United Kingdom. Given the complexion of the Government, it seems that they are in favour of those who can afford it making a contribution to the services that they use. The principle extends beyond that into subscription television, for example, which will soon be with us. We shall have broadcasting by satellite and cable television. Why should we not expect the users to contribute something to the arterial roads and in that way enable them to be kept in better condition? In the circumstances that now prevail, it is inevitable that a major part of the road fund will not be spent on roads. If a tolling system were developed and the revenue was spent on the betterment of our road system, many people might be extremely pleased.
  It is not impossible to make tolling work. The tunnel under Hong Kong was built at a cost of many millions of dollars and I am told that it was in profit, as a result of tolls, in about 18 months after it was built. The enthusiasm of the Chinese for using new devices and new systems may be greater than ours, but there are opportunities and I hope that ultimately the Government will look towards tolls. I do not believe that that will happen in time to cause the lapsing of the legislation that we are discussing and, therefore, I believe that we must make provision for Kent and Essex to continue to charge tolls.
  There has been talk of possible delays, but we shall extend the toll plaza. If hon. Members have used the tolling system on the continent, as I have, they will know that it is rare for there to be more than a few seconds' delay in passing through the toll and that the motorist becomes practised in having his change ready to throw into the basket and pass straight through.
  It is estimated that the tunnel will not be paid for until almost the end of the century. It should be underlined that it is the only one in the country for which there is a definite target date for paying off the cost of construction. It is possible that another one will be built and that there will be a third Dartford tunnel, but I served on Kent county council for a few years in the 1970s and I know its members fairly well. As I understand their thinking, I can say that the county council—I cannot speak for Essex—would not accept the idea of facing the debt of a third tunnel. There was a different climate in the 1960s and we are now faced with an entirely different ball game.
  I hope that those who disagree with the notion of tolling will recognise the impracticability that would result from defeating the Bill and will not cause a Division to take
  668
  place when the Question is put, That the Bill be now read a Second time. We can avoid penalising the Essex and Kent ratepayers by enacting the Bill.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I hope that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) will forgive me if I seem somewhat less than enthusiastic about his idea of a patchwork quilt of turnpikes throughout the country. Most of my constituents would take the view that motorists pay enough in taxation as it is without that form of direct taxation on their motoring.
  Mr. Prescott: What about social services in Kent?
  Mr. Cartwright: I had better not go into that because that would involve straying beyond the bounds of order.
  I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) when I say that I was attracted by the reasonable way in which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) presented his case. He clearly knew when there were holes in it, and that was part of the engaging presentation. It is no part of my case to place in the dock the county councils of Kent and Essex. They are the fall guys for the Department of Transport. Those of us who feel strongly about the toll will realise that that is so.
  The Government's attitude to tolls has been made clear on a number of occasions. I came across a clear statement made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 10 June 1981 when he was the Secretary of State for Transport. He said that the Government
  "saw no case for departing from the general principle that tolls should be charged on crossings where exceptional benefits are provided to the users".—[Official Report, 10 June 1981; Vol 6, c. 148.]
  It has already been made clear in the debate that that principle does not seem to be carried out to the letter. Relevant examples are the M5 Avonmouth bridge and the river Orwell crossing. I have no doubt that other hon. Members can quote other examples.
  It is difficult to decide what constitutes an exceptional benefit. The Severn and Humber bridges provide exceptional, extraordinary and unusual benefits but there are other crossings of the Thames available apart from Dartford that lie within a comparatively short distance. The benefit of the Dartford tunnel is clearly not exceptional. As the hon. Member for Greenwich has said, the tunnel has changed in character considerably since it was opened. I shall quote some of the traffic flows to underline the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  In 1964, for example, there was a traffic flow of 4·8 million vehicles a year. By 1982, that had increased to 12·3 million vehicles a year and a daily rate of 34,000 vehicles. In April 1983, when the section of the M25 from the A127 to the M11 was opened, the daily flow increased from 34,000 vehicles in March to 41,000 in May. We all know that there has been a tremendous increase as a result of the opening in January 1984 of the section of the M25 from the M11 to the A10 and the dual carriageway link all the way from the Al and the M1 to the M2, the M20 and the Channel ports. In a written answer on 11 July 1983, the Minister of State said:
  "When the M25 is complete, traffic flows are currently expected to be between 65,000 and 78,000 vehicles per day." —[Official Report, 11 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 249.]
  Those figures must be set against the flows when the tunnel was opened. The contrast communicates effectively the change in character.
  Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Gentleman's figures are rather misleading. He referred to the traffic flow in 1964, forgetting that the second tunnel did not come into operation until 1967. The introduction of the second tunnel was bound to make a significant difference. In the past 20 years, the number of vehicles on the roads has increased enormously.
  Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, I think that he will also accept that, allowing for the extra traffic generated by the second tunnel, greater car ownership and the greater number of lorries on the road, the tunnel has changed its character, and is an important part of the M25, which provides an attractive orbital route around London. It was constructed to take through traffic away from London, particularly heavy goods traffic. It seems to many of us to be somewhat inconsistent to build what is essentially a bypass and then to maintain a toll on it, which will have some discouraging effects.
  I declare a constituency interest because traffic diverted is likely to head for the Blackwall tunnel or the Woolwich ferry. Both crossings are free. I can tell the hon. Member for Faversham that, with the construction of roads such as the Thamesmead spine road and the improvement of the A206, the area is not so congested and it is possible to get a large part of the distance from Dartford to the centre of Woolwich on dual carriageway roads. That will be even easier after the improvement of the A206 has been completed. The traffic might not be moving slowly. It might move fast on its way from Dartford to divert to Woolwich or the Blackwall tunnel. However, there are still problems for my constituents and the residents of Greenwich, whether the traffic is moving rapidly or slowly.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there might be a new situation because of the east London river crossing, a proposal that has hung like the sword of Damocles above my constituents for about 17 years. It now looks as if it is a real prospect. As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, we were never told that there would be tolls on the river crossing. It started life as a tunnel and has now been transformed into a bridge, but no one has suggested that tolls be charged. Therefore, there must be a strong possibility that vehicles will be diverted away from Dartford, where tolls are charged, to the east London river crossing, if that is free. That would apply particularly to heavy commercial traffic.
  The east London river crossing is not an attractive scheme to my constituents. As the Minister knows, it is strongly opposed in my constituency. That is not surprising. About 260 homes, most of them in my constituency, will be demolished because of it. It will divide established communities in Plumstead and Abbey Wood from each other and go through some pleasant open spaces. Therefore, that is a controversial issue. Many of my constituents feel strongly that the charging of tolls at Dartford inevitably builds up the demand for an additional free crossing at Thamesmead, which the east London river crossing will provide.
  As other hon. Members have said, not only the toll costs but the congestion that the charging of tolls might cause might divert traffic from Dartford. We have all heard that the Government are spending an extra £3 million to provide additional toll booths. However, it seems that even the Government accept that there will be
  670
  some congestion. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, replying for the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, said:
  "in the event of congestion occurring there is already in the main building programme for 1986 onwards a major scheme to provide another river crossing in East London at Barking across to Plumstead and the A2".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1983; Vol. 440, c. 614.]
  In other words, before we have even had a public inquiry on the east London river crossing, Ministers are quoting it as a means of easing congestion that they foresaw would arise at Dartford. If anyone doubts that there will be congestion, let me draw his attention to the comments of Mr. Desmond Jago, a former general manager of Dartford tunnel, now retired. He wrote to the Royal Automobile Club on 2 January 1984, making some clear comments about the risks of congestion arising at Dartford. He said:
  "It is my firm conviction that when the toll booths for northbound traffic have been increased to twelve, of which 10 or 11 will be in use at peak periods, the attempt to funnel so many lanes of traffic into two lanes to negotiate the tunnel can only lead to acute congestion that will be further aggravated by the impatience and lack of consideration by some motorists who will attempt to bull-doze their way through. Traffic flow through the tunnel will be further affected adversely by the escorting of dangerous material (eg petrol)."
  On the basis of his experience, Mr. Jago went on to say:
  "It has always been my view that traffic approaching the tunnel should be funnelled down to two lanes well before reaching the tunnel portals—at least half a mile away from it, and further than that if practicable. The present intention is quite the reverse, viz. spread the traffic out to twelve lanes and then attempt to narrow it down to two lanes too close to the tunnel portal."
  That is a worrying comment, on the basis of the practical experience of a former Dartford tunnel manager. I hope that either the Minister or the hon. Member for Faversham will reply to that point later.
  It is not my intention to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. It would be most unfair if the burden of the tunnel were to fall on the ratepayers of either Kent or Essex. I hope that the Committee considering the Bill will look at the possibility of a time limit on the operation of the tolls. If we look at the full cost of the M25, which is about £900 million, none of which is charged to the users, that puts into perspective the cost of abolishing the tolls. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will think again and recognise that the tunnel is an integral part of the M25 and of the trunk road network, and will abolish the tolls.
  8.16 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: The case for both Kent and Essex county councils was put admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). He was described elegantly by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) as the Dartford tunnel warbler. It will take my hon. Friend a long time to live that one down.
  Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend is not as rare as that.
  Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend certainly gave a rare performance. He sang so well that my task will be all the easier.
  I am glad to say that Essex Members, at least on the Conservative side — I hope that we carry the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) with us—and Kent Members see eye to eye on the necessity for the Bill and its urgency. The hon. Member for Greenwich was

  671
  right to speak as he did — so lyrically — about the advantages to our constituencies in Kent and Essex of the M25. Some of us are beginning to see that it will bring considerable benefits to local industry and commerce. We in Essex will be brought an hour or so closer to ports such as Southampton and Dover and we already have a major development at Felixstowe. It is an exciting prospect. The hon. Gentleman was right to mention that. I expect it to lead to a massive development in the next five to 10 years, bringing with it the employment opportunities that we ardently desire for our people.
  More important, the M25 will bring great benefits to the rest of the country—the midlands, the north and even Scotland. Exporters, business people and travellers seeking access to the ports in the south-east and links with the continent will find it a great advantage to avoid the congestion and traffic delay of Greater London. I did not agree with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). It is true that traffic patterns change, but my experience over 30 years shows me that any diversion of traffic away from the Dartford tunnel because of tolls would add much more than half an hour to journeys such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  The Dartford tunnel is, therefore a crucial link which serves not only Essex and Kent but regions far beyond. Widening the approach roads to the tunnel recently attracted a 100 per cent. grant from the Department to eliminate the delays which we experienced last year. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) was right about that. I had some sympathy for the views on tolls expressed by the hon. Members for Woolwich and for Greenwich. I hope that, for reasons which I shall give, the hon. Member for Greenwich will follow the logic of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Woolwich and not vote against the Bill. After making their protest against tolls—like everyone else, I dislike them, too—I hope that nobody will vote against the Bill. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton), everyone agrees that getting rid of tolls would be a good thing. They are certainly unpopular. I should like them abolished everywhere. However, there is no alternative at present. We must deal with realities. The two county councils have had to operate, as one would expect them to do, within the parameters of national policy. Tolls have been required to facilitate provision of trans-estuarial crossings which provide substantial benefits for users and tolls are required here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham went into the history of the subject. I shall not take up the time of the House by exploring the past. In the present climate I see no prospect of the Government picking up the bill. They could do so only at the expense of the national road programme. I wonder what the effect of that would be on the right hon. and hon. Members who are not here tonight. There would be countless alarms and excursions and delegations to the Minister. We must face circumstances as they are, not as we would like them to be. If the House were to reject this measure, it is the ratepayers of Essex and Kent who would have to pick up the bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham attempted to estimate the effects of meeting the cost of the tunnel without tolls being levied. I understand that evidence given by the treasurer of Kent county council to the House of Lords Select Committee suggested that the extra rate
  672
  burden would be about 3·8p for Essex ratepayers and about 8·6p for Kent ratepayers. That would be unfair and inequitable. It would be unfair for people who live at the extremities of the two counties in, say, Clacton at one end and Margate at the other.
  Mr. Crouch: And Canterbury.
  Sir Bernard Braine: How dare I miss out Canterbury? It would be unfair to people who do not use the tunnel frequently. The unfairness to Essex and Kent would be even greater when one takes into account the use which would be made of the tunnel by people in the outer London boroughs who are close to it, but would not bear any of the burden of cost. I cannot conceive that anyone in his senses would advocate such a course.
  The constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock lies at the northern end of the tunnel. She joined me only a short time ago in criticising the Government's White Paper on the rate support grant. I went into the Lobby against the Government on that issue because of the intolerable burden that the proposed settlement would put on Essex ratepayers, despite the fact that the county has managed its affairs prudently and kept its expenditure down. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the illogicality of voting against this Bill. To do so would be to run the risk of putting an even greater burden on Essex ratepayers. I am sure that she would not contemplate that for one moment.
  The policy of the joint committee of the two county councils, which is designed to achieve the financial viability of the tunnel undertaking at the earliest practicable date, is to secure small and frequent toll increases. Both councils have concurred with that policy and it has been welcomed by the Department of Transport. I should also make it plain that both councils are under a statutory obligation to restrict the tolls to produce an annual revenue which is not substantially less or substantially more than is adequate to meet relevant expenditure.
  The modest increase which is now recommended will enable principal payments to commence next year, the outstanding debt being repaid by the mid-1990s. We are, therefore, within a measurable distance of meeting the cost of the tunnel. However, I was most interested to hear what the hon. Member for Woolwich said about thinking about the future. As he said, we should give the Bill a Second Reading and then have a long hard look at tolls, financing, road policy and the rest later on. The different sides of the argument could then be brought together.
  I hope that the House will approve the Bill and permit the two county councils to get on with the task of improving and running this vital link.
  8.27 pm
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I welcome the assurance which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) gave and acceptance of the amendment which was proposed in another place to the effect that the committee must consult Thurrock borough council before increasing tolls. Although he mentioned an objector failing to appear before the inquiry, it is a pity that Thurrock borough council is merely to be consulted and that there is no obligation to hold an inquiry, as the council has been consulted about increases in the toll more than once, only to find that it has been increased. I am glad that the amendment proposed in another place was accepted, but

  673
  I regret that there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry into proposed price increases when there are objections to them.
  The trouble with the Dartford tunnel is that, although it brings enormous advantages—it has increased dock-related industries of all types such as warehouses, cold stores and container parks—industries in Thurrock bear the cost of using the tunnel perhaps to a greater extent than other indusries in other parts of the country which use it just as frequently.
  In addition to companies, many of my constituents find that a firm has moved from the Essex side of the river to the Kent side, and to maintain their jobs they have to travel to and fro. As a result, they pay £6 a week in addition to petrol costs to travel to and from work. That is a heavy cost for people to pay simply because they have to go to the other side of the river either to find work or because a company originally on the Essex side has transferred to the Kent side. Although Thurrock recognises that the tunnel brings enormous advantages, I understand the council feels that the costs can bear heavily on local firms and employees on the Kent side.
  Thurrock is faced with paying the toll if the point of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is followed, or paying the costs in the rates, and it has a right to complain. The alternative is for the Government to take over the cost of the tolls and make the tunnel toll-free, thus preventing the delays that will otherwise occur on the M25. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) talked about the traffic increasing to 78,000 vehicles per day when the M25 is completed. However, the local police in Thurrock estimate that possibly 90,000 vehicles per day will pass through Dartford tunnel.
  The delays at peak times are caused by accidents in the tunnel and were caused in the past by the construction work. Everyone on both the Essex and the Kent sides has breathed a huge sigh of relief now that the construction work has been completed, and one no longer has to face that kind of delay. Nevertheless, delays will arise from the greatly increased traffic as it builds up with the addition to the M25 and with its completion.
  In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), I mentioned that the toll could act as a disincentive to M25 traffic. It is possible to avoid using the Dartford tunnel when travelling outside peak hours, although this adds to London's congestion. The continued collection of tolls will cause unnecessary delays for motorway traffic. The tolls impose a heavy cost on those who have to use the tunnel regularly and lead to the possibility of diversion.
  I listened a few weeks ago to a statement by the Secretary of State, by which I was very puzzled. I read a copy of the press release issued by the Deprtment of Transport on 25 January 1984 to check that I had heard correctly the news item on the radio, and indeed I had. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "For the first time in the history of the capital, traffic will now be able to flow freely on motorway or dual carriageway roads from Scotland and the industrial areas of the North West and the West Midlands to just outside Dover."
  In one of the reports that I heard the right hon. Gentleman proudly announced:
  "There are no traffic lights to hold anyone up."
  I laughed hollowly to myself as I listened to that, thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had never driven through the
  674
  Dartford tunnel in peak hours, and wondered what he meant by saying there was no hold-up on this wonderful new motorway. However, I have thought again since then.
  Perhaps there was a hint in what the right hon. Gentleman said, because he referred to the traffic flowing freely. He may have been referring, not to the absence of traffic lights or other source of delay, but possibly to a promise of good things to come from the Government. If the Government were considering taking over the Dartford tunnel so that tolls would not be charged, there would have been no need for my hollow laughter when I heard that item on the radio. Indeed, perhaps I should have welcomed it.
  Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about the possibility of the Government taking over the Dartford tunnel, so that people will no longer have to bear the iniquitious burden of £6 a week as a special local tax for having the temerity to wish to travel from one side of the river to the other in the course of their daily work.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter: I feel that I am intruding on a private party because I have no constituency interest. If it is any comfort to the promoters of the Bill, I have no intention of opposing it. Indeed I welcome it as it gives an opportunity to the House to discuss the principle of tolls in relation to estuarial crossings, and there is a great opportunity at the Committee stage of the Bill for the Government to reconsider their attitude on these matters.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents Wallasey, has vacated her position as I rise to speak, because this morning I considered coming through the Mersey tunnel through the Wallasey plaza rather than taking my normal route through the Birkenhead plaza. I have never heard them called by those names before. Whichever plaza one goes through, I assure the House that there tends to be a slight delay. Indeed, there are delays occasionally to the extent that one can get out and buy ice cream, a bottle of Italian wine, or whatever else may be available at these places. At Birkenhead this morning, I did not bother to purchase such luxuries, and I got through the tunnel fairly quickly. As I was coming through the tunnel, my wife and I were discussing our holidays. Our holidays this year, owing to the rather damp economic climate, will be spent in north Wales. We shall take our modest family saloon from the Wirral peninsula, and we shall go to what I gather is now called by the Boundary Commission Ynys Môn or, as it used to be called, Anglesey. To get there, I shall go through what is called the "Wyn Roberts" tunnel, near Conway. That was built very recently, and goes under an estuary. It might have been a bridge, but it was decided to spend £15 million extra to go under the river for environmental reasons. Accordingly, I shall drive without let or hindrance or ticket or toll through that tunnel. As I was discussing this with my wife, it struck me as being rather strange. It is, indeed, a strange example, but I am afraid it is only one of the anomalies throughout the country since the concept of the estuarial toll came in. I cite that one example only, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will in due course cite others, and that other of my hon. Friends will cite yet more examples.
  Although my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) did well to suggest that the policy in relation to estuarial crossings is "flexible", in fact it is not. It is inconsistent, illogical and indefensible. To date the

  675
  Government — and I use the term in the past and present, but I hope not in the future tense—have refused to debate that argument, and instead have told authorities to increase tolls to solve their financial difficulties. Governments cheerfully believe that this will make most of the structures that we have—under or over ground—viable in due course. This is a touching faith, but it is not realistic. Most crossings are incurring losses accumulating to approximately £38 million per annum. The overall debt has grown from £268 million to £473 million over the last five years. A document entitled "The road to free tolls", prepared by the Merseyside county council, has detailed figures that show beyond peradventure — and I summarise for the sake of brevity—that there are four estuarial crossings in the country that have no chance of achieving toll-based profitability. One has doubtful prospects, four owe their financial success—if such it can be called—almost entirely to Government aid, and only one can lay claim to unaided viability, and that for only a temporary period.
  I listened with some interest to the figures and forecasts put forward by the proposers of the Bill about the financial viability of the Dartford tunnel. I have heard it all before; the residents of Merseyside have heard it all before; indeed, the residents of almost anywhere have heard it all before. In my examples of the long-term unviability of estuarial crossings, the Mersey tunnels—which are my particular interest—are not even included. In the view of the soon-to-be-demolished Merseyside county council, those tunnels have received uniquely unhelpful treatment from Government. With all the crossings, the tolls rise and the debt rises — which is a funny way to conduct a business.
  I hear those on the Benches behind me ask what it would cost to abolish the tolls. What effect would that have on our old and dear friend the public sector borrowing requirement? The figure currently bandied about is about £500 million. I am relying on the figure produced by various freight associations two years ago of £438 million, but the principle remains the same. It is vital to realise that the Government would not have to spend that amount. The actual cost of disposing of the estuarial crossing charges would be about £28 million in 1982 figures—less the cost of collection, which, on average, is about 20 per cent. Therefore, the net cost in present-day terms would be about £25 million. The precise figures are arguable, but if they are accepted even in general terms, that is about 0·37 per cent. of the surplus road user taxation in the year 1982–83.
  What about the capital debt? My memory may be failing me, but I have heard of capital debt being written off when there is no possibility of it being repaid. I have heard of it being written off for the Mersey docks, the London docks, the British Steel Corporation and a number of other nationalised industries—and why not, when there is no possibility of it being repaid? It is nonsense. We are talking about a book transfer. I understand that I have been described as being on the arid side of dry, but I take that as a pragmatic view of economics. Of course the capital debt should be written off.
  I have given the cost of that in any one year to the Government, which shows the relatively small scale of the problem. How that would be achieved and over what period are matters open to discussion. An admirable time
  676
  for such a discussion might be in Committee. I hope that the Government will at least consider the facts as I and other hon. Members have outlined them—I hope in a reasonable way—and open that discussion as soon as possible. It may be that the Dartford Tunnel Act 1984 will be the start of something more logical and sensible in relation to the crossings.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Like the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I have no wish to oppose the Bill. However, I wish to oppose the principle of tolls. The joint sponsors of the Bill, the Essex and Kent county councils, say that the power to charge tolls will cease when the capital debt has been repaid and maintenance and reserve funds established. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was rather optimistic about that. My experience is that the paying off of capital debt could be sometime, never.
  The promotors say that it all depends on the amount of revenue generated by tolls, which in turn depends on the volume of traffic. It also depends on inflation and interest rates. Comparisons are odious, but when the Severn bridge was in its planning stage it was estimated that the cost of inflation would be 2·5 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum, and that interest rates would stabilise at no higher than 6·25 per cent. How ridiculous those figures appear today. The debt on that bridge is rocketing. We have heard about the joys of the bridge from previous speakers. I can tell them that it is not for nothing that some years ago it was given the name of the bridge of sighs.
  The basic question is why there should be tolls at all. The Dartford tunnel is clearly established as an integral part of the M25. The sponsors of the Bill have accepted that the collection of tolls will undoubtedly cause delays to motorway traffic. Yet more than £3 million has been committed to the provision of additional toll booths. More money will be taken from motorists, who will face delays for a facility whose basic purpose is the easing of congestion in London. The tolls will cause traffic queues at peak periods, with the inevitable road safety implications—another important factor.
  The cost to motorway users will rise not only through tolls but through delays. It has been clearly established tonight that there will be a disincentive to motorists to use the new facility. Routes can be taken that will aggravate the traffic problems in London. The Government's policy on tolls has neither rhyme nor reason.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is one of three hon. Members who have expressed a belief that in some way a toll causes delay. He also mentioned the possibility that tolls might create traffic hazards. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are clearly unaware of the circumstances surrounding both ends of the Dartford tunnel. Any delay caused would be as a result of the funnelling of a three-lane motorway into the two lanes of the tunnel. Far from creating a safety hazard, I suggest that the tolls, through slowing down the traffic and splaying it, are more likely to create a safety factor. The danger factor on a fast road occurs when three fast lanes converge into two fast lanes. By splaying out the traffic, as happens already, a safety factor will be introduced. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech. Perhaps he will catch my eye later.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is entitled to his view. But I assure him that my remarks are made on the advice of considerable authorities on the matter. I think that a free flow of traffic would be a better safety bet than the delays of toll collection. For instance, there is the Mersey tunnel. I understand that tolls were increased there again this year, and yet Merseyside is an area that needs to be assisted rather than penalised.
  Mr. Porter: The toll on the Mersey tunnel was last increased in 1981.
  Mr. Hughes: I pointed out earlier to the hon. Member for Faversham that the motorist is paying the Exchequer over £10,000 million in the current financial year. Only a quarter of that will be reinvested in improving road communications. Three quarters goes towards general Government expenditure. When considering the possibilty of an estuarial crossing by bridge or tunnel the Government sometimes treat the motorist as a poor relation, but the motorist consistently pays hand over fist.
  There is no consistency in the Government's policy. There are tolls on the Severn bridge, so why are there no tolls on the Avon bridge, the A5, which serves Bristol and the west of England? When there is intense rivalry between the two regions, particularly in the attempt to attract new jobs, why is south Wales discriminated against? Merseyside is an area of economic deprivation. However, there are tolls on the Mersey tunnel but there are to be no tolls on the new Conway tunnel in north Wales.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray. He must relate his remarks to the Dartford tunnel or use illustrations relevant to the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Hughes: I am trying to show that there is no thread of consistency in the Government's policies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the case of the M25, the Government should abolish tolls and take over the responsibility from the Essex and Kent county councils. The accumulated debt should be written off. That course of action is essential if the M25 is fully and efficiently to serve the purpose for which it was planned. The estuarial crossings are part of the national motorway network. If tolls were abolished, the crossings would become far more efficient.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. David Crouch: I have two points to make. The first is a descriptive point, rather like that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) earlier this evening, when he gave us a "Breakaway" programme about his holiday prospects.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made a sound argument against the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. Of course there are arguments against the Bill. There are arguments for not having tolls at all, and for saying that the Government should pick up the tab and give us free travel throughout the kingdom. That is what I should like to see, but we are not living in a perfect world.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Greenwich about his assumption that the good people of Essex and the good people of Kent decided to build the tunnel in order to meet and exchange thoughts. Would he assume that many years ago the good citizens of Middlesex decided that there were
  678
  equally good citizens in Surrey and therefore built London bridge? London bridge was never merely a local asset or a means of local communication. Similarly, the citizens of Kent and Essex were not thinking of a means of local communication, and what they built immediately became a national asset.
  I used to live in Yorkshire. When we travelled down on holiday from Yorkshire to Kent — another "Breakaway" touch — we used to try to avoid the conurbation of London. We used to go through Hertfordshire into Essex and cross into Kent not by the tunnel—it was not there then—but by the Woolwich ferry. We bought a ticket and crossed the river pleasantly by that small ferry. That was one way of travelling. It did not occur to me that we should not pay for the privilege of being shipped across a busy river thoroughfare.
  When I first became Member of Parliament for Canterbury my constituency included Herne Bay, which is now part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Herne Bay pier was the second longest pier in the country. There was a paddle steamer that crossed the estuary to Southend. I was sorry when it stopped running. Later, the pier was swept away and the steamer never ran again.
  Those were all ways of crossing estuaries. People have many and varied reasons for wishing to cross estuaries. They may wish to go to Southend or to Herne Bay, but it is also true that people living in the north cross an estuary to reach Kent. It is not only people from Essex who wish to go to Kent. Equally, people living in Dorset wishing to go to Norfolk might choose to go by way of Dartford tunnel, not because of the M25 but simply because a crossing point on a river, such as a tunnel, immediately becomes attractive to the traveller. People have many reasons for travelling long distances around the country, and they will look for the most easy route.
  The Dartford tunnel was not built just as a local benefit for the people of Essex and Kent. It was built with foresight, in recognition of the need to build a national asset. Unfortunately, when the tunnel was first thought of in 1930, the farsighted people of Kent and Essex who wished to embark on that project told the Government that, as people living on the perimeter of London, they had had the good idea of building a tunnel. The Government said, "That is a good idea. Go ahead, and we will give you a grant towards it." The tunnel was not built until after the war. It was opened in 1963. The Government kept their promise and delivered the grant at the 1930 rate. The two county councils had to find the remainder by borrowing and that debt has to be serviced. Subsequently, a second tunnel was built.
  I believe that I misled the House earlier in my intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) when I suggested that the second tunnel was opened in 1967. It was not. It was agreed by Parliament in 1967 that the second tunnel should go ahead. I believe that it was opened in 1980. There is now a double tunnel.
  The Government in 1967 did not give us a grant towards the second tunnel. It escapes me at the moment which Government were running the country in 1967, but they were not the most generous of Governments. The Kent and Essex county councils had to pay the whole cost by borrowing, as it was properly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).

  679
  The tunnels exist as a result of the good decisions of the people of Kent and Essex. Those two county councils have given us a national asset. They have carried a great part of the cost. How nice it would be if the Government were to say, "You have done too much for your country. You have overstepped the limit. You have been too generous. We feel that we owe you a debt. We cannot repay you what you have had to pay during the past 20 years, but we will pick it up from now on." I see my hon. Friend the Minister as I like to see her—smiling at me. I fear that within about half an hour I shall be dismal again, because I do not believe that she has £68 million, or thereabouts, ready to hand to me.
  If my hon. Friend did have that sum, as has been said by other speakers, I fear that it would come out of the road programme and that some of the essential works that are required and promised, and are in the programme, might be taken out. I am pragmatic about the matter. I say to myself, "Yes, the Government should pick up this burden and take it from us," but it would be at someone else's expense. If that were to be the case, I do not believe that they would or should.
  I argue therefore, pragmatically and logically, that we should accept the Bill. We are already saving the Government and the taxpayer money. The money has to be paid by someone. It has to be paid by the road users by the toll. It is not a perfect world, as I said, but I believe that we should not allow the Bill to be lost, and hear the Government say, "We will not pay." The Kent and Essex county councils would say, "Well, if the Government will not pay, and the road users are not allowed to pay, there is only one section of the community left who can pay, and that is the ratepayers." We have heard what a big rate increase that would mean in an area where the subject of increases is delicate and extremely unpopular.
  I have no alternative but to welcome the Bill, imperfect though it is, and say that the tolls must continue.
  9.2 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I intervene at this time because it may assist the House to know how the Government stand on the Bill. Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on the excellent way in which he has moved the Second Reading of the Bill on behalf of the promoters.
  Despite the charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I have to say to him that I do not have £65 million in my pocket for him, any more than I have various other sums for the other estuarial crossings mentioned during the debate, on the general theory that there should be no estuarial crossings in the future.
  Let me explain why the Government are broadly in favour of the Bill. We accept that it is necessary, because without it the powers of the Kent and Essex county councils to manage this three-mile tunnel will lapse at the end of 1986, in accordance with section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, unless the Dartford Tunnel Act 1967 is re-enacted. In particular, the Government support clause 20 which enables the councils to continue to levy tolls. We also support clause 21 which amends the procedure for revising tolls. Clause 21 is among those
  680
  which the county councils very sensibly decided to modernise in the light of their experience in administering the 1967 Act.
  With regard to clause 20, it may be helpful if I first explain the Government's attitude to tolls generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and several other hon. Members have raised this issue. It is important, because most of the opposition to clause 20—and by extension to the Bill as a whole—is concerned with objections to tolling in principle rather than to the clause in particular. That was apparent during proceedings in the other place, which may help to explain why the Bill completed all its stages there with only minor amendments which the promoters were able to accept.
  The policy is one that has been followed by successive Governments of all persuasions. It is also one that has been endorsed by Parliament in the various enabling Acts under which the tolled crossings are managed. The policy is that these expensive estuarial crossings should be paid for by those who use them rather than by taxpayers or ratepayers. The policy is reasonable, because it is the users who benefit from the savings in time and money which the tolled crossings make possible. In addition, tolls have enabled substantial and useful additions to be made to the transport infrastructure which would probably not have been provided had it been necessary to finance them in any other way. In that my hon. Friends were absolutely right in their comments this evening.
  The policy has not been applied to upstream crossings and the generality of motorway and trunk road bridges because it would be impracticable to do so: the existence of alternative routes would make it easy to avoid paying tolls. It is also reasonable not to toll such bridges because the benefits to users are correspondingly less where alternative routes are available.
  I must say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) about tolling in general. I understand that he favours tolling other roads. However, the experience in other countries, where toll roads have been introduced with a substantially untolled network round about, is that traffic that should have used the specially built roads has turned off on to the old roads that were not designed for it. That is one reason why I cannot accept my hon. Friend's general principle of tolling, however much one could argue that we would not have started with tolls if we had started from here.
  I remind the House that we reviewed the policy on tolling in 1979 when my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Social Services was Secretary of State for Transport. It was concluded then that the policy was sound and should be maintained. However, it was predictable that great concern should be expressed in the House about tolling. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and for Romford (Mr. Neubert) would have expressed their concern too if they had been in a position to participate this evening.
  I come to clause 20, and ask opponents of tolling to remember that if this clause was lost it would not ensure that the Government took over the Dartford tunnel or that it would cease to be tolled. That is the reality of the situation. The Government have no intention of taking over the tunnel. There is no need to do so, seeing that it is exceptionally well run by the two county councils, and that it is financially secure owing to their prudent management. Even if the Government could be persuaded to take over the tunnel, the capital debt would remain and

  681
  the tunnel would continue to be tolled. The only effect of depriving the county councils of their power to toll the tunnel would be to saddle the ratepayers of Kent and Essex with responsibility for servicing and repaying outstanding debts amounting to some £65 million.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) suggested that it was inappropriate to toll a tunnel which was now said to be part of the M25. The Government accept that the tunnel links two sections of the M25, but it is not part of that motorway per se—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) may laugh all she likes, but she is well aware that the tunnel was promoted by the Kent and Essex county councils. As hon. Members have said, it is their tunnel. The cost of building that tunnel was freely accepted by the two councils as long ago as 1930, when, I believe, the M25 was not even a flicker in the eye of the then Secretary of State, if there was such a man. The two councils built the tunnel and accepted that responsibility. There is no reason why the taxpayer should be forced to assume responsibility for paying for it.
  Dr. McDonald: I should like to challenge the Minister to drive all the way round the M25, when it is completed in 1986, without driving through the Dartford tunnel.
  Mrs. Chalker: I should be committing a road traffic offence if I arrived at the toll plaza on either side of the Dartford tunnel and executed a U-turn, so I should be happy to pay the toll to go through the tunnel.
  I understand what the hon. Member for Thurrock and others have said about the different crossings. Governments of both complexions have grappled with the problem, whatever the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may say at any minute. We realise that action is needed to cope with the increased traffic which the M25 will bring to the tunnel.
  The Government have made two 100 per cent. grants to meet the problems. A total of £12 million has been given to improve the approach roads to the tunnel. A further £5 million will be used to enlarge and improve the toll plazas to cope with the traffic increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was right in his description of the toll plazas and the way in which they help to funnel the three-way motorway traffic to two lanes in each direction at the tunnel. The increased traffic which the M25 will bring will help the two councils to clear their debts. Catering for greater traffic in that way is the best way to cope with the M25.
  It is also suggested that tolls act as a disincentive to using the tunnel, thereby reducing the economic benefits which the tunnel brings to Kent and Essex. Similarly, petitions against the Bill lodged by several London local authorities argue that tolls would divert traffic from the Dartford tunnel to the east London river crossing, should it be built. Both arguments are a little curious.
  The last tolls increase application attracted only 16 objections. On the other hand, over 12 million journeys annually are made through the tunnel and the traffic continues to increase. It does not appear that the people who actually use the tunnel are put off by having to pay a toll. The fact is that the tunnel is an obvious asset to the local community's economic life as well as to that of people who travel a wider distance.
  When I consider the alternative of using the Blackwall tunnel, which involves a 28-mile detour and, for heavy
  682
  goods vehicles, increased costs of about £10, I do not believe that it is a viable alternative. The economics of the Dartford tunnel are plain for all to see. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) mentioned the east London river crossing. I understand all the problems that that crossing and its associated roads may cause in the future—if it is built following the public inquiry which will surely be needed—but its purpose is to give relief to the Blackwall tunnel. Our best estimate is that it it might attract some 15 per cent. of the traffic using the Dartford tunnel. I suspect that, with the greater benefits of the M25, that is not likely to happen unless the traffic is proceeding to destinations within the radius of the east London river crossing—should it be built—or within the eastern arm.
  The east London river crossing would have the happy effect of postponing the day when the growth of traffic at Dartford would justify a third bore without undermining its financial position to a significant degree. The combination of the Blackwall tunnel, the east London river crossing—if it should be built—and the Dartford tunnel appears to be a good improvement for Londoners in terms of crossing the River Thames to the east of London.
  Clause 21 was drafted in consultation with my Department. Its purpose is to overcome difficulties which the promoters have experienced with the operation of the current legislation. The point at issue is whether the objectors to the proposed tolls increase should be able to require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry. Under present legislation the Secretary of State is required to hold an inquiry at the insistence of a single objector, and he must do so regardless of the nature of the objection.
  The original purpose of giving an individual the right to insist on an inquiry was as a safeguard lest the councils proposed an increase out of all proportion to any increases in costs which they had suffered. In the present circumstances such a possibility is remote, and the Bill contains safeguards against it. Tolls can be raised only to meet authorised expenditure and the Secretary of State has powers to call in any proposed increase or to amend the toll levels himself.
  It has been found necessary to increase tolls on five occasions since 1967 — in August 1976, April 1979, January 1981, March 1982 and on 1 January 1984. Before the increase in 1981, there were 12 objections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham said, only one objector insisted on an inquiry. When the inquiry was held, no objector appeared before it, not even the one who had insisted that the inquiry should be held. That objector, as a matter of interest, was the local Liberal association. The county councils estimated that the delay involved in holding the inquiry cost the tunnel undertaking some £300,000 in lost revenue, plus the cost of the inquiry, at which the objector did not appear.
  Under the procedure now proposed the Secretary of State will have the option, instead of an obligation, to hold the inquiry. However, the councils would be obliged to advertise their proposals to allow a period for objections to be made and to send copies of objections to the Secretary of State. He would be entitled to require any relevant information from the councils. Having considered the objections, he could call in the councils' proposals and make the relevant tolls increase order himself, with or without modification, and after holding a public inquiry, if he thought fit. Otherwise, he could decide not to intervene and allow the councils to make their own order.

  683
  The Secretary of State would also have the power to initiate a tolls revision order, in which case the procedure would be essentially the same.
  The Government are of the opinion that that system strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of the councils in making revisions expeditiously and efficiently and the interests of those who use the tunnel.
  It has been suggested that the Secretary of State's discretion should be expanded to allow him to hold an inquiry even if he did not propose to call in the councils' proposals. The Government do not consider that necessary in view of the Secretary of State's power to initiate procedures. Nor do the Government agree that tolls should be revised under the provisions of section 6 of the Transport Charges, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954. That Act would also allow a single objector to force an inquiry on any ground.
  It has also been suggested that revision orders should be made by statutory instrument. We do not consider that the possible intrusion into parliamentary time would be warranted, having regard to the adequate provision made in the Bill for the making of objections to be considered.
  I emphasise that the tolls revision procedure in the Bill is not unique. Parliament has already endorsed a similar procedure in the Tees Tunnel Act 1976, although this tunnel has yet to be built. I must make it clear to the House that there should be no doubt that the Secretary of State will use his powers to order an inquiry if he believes it necessary. There is no way in which the Secretary of State would ride roughshod over the reasonable desire of objectors who wish to put their case. On the contrary, the Secretary of State has as much interest as any objector in testing at an inquiry the evidence, especially disputed evidence, for a proposed revision of tolls.
  Finally, although I understand what my hon. Friends said in their speeches, I believe that the Bill is sensible, and I commend it to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading. It seems to the Government that the issues raised in the Bill deserve to be examined in Committee, where they can be considered in greater detail with the benefit of expert evidence.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: The debate has reflected the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the M25 is a major improvement. However, we were not convinced by the Minister's statement that one is no longer on the M25 when one reaches the toll booths for the Dartford tunnel. The tunnel is clearly part of the M25, as was advertised by the Secretary of State when he opened the new stretch of the road. He said that it was an important link route between Scotland and Dover. All hon. Members will welcome its opening, and will look forward to the completion of the M25.
  The debate has centred, rightly, on the controversial issue of tolls. Tolls were also the main issue in Committee and on Second Reading in another place, and they have been highlighted in clause 20, to which the Minister referred. I should make it clear from the outset that I do not oppose the Bill. In my area, where the Humber bridge is located, there is a possibility of a precept rate far greater than that being considered for the Dartford tunnel, and I readily understand the difficulties in which local
  684
  authorities will be placed if the Bill is not passed. Although the provisions for appeals and the consideration of rights are not completely satisfactory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) said, no doubt they can be discussed in Committee.
  Publicly and politically, I was not an advocate of the Humber bridge, because I did not see how it could pay its way in tolls. As the Minister and other hon. Members said, the Government's view on tolls has been the same throughout. Their view was adequately reflected by the Minister and in the Select Committee of the House of Lords which noted the arguments for and against tolls. The Government's view is that, if a project is privately promoted, it must be paid for privately. With the Humber bridge, the local authorities involved entered into a contract stating that they would finance the project, believing that the cost could be recouped by tolls. No one would now enter into a financial contract if he knew of the possible huge debts that can be incurred with estuarial crossings. Many reasons are given for that, but they do not include the fact that people are blind to what might happen. Low growth in the economy, high interest payments, and high inflation in the costs of construction can contribute greatly to the final costs of estuarial crossings.
  There are difficulties with the view that the user, who has the advantage, should pay, especially since the Government believe that the toll payments must cover interest costs, the payments of the capital debt, and the operating costs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) mentioned the social consequences of tolls, in that those who must travel to work must find the extra cost. A much more potent argument applies in my area, because since the hospital authorities decided to centralise their hospital system, people from one side of the bridge must pay a toll before they can reach the hospital and receive medical treatment.
  The estuarial areas now subjected to tolls—there are about 11—make up about 25 miles of the road network. They are a small yet essential part of the road network, whether to connect motorways, as in the case of the Humber bridge, or, as the Minister pointed out, to connect two parts of the M25.
  Benefits flow not just to those who live around the estuarial crossing. I believe that the claim is that, thanks to the M25, a person can travel from Scotland to Dover by motorway. We readily agree about its benefits. It is felt that the tunnel will provide advantages to London because it will reduce congestion on the North and South Circular roads. We must exercise our judgment about the social considerations and the alternative avenues of movement. We should readily admit—more than the Minister has done — the social costing arguments, particularly in relation to such matters as the Victoria line financing, when considering the road structure and infrastructure costs and the effects on transport flows.
  The Bill has provided a means of raising the issue of the tolls system and the toll principle. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Dartford Tunnel Bill was instructed to look at the vexatious principle of tolls. Paragraph 13 of the Select Committee report states:
  "The Committee were conscious that a number of the points raised before them concerned the merits of the general policy on toll crossings but they did not consider that a Committee on a

  685
  Private Bill was the appropriate forum for resolving issues which affected the highway and motorway network throughout the country."
  We can understand why the Select Committee came to that decision, because we are being asked to support or reject a private Bill. As I have made clear, the circumstances are such that I will not vote against the Bill. As previous debates have shown, the issue does not go away.
  I was surprised to hear that tolls are not controversial in Europe, and I was pleased that the Minister made it clear that a great deal of rethinking is going on about the toll principle, even in Europe. There is an especially strong controversy between the French and German Governments because there are no tolls on the German motorway going south but there are tolls on the French side. Most people are crossing the Rhine and travelling on the German side and, obviously, the costs of maintaining that route are considerable because no tolls are imposed. The German authorities argue that it is unfair that they should have to carry the burden caused by the diversion of traffic simply because the toll principle applies on only one motorway system. I shall not go into the complexities of the French motorway system, as I should be out of order, but they are relevant to the principle of tolls and the effect on our motorway system.
  Tolls are a matter of controversy when discussing connecting motorways, whether it is the Humber bridge or the M25. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and other hon. Members cited some figures that showed the illogical pattern that had grown up—largely because of the way the estuarial authorities have developed. There has been the rather illogical position of Governments of both persuasions holding the line of not wanting to pick up the tab for the cost of the difficulties. That is the basic position. We are not consistently looking at the problem and asking ourselves whether we want tolls to make a contribution to the financing of our road network. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) suggested that he would like that line to be followed, and I was glad to hear the Minister's response.
  Having tinkered with the idea of tolls for motorways in the early stages of the last Administration, the Government soon dropped that idea and we heard no more about it. Clearly they were anxious to raise money for the road programme and reduce public expenditure — all those measures are cardinal to the Government's economic policy at present. The position of the Department of Transport is that, first, it does not want to increase public expenditure, and we understand why it has such a policy. Secondly, the Department does not want to create a precedent, as it has been pointed out. If there were no toll on the Dartford tunnel, there would still be tunnels and bridges over which the Department had some responsibility—I refer to the Severn, the Tyne and Wear—on which toll principles apply. It is like a ball of wool. If you pull one end it keeps on coming—and there is a huge bill at the end.
  As has been pointed out, the capital debt is about £450 million or £500 million and increasing far more rapidly than the income accumulated by the tolls. Therein lies the nature of the problem. The details vary in the various estuarial developments—on the Mersey, the Humber, the Tyne and at Dartford — but all have a growing accumulated capital debt. The question is whether we believe that the toll principle can solve the problem. Frankly, it cannot. Nor will the problem go away. We
  686
  should not imagine that happily giving the Bill a Second Reading today will make the problem go away. The problem is growing day by day and it behoves the House to look ahead and decide what to do about it. The principle of tolls is at the heart of the debate as to how finance should be raised to cover operational costs, accumulated interest and the cost of servicing the capital debt.
  Reference has been made to a comparison made a couple of years ago of the total debt of the various estuaries. The total debt was then about £450 million and the total income from tolls about £28 million, 40 per cent. of which was used to cover the cost of operating the facility, so only 60 per cent. of the income went towards the interest debts and the capital debt. The capital debt for the Dartford tunnel is £63 million. On the Humber, it is £185 million, on the Severn £43 million and on the Mersey £72 million. The toll for the Dartford tunnel is £1·70 for a lorry. I hope that that is the correct figure.
  Mrs. Chalker: £1·60.
  Mr. Prescott: I am obliged to the Minister. On the Humber the toll is £7·50, on the Severn 40p, and on the Mersey £1. Even trebling the tolls would not raise sufficient income to pay the interest rates, let alone pay off the debt. That is the scale of the problem and it is constantly increasing because we never meet the interest debt. For the Humber bridge, 75 per cent. of the debt is to the Department of Transport. If we trebled the lorry toll it would be getting on for £24 for one crossing. The motorway alternative route would then be a great deal cheaper and people would take it. The idea of raising tolls to meet the debt is based on the hope that people will continue to pay, but they simply will not do so.
  As has constantly been pointed out today, increasing tolls cannot possibly solve the debt problem. We are therefore forced, as the ratepayers of Kent and Essex will be forced if the Bill is not passed, to find the difference. I believe that the increase in rates required would be 3·1p in the pound. Hull district council, which is the responsible authority in my area, has rates of 25p in the pound. If it had to deal with this problem by means of a levy, as the Secretary of State advised a recent delegation, the rate would rise to 50p in the pound. There is no way to levy that sort of rate precept. Indeed, the Government's rate-capping Bill would impose considerable penalties on the local authority, even if it found that it could do it. Therefore, it is not within the realm of reality even to consider dealing with the problem in that way, and the problem is growing at such a rate that an alternative solution must be found.
  The problem varies according to the estuary. The fortunate aspect, for example, of the Severn bridge—if one can use the word "fortunate" when talking about that bridge—is that it has a lot of traffic. Unfortunately for Hull, it has little traffic because it joins little to little. There is now an estimated bill for repairing the Severn bridge of £30 million. That bridge is under strain today because it was designed for lorry loads of 24 tonnes and is carrying lorries of 38 and 40 tonnes, through no decision of those responsible there. Is a £30 million repair bill a legitimate charge on those who must finance that sum through tolls for using that bridge, when it was a direct Government decision? The increase in lorry weights has had that catastrophic affect on the bridge.
  Mrs. Chalker: Let us keep the record absolutely straight. The stresses on the Severn bridge have been due partially to the much greater level of traffic across that crossing and not to the decision, taken in this House on 26 November 1982, to increase maximum lorry weights from 32·5 tonnes on four axles to 38 tonnes on five axles. The stresses on that bridge have occurred from the sheer volume of traffic, over a long time, way outside the design specification.
  Mr. Prescott: I remain to be convinced that a lorry weight of 24 tonnes going up to 38 tonnes does not have an effect on a bridge, especially when one considers the constant movement across it. I leave that there in the hope that we shall, on another occasion, be able to debate that issue. I was referring to the £30 million extra cost of the bridge that must be financed. That sum will presumably have to be raised by tolls, which is why the Government are involved in an inquiry about increases in tolls.
  It is clear that the Bill deals essentially with the issue of tolls, in this case for a total £65 million, the estimated debt for the Dartford tunnel, and, as we have heard, it is hoped to pay that off by the next century. I add my voice to those who express concern over debts which, it is said, will be paid off by certain dates in the future, about traffic movements, toll assessments, interest charges that cannot be estimated and so on. They all extend the period of payoff, and we have not seen one estuary being able to meet the timetable of its programme of pay-off. I wish them well, however, in any targets that are reached.
  A major aspect of the debate has been the question whether there is an alternative way of dealing with the problem. A number have been suggested—indeed, we are not short of alternatives — by various interests. I believe that we have reached the stage when we should reconsider the whole matter, and I do not say that in a political sense in that we should do that now because we are not in office. It is clear that a big problem exists and that we should start thinking of the alternatives, because the problem will remain with us.
  As for the alternatives, it has been suggested, for example, that the Government could adopt them and take over the complete funding of them as part of the motorway and road network. Then it has been suggested that the Government could write off the capital, which has been set in total at perhaps £500 million. Hon. Members will say that that is a large sum, but many Conservative Members have trooped through the Lobby to write off similar amounts — for example for the National Freight Corporation and other bodies—and no doubt they will be doing the same for the British Airways Board's £800 million debts. Huge capital debts are written off by them without any compunction.
  Thus, writing off debts is not new to this House. It has been done by Administrations of both parties without any real controversy when doing so has been put forward as a new type of policy. Indeed, if the Minister were more successful in getting people to pay the car road tax—it is estimated that £175 million a year is not collected— even half of it, if written off over, say, 10 years, would write off the capital debt about which we are speaking tonight.
  Finally, there is the combination of debt that arises from write-offs and toll deficiencies. Perhaps each estuary should be treated differently by taking into account the structure of debt and by allowing tolls to be more relevant
  688
  to the capital structure. There are alternative ways of dealing with tolls and it is about time that the House began to address itself to the real difficulties that arise from financing estuarial crossings by tolls. The Opposition intend to give serious thought to dealing differently with the financing of estuarial crossings and the growing debts they are burdened with.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: This has been a fine debate. To take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), if the Government took control of all estuarial crossings and their finances, it would not be possible for the Essex and Kent county councils to go ahead and build their own tunnel. That would limit the powers of a local authority to promote private legislation and to go ahead with its own project.
  Consideration needs to be given to the overall position, including the implications of present debt and those of future proposals from within or outside the Government. There are arguments on both sides that are not based on party divisions and it would be appropriate for a Select Committee to consider them as a way of trying to isolate the issues. The House would then be able to ask itself, "What freedom are we willing to give the promoters of estuarial crossings and other undertakings of advantage to vehicle users?" It would be able to consider also what powers should be kept for the House and what should be kept for Government. I shall address a number of remarks in favour of abolishing tolls on the Dartford tunnel but I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has argued her case well. As I see it, the time for tolls has gone and will certainly have gone when the M25 is complete.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) talked about what the people of Essex and Kent did when they got together. I am reminded of a man called Wat Tyler who wandered down from East Anglia through Essex to Canterbury where he gathered a few peasants together. From Canterbury he approached London to overturn the Government. Unfortunately, he became stuck at the Well Hall roundabout on the A2 and had to camp overnight at Blackheath. That is why Tony Benn goes there occasionally to make great speeches. As a result of the delay, the authorities in London had forewarning. A traffic jam can have dramatic consequences for the constitutional future of a country as we have seen from that example.
  I speak as one of the few Members who have earned a living as a lorry driver. I remember driving a lorry from Vienna to Watford. The only time when I had to stop, except for natural breaks, was on reaching the coast at Rotterdam. It is possible throughout most of Europe to go through or round cities without causing enormous environmental damage, especially when stopping at or pulling away from traffic lights and passing through residential areas. It is clearly essential to have purpose-built roads for heavy traffic. That is what we have created with the M25 and what we already have, thanks to Essex and Kent, with the Dartford tunnel. The situation is changing with the M25.
  When I was a lorry driver and I had the choice of spending my own money or my employer's the temptation was to spend the employer's money and to keep mine in my pocket. Different considerations apply and a haulage firm will want to save £10 by not making a 28-mile

  689
  diversion, but the lorry driver who has spent all his money on sandwiches and does not have any money left for the toll will be prepared to take the diversion. He will probably favour that course also if it enables him to keep the money in his pocket. There is a balance of advantage for every driver when he is considering which route to take.
  Many of us who have driven through France know how attractive the scenery is from some of the roads that run parallel to the toll roads. There are many forms of rationalisation for what in transport terms is irrational behaviour. That is the argument that we on the "no toll" side of the House need to advance. By addressing the argument to the Department, it will probably be discussed by the rest of the Government in private discussions. We need to be willing to face the consequences of successful action. We shall put extra burdens on the taxpayer rather than on the user of the Dartford tunnel when we are successful. I have no doubt that we shall succeed in the end. We must find a way of allowing the Government to give way on at least some of the estuaries first. Perhaps the others will follow. However, we cannot expect them to swallow the whole lot in one go. We need to find the easiest cases to go for. The necessary promotion of the Bill has given us the opportunity to start putting forward that case.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) on helping to create the all-party estuarial group in the House of Commons. Together, we can help to make the Select Committee and the Government look more seriously at all the issues.
  There are traffic jams at the Well Hall roundabout in my constituency. My constituency shares with those of the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) the problems caused by traffic in Greenwich. It is clear that the M25 will be a substantial advantage to us anyway. Many people who start their journeys to Europe on the north or north-west side of London now come through London and our contituencies. It is also worth remembering that London has a population of 7·5 million within its boundaries and that much traffic is generated in that area. If the traffic is going to Europe, on the east side of London it will come through our constituencies. In time, I hope that one of the consequences of the Department of Transport's taking over some transport responsibilities from the Greater London council will lead to better radial roads, so that people can conveniently reach the M25. They will not all have to come thundering down the A2 or the A20, causing chaos in my constituency and those neighbouring.
  My next point is slightly outside the direct terms of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the east London river crossing. She knows that most of the people on its route south of the Thames oppose it. Many of us living south of the Thames will find an advantage, as motorists, in using it, but those whose homes are affected will not. Those who are rightly putting forward the case for protecting the woods through which it will go have a strong case. I recommend that if the east London river crossing and its southern route are built, the same environmental consideration is given to protecting the woods as was given to Epping forest. There will be extra cost. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask me whether I would agree for a toll to be put on the road. I have no objection to tolls in principle——
  Mr. Prescott: But the hon. Gentleman minds paying, in practice.
  Mr. Bottomley: I do not mind paying tolls. I have paid them in the United States and other areas. The problem is making a correct analysis of their impact in terms of diverting traffic. I have no objection to people paying for services that are of advantage to them. It is when the impact is likely to be extra diversion of traffic to areas that we are trying to get the traffic away from that the problem arises. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give careful consideration to the woods on the southern approach of the projected east London river crossing and to see whether it is possible to give them the same consideration as was given to Epping forest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has done a service to the House in putting forward the case for the Bill. People like me who are opposed to the tolls for the Dartford tunnel can understand that it is necessary for the Bill to be passed. When I came to the debate I thought that it would be correct to oppose the Bill, but I have been convinced by the arguments that that would be wrong. It is right that we have used this opportunity to make sure that we stop drifting down into ever-increasing debt, ever-higher tolls and more uneconomic and unnecessary diversion of traffic.
  Mr. Moate: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that this has been a fine debate. It has. It has been one of the most constructive and interesting transport debates that we have had for a long time. Nearly every hon. Member who spoke did so in a reasonable, courteous and analytical way, demonstrating that there is a complex problem, especially in the relationship between one tunnel and all other road crossings in the country. I venture to suggest that if we had been discussing a tunnel or bridge which has less rosy economic prospects, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) mentioned, the theme and atmosphere might have been different. It has been recognised that, largely because of the M25, the Dartford tunnel is now likely to be, perhaps exceptionally, something of an economic success. Therefore, the House has been responsive and conceded the case for giving the Bill a Second Reading and allowing the powers in it to be granted to the Kent and Essex county councils. That is not to say that the House has not examined, philosophically and constructively, the problems arising on all other estuarial crossings in the country.
  I shall deal with some of the factual points that have been raised. It would be presumptuous of me to try to answer all the points that have been raised, even if that were possible. Hon. Members have expressed strong points of view on the philosophy of charging. Their case stands. There seems to be an almost overwhelming logic on both sides of the argument. We are, however, dealing with just one tunnel and I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) asked several questions and mentioned the diversion of heavy lorries into his constituency and the rest of London. As I said before, I do not believe that many lorry drivers will be diverted from the easiest, simplest and best route—the Dartford tunnel—and go into heavy traffic congestion or

  691
  even make a detour to avoid a toll of only £1·30. It is 60p for a car. Although I understand Londoners' fears that traffic might be diverted by tolls, I do not believe that any significant diversion will occur here. I understand that when prices have been increased there has been a negligible customer reaction. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman's fears will not be justified. I certainly believe so.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about some opinions which were expressed by the previous manager of the tunnel who was worried about the traffic being reduced from six lanes to two. The present general manager has said:
  "The wider plaza does not make it any more difficult to reduce the traffic into two lanes after collection"
  of the toll. That is a detail of traffic management in which there is scope for different points of view.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), in a fair speech, expressed strong feelings about regular users of the tunnel, especially those who live on one side of it and work on the other. Despite the argument that the tunnel is a great national asset and therefore should be paid for by the national Exchequer, I have much less sympathy for the international or national user contributing to that asset than I do for the local user. I have much sympathy for a person who pays £6 a week to cross the river. That is a matter for management and it is not for me to query it. Many of us have urged that there should be a concessionary arrangement, but, as I said, that is a matter for management.
  The impact on ratepayers if the burden is transferred to the ratepayers of Kent and Essex has been mentioned. I quoted some figures earlier, but times have moved on since then and I have some more recent ones. I am told that if targets and penalties in 1984–85 are the same as for 1983–84, the cost to the ratepayer in Kent will be 8·4p in the pound and to the Essex ratepayer it will be 9·7p in the pound. That emphasises even more the serious consequences of not passing the legislation.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting point. Will he now join us in voting against the rate-capping Bill?
  Mr. Moate: The answer is no. I welcome these constraints placed upon local authority expenditure. Nevertheless, it is right that we consider the consequences if the Bill were not to pass.
  Mr. Bottomley: If the rate capping measures, which I also support, go through, presumably the cost of a Liberal objection, causing an extra cost of £300,000, will double to £600,000.
  Mr. Moate: There appears to be not much fear of Liberal objection to anything, because the Liberals have been absent throughout the debate.
  Many hon. Members expressed points of view which I think were legitimate and fair. The House has had a wide-ranging and fascinating debate on the problems of estuarial crossings. I thought the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) put it very fairly, and he very fairly gave notice to the House that he wants to start a serious debate on the subject. He described it correctly as an illogical pattern that had been built up because of successive Governments being unwilling, as he put it, to pick up the tab, and I think that is the situation. He continued the theme of an analytical and interesting debate on an important subject.
  In conclusion, I thank all my hon. Friends who have spoken in support of the Bill. I thank other hon. Members who have considerable doubts about the propositions that we face. Nevertheless, I understand that, given the present situation with regard to the Dartford tunnel, they feel that the Bill should now proceed to Committee. On behalf of the promoters, I thank the House for the way in which the matter has been received.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  Northern Ireland (Electoral Commissioner)
  9.57 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
  That the draft District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.
  The purpose of this draft order is to provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a district electoral areas commissioner, whose function will be to submit to the Secretary of State a report setting out his recommendations for the grouping together in Northern Ireland of district wards into electoral areas for the purposes of local government elections by proportional representation using the single transferable vote system. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly explain the background to this draft order.
  The local government boundaries commissioner, who was appointed under section 50 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, is currently carrying out a review of the number, boundaries and names of local government districts in Northern Ireland and the number, boundaries and names of the wards into which each district is divided. The commissioner's revised recommendations were published on 18 January.
  District council elections in Northern Ireland are held according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote. For the purposes of these elections, and for no other reasons, it is necessary for district wards to be grouped into electoral areas. However, the grouping of wards does not fall within the remit of the local government boundaries commissioner. The existing district electoral areas were set down in 1973 under the provisions of the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 which have now been repealed as spent. The existing district electoral areas have remained the same since 1973, because there have been no changes to district council and ward boundaries prior to the present work of the local government boundaries commissioner.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in answer to a written parliamentary question of 27 July that he would be bringing proposals before Parliament to provide the means by which the wards recommended by the local government boundaries commissioner would subsequently be grouped into district electoral areas and to establish procedures so that interested parties may make representations on the proposed groupings. The draft order now before the House fulfils that undertaking. I will describe its main provisions.
  Article 2 of the draft order provides for the district electoral areas commissioner to be appointed as soon as practicable after an order has been made giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations of the local government boundaries commissioner.
  Because it is theoretically possible under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 for a local government boundaries commissioner to be appointed at any time to make recommendations in respect of particular districts and their wards—that is, outside the statutory 10-yearly review of local government boundaries —
  694
  article 3 of the draft order also provides for a district electoral areas commissioner to be appointed following any such part-review.
  The first schedule provides that the terms and conditions of appointment of the commissioner will be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury. It also provides for the appointment of staff, assistant commissioners and assessors to assist the commissioner.
  Schedule 2 sets out the procedure which the district electoral areas commissioner will be required to follow in conducting his review, and which will enable interested parties to make representations on the proposed groupings of wards. The commissioner will have to publish provisional recommendations and invite representations in writing during the month following publication. After that, he may hold public hearings to consider objections to his proposals and will be obliged to hold public hearings if representations are made by district councils or by more than 100 local government electors in a district. After considering the representations made in writing and at any hearings, the commissioner will be required to submit final recommendations to the Secretary of State.
  In making his recommendations the commissioner will be required to follow the rules set out in schedule 3 to the draft order. Schedule 3 specifies, among other things, that each electoral area shall consist of not less than five and not more than seven wards. I shall say more about that requirement in a few moments because I am fully aware that it has caused concern to some right hon. and hon. Members.
  Article 5 of the draft order provides that once the commissioner has submitted a report to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall lay that report before Parliament. In order to give effect, with or without modifications, to the final recommendations contained in the report, it will be necessary to lay another draft Order in Council before Parliament.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), supported by a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends, has tabled a motion inviting the Government to amend the draft order so that the district electoral areas commissioner be empowered to recommend electoral areas consisting of less than five wards in some circumstances. We considered the range of the number of wards to be grouped very carefully in preparing the draft order, and, in the light of the representations received, the debate on this draft order was deferred to allow time for further consideration.
  Despite the fact that I gave careful thought to the representations made to me, that consideration has confirmed our original view that for the purpose of holding local elections by proportional representation, using the single transferable vote system, the rules set out in schedule 3 are most likely to optimise the effects of that system. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not agree with the use of PR for local elections in Northern Ireland, but that is not the point of this debate. Parliament decided in 1972 that PR should be the electoral system for local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland because use of the simple majority system in local elections gave inadequate representation to substantial minorities in the institutions of provincial and local government.
  Mr. John David Taylor: Which minorities have been given representation as a result of STV?
  Mr. Scott: I shall deal later with some of the results of PR. When I reply to the debate I shall deal with the various points raised. However, there have been many beneficial changes in Northern Ireland as a result of PR.
  The principle was confirmed in the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977. The hope was the PR-STV would increase the chances that representatives of both sides of the community would have to co-operate for local government to operate effectively. We remain of the view that that method is right for these elections, given Northern Ireland's circumstances.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: If PR is all right for Northern Ireland, why is it not all right for this House?
  Mr. Scott: The Government continue to attach a high priority to the principle of proportionality in Northern Ireland, as it provides the best mechanism for involving all major strands of constitutional political opinion in local government institutions. This is a key tenet of our policy —going much wider, of course, than just the sphere of local government — that only through such cross-community involvement can Northern Ireland look forward to a stable and prosperous future in which locally elected representatives can have a greater say in the effective government of the Province.
  Given that the principle of using proportional representation and the single transferable vote has been established, it is a question of implementing a system which maximises the effects of giving equitable representation to candidates supported by a substantial minority of the electorate. It is, I believe, widely recognised in the theory of the STV system that that is best achieved in constituencies of five to seven seats. Restricting the grouping of wards in this way also affords greater certainty about the size of electorates and about the degree of proportionality across the Province. The latitude in the 1972 legislation, which allowed for groups of four to eight wards, resulted in electoral areas comprising four wards being far from exceptional — as had been envisaged in the 1972 legislation—and accordingly the overall results of past local elections have not been as proportional as the system should have provided. That is why the terms of this order are different from those of 1972.
  While appreciating the need for the commissioner to be allowed flexibility, we have concluded that to provide for groups of five to seven wards would achieve the best balance of these important considerations.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Does not the order give every appearance of moving toward a predetermined desired electoral result? An inescapable inference to be drawn from what my hon. Friend is saying is that the Government have in mind something which they consider desirable and that the number of wards has been chosen with that in view.
  Mr. Scott: That is right. Proportional representation is designed to give the highest possible percentage of voters the election of a candidate of their choice. The move from four wards to five will increase statistically from some 60 to 85 per cent. the number of electors who will be represented on the local council by a candidate for whom
  696
  they voted. That is the function of proportional representation. I know that some right hon. and hon. Members do not like proportional representation, but I happen to do so. However, my speech tonight has nothing to do with that matter. The system has obtained in Northern Ireland since the measure was passed in 1972, and today we are introducing an order to carry it forward into next year's elections.
  The right hon. Gentleman's motion also referred to it being
  "expedient for the Commissioner to be empowered to recommend electoral areas consisting of less than five wards where such recommendation would avoid an area being divided between two Parliamentary constituencies".
  Ideally it would be helpful to all concerned—electors, parties and electoral officials—if, when necessary, local and parliamentary electoral boundaries coincided, but on this occasion I am afraid that this cannot be. Some of the wards recommended by the local government boundaries commissioner in his revised recommendations published on 18 January are split between parliamentary constituencies.
  Also, because of the sequence in which the boundary reviews are carried out, it is likely that certain electoral areas would have to be split anyway because of the larger number of district council areas compared with parliamentary constituencies. But although it will not be possible this time to avoid splitting some electoral areas between parliamentary constituencies, the Government are very conscious of the organisational and administrative difficulties that this can cause for parties. We shall be reviewing the sequence in which electoral boundary reviews are carried out in Northern Ireland for the future.
  The next district council elections in Northern Ireland will take place in May 1985, and the House will appreciate that the district electoral areas commissioner will be faced with a difficult task which must be completed in good time for those elections. This draft order is essential for the successful conduct of next year's district council elections in Northern Ireland, and I therefore commend it to the House.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I do not intend to delay the House for long. Indeed, it would be almost unseemly for me to intervene in this row between the various Union parties and the Conservative party. However, I will help a little, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I shall not be looking towards Dublin; I shall be giving the British view. He will understand the implications of that for Northern Ireland. I am sure that he will know exactly what that means from the various things that I have said elsewhere.
  The order provides for the appointment and functions of a district electoral areas commissioner. I suppose that the House could be forgiven for forgetting that during the past exchanges and believe that it was about introducing a new type of voting system. It is not. I do not want to say any more on the interventions that took place during the Minister's speech; Democratic Unionist party Members shouted from a sedentary position: "If PR is all right for Northern Ireland, why is it not all right for this House?" I heard that clearly. They are right to shout that. It simply underlines the point that I have made a number of times, that the reason why it is not all right here but is all right

  697
  in Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland never has been and never will be treated as a normal part of the United Kingdom by any Government or party in Britain.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is the British view.
  Mr. Soley: It is not just a British view, it is a practical view with strong, historical support. I am sure that members of the Unionist party regret it deeply, but I also know that they agree with me that no British Government or political party have ever treated Northern Ireland as a normal part of the United Kingdom. The Unionist party regrets that deeply. I happen to feel that, while it is regrettable on one level, it is more important to understand it and then to make the choice whether we should be moving towards a united Ireland, some form of independent Ireland or something in between, or full integration with the United Kingdom which would please members of the Democratic Unionist party. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will know which of those three options I choose, and it is certainly not the last two because I do not believe that they are workable or sensible.
  The Unionists are not well placed to argue against PR on the grounds that—I heard another hon. Member say this sotto voce — it was gerrymandering, because the history of gerrymandering in Northern Ireland would not put the Unionists in a good light. I have said this before, and I shall say it again, particularly in view of the tone adopted by the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists, that if they had made a better effort to take the minority community of Northern Ireland with them, if there had not been the discrimination in housing, employment and the drawing of boundaries, Northern Ireland might have had a different history.
  My mind returns to the Cameron report on the 1969 disturbances. One of the things that that report found was that the minority community did not just have deep and legitimate grievances about housing and employment; it also had them about the way in which boundaries were drawn, particularly for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I would, in other circumstances, have been reluctant to play this card against the hon. Gentleman. I happen to have in my hand the Boundary Commission report for England dated June 1969. If we want lessons on gerrymandering, we have only to read that report and see what happened in the House of Commons when the then Home Secretary gerrymandered the report. The report was the product of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It was gerrymandered so that it was not brought in for the 1970 general election simply because —the late Mr. Crossman explains it fully—the Labour party would have lost an enormous number of seats throughout England and Wales. Therefore, it was gerrymandered to prevent the Conservative party from having its fair share of the seats.
  Mr. Soley: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to prove. I am trying to point out that the Unionists are not in a position to criticise others. I do not say that I am in a position to criticise —[Interruption.] However, my reason for not doing so is very different, even if that gives rise to some hilarity. The history of Northern Ireland has resulted in great loss of life and liberty because of the way in which boundaries have been drawn. There may have been arguments between the
  698
  two main parties in this House about whether seats and boundaries were being fairly drawn, but the arguments have been fundamentally different and have not resulted in the bloodshed that has been seen in Northern Ireland. Until Unionist Members face up to that fundamental difference, they will continue to ignore the powerful feelings of the minority community and so continue to ignore the causes of the violence.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I listened to the homily delivered by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but only parts of it had anything to do with the order. As the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to pour out his unchecked facts, it is essential that someone should set the record straight. He spoke about discrimination in housing in Northern Ireland, but he should bear in mind that 60 per cent. of public sector housing is in the hands of Roman Catholics. If that is discrimination, when the Roman Catholics represent only about one-third of the population, it is clearly discrimination against the Protestant community.
  I should like to query some of the other facts which the hon. Gentleman gave us, but this debate does not lend itself to that. Accordingly, I shall restrain myself and deal with the order. I have no doubt that the order will be passed by the House. A Conservative Government and Conservative Members will pass it, even though, unfortunately, those hon. Members are not here to listen to the arguments. They will be led through the Lobby without ever having considered them.
  Mr. Forth: Some Conservative Members.
  Mr. Robinson: Very few Conservative Members will have listened to the arguments. I should not like to think that the Northern Ireland Assembly had to rest on such a small percentage of its members attending, because it would then never have a quorum.
  No doubt the commissioner will be appointed and will do a good job within his terms of reference. However, to the people of Northern Ireland the order cries out that they are being treated differently. No one can take that away from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, because the order says that Northern Ireland is different. That is precisely why Unionists in Northern Ireland are against it. The order requires the people of Northern Ireland to go to the polls using a different electoral process from that used by our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom for local elections in Britain. The system is pressed on us not only for local elections but for the elections to the European Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  I have fought on both systems, so I cannot be accused of having a preference simply because one electoral system might be better for me. Having successfully used both systems, I am entirely happy with a system of proportional representation. I do not believe that the system of single transferable votes gives a fully proportional result at the end of the day. I believe, as the United Ulster Unionist Council did in the Northern Ireland Convention report, that there should be a modified list system. That system was felt to be best for Northern Ireland and was agreed by the Unionist parties in the Northern Ireland Convention. I still adhere to that system and believe that it is the best for Northern Ireland. It is a truly proportional system, and the proportionality of the result holds no fear for me.

  699
  Northern Ireland is being treated and punished for the Republican propaganda put out in the early part of the civil rights campaign. However, the people who advocate the system foisted on us would not for a moment dream of imposing it on the citizens of the United Kingdom for parliamentary elections. Indeed, if they did some might find it difficult to be in government. That is one reason why they will not move. Their principles are so high that decisions are made on the basis of what is good for their party, not on what is fair and proportional.
  When arguing the case for excluding fewer than five wards being grouped, the Minister is saying that the result would not truly reflect the percentage of the electorate voting for a particular party. That is true. The fewer the seats in an electoral area, the more distorted the result.
  If one accepts the premise that Northern Ireland must have proportional representation, one must be pragmatic enough to know that Government Members would not have that system for themselves. It would be unparliamentary to suggest that the Minister is being hypocritical. I shall not use that term in the House, but it is clear that the Minister would not be prepared to operate that system for himself. However, the system has been foisted on Northern Ireland and I suppose that we have to accept that it would be wrong for our results to be distorted by having even two, three or four wards in each of the electoral areas.
  For instance, it is not unknown for a candidate to be elected by a mere handful of first preference votes, yet, in a four-seat area, a party with anything between 30 and 40 per cent. of the vote could win only one seat. That means that 35 per cent. of the vote could achieve the same representation as a mere 100 votes. That distortion would not be helpful to the electoral system. For that reason we must accept the restriction that the Minister is placing upon us. However, I ask him to bear in mind that in parts of Northern Ireland it takes considerably more electors to return a councillor to local government than it does in others.
  For example, in the Moyle area, a small rural area, there are about 9,000 electors, but it takes 689 electors to elect one councillor. In Belfast it takes 4,444 electors to elect a councillor. The multi-member constituency areas which the Minister has imposed upon us mean that in Belfast, for instance, in a seven-seater — the most common size in Belfast—a councillor will be mothering 30,000 electors. Local government is supposed to bring us down to the grass roots of public opinion so that there is close contact between the local councillor and the elector. The advantage to the councillor in Moyle is that he has only 700 electors to keep under his wing.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that the councillor in Belfast had to mother 30,000 electors and then came back to talk about the single ward.
  Mr. Robinson: I accept that. The Minister must give us a further assurance that, although he suggests that there should be five, six or seven wards in each of the electoral areas, the commissioner will be informed that there must be a maximum of six wards in any electoral area in Belfast, and preferably five to reduce the size of each electoral area. That will mean more electoral areas for Belfast, but the people of Belfast must pay that penalty.
  700
  The Minister also said that the commissioner would have a difficult task to perform, and that as the elections will take place in May 1985 the commissioner would have to get down to work and sort out the electoral areas expeditiously. The Minister will be aware that under the order, as under the 1972 Act, he cannot appoint the commissioner until the local government boundary commissioner has finalised his work. The Minister should be aware that the local government boundary commissioner's recommendations have been published and can be objected to until 17 February. After that, the boundary commissioner need not, but can, decide to order further public inquiries. If he takes that course, he must consider the results of the inquiries before giving his judgment to the Secretary of State.
  If that were the case, and further public inquiries were held, the local government boundary commissioner's final recommendations would not be received until May or June of this year at the earliest. That means that the Minister cannot appoint a commissioner to deal with electoral areas until the summer. Then the commissioner must begin work, grouping together the areas. We should remember that he must change at least one third of the electoral areas in the Province because of the changes in wards and the additional wards that have been created. Therefore, it is likely that when his provincial recommendations are published there will be cause for public inquiries in many parts of the Province. Those public inquiries can either be called automatically by the commissioner, or by a district council, or by at least 100 electors who wish to have an inquiry. I doubt whether the process could reach that stage without at least a handful of public inquiries being held.
  After the provisional recommendations are published, it is likely that there will be a series of inquiries across the Province. The representations made at those inquiries must be taken into consideration. No doubt they will be reported upon and the views of the electorate presented to the Secretary of State. Perhaps when he replies the Minister can tell us whether the electoral areas, as defined by the commissioner, will then be brought before the House again.
  Whatever the process may be, it will certainly take until the last months of 1984 or even into the beginning of 1985. Nomination day will be some time in April, and I suspect that the political parties would like a week or two in which to select their candidates, so it will be a rushed process. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he is confident that the commissioner can perform that task in the period specified? If he cannot, what does he plan to do about it?
  I should also be interested to hear what are the criteria on which the commissioner will act when grouping the electoral wards. A few general criteria are set out in the order, including the specification that the wards must adjoin at some part. However, I have sat through many public inquiries for the boundary commissioner and have heard arguments about whether almost every street, road or housing estate, either geographically or socially, is part of a ward. Yet after the boundary commissioner has separated the wards because of those criteria, the electoral areas commissioner will come along and bunch them together again. It is the height of nonsense that one commissioner should separate wards, only for the other to put them together again. What criteria, other than the few general terms that are set out in the order, will the commissioner be required to apply to the combining of the electoral wards?

  701
  We have dealt with the small two, three or four-ward electoral areas which have been prohibited by the order, but there should be a general welcome to cease having any electoral areas, such as in Castlereagh and in Banbridge, where there are eight wards in the one electoral area. That is far too cumbersome. I worked in Castlereagh. Those councillors who had put themselves before a large electorate felt that they were in some way superior to those poor beings who came from four-seat areas. The more that electoral areas are brought to a similar size, the more evenly distributed will be the burden between the councillors in their constituency work and the more similar will be their status.
  Distance is another factor which I ask the Under-Secretary to pass on to the commissioner when deciding the grouping of wards. There is a considerable disparity between the work of a councillor in an urban area and that of a councillor in a rural area. There is a vast difference between the Fermanagh council, which covers 187,557 hectares, and North Down, which has little more than 7,000 hectares. Representation must take into account the amount of travelling that public representatives must undertake. There seems to be no requirement for the commissioner to take those matters into consideration, but it is essential that he should do so.
  The Under-Secretary needs to give a word of clarification about what the order means when it refers to each electoral area being given a name. I trust that in that process he will not get us into any arguments about Londonderry and Derry, but is satisfied that a letter will signify a name. If he is not satisfied, perhaps he can make that point clear. I guarantee that if he puts names, either from geography or history, on each of the electoral areas, there will be a long process of hearings in the Province, in which he might not like to be involved.
  I am convinced that, no matter which electoral system the Under-Secretary decides to concoct and impose on the Northern Ireland people, their views will still come out and be as fervently for the Union, despite what the hon. Member for Hammersmith may wish. They will still maintain a Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, no matter what system operates.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. William Ross: In his opening remarks, the Under-Secretary kindly referred to the motion standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He did not seem fully to understand just how reasonable and wise that motion is. He decided to retain his original view, despite his kindness and consideration and the fact that he had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself. My view differs from that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). While, apparently, he is prepared to accept a proportional system of election, I am opposed to such a system, root and branch.
  The Convention report is supported by many people. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has always been outspoken about his view. I make no apology for saying that I differ from the view of the Convention report on that matter. I believe that the Convention was wrong to take that view because that electoral system differs from the British system. The first-past-the-post and the simple majority system is far and
  702
  away the best electoral system. I am prepared to argue the merits of that system and the demerits of porportional representation with anyone at any time and in any place.
  The Minister should be aware that the general opinion in Northern Ireland is that the Government are now deaf to the views of the Unionist population. For instance, the local government commissioner in his review of local government boundaries made it plain that he did not wish to change the name of Londonderry, but the Government chose to snub him and to make a decision under pressure from Sinn Fein and the Irish Independence party. I have yet to fathom the reasons for that. I believe that it was a most foolish decision which will cause great trouble for the Government and do no good, whether it was a sop to the SDLP or to Republicanism in general, because they will not be bought off with as little as that.
  If there was nothing to be gained, why was the decision made? That question will be asked time and again and I fear that it will never be answered because the Government have no answer. If they say that the answer is, "Majority rule OK" we shall echo that because, if majority rule is OK from a Republican viewpoint, majority rule is OK in Ulster at large.
  Mr. Forth: The Unionist party has always argued for a measure of self-determination and self-expression in Northern Ireland. It could be argued that the choice by an elected local authority to change its name was an expression of local opinion and therefore to be admired and applauded as one small step towards the greater principle of self-expression by the Province as a whole. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it could be seen in that light?
  Mr. Ross: If at the same time the Government are unwilling to accept majority rule elsewhere and if majority opinion is carried when it is a Republican demand and refused when it is a Unionist demand, one cannot see it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he understood all the connotations and feelings involved in the change of name he would realise how much it is resented. It was made not for any good purpose but deliberately to assert the views of Republicanism over those of the Unionist people of Londonderry.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there was a time in the history of that city council when the SDLP was arguing against the change of name?
  Mr. Ross: That is certainly true. I remember the arguments very clearly as they were carried in full in the local press. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was only when the more extreme element of the nationalist Republican population began to gain electoral support that, in order to maintain its own position, the SDLP saw fit to change its view. The SDLP now says that it is satisfied with the minimal change that has been made, but the more extreme elements in the IIP and Sinn Fein are already saying that it is not enough and they now want the charter of the city changed so that the name of the city and the county can be changed.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: This proposal will help them.
  Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend says, this proposal will help them, but I shall come to that later.
  I have listened to many arguments about proportional representation in the House. The more I listen to them, the

  703
  more convinced I become that very few people understand not just the mechanics of it but its effects. We are told, first, that the reason for keeping the system is to optimise votes. In other words, it is to give minorities—and the smaller the minority the better— better representation. The truth is that in so doing one creates not a cohesive society but a more and more divided society, with the inevitable result of allowing each and every minority its own spokesman. When we create a system which allows a small grouping to elect its own man, its own representative, the members of that grouping have someone to whom to go for help. The end result is that instead of tying the community together, every grouping has its own person who tries to improve his own position within his community.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that it would make no difference to the overall position. It would make no difference to the overall position as regards the broad Unionist-Nationalist blocs, but it would create an enormous amount of in-fighting within each bloc. Anyone who has taken part in the elections, and who has looked at the results of elections, in Northern Ireland knows well that there is very little cross-voting from Republican on the one hand to Unionist on the other. But there is considerable cross-voting between DUP and Unionist party, even down to Alliance, and between Sinn Fein, SDLP, IIP and whatever else. While the overall position would not change, there would be division where there were formerly cohesive and stabilising forces in Northern Ireland society.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: How can the hon. Member attribute all of that to proportional representation when there are three separate Unionist parties elected to this House by the first-past-the-post system?
  Mr. Ross: Three? Differing Unionist parties have been elected to this House, but I no longer see three. I see just two. If one looks at the situation on the ground, which is what the spokesman for the Liberal party should do, one will understand why there are three DUP hon. Members and more hon. Members on these Benches. When one looks at the electoral viewpoint on the ground, the reasons for that become apparent. People vote for what they perceive to be the strongest candidate within their own general bloc in the area in which the candidates are standing. That is a fact, and I do not hear a dissenting voice from either side of the House.
  Secondly, on the question of contact, the single-Member constituency allows the Member to be the representative of everyone in the constituency. I assume that that is why people came to me from the Bogside and the Creggan, and some of them still tend to come to me. Whenever one has one's own representative, one has no contact with the representative of a differing party, and therefore those who have no contact have no reason to think good of an opposing representative. Indeed, they have every reason to think ill of him because that is the story they are fed by their representatives, who are anxious to improve their electoral position.
  Proportional representation does not unite and it does not cross community barriers. It institutionalises sectarian politics in Northern Ireland. I have never been able to understand why that is not apparent to those in this House
  704
  who constantly promote that system of elections for Ulster. One could say, of course, that it is easier to get elected. But what is the benefit of getting smaller minorities elected when they are going to fight constantly with other groupings, because they will always be anxious to improve their strength and position in society? There is no incentive for them to try to co-operate with others and there is every incentive to put forward their own point of view regardless of the effect that will have on the community. The real effect of giving minorities a voice is to create a group of minorities who are bound to quarrel among themselves.
  Another effect of PR has not yet been mentioned. A by-election may take place because of death, resignation, police inquiries that lead to the disappearance of the elected man who does not like the inquiries, or assassination. For a by-election we use not PR but what is in effect the first-past-the-post system. If the individual who passes on or out of the council is in a five-seat area where he is one of two from one block and there is an election using the first-past-the-post system, those who were able to elect three out of five will be able to elect one out of two. That is as inevitable as day follows night. We have seen that happen and we know that it will happen again and again. That is the same on every occasion unless there is an equal number of seats or wards in the group.
  If there is a vacancy, there are only one or two logical lines to follow. The first line is to say that the group of wards has its representatives, although they are diminished in number, and to let that situation remain until the next council election. The second line is to hold an election for the entire group of wards. The Government show no sign of doing that, but that is the only fair way in which the problem can be resolved. The control of a council can be changed by an unfortunate death, and that change cannot be made by the operation of the normal first-past-the-post system. The issue has not been raised in the House before but I ask the Minister to address himself to it and to tell me why by-elections have to be held on the basis of one seat in a five-seat constituency to fill a casual vacancy.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East has referred to the possibility of giving a name to a district electoral area. I often disagree with the views of DUP Members, but on this occasion I find myself in wholehearted agreement with the hon. Gentleman. An extremely foolish suggestion has been made and if the Minister has any sense he will have nothing to do with it. I trust that he will continue using letters, which are perfectly all right. I think that the people of Northern Ireland would see the introduction of names as a step in abolishing wards as we know them. That would be the next logical step, and I believe that that is in the minds of whose who wrote or drafted the relevant passage of the order. In addition, there are the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  By accepting the view that is set out in the order, we are putting the commissioner in a straitjacket. He will be left without the room he needs to manouevre in drawing his boundaries around the most reasonable areas in each council district. The Minister will know that circumstances and conditions differ widely from ward to ward and county to county in Ulster. The commissioner should be allowed the maximum amount of room for manouevre.
  I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, East when he talked about a substantial minority being able to elect a person of its choice. I thought that he would raise that topic and so I remind the House of the results of

  705
  the general election. In a five-seat constituency, one requires roughly one sixth of the votes to win. That is about 16½ per cent. In a six-seat constituency, the requirement is one seventh of the vote. That is roughly 14 per cent. In a seven-seater the requirement is one eighth, which is exactly 12½ per cent. In reality, a shortfall of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. will still permit election. There is a certain loss as the votes transfer down the line.
  The most extreme element in our politics is Sinn Fein. In Antrim, North it obtained 6½ per cent. of the vote and in Antrim, South it secured 5·6 per cent. For the purpose of the exercise, I am tying the Workers party and Sinn Fein together. Very few of us in Northern Ireland would see very much difference between them. In Antrim, East the figure was only 1·5 per cent. In Belfast, North, the figure was 18·6 per cent., in Belfast, East it was 2·9 per cent., in Belfast, South it was 5·3 per cent., and in Belfast, West Sinn Fein got 36·9 per cent. and the Workers party 4·3 per cent., a total of 41·2 per cent. In Strangford and in Down, North they got nothing.
  Mr. John David Taylor: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is fortunate that he does not have that trouble.
  In Down, South the figure was 9·6 per cent., in Newry and Armagh it was 23·2 per cent., Sinn Fein gaining 21·9 per cent., in Fermanagh and South Tyrone the figure was 35·9 per cent., in Mid-Ulster it was 31·3 per cent., in Foyle it was 21·4 per cent., in Londonderry, East it was 15·4 per cent., Sinn Fein gaining 13·8 per cent., in Upper Bann it was 14·9 per cent., with the Sinn Fein gaining only 9·4 per cent., and in Lagan Valley it was 6·3 per cent.
  That means that if there were five seats in Belfast, North, Sinn Fein would be bound to get at least one seat. If Belfast, West had five seats, it would get two to three seats. If it had seven seats, it would get a minimum of three seats. If Newry and Armagh had five seats, it would get at least one seat, and if it had seven seats, it would get at least two. If there were five seats in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, it would get two seats, and if there were seven it would get three. That is in each district electoral area in those constituencies, provided that the votes are evenly distributed, which they would not be. In Mid-Ulster, the party would get between two and three seats, and in Foyle it would get one to two. In Londonderry, East it would get one seat in seven, and in Upper Bann it would get one in six.
  Perhaps that does not appear too bad until one realises that such votes tend to be concentrated. Therefore, the result, with the level of votes in certain constituencies, would probably give that party more seats than the figures show at first sight.
  Will the Minister tell us why the Government want Sinn Fein to win? It is the only logical explanation of having this system of election. Do they think that Sinn Fein could deliver a deal, where the SDLP dare not? That, I believe, is the real reason for Cardinal O'Fee's remarks recently, for which he was so much criticised. He was setting out to protect the position of his church because he is no longer sure thatve Sinn Fein will be defeated by SDLP. It was the real reason for Bishop Daly's anxious request during the past weekend that the Unionists throw a lifeline to the SDLP.
  The Government tell us that they are opposed to Sinn Fein, yet right down the line they keep, create and
  706
  maintain the very system of election that gives them an electoral voice. They cannot be doing that by accident, unless they are even more ignorant of the effect of the results of the use of PR than I think they are.
  Let us look at the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). The figure was 6·3 per cent. for Sinn Fein and the Workers party, and it was concentrated in one or two wards. They will fall inside a single electoral area. One would have thought that it was impossible in a place such as Lagan Valley for the Sinn Fein to get a Member elected. Under PR, it is almost certain that it would.
  I ask the Minister again why the Government allow this system, which guarantees Sinn Fein a tremendous success. Why do they want Sinn Fein to win?
  10.54 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I was a Member of the House when the question was first raised about how elections should take place in Northern Ireland. In those debates the House was packed with enthusiastic Labour supporters—I notice that one member of that party is present tonight. Some Liberals were enthusiastic that they had a single transferable vote system. That is not proportional representation. There is nothing proportional about it. Able exponents argued what proportional representation was. There was a great division in the Liberal party at the time about it. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) can read all of the wonderful speeches that were made. The purpose was to destroy the Unionist majority——
  Mr. Beith: No it was not.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Oh, yes. We were told that we must come into line with the Irish Republic as it had a wonderful system, which we should adopt. Nobody suggested that that wonderful system should have been adopted by this House.
  Mr. Beith: We believe that it should be.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Liberal party has no say, as it is only a tiny minority. It is like the minority in Northern Ireland that is squealing for this system, because it will help them. We were never told by any of the leading protagonists of the system that Mr. Haughey's party wanted to change the wonderful system in the Republic and conducted a referendum on the ground that it was unfair. It was defeated, however. The first Parliament of Northern Ireland was elected under this system and the result was that the Unionists had the same majority as they have in the Assembly.
  All of the rigging and drawing of boundaries does not change the determination of the Unionist people. It does not matter how often the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) looks towards Dublin; we are not going the Dublin road. The party to which he belongs thought that it had us on the way with Sunningdale. Dublin was only a Sunningdale away, but it did not happen because the majority of the people said "No".
  I should have thought that the hon. Member for Hammersmith would be delighted that the majority of Unionists in the Convention of Northern Ireland should have come out in favour of some form of real proportional representation, safeguarding constituency interests and having a modified list system. Although the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) says that he did not

  707
  accept that, the three Unionist parties accepted it unanimously. I refer to the Official Unionists under Harry West, the Vanguard Unionists under Bill Craig, and my party. I did not hear shouts of delight in this House and people saying, "Oh, the Unionists have now come to a point when they will accept it. No, it must be STV or nothing because that is like the Republic."
  The whole thing is designed to make us conform with the Republic. The hon. Member for Hammersmith smiles but if he was a fair-minded man he would have said, "Is it not good that the Unionists have been prepared to say that this is the way in which we should go?" The Convention report was chucked out even though it said that minorities should be in the same place as majorities in committees and there should be 50–50 representation. Nobody said that that was a good concession to get out of the Unionists. It was ignored, because the House wants to get us on the Dublin road. There was great enthusiasm for that. We now find that they are not happy with what they have done and that they want to help forward the so-called minority parties a little further.
  Mr. Beith: They are substantial minorities.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Let no hon. Member kid himself. The Sinn Fein party will increase its electoral support, and the Cardinal knows that. He does not want to be a chief without Indians, so he now says that one can morally justify a vote for Sinn Fein, a vote for the party that speaks of an Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other. But I remember Bishop Daly saying at the election that anyone who voted for Sinn Fein was voting for violence. Now it has changed. Why? Because anyone who has read Irish history knows that the extreme Republican elements will take over. They took over before. The British Government told us long ago—and it is recorded in history — that they never talk to the Republican movement of the South, they would never talk to Michael Collins. But they soon had Michael Collins over here. In fact, the members of this Tory party had a sticky-bun tea session with the leaders of the IRA with Gerry Adams. They brought him out of prison, and they flew him in by helicopter to take tea and sticky buns. I do not know what other liquor they put into him, but I leave that to the imagination.
  The system of proportional representation is part of a conspiracy to destroy Northern Ireland, and the House thinks that it will succeed. I have news for the House tonight. The House can wrangle as much as it likes, but the force of the conviction of the majority will come through. The House will reap what it sows. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry, East said about Sinn Fein members being elected to councils will take place, and those Sinn Fein members will attend the councils. They do not object to attending the councils. They will be there. They will not come to this House or to the Assembly, but then, of course, nor will some of the Official Unionists come to the Assembly. They will be in the councils and, exactly as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, they will cause division in the councils, and they will bring the councils to a standstill. That is what the Minister evidently wants, because he is preparing the way for the House to be told that the Government will have
  708
  to talk to them and will have to get a deal with them. The deal will be at the expense of the Unionist majority. That is what this whole business is about.
  The House tonight, with empty Benches and with hon. Members unconcerned about Northern Ireland and its tragedy, darkness and blood, proceeds along this road, with hon. Members smiling as if it was a wonderful thing that they are doing. The House will reap what it sows, and it need not blame the leaders of the Unionist community of either side of the House. It need not blame us for what it is doing, because it will reap what it sows, and the United Kingdom's own soldier boys will reap what the House is doing. I said that in this House, and I was laughed at. I was told, when Stormont was prorogued, that it was all over. I said that that was a Sunday school picnic and that now the real action would be seen. Who was right? The House knows who was right.
  I say to the House tonight that it can proceed. I shall vote against the order, because it is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland. It will not help to stabilise Northern Ireland and it will not help any true minority that wants representation to have representation. It will be a bone of contention and conflict. We have seen this.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith said something about majority rule. I accept majority rule, and not only in Londonderry. Let us have majority rule right through the Province. If the House wants majority rule, let us have it in every section of the community. I do not see hon. Members rising. The House has heard hon. Members saying tonight "Majority rule for Londonderry". There is no majority rule for Belfast and there is no majority rule for the Assembly.
  Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He gives me a great deal of encouragement at times, although he probably does not realise it. He seems to be saying, "Let us go back to the old voting system and get rid of all the old gerrymandered borders." I am inclined to agree with that. One could take the result of the 1918 election in Ireland, could one not?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not get the hon. Gentleman's point at all. It makes no sense. It is no good hon. Members standing up and arguing for a majority vote when it suits them, because I have heard people defending what has happened in Londonderry, saying that, after all, it was a majority vote. I have heard the Minister insult the Unionist electorate by saying that its leaders are only grubbing for votes, that they should stop grubbing for votes, let the people have their way, and change the name of the district council from Londonderry to Derry.
  The Minister talks about compromise. The Unionists in Londonderry said, "After all, the council does not control only Londonderry, but part of the hinterland. Have a compromise, call it the Foyle council." But did they really desire a compromise? No, they wanted to do something that they had wanted do for a long time—to cut the British connection. That is what it is all about. Anybody who lives in Northern Ireland knows that.
  If hon. Members want majority rule, let them have it in the district council of Londonderry. But let them have it in every other district council and in the Assembly. The attitude of the House is that it is all right to have majority rule if it is Republican, but a Unionist majority must not rule at all. That is wrong. Some day the House will reap the results of that policy. It has gone down the wrong road on the electoral system.

  709
  We have heard accusations about rigging boundaries. I was not a member of the parties which did that. I can claim that the Democratic Unionist party had nothing to do with boundary changes. The only good action of the House was to give me a whole section of Carrickfergus and Larne and establish my seat. I was thankful for that and grateful for the gerrymandering.
  At the end of the day the majority in Northern Ireland will vote one way, and will keep on voting that way. There will be no weakening. We have been battered and bombed, ridiculed and scorned; the House changed the electoral system and prorogued our Ulster Parliament. But at the end of the day the people are as determined as ever. I am prepared to rest my case on the will of the majority.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I shall be brief. The object of our early-day motion was to give the commissioner sufficient flexibility to do two things. First, it was to provide district electoral areas sufficiently compact to allow councillors to identify with those who elected them and to enable the electors to identify with their representatives. That is manifestly impossible where, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, there is a vast multiple electoral area of wards with a total electorate of about 35,000—greater than would obtain in many British constituencies, even after the redrawing of the boundaries. Secondly, the object was to avoid drawing electoral areas so large and unwieldy that, inevitably, they would at some time breach the new constituency boundaries.
  I have with me the report to which I referred in the earlier debate—not to quote it against the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but for a more constructive reason. The report in 1969 quoted the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and the rules for redistribution. Rule 4(c) states:
  "in Northern Ireland, no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another."
  That was clear in the directive to the local government boundary commissioner and the commissioner who will be brought into being if this order is agreed tonight. It is not tolerable that we should be permitting the commissioner to bring into being these vast multiple areas, if he so desires, to make nonsense of the new constituency boundaries which have been the result of about seven years endeavour by the parliamentary Boundary Commission. The necessity and desirability of preserving the parliamentary boundaries has been dealt with by Sir Frank Harrison in the current report on the local government boundaries.
  He says:
  "It was pointed out at the public hearings by many persons of differing political views that this"——
  the crossing of boundaries——
  "results in confusing electors partly because they may have to go to different polling stations for different elections but more importantly because neighbours with common social problems within the same local government district will have to go to different Assembly and Parliamentary members where local government boundaries are not coincident with Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies."
  He finally dismisses all that and says that, nevertheless,
  "the most that he can do in making his revised recommendations is to propose changes in local government boundaries which
  710
  breach other constituency boundaries only where the case for such change is strongly made out on social and demographic grounds."
  Surely the parliamentary Boundary Commission takes account of these various considerations. Who is to say that Sir Frank Harrison, in the context of his duties as boundary commissioner for local government affairs, knows more than the Boundary Commission which laboured for seven years on parliamentary constituencies? I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, if he cannot amend the order in conformity with the reasonable suggestion that we put forward, will feel able to give the commissioner some guidance and suggest that he should exercise plain common sense to avoid the man trap into which he might otherwise fall.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would assist the House if the Minister, when he replies, could clear up a point raised by my right hon. Friend and also, previously, by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who both suggested that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to give advice and counsel to the commissioner after his appointment in order to modify, interpret or add to the terms of the order.
  I would have thought that that would be an unlawful procedure on the part of the Secretary of State, and I hope that—as that point has bulked large in the debate—the Minister will deal with the legality, one way or the other, of such a procedure.
  Mr. Molyneaux: In my generosity, I was assuming that the Minister would deal with that problem. I was judging from his expression when the point was made.
  Rule 4 in schedule 3 uses the words:
  "A name shall be given to each electoral area."
  Is there any intention to substitute a name for the method hitherto used—a letter of the alphabet? If so, I beg the Minister to think again. We have enough trouble at the moment. The Minister and his colleagues will have enough trouble adjudicating on the many other requests coming into the pipeline for change of district council names. They have not finished yet, having made the fatal change in the case of Londonderry.
  It seems that Ministers are very selective about which recommendations of the commissioners they accept and which they reject. In the revised boundary commissioners' report, it is stated clearly that, in regard to the district of Londonderry,
  "It is recommended that the boundary and the name of the district, established by the Local Government (Boundaries) Order (NI) 1972, shall remain unchanged".
  I hope that there will be second thoughts on that subject.
  The Minister accidentally revealed that it was intended that this representation and grouping might possibly be continuing and open-ended. In other words, if a certain party consistently did well in a particular electoral area it illustrated that there was something wrong with the system and, therefore, the system would be changed.
  I take a cynical view of Whitehall attitudes to elections in Northern Ireland, because I can well remember a right hon. Gentleman who sat on the Conservative Benches saying to me in the aftermath of an STV election in Northern Ireland as he sat head in hands thinking about the result, "Jim, I have to confess that I have come to the conclusion that a majority will still be a majority no matter how we rig the system."
  We will not take kindly to further experiments and devices, because I assure the Minister and other hon.

  711
  Members that their devices, and all the intrigue which has been tried in the past, will have the opposite effect to that which is wanted.
  11.16 pm
  Mr. John David Taylor: The Minister, in presenting this draft order, was clearly ill at ease. He may have been thinking ahead to Thursday's debate, or it may be that he knows that most Conservative Members do not support the principles contained in the draft order. The Conservative party stands opposed to proportional representation and STV, and if Conservative Members were listening to the debate they would all be voting against the draft order. The trouble is that there are only three members of the Conservative party present and only one each from the Labour and Liberal parties. The troops will come in in a few minutes to vote the order through without hearing the merits of the argument.
  STV does not dramatically change the results in Northern Ireland. The issue is not whether we have STV; it is whether we have the same electoral system in Northern Ireland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. No argument put forward this evening has defended the idea of having a separate system in Northern Ireland from that to be found elsewhere in Great Britain other than by those who want the same system in Northern Ireland as exists in the Republic of Ireland.
  It was interesting to note that for the first time in any debate in which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has taken part on Northern Ireland, he did not refer to the position in the Republic of Ireland. The reason for that was that Fianna Fail stands opposed to STV. That is why he did not wish to draw the analogy with the Republic of Ireland.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) mentioned the recommendations of the local government boundary commissioner about the name of Londonderry. The Government's decision to change Londonderry to Derry is not based on the commissioner's impartial recommendation. Oh, no, they have thrown that aside. It is a decision by the Minister which is biased and politically motivated and which will create greater division and polarisation in a city where we want greater co-operation. It was a bad decision by the Government, and the Conservative party should be ashamed of it in so far as it affects the affairs of Londonderry city.
  The grouping of wards of five and not more than seven has many implications into which we do not have time to go in detail. If the Minister studies the local government boundary commissioner's report he will find that many of the 26 councils will have only 15 wards. It means that they will have only three electoral areas under the new system that he proposes. Why is he proposing it? Remember, this is a different STV system from the one that we had for the last local elections.
  The reason is that once again the Government are trying to rig the local government results in Northern Ireland. They tried last time, and they failed, so this time they have changed the system and rigged it yet again. The Minister gave us the reason; it is to bring in small minority parties. That cannot mean the Official Unionist party, which is the largest pary in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP or the Alliance party. The only small
  712
  party that the Government can help to bring in under this newly rigged system is the Provisional Sinn Fein, and that will be the result.
  Unfortunately, this system will also mean that council areas will cross more parliamentary boundaries than hitherto, and so it does not provide a good working relationship between locally elected councillors and Members of Parliament. One other point that has not been brought out this evening is that the order discriminates against town dwellers in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that they form the majority in Northern Ireland. Under the new recommendations, many of the towns will have six wards, including Armagh city. Only five of them can be grouped in an area. One ward can be outside, making six wards in all. Many towns will have one ward outside, in a rural area. One ward in six represents about 16 per cent. of the area. Those townspeople will be overcome by the rural voters and will not obtain representation on the council.
  Finally, I hope that the Minister will reply to a point made frequently in the debate. I refer to the fact that it is important that there are no names for the electoral areas. The Minister should take up the challenge and declare that there will be no names for the electoral areas. We must have confirmation of that tonight, otherwise we shall have to go back quickly and start thinking of very attractive names for them.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Scott: With the leave of the House, perhaps I can draw the debate to a conclusion. To say that the debate has ranged widely would be a slight underestimate. However, I should like to concentrate on the order and the arrangements that it proposes for the election in 1985.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the Minister does not need the leave of the House. If he had to obtain the leave of the House, I should certainly object. Surely he does not need it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
  Mr. Scott: We want to put forward the arrangements to conduct the elections in 1985. We are not tonight—although one could have been forgiven for thinking it—talking about the principle of proportional representation for local government elections in Northern Ireland. We decided to do that in 1972, and it was reaffirmed in 1977. This order, which makes the detailed arrangements for the conduct of the elections next year, comes under the auspices of the 1977 order. For reasons that seemed good to the House in 1972, good to the House in 1977 and, I believe, would seem good to the House today, it has been decided to use proportional representation for local government elections in Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will forgive me if I do not go down the road that he travelled on constitutional matters, and I assure him that I will apply the same rule to other hon. Members who sought to traverse those routes. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke at length about the merits of proportional representation. The order is concerned not with those merits but with ensuring that we make the provisions for the implementation of proportional representation as effective as possible. That is why we have provided for the limit of five, six or seven

  713
  wards in any particular district. The hon. Member also mentioned the question of timing, and I must confess that it is tight.
  With regard to the hearings that may eventually have to take place, we have provided in the order for the appointment of assistant commissioners. They will be able to undertake a number of those hearings and sufficient assistant commissioners will be appointed to ensure that we get the order and arrangements through in time to hold the elections in 1985.
  We will eventually need a new order to come before the House to confirm the arrangements finally made. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the modified list. A modified list system leaves the choice of the number of candidates to the parties concerned, whereas STV leaves the choice to the electors. The whole point about STV is that it is for the benefit of the voters rather than for the parties. The modified list system——
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No. The debate ends at 11.30. There is a chance to draw a balance between proportionality and the links between the Member and the area that he represents. I believe that STV is most effective in achieving that.
  Hon. Members talked about the size of areas in Belfast. I cannot give an undertaking, not least for the reasons that are implicit in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that the Government will give any guidance to the commissioner in coming to decisions. The commissioner will act according to the guidelines in the draft order, but, of course, it will be possible for councils and electors to make representations to the commissioner along the lines advanced by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. It would not be proper for the Government to give that guidance.
  The only criteria which the commissioner must follow are those set out in schedule 3 to the draft order. Apart from that he must apply his experience and judgment, taking account of any representations made to him.
  Much has been made about the question of names for the electoral districts. A letter designating an electoral order is not a name. The order provides that the names of electoral areas will be a matter for the commissioner. Of course, he will be open to representation from those who are interested in such matters.
  I am sure that the commissioner, whoever he is, will be conscious of the sensitivity involved in names in Northern Ireland. No one with experience of Northern Ireland could fail to realise the sensitivity involved. I am sure that he will receive advice from the parties and district councils about appropriate names.
  Mr. John David Taylor: I am alarmed at the Government's proposal to give names to the electoral areas. I agree that it is a sensitive matter. Will the Minister confirm that the district councils will have the right to change the names?
  Mr. Scott: The commissioner will decide the names and the councils can make representations to him about the names. Eventually an order will come before the House, including such matters.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) talked about the name of the historic city. I do not want to go down that road, but he advocates that there should be no difference between Great Britain and Northern
  714
  Ireland. In Great Britain such a matter would not have come before a Minister. It is within a council's competence to change its name. In this case we are simply bowing to the wishes of the authority to change the name of its council, not of the city.
  In a proportional representation, single transferable vote by-election there is no first-past-the-post election but an absolute majority election after transfers if necessary. The candidate who first achieves more than 50 per cent. of the votes is elected.
  I should like to knock down two arguments in the debate. The first was that STV was chosen because for some reason we wished to align the electoral system of Northern Ireland with that in the Republic of Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth. We sought a system which would provide for Northern Ireland a mode of election to achieve the aims which I set out in my opening remarks. Secondly, this Government are totally and absolutely opposed to everything that Sinn Fein stands for and we shall do our best to ensure that the aims that it seeks are not brought about. We absolutely detest the advocacy and means of violence.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South interrupted when I was asked whether the Secretary of State can give guidance to the commissioner once he has been appointed. No. It is for the commissioner to conduct his review in accordance with the rules set out in schedule 3 to the draft order. In reaching his determination he may, of course, have regard to representations made to him during that review, but Ministers will play no part in that once the commissioner has embarked upon his review.
  I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 13.

  Division No. 153]

  [11.29 pm

  AYES

  Ashby, David

  Jackson, Robert

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Beith, A. J.

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Key, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Brinton, Tim

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Cope, John

  Lightbown, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lilley, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fox, Marcus

  Maclean, David John.

  Freeman, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Maples, John

  Galley, Roy

  Mather, Carol

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Ground, Patrick

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Moate, Roger

  Harris, David

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Harvey, Robert

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Newton, Tony

  Hayes, J.

  Normanton, Tom

  Hayward, Robert

  Norris, Steven

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Holt, Richard

  Powley, John

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

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  715

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Scott, Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walden, George

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Waller, Gary

  Speed, Keith

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Speller, Tony

  Watson, John

  Spencer, D.

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. John Major and

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mr. Ian Lang.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCrea, Rev William

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  McCusker, Harold

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nicholson, J.

  Mr. William Ross and

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (European Assembly Elections)
  11.40 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
  That the draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
  These regulations provide for the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland to the European Assembly. The House recently approved similar regulations for England, Wales and Scotland. The draft Northern Ireland regulations will replace the European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1979, and in most respects do not differ from them in substance. The new regulations are necessary because of various changes in electoral law since 1979. They apply, with appropriate modifications, provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1983 which are equivalent to the provisions applied by the 1979 regulations. As the House will recall, the Representation of the People Act 1983 was a consolidation measure.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I first set out briefly the main changes which have been made since 1979 and which are common to the Northern Ireland regulations and the regulations for England, Wales and Scotland. I will then go on to describe the ways in which the Northern Ireland regulations are different.
  The principal change resulting from the application of last year's Representation of the People Act is the exclusion of Saturdays from the computation of time for the purposes of the election and absent voting timetables. The timetable will thus be extended in line with the parliamentary elections timetable. As a result, statutory restrictions on election broadcasts will apply for a period of six weeks before polling day, rather than five weeks as previously. The recent provisions enabling voluntary mental patients to be registered for parliamentary elections will also apply for the purposes of European Assembly elections.
  These draft regulations, like the corresponding Great Britain regulations, provide for candidates' permitted election expenses to be increased from £5,000 plus 2p for each entry in the register of electors to £8,000 plus 3½p per entry, to take account of inflation. Similarly, the maximum payment that an agent may make without obtaining a bill or receipt will be increased from £12 to £20 and the maximum amount which an individual may spend without the agent's authorisation will be raised from £3 to £5.
  I turn now to the main special features of the draft Northern Ireland regulations. The most obvious difference between these regulations and the Great Britain set lies in the rules governing the method of election and the procedure for the count, because in Northern Ireland the election will be by proportional representation using the single transferable vote system. This method of election is set down in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, which also provides that Northern Ireland shall form one constituency returning three representatives. The Government believe that it is right for these arrangements

  717
  to be retained for this year's elections, and the draft regulations therefore reflect this position, which is enshrined in the 1978 Act.
  Right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will know only too well that there is a widespread belief that electoral abuse takes place on a serious scale in Northern Ireland. It is not possible within the confines of these regulations to introduce significant new measures to deal with personation; that would require primary legislation. However, I know that the chief electoral officer and his staff, in co-operation with the police, will make every effort to apply existing procedures with the maximum effectiveness for these elections.
  These draft regulations enable us, however, to make some changes in postal voting procedures so as to reduce the opportunities for malpractice. In line with the rules applying to the Northern Ireland Assembly and district council elections, it will not be possible for an elector to obtain an absent vote for the European Assembly election on the ground that he or she no longer resides at his or her qualifying address. Hon. Members will have read the Government's White Paper reply to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on the Representation of the People Acts, Cmnd. 9140, published last week and will know that we are proposing similarly to limit the availability of postal votes in Northern Ireland for future parliamentary elections. This is, of course, different from what is proposed for the rest of the United Kingdom, but the Government believe it to be justified, given the serious level of abuse which is peculiar to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister used the word "similarly" in relation to these regulations compared with the White Paper on the reform of the Representation of the People Acts. Will he make it clear that the similarity is simply that apparently the absent vote for removal will not be available in the European election, whereas it is proposed not to give the absent vote on holiday in Northern Ireland in the context of the Representation of the People Acts?
  Mr. Scott: That proposal is similar, but the proposal in the White Paper goes much wider and no doubt there will be an opportunity to debate that in due course. As I say, we believe that this departure is justified, given the serious level of abuse which is peculiar to Northern Ireland.
  The regulations also tighten up the requirements for certification of postal voting applications made on grounds of blindness or other physical incapacity in line with Northern Ireland regulations made for last year's parliamentary election and foreshadowed in the White Paper to which I referred.
  I conclude my opening remarks by making a general point about this year's European Assembly election. The elections will be held in all member states during the period 14 to 17 June. Under the Community Act of 1976, they should have been held from 7 to 10 June, exactly five years after the last elections, but agreement was reached on the slightly later dates because the elections would otherwise have coincided with certain holidays in member states. Throughout the United Kingdom, polling will be on Thursday 14 June. The counting of votes cannot begin until polling has finished in every member state.
  I seek the approval of the House to these draft regulations, which are necessary for the conduct of the election on 14 June in Northern Ireland.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I shall be brief and uncontentious, and resist the temptation to have round two on PR, despite the Minister's early reference to that. Nor shall I comment on the serious problem of malpractice voting in Northern Ireland. I note, as I noted in the previous debate and as I have on other occasions, that there are differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and that that is inevitable in the circumstances. The Labour party will not be dividing the House on this issue, as we accept that these provisions are necessary.
  11.49 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before coming to the main purport of my remarks, I wish to refer briefly to the exchange some moments ago between myself and the Minister. If there were no other reason for my hon. Friends and myself to vote against these regulations, as indeed there is, it would be justified on the ground that they embody a principle involved in the White Paper on the reform of the Representation of the People Acts, namely, that it is tolerable to withdraw a right of exercising the vote from the electors of one part of the United Kingdom on the ground that there are particular risks of malpractice alleged in that part. The remedy for that is, if necessary, to take special precautions in that part of the United Kingdom. It is not justifiable to punish the electors in one part of the United Kingdom for the faults and failings of others by withdrawing from them the right of a franchise that is possessed everywhere else. As the Minister has said, this is a matter that will have to be considered more at large in the context of elections to the House, but it would have been disingenuous to pass it over as it was mentioned by the Minister and thus brought to light and to the attention of the House.
  Even if the regulations were defeated tonight, the European elections would nevertheless take place in Northern Ireland and would nevertheless take place upon the principle of proportional representation. Even if this is so, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to vote against them to affirm our abhorrence of the imposition of a different system of voting in Northern Ireland, at an election comprising the whole of the United Kingdom, from that which is to apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, and to mark our disapprobation at the manner in which the party which sustains the Government has departed from the natural meaning of the position which it took up when in Opposition and the pledges that were implicit in the votes and speeches which Conservative Members made at that time.
  The provisions in the European Assembly Election Act 1978 were the subject of a good deal of debate in the House. We had it twice over in two successive Sessions—1976–77 and 1977–78—and the second occasion was split by proceedings to obtain a guillotine motion. In effect, there were three sets of debates in the 1974–79 Parliament upon the principle of the European Assembly elections. There was, therefore, ample opportunity for hon. Members, parties and Her Majesty's Opposition of the day to make their position clear on the various contentious matters which arose. The contentious matter with which I am immediately concerned is the proposal in the Bills which became embedded—I would not use the Minister's word "enshrined"—in the 1978 Act that in

  719
  Northern Ireland alone in the United Kingdom is the election to be conducted upon the principles of proportional representation.
  There was ample opportunity and occasion for views to be placed upon the record, and the Opposition of the day put their views on the record repeatedly, clearly and firmly. I must weary the House—not, I hope, at too great a length — by recalling the view of the Conservative party and the Conservative Opposition while the provisions were being passed into law. In many instances the wording that was adopted by the Opposition spokesmen is valid today, is lapidary, and I could not improve upon it. I shall not quote—if I were to do so, it would take much longer than the total time that we have available for the debate—all the appellations made by the then Conservative Opposition of total rejection of the principle of PR elections in one part only the United Kingdom.
  In the debate on 25 April 1977 the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who is now the Minister of State, Home Office, said:
  "in elections that cover the whole United Kingdom, it would be very undesirable to have a different electoral system in Northern Ireland from what we have in the rest of the United Kingdom. It would lead to all kinds of problems that we should be wise to avoid."
  So outspoken and so clear was that statement that I remember that the then Home Secretary who was in charge of the Bill challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he was expressing a personal opinion or speaking officially for the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman confirmed that he was speaking for the Opposition and, quite remarkably, when Mr. Whitelaw, now Lord Whitelaw, replied to the debate for the Opposition, he took the unusual step not merely of affirming and confirming that his junior had spoken for the Opposition officially but of telling the then Home Secretary that what he had said
  "represents my view and the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Shadow Cabinet."
  If it is possible for a party in Opposition to commit itself to a principle and a point of view solemnly and deliberately, that is what the Conservative Opposition did in the context of the debates upon the European Assembly Elections Bill.
  What was the view which, so solemnly, Lord Whitelaw declared was the view of the shadow Cabinet, of which he was a prominent member? I beg leave to remind the House of some of the words which he used. He said:
  "First, it breaches the principle that any election involving the whole of the United Kingdom at the same time should be held on the same basis throughout the United Kingdom."
  That was the same point that had been made by the right hon. Member for Witney. Lord Whitelaw said, secondly:
  "I know only too well that some people in Northern Ireland will seek to suggest that in making this decision we are being less than full-hearted in our commitment that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that is the wish of the majority of its inhabitants."
  Lord Whitelaw went on to a most solemn and significant assertion, which is, as I shall presently argue, if possible, more valid today than it was seven years ago when the then right hon. Gentleman made it. He said:
  "It would be wrong of those people to suggest that, but the overriding importance of this commitment to Northern Ireland is so ingrained in my mind that I am loth to give even the smallest indication of breaking it."—[Official Report, 25 April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 756–945.]
  720
  So solemn and sacrosanct was the then right hon. Gentleman's view, so vital was that commitment, that on the ground of even the appearance of it being shaken by the deliberate introduction of a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom in an election spanning the whole of the kingdom—on that ground alone—he rejected what stands in the Act to this day.
  It was upon that basis that, when the final decision was taken to keep this provision in the Bill—a year later on 2 February 1978 — the Opposition took their stand. Again I shall trouble the House with a speech on which the Conservative party, Her Majesty's Opposition of the day, went into the Lobby. The right hon. Member for Witney said:
  "Our belief, and the principle to which we hold, is that where elections are held across the kingdom on the same day, they should be held under the same system in all parts of the kingdom, and that if they are not so held, there will be renewed doubt and renewed speculation in Northern Ireland about the intentions of the House of Commons and the present Government towards the constitutional position of the Province."
  Those who heard the intervention in the debate on the order, just concluded, by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will have no difficulty in understanding from that illustration the significance and reality of the anxiety that the right hon. Member for Witney then expressed. He continued:
  "It is surely dangerous to multiply without necessary cause special arrangements, exceptions and all the ways in which Northern Ireland is made different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely if we persist in treating Northern Ireland as abnormal and exceptional in all circumstances, we make it more likely that the abnormal and exceptional features that exist will be perpetuated. Surely, we should be on the other tack, trying to reduce and confine what is exceptional in the circumstances of Northern Ireland."
  He concluded, just before the Division took place:
  "We have thought seriously about this problem over recent months."
  Indeed, it was not a snap decision. There had been 18 months or more for the Opposition of the day to make up their minds to debate it. They were not speaking at adventure on an issue that had been sprung upon them at short notice. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "We have concluded that the overriding principle should be that where elections of this kind, quite different from local elections or elections for the Convention or the Assembly, are held for the first time in the United Kingdom, across the Kingdom, on the same day, it would be unwise to hold them in Ulster under a different system from that under which they are held in the rest of the Kingdom." — Official Report, 2 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 749.]
  It was on principle—it could not have been designated more clearly as a matter of principle going to the very heart of the position of Northern Ireland in the Kingdom and of the safety of the citizens in that part of the United Kingdom—that the then Opposition voted. Study of the Division list discloses the name, naturally, of the right hon. Gentleman who made that winding-up speech and, naturally, the name of the right hon. Gentleman, now Lord Whitelaw, who was so seized of the importance of the absence of differentiation that it was to him of overriding significance, and also the name of the right hon. Lady who is now the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: Does it include the Minister?
  Mr. Powell: I understand that the Minister perused that list while preparing for this debate with some anxiety and was relieved to find that chance, a pair, or perhaps some other occasion——
  Mr. A. J. Beith: An abstention.
  Mr. Powell: If it was an abstention on principle then, quite uncharacteristically, the Minister concealed it from the knowledge and admiration of the rest of us.
  It was not surprising that, in 1980, when the Opposition who took that solemn position of principle had so recently formed the Government and had the power to legislate, Lord Whitelaw, then himself in turn Home Secretary, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who then represented the Antrim, South constituency, on this matter. He pointed out—it is obvious—that it would be quite possible that the EEC might resolve, in a manner which was mandatory on the member states, on a uniform form of election in all of the member states, in which case any domestic variation would be ruled out and the form of the electoral process would be settled for us over our heads by the superior authority of the EEC. But he recognised, did the Home Secretary, as early as December 1980, that that might not happen, as, indeed, it has not happened. He said to my right hon. Friend:
  "If it becomes clear by early 1983 that new arrangements will not be in effect throughout the Community for the 1984 elections, the Government will have to reconsider the arrangements established by the European Assembly Act 1978."
  Nobody who knew what Lord Whitelaw had said on that subject and nobody who knew the position of principle which the then Opposition had taken up could be in any doubt about what was meant by the reconsideration of the arrangements. They knew that the Government were, in accepting what was inevitable, committed by their position to legislate before the next European elections in 1984.
  I do not suppose that one could be in possession of a finer collection of incriminating material for a debating success. But my hon. Friends and I are not interested in a debating success. The matter is much too serious. It is, I say again, literally a matter of life and death, and it is the more so because of the increasing clarity with which it is perceived. There is a real relationship between the continuance of terrorist violence in the Province and the continued existence of doubt as to the sincerity, firmness and reliability of the declared intention of successive Governments of the United Kingdom.
  I do not for a moment believe that Lord Whitelaw, in his distant cloud-capped palace, has changed the sentiments that he expressed repeatedly and strongly in 1977 and 1978. I am equally sure that the lady who is not for turning is of the same mind now as when she went through the Lobby on 2 February 1978. It is not characteristic of the right hon. Lady to be pushed out of a position of principle that she has deliberately and consciously taken up. I am confirmed in this view by the fact that in recent months we have noted in Northern Ireland that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have more and more clearly been proclaiming that the key to peace and stability in Northern Ireland is the conviction—a conviction to be held not only in this House, not only in this part of the kingdom, but in all sections in Northern Ireland, in the Irish Republic and elsewhere in the world—that, for the foreseeable future, the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is not in any manner of doubt, that it will continue as far ahead as can be foreseen. Therein—and this has been a perception for which we have had to wait
  722
  too long—the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have repeatedly declared, lies the key to reassurance, to peace and to the ending of violence.
  In those circumstances, and in the light of the very reasons why, in 1978, the Conservative party and the Prime Minister herself voted against PR in Northern Ireland at European elections, not only have we a right to demand, but we are entitled in common sense and reason to expect, that even now the Government will do what they are in all moral duty committed to do, and amend the law for the European Assembly elections so as to bring it into conformity with the principle in which surely they still believe.
  I am not asking for anything that is impracticable. Governments, even in periods when they are not always successful, not always presenting a brassy front of unbroken confidence and success, are still very powerful creatures. It is in the power of any Government to pass through both Houses in a short time a Bill to embody a principle to which they are committed, for which most of their members have personally voted, and a principle which nobody on either side of the House, or any other House, will be able to dare to challenge. There is no section of the House from which hon. Members would rise up and say, "No, we are doing wrong in establishing that a United Kingdom election should be held on a uniform basis throughout the United Kingdom." This would not be legislation that would have to labour its way through months of Committee and controversy. It would be an act of self-evident justice and, in any case, an act that the Government owe to themselves.
  Now that the Government have themselves affirmed publicly the connection between the fulfilment of their duties to the people of Northern Ireland and the removal of this blemish from the statute book, we are entitled to say to them, "We expect you to do your duty."
  12.10 am
  Rev. Ian Paisley: We have before us not only the regulations but the remarks with which the Minister introduced it. I am reminded of his words at the end of the previous debate. He said that the Government were wholly opposed to Sinn Fein, that they would have no truck with it and that people should realise their attitude to it.
  It is strange that the action of Sinn Fein at the polling booths will now be bowed to, and the rights of individuals in Northern Ireland will be taken away, because the Government have not the guts to ensure that the law of Parliament is upheld on polling day in Northern Ireland.
  I say as a citizen of the United Kingdom that the people whom I represent have the same rights as every other citizen of the United Kingdom. If there are privileges for the citizens of the remainder of the United Kingdom in casting their votes, the people of Northern Ireland—British citizens as they are—must be permitted to have and to exercise those same rights. If the Government are not prepared to ensure that the people have those rights and that they are defended, the Government will have abdicated their authority to Sinn Fein and the IRA. That message needs to be re-echoed in the House. I may not receive support from the Government Benches, but I think it terrible that a Minister of the Crown tells us that the law must be different in Northern Ireland because of the threat and interference of Sinn Fein.

  723
  It is all very well for the Minister to pass responsibility on to the chief electoral officer and some poor girl sitting behind the ballot box. Everybody knows the intimidation, threat and actions of Sinn Fein and the IRA. How can those people stand up against that? They cannot do so. Even the SDLP workers are afraid to challenge them because they know that there may be a knock on the door and an assassination. SDLP workers say that it is impossible to work in some areas because of the intimidation and threats.
  The Unionist party knows how difficult it is for its workers. For many years the village of Toomebridge was part of my constituency. I know the problem faced by my workers in Toomebridge school because of the threats against them. It was only because they were determined not to give in to intimidation that they were able to carry out their work on polling day. But the Government have abdicated their authority and a right will be taken away from the people of Northern Ireland who wish to exercise their vote.
  Some arguments may be used in the House concerning elections that are peculiar and special to Northern Ireland, such as local government elections and elections to the Stormont Assembly. But in overall United Kingdom elections there is absolutely no argument for changing the system for one part of the United Kingdom. It does not happen in elections to this House, but it happens in elections to the European Assembly. The old excuse was given that certain seats must be guaranteed to the minority. The old argument was trotted out that there would probably be proportional representation all over the United Kingdom, following a directive from Europe overriding the wishes of this sovereign Parliament. But that has not happened. The House has the sovereign right to decide what sort of electoral system should be used in the European elections. Why, then, should the House not say that the system used in the United Kingdom for election to the United Kingdom Parliament on a United Kingdom election day should also be in operation in Northern Ireland? What better way could the Government find of defeating Sinn Fein? If Northern Ireland were divided up, it would be impossible for a Sinn Fein candidate to get a seat anywhere in Northern Ireland.
  I go a step further. The Minister has said that the Government have declared themselves absolutely against Sinn Fein. Why should the House enact legislation which permits a spokesman of an outlawed organisation to stand in this election? Why does the House not go the whole way and tell the people that if they want the Armalite, the killings and the bombings, if they want to hold their Ard Feis in Dublin and bring a man in to address them, so that they can clap and cheer when a policeman is murdered by their murder gangs, they can have that but they shall not stand for election in Northern Ireland? Sinn Fein is only the IRA murderers in an election suit, and the sooner the House awakens to that fact, the better for us all.
  The Government have an opportunity to prove themselves. So far they have refused to do so, and the election will be held on the basis not of proportional representation—let us not bluff about that—but on the single transferable vote system, which differs from the other proportional representation systems, and will be different from any other part of the United Kingdom.
  724
  We will have the election, and the man who coined the phrase, "the Armalite in one hand, and the ballot in the other hand" — Danny Morrison, the opponent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) — will be in Northern Ireland. Into every home, free of charge, the candidate's election literature will go, advocating violence and paid for by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. Sinn Fein will be given a commission to carry its murder literature into every home in Northern Ireland.
  The House has it in its power to stop that. It could say that if people wish to be affiliated to or linked with a proscribed organisation, that is their business, but it is the business of the House to ensure that taxpayers' money is not spent to take that propaganda into every home in Northern Ireland. If there was a real determination to deal with the IRA, that is what the House would do.
  I cannot accept when the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State says that the key to the situation is that in the foreseeable future there will be no united Ireland. In my opinion, that is to lull the Unionist population asleep. Let them say, "All is well", and then behind that vow, that declaration, go on eroding the foundation and basis of our Unionist heritage. That is what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think.
  We heard tonight that we will have some name changes and a wonderful number of different names in Northern Ireland. They will all point the way to Dublin; the way to an all-Ireland settlement; and the way to the surrender of the principles of the Union. It is because of that that my colleagues and I will be voting against the regulations.
  12.20 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: We are all entitled to ask from our different standpoints precisely why the Government have brought before the House tonight a set of regulations for the Northern Ireland elections which are so radically different from those which they brought forward for elections in the rest of the United Kingdom just over a week ago.
  It is rather hard to press the task for explaining the matter on the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because in a previous existence he was known to advocate systems of proportional representation, not just for Northern Ireland but for the rest of the United Kingdom as well. That is to his credit. It is almost an accident that he finds himself having to make this defence. Hon. Members are right to look deeper to find the justification for it.
  I do not believe that I can share the explanation proffered by Unionists on both sides of the House, but it does not reside with the particular Under-Secretary who replies to the debate——
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Minister of State.
  Mr. Beith: —the Minister of State, who replies to the debate. If we look back at the debate which took place just over a week ago, it is surprising to reflect that there will go through the Lobbies later tonight, in support of a system of proportional representation for the European elections in Northern Ireland, at least some of those people who went through the opposite Division Lobby then to oppose a proportional representation system for the same elections in another part of the United Kingdom.
  I tried at that time to obtain some explanation, and perhaps we can go a little further tonight and do so. When

  725
  the orders for Great Britain were debated I put precisely the same question to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He said, speaking of me:
  "He is only too quick to condemn the system under which we have been content to run our elections for generations and which has survived successive Governments, and to embrace another system."
  In the face of that comment I asked the Under-Secretary:
  "Why, then, are the Government enforcing precisely the system that he criticises in Northern Ireland?"
  His reply was,
  "That is not a good point."
  I shall quote a little more of the reply to obtain its full intellectual depth:
  "If that is the full extent of the hon. Gentleman's reflections on Northern Ireland, it is as well that he is not the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland." — [Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1159.]
  For my sins I used to be. The phrase that I quoted is the full extent of the Under-Secretary's explanation as to why his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would, 10 days later, find himself defending precisely the opposite of that which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was advancing then. I hope that we obtain a better explanation from the Minister of State tonight.
  When one seeks explanations for why the Government are proposing proportional representation, they tend to come in a sinister variety. One presumes that the Government support, as I do, the operation of proportional representation in elections of many kinds in Northern Ireland in the belief that it is a way to ensure that the range of opinion present within that Province is represented in the bodies to which those elections are sending members, and that majority and minority opinion in the Province will be effectively represented thereby. But if that is so, why is that Province alone singled out for that particular treatment? Why is that privilege one that should be extended only to people in that Province and not to those taking part in the same election in other parts of the United Kingdom?
  The explanations that one might seek are worrying. Could it be that the presence of violence and of gunmen operating in the community in some way creates and strengthens the resolve to give representation to minorities in the community? It is a very extraordinary proposition for the Government to adopt, and a very strange message to give people in the rest of the United Kingdom, that if people feel that the electoral system does not represent them they should look at a province where there is violence, because that is the sort of place where electoral systems are changed. That is a very curious message to give.
  For a slighlty less dramatic but equally sinister explanation of the puzzle, one could look at the fact that there is something that distinguishes the European elections in Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is simply that neither the Conservative nor the Labour party will be standing in those elections, or exposing themselves to the system being used there. They may therefore be content to apply the system in the rest of the United Kingdom——
  Rev Ian Paisley: What about the Liberal party?
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should know very well that the Liberal party has stood at a great many elections
  726
  in Northern Ireland, and has a long record of taking part in them and of supporting the use of proportional representation there.
  It is difficult to see anything other than those rather sinister and worrying explanations for the Government's willingness to support a system in one part of the United Kingdom for one set of elections that they do not propose to use in the rest of the United Kingdom. The total failure of the Ministers responsible for the other end of this proposition—those in the Home Department—leaves the Minister of State with a very difficult task of explanation.
  I shall support the regulations tonight, because I believe that such a system should be used in Northern Ireland, but I shall find myself in the Division Lobby with some hon Members whose actions will be very difficult to explain. They will have gone through the Division Lobbies in one week to oppose the use of proportional representation and 10 days later they will be in the Lobby to support it, in exactly the same election, on the same day, for another part of the United Kingdom. If the Minister of State can explain that, he has a genius I have yet to witness.
  12.27 am
  Mr. John David Taylor: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has successfully exposed the humbug of those on the Government Benches in their attitude towards PR and the STV.
  I shall vote against the regulations, not simply because of the single transferable vote system which we are using but because we are using two systems within the United Kingdom. That is the principle that we are opposed to. We are opposed to the fact that a system which applies to Great Britain is not automatically applied to the whole of the United Kingdom when the whole of the United Kingdom is voting on one day to elect 81 members to the European Assembly. Of course, it is an Assembly and not a parliament, and that point must be underlined again and again. It is an Assembly wih no real Executive, no Opposition, no parliamentary structure, no Prime Minister and very little executive power. That is one of the weaknesses of assemblies and of the present limitation of the powers of our Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont.
  In our earlier debate, when we discussed proportional representation, we showed how it would help the Provisional Sinn Fein in the local elections in 1985. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, the STV was introduced into the last European elections to guarantee a seat for the minority. That was the political bias behind that decision. But once again that type of thinking is rebounding on the Government. It now appears that the minority will elect a member of the Provisional Sinn Fein to the European Assembly in this year's elections. It is now touch and go between the SDLP and the Provisional Sinn Fein as to who will represent the so-called minority. By that I mean the political, not the religious, minority. The Nationalist minority is now having a great contest between the SDLP and the Provisional Sinn Fein. Thus, yet again, the Government are embarking on a system of electoral rules for Northern Ireland that will assist the forward movement of the Provisional Sinn Fein party.
  The regulations will assist the Provisional Sinn Fein in a second way—by the increase in election expenses. It is strange that, although the same electoral system does not exist in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, automatically

  727
  the increase in election expenses is extended to Northern Ireland. The Minister gives inflation as his excuse and recommends that the allowable expenses for European candidates in Northern Ireland shall be increased from £25,000 to £43,000.
  Few political parties in Northern Ireland can find £43,000 to fight a European election. Certainly the Official Unionist party and the SDLP cannot find that money. Not enough plastic buckets exist in Northern Ireland for the DUP to find it, and the alliance parties certainly could not raise that money.
  Only one party could raise £43,000—the party which supports the raiding of banks and post offices. Once again I refer to the Provisional Sinn Fein. That is the one party which will take advantage of this monstrous increase in allowable election expenses. Once again the Government are aiding Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland elections.
  Polling day in Europe varies throughout the 10 European countries involved. In the Protestant reformed countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, polling day is on Thursday 14 June. In the Roman Catholic countries such as Italy and France, polling day is on Sunday 17 June. The law states that the count cannot take place until polling has taken place in all countries — after the close of polling stations on the Sunday evening.
  When will the count take place? According to the debate on the Great Britain regulations last week, the Government are not to state when the count will be but will leave it to the discretion of returning officers. The count could take place, therefore, on the Sunday evening. The Ulster Unionist party wants an assurance from the Government that the count in Northern Ireland will not commence on a Sunday.
  Another interesting item in the regulations applies only to Northern Ireland because of the strange electoral system. After polling is over, a verification of votes must take place before the count is begun. To save time, is it possible for verification to take place between the close of polling and the count, which I hope will commence on Monday 18 June? That would mean that Northern Ireland votes would be known more quickly and the other United Kingdom seats would not be announced many hours before we know the result of our first count. We have to have various counts because of the electoral system.
  Schedule 1 also refers to the limitation of broadcasting outside the United Kingdom. Radio stations, both legal and illegal, exist outside the United Kingdom. In Ireland Radio Telefis Eireann as well as illegal stations operate. If any of the Northern Ireland candidates participate in programmes put out by stations outside the United Kingdom, will they be infringing election broadcasting laws?
  12.34 am
  Mr. Peter Robinson: In many ways this debate follows naturally from the previous debate on the regulations, for the weakness in them is repeated in these regulations. Northern Ireland must again suffer the injustice of a different system of election from that of other parts of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who sits alone on the Liberal Bench, believes the different system to be a privilege for the people of
  728
  Northern Ireland, but the people believe otherwise. If he thinks that it is such a privilege, I hope that he will not leave it to some poor soul in the Liberal party in Northern Ireland, which represents only a handful of people and which gets only a couple of handfuls of votes but that he will come across to Northern Ireland as their champion, put his name forward for election, and reap the benefit of the privilege of what he calls proportional representation.
  We in Northern Ireland know that the purpose behind the system is a conditioning process so that we can be likened to the Republic of Ireland, which uses that system of election to the European Assembly. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) say that it is not a parliament; of course, it is not. Therefore, I hope that he will no longer call himself an MEP, but an MEA. The hon. Gentleman may think that the latter is similar to the noise made by a cat, but I hope that he will continue to declare that it is not a parliament and will go a step further by declaring that he hopes that it never becomes one.
  It was interesting to observe the dexterity of the Minister, who, only two hours ago, was able to argue in the debate on the Northern Ireland electoral areas commissioner that the result of proportional representation becomes so distorted with less than five seats that we should not have it. Now he says that we should have proportional representation for three seats. It is one thing to argue, from one week to the next, that one part of the United Kingdom should not have proportional representation but that another should, but if the Minister can argue, within two hours, the reverse of his previous argument we must give him credit for his acrobatics.
  When replying to the debate, will the Minister give us some guidance about the methods that can be employed under the statute whereby the present abuse of the franchise in Northern Ireland can be stemmed? Is he saying that a power can be employed by the police or the presiding officer whereby those who come to the polling booths must prove some identity? Is it possible to require voters to produce identity without primary legislation in the House? It has been known for many years that there has been electoral abuse in Northern Ireland. It did not occur only last week or when this legislation was drafted. It has continued for many years and was highlighted by the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election and each election since then. The Secretary of State and the Minister have been aware of the abuse of the electoral system in Northern Ireland. They have received representations from the political parties in Northern Ireland, but now the Minister tells us that he will not take action at this election.
  That fact reflects once again what we believe to be the underlying and sinister motive of the Minister in introducing this obnoxious system—to assist and prod on the Sinn Fein movement. Many people would accept that a preponderance of the votes cast for Sinn Fein were cast by those who died at least in the past five years, or by those who came to the polling station to discover that, while they were working, someone had cast their votes, or by those who did not go out to vote at all and who never discovered that someone had voted in their absence. Many votes are put into the ballot box by that method. If hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland visited the Province on election day to see Sinn Fein in action, their eyes would be opened and they would join Northern Ireland Members in demanding that that abuse of the

  729
  electoral system should be stopped. They should do that instead of coming up with lame excuses at midnight as to why this action has not been taken.
  In the previous debate, the Under-Secretary said that the modified list system would not be beneficial and showed that he did not understand the meaning of that system. The modified list system operates on single-Member constituencies. A number of such constituencies covering the whole of Northern Ireland elect Members on the same basis as the first-past-the-post system which operates for the United Kingdom Parliament. In addition there is what can most easily be described as a topping-up system, so that proportionality on the overall result can be gained through a list, thereby giving us the benefit of the individual constituency worker who is closely aligned to those he is representing and a manageable constituency rather than the multi-Member constituencies that the Under-Secretary is forcing us to have by a system of proportional representation.
  Some people, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, take to constituency work. Some do not so enthusiastically take to that task and can put their name on a list and leave themselves free for portfolio work or another job that they might do for their party in the body to which they are elected. There are advantages in the UUUC suggestion of a modified list.
  I do not believe that there is much enthusiasm among hon. Members to go into the Lobby to support the Under-Secretary. I suspect that if he had not been paired off that fateful day when others had to put their names on the voting list, the Under-Secretary would have voted in the same manner as many hon. Members will vote on this measure. Some hon. Members doubt whether the Under-Secretary supports the Prime Minister on this issue, but I hope, for his sake, that he supports her on at least some other issues.
  The issue of Sinn Fein has been raised. The Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary and the Government as a whole must soon make a decision on whether Sinn Fein can legitimately stand in elections while subscribing to the principle of the Armalite in one hand and the ballot paper in the other. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to condemn in the House Sinn Fein's policies and what Sinn Fein stands for and to say outside, as the Secretary of State has said, that its members are enemies of democracy. He is opening a democratic system for Sinn Fein to abuse while the Government have the power within their hands to stop Sinn Fein abusing the democratic system and let democracy work in Northern Ireland.
  I shall be in the Lobby voting against the regulations. I do not accept that the electoral system for Northern Ireland should differ from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not accept that there should be different regulations governing Northern Ireland elections than obtain elesewhere in the United Kingdom. The vote will give me the opportunity to vote against the principle of EEC membership. I shall vote against the Under-Secretary and for the principle propounded by the Prime Minister. I hope that those right hon. and hon. Members who support her, who believe that she is doing a great job for the country and hold her in high regard, will join us in the Lobby and vote for her policy.
  12.44 am
  Mr. David Harris: It is perhaps an irony of this debate that Members on both sides have spoken in
  730
  disparaging terms about the European Parliament but show considerable enthusiasm for standing in the elections on 14 June. Indeed, I believe that two Official Unionist Members went through quite a tussle to get their party's nomination and I have no doubt that the Democratic Unionist hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will put in a massive effort to retain a seat in the European Parliament which he apparently disparages so much.
  I intervene with some hesitation in a debate on a Northern Ireland matter. My purpose is to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for an explanation. I have always been fascinated and somewhat baffled by what would happen if there were a European Parliament by-election in Northern Ireland. I believe that this was touched on in the previous debate. Would it be held on the single transferable vote principle or on the first-past-the-post principle? That does not seem to be laid down in the regulations or in the primary legislation.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who spoke for the Liberal party, did not make out a great case for proportional representation for the European Parliament elections or make great claims for the merits of that system. I have served in the European Parliament for nearly five years. I am not seeking re-election, as I believe that one job is enough for anyone. I do not understand how Northern Ireland representatives can have not just dual, but a triple mandate—but they are different, of course.
  Mr. McCusker: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, why did he fight the general election last year?
  Mr. Harris: I do not think that anyone would have wanted a by-election in the Euro constituency of Cornwall and Plymouth, but I made it perfectly clear that if I was elected to this House I should not stand for re-election to the European Parliament.
  During my term in the European Parliament I have noticed some great abuses of the PR system. For example, Members are now sent—not returned—to the European Parliament from the Republic of Ireland without ever having submitted themselves to the electorate in a European election. They were not even on the list, yet they are nominated willy-nilly to serve in Strasbourg.
  An equally if not more scandalous abuse of PR is practised by the French Gaullists, who cynically set out to change their membership every year under a system known as the tourniquet. People actually stand, but they go on a rota. I hope that in advocating the merits of PR the Liberal party will address itself to the abuses. The case for PR is presented by the Liberals and the SDP as though it were a wonderfully fair system, whereas our first-past-the-post system is regarded as totally unfair. I hope that they will recognise that there are flaws in PR and that as practised by some countries it is the negation of democracy.
  Mr. Beith: I share the hon. Gentleman's criticism of some systems of PR, but may I take it that he therefore favours the STV system? Will he make it clear whether he intends to vote for that system when the Government seek at the end of this debate to enforce it in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Harris: I believe that for this round of European elections we shall be forced to go for PR. As for tonight's vote, unlike the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr.

  731
  Powell) I recognise the Government's problems. It is very difficult to change the system now. Indeed, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was less than fair in his concluding remarks. Of course the Government have the power to pass the necessary legislation, but boundary commissioners would then have to decide how three Euro-constituencies for Northern Ireland should be formed, and that takes time.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that there have been many months during which such legislation could have been brought forward, since it became evident that there would not be a common system throughout the EEC. As for a Boundary Commission, it is possible for the legislation which altered the position in the 1978 Act to prescribe a grouping of constituencies, as a grouping was prescribed originally for Great Britain in 1978.
  Mr. Harris: That is right. Nevertheless, there are statutory procedures, certainly for England, and already in England we have had two sets of proposals from the Boundary Commission for Euro constituencies for the election on 14 June. I do not believe that if the process were started now—or in a few weeks' time, or even in a few days' time — following the passing of special legislation, there would be enough time for Northern Ireland. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would be the first to complain that they were being pressurised in the framing of those constituencies—"framing" was a bad word to have used in this context; I should have referred to the drawing of constituencies — and that things were being rushed through. Some Opposition Members would probably wish to object to the constituencies that were being proposed.
  I accept the basic premise that it is wrong to have a different system. I should like to put ale clock back on this matter, but I appreciate the difficulties the Government are facing, the initial mistake having been made, and therefore, with the greatest reluctance, I shall support the Government tonight.
  12.52 am
  Rev. William McCrea: I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's speech in reply to the debate, so I shall not delay the House. I was delighted that, when speaking on this instrument, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) kept away from his usual "tell me the old, old story" type of Republican propaganda. I understand that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) does not attend the proceedings in this Chamber. It seems that he does not really need to do so because his views are adequately expressed from the Opposition Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith does himself a great disservice and insults, and continues to insult, the people of Ulster who have been injured, maimed and butchered by the merciless enemies of democracy and of the United Kingdom, not only in Northern Ireland but—as we have witnessed with the Harrods bombing and many others—in this part of the United Kingdom.
  It is an absolute disgrace that Her Majesty's Government should permit men who are but the political face of murderers to stand at this election. I had the great privilege of keeping from this House—from winning the
  732
  election for Mid-Ulster—the person whom Sinn Fein now will put up and send, if it can, to Europe. If anyone thinks that the electorate of, and the Roman Catholic community in, Northern Ireland will turn away dramatically from Sinn Fein in this election, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We have had the statements of the Sinn Fein cardinal giving his support to the Sinn Fein candidates and excusing people for voting for such people in the past election, and he was no doubt preparing the ground for the coming election in June.
  It is a disgrace that Her Majesty's Government, when they have it within their power to stop these men, who are but murderers in another guise, from standing at this election, have not been willing to take this tree by the roots and pull the roots out completely and stop these men from standing. I agree with my hon. Friends, and with the remarks from both sides of the Chamber, on proportional representation. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is the Liberal party's Northern Ireland spokesman. If the Liberal party and the SDP were really anxious about PR and truly believed in it, they would have taken a different approach to the allocation of places for the Select Committees. The Liberal party was willing to outdo its SDP partners in getting all the seats on the Select Committees. It was willing to give the people of Northern Ireland only two seats when it, with fewer Members, was willing to take six or eight seats. If the Liberals believe in PR, they should at least be consistent. However, they have shown no consistency. They have shown nothing but hypocrisy. I was delighted that they were shot down, brought to book and made to bow in submission to the continued objection of Northern Ireland Members. We now believe that we have obtained a fair share of the Select Committee seats.
  The Ulster people, the British subjects of Northern Ireland, have suffered so much from the enemies of this kingdom and it is a disgrace that they must suffer another insult tonight. They will have to take from the House, from Her Majesty's Government, the insult of being treated completely differently from the rest of the United Kingdom's citizens. We demand to be treated as equal citizens in this great kingdom. We demand our equal rights. That which is a proper system for voting in the European election in England, Scotland and Wales is appropriate, too, for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I shall join my colleagues in the Unionist camp in dividing the House on the regulations. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made an excellent contribution in drawing the attention of the House to speeches of the past and reminding certain right hon. and hon. Members of their previous stand. It will be most interesting to see how those Members will react tonight.
  Earlier in the day we had the agriculture debate and we have been debating Northern Ireland affairs since about ten o'clock. The greatest number of Members in the Chamber has been 22 and the total number of Members is 650. They have not been very interested. I wrote down the comment of one of the Members who voted in the previous Division. As he walked past he said, "No one seems the least bit interested in this today." I think that that sums up the whole story. It is an utter shame and the empty Benches on both sides of the House—most of the Opposition Benches are completely empty—are an insult to the important business of people of the United Kingdom, the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland.
  12.59 am
  Mr. Scott: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again.
  I shall reply briefly to some of the points made in the debate. I imagine that it must be virtually a unique occurrence in this Parliament that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) made his maiden speech on this sitting day, but spoke twice subsequently on the Floor of the House. I hope that he will not make a habit of speaking so frequently in the days to come. The speeches have all been of such a uniformly high quality, although we cannot agree with everything he said, that we all look forward to hearing him again.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised two or three points of interest. In particular, he took the Government to task for increasing, to compensate for inflation, the election expenses figure in line with that for the rest of Great Britain. Had we not done so, I suspect that we would have been taken to task by hon. Members for not increasing it in line with that for the rest of Great Britain. We wrote to all Northern Ireland parties last year, including the Ulster Unionist party, to ask, among other things, their views on the proposal that there should be an increase in the permitted election expenses as set out in the regulations, and mentioning the figures. We had no reply from the Official Unionist party.
  Mr. John David Taylor: It is impossible to reply until one knows what the electoral system will be. It is only now that we hear that we shall have an electoral system separate from that in Great Britain. If one accepts the principle of a separate electoral system, which is now being proposed, it follows logically that one must have a separate system for election expenses. That is why I am criticising the proposal. One is applying a system for election expenses for a first-past-the-post election to an election in Northern Ireland that will be by STV.
  Mr. Scott: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in reading the figures, imagined, despite the points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that we would have a different system for this election. If we had not made the increase the figures would have been out of kilter. Even if the point that the right hon. Gentleman made has any validity, surely some views could have been expressed on alternatives if it was felt that the increase would be as damaging as has been presented to the House today.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, at least it would be inappropriate for the count to start on a Sunday. He asked whether verification of the votes might start earlier so that the count could start on Monday. Those are matters for the chief electoral officer, but I shall make sure that his attention is drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's points. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not deal with foreign radio stations today. I shall write to him as soon as I can establish exactly what the legal position is.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) took me to task on several matters, first for suggesting that, whereas I argued in the previous debate that four members was the minimum number to provide proper proportionality, I was now arguing that three was adequate. It would be difficult to provide that we had five seats in Northern Ireland. Having three seats, and treating
  734
  Northern Ireland as a single constituency, will get a more proportional and a fairer result than three first-past-the-post contests.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), about the measure that we shall be able to take within the existing procedure to counter personation. We shall do all that we can within the existing procedures and in the closest possible consultation with the chief electoral officer and the Royal Ulster Constabulary——
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman should not be so hasty.
  We have also introduced within the regulations other matters that we can tighten up without primary legislation. However, to go further, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, would need primary legislation in the form of a Bill, to be carried through the House. We do not have the time to do that for the elections. I hope that we can count on the hon. Gentleman's support when we introduce it.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister of State for giving way. He said once again, "We shall do all that we can". What can the Minister do?
  Mr. Scott: By bringing together those responsible for the conduct and supervision of the elections, including the RUC, we shall be able to apply existing procedures with much more effectiveness than in the past. I should like to correct a misapprehension, unless others have heard news that I have not heard. I am an Under-Secretary, not a Minister of State.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How is it possible, without principal legislation, to withdraw the right to vote on removal whereas any other precautions and provisions cannot be taken without principal legislation?
  Mr. Scott: I am not a lawyer but am advised that the original order enables that change to be made and that the legislation on holidaymakers and similar provisions are not covered. I cannot say more than that or argue with it. I am advised that that is the legal position. We have these powers under existing orders.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Antrim, North raised the principle that, because there is an abuse in Northern Ireland, it is not appropriate to take special measures to deal with it but that those measures should be achieved by rigorous enforcement of existing law rather than by introducing special measures for one part of the United Kingdom. I accept that, in many ways, that is an unsatisfactory method of dealing with the problem. The Government have been faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils.
  Because of the high level of abuse, right hon. and hon. Members will know that the Government have received representations from every constitutional party in Northern Ireland about it. Unless we take special measures, there is a grave risk that we shall undermine the fundamental democratic process in the Province. I do not believe that the removal of an absent vote on the grounds of change of address will disfranchise many voters, if any, but if we allow the process of electoral abuse to continue an increasing number of voters will be disfranchised at Northern Ireland general elections. Hon. Members raise the wider issue of holidaymakers but, fortunately, that is not a matter for discussion today.

  735
  I shall now deal, I cannot say with a great deal of relish, with the main burden of what the right hon. Member for Down, South said. The Government have no intention to reintroduce a Bill to provide for a different system of elections in Northern Ireland for the European Assembly. I understand the Unionist stance. It remains the Government's view that, given the different nature of Northern Ireland's political society and its party system as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, there is a strong case for an electoral system in Northern Ireland for the European Assembly which is likely to lead to the election of three MEPs who represent the great majority of voters. The principle that Northern Ireland's three representatives should be elected by STV was established in 1978 when Parliament passed the European —[Interruption.] Not against my vote. Members of the present Government voted in each Lobby on those occasions. We did not make a commitment but there was a strong feeling that there should be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom. There are three reasons. The first was the belief, which was widely held at the time, that there would be a uniform system of elections throughout the EC by the time of the 1984 elections. Secondly, those votes were, in the terminology of the House—we know that all votes are free—free votes. That is why I would not have needed to have been paired on that occasion. There was no Whip. That is why members of the Conservative party could be found in each Lobby on that occasion.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is confusing Divisions on the principle of proportional representation with the Division of 2 February 1978 on the differentiation between the system in Northern Ireland and the system in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think he will find that that was a Division on a decision of the shadow Cabinet and that right hon. and hon. Members were whipped to follow the lead of the leader of the party and the shadow Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will find that he is mistaken.
  Mr. Scott: If I am, I apologise to the House, and I confess that I have been looking at an earlier Division list rather than the one mentioned by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I will establish whether, on a matter of that sort, a party Whip was imposed, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman if I have inadvertently misled the House, which I certainly would not wish to do.
  What is clear to those who read back on the history is that, whatever was said from the Opposition Bench when the Conservative party was in opposition, since we came into office, there have been repeated exchanges of corespondence between those in the Home Office who are responsible for these matters and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and those undertakings that were given to him were merely to re-consider the position. No undertaking has ever been given to him in that correspondence since the Conservative party took office that we would change the system to ensure that Northern Ireland followed the same system that——
  It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—
  The House divided:Ayes, 93, Noes 13.

  Division No. 154]

  [1.10 am

  AYES

  Ashby, David

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Beith, A. J.

  Merchant, Piers

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Brinton, Tim

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Conway, Derek

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Cope, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Neubert, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Newton, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Normanton, Tom

  Fox, Marcus

  Norris, Steven

  Freeman, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Powley, John

  Galley, Roy

  Raffan, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Gregory, Conal

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ground, Patrick

  Ryder, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Scott, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Harvey, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Speller, Tony

  Hayes, J.

  Spencer, D.

  Hayward, Robert

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Holt, Richard

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

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

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sumberg, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Key, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Walden, George

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Waller, Gary

  Lang, Ian

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Lightbown, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Lilley, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Yeo, Tim

  Maclean, David John.

  Major, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mr. Donald Thompson and

  Maples, John

  Mr. David Hunt.

  Mather, Carol

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  McCusker, Harold

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Nicholson, J.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. William Ross and

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (European Assembly Elections)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      CONSUMER PROTECTION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
      Question agreed to.

      COMPANIES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 79 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Companies Acts (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.— [Mr. Boscawen.]
      Question agreed to.

    AGRICULTURE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Robin Corbett be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Dr. Gavin Strang be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    HOME AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Robin Corbett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Geoffrey Robinson be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Doug Hoyle be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Community Programme
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  1.21 am
  Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the community programme. On 19 December 1983, having drawn fourteenth place in the ballot on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I spoke in a debate on charities and mentioned the cuts in the community programme.
  The history and background of the change from community enterprise programme to community programme is well known to those of us who have been, and still are, involved in the functioning and mangement of such schemes. I have been the chairman of a scheme named CATO — community and training in Ogwr. Together with a management board of volunteers, and as a registered charity, we embarked on the sole task of establishing jobs within the area—an area that had been ravaged by the first months of a new Tory Government. I need do no more than tell the Minister that Ogwr falls in the catchment area of Port Talbot, where the British Steel Corporation's demanning in 1970–80 meant the loss of 12,000 jobs and an incalculable spin-off as supporting industries shed labour on a substantial scale. Virtually overnight, unemployment shot up from 3·5 per cent. to 10 per cent. and then to 13 per cent. It is now 17 per cent. and in some areas of my constituency, where pits such as Caerau and Coegnant in Maesteg have closed, it stands at 25 to 30 per cent. There is no need to wonder why some of us grab the only straw on offer—that of establishing jobs within the community programme and all the other schemes.
  There are few schemes that can match the staff of CATO and its devotion to the purpose of finding useful, productive community projects. There are numerous organisations, from chapels and churches, boys' clubs and welfare halls, that would testify to those achievements. The executive officer, Mr. David Evans, who has worked hard and long, will also testify to the staff's devotion, and he has always had the full co-operation of the officers of the Manpower Services Commission in Pontypridd and Sheffield.
  Why was CATO's application for 342 places refused? Why, subsequently, was the 1984 scheme reduced by a further 64 places from the present 264 to 200? Where did those 64 places go? To the Ogwr area, that blow was equivalent to the closing of a factory, and it was announced at the same time as the Wyndham Western colliery in Nantymoel received the MacGregor hatchet. That was one of my first reasons for tabling early-day motion 331 on cuts in the community programme. The early-day motion was supported by 55 hon. Members. There are also amendments signed by 24 hon. Members. Considerable interest has been shown in the early-day motion and the subject of cuts in the community programme.
  I know that for the 10 or 15 minutes after I resume my seat we shall hear the same excuses and statistics as we have received in parliamentary answers—that 130,000 jobs will be filled in 1984 and that a further £10 million and £15 million will ensure that they are available; and that funding will be made available so that they can continue for a further two years, and so on. We have heard all that

  739
  before. I have enough answers from the Secretary of State for Employment to keep the House up all night. The Minister and I have to suffer the lot of staying up most of the night to debate this subject.
  I should like a response from the Minister telling me about some positive action to be taken to create jobs. I shall, no doubt, receive statistics and a repetition of what we already know. I shall give some statistics on unemployment that should be recorded.
  The unemployment unit, in a report prepared by Adrian Sinfield, states that the real total of unemployed is over 4 million, one third more than official statistics reveal. Mr. Sinfield claims that 356,000 people were removed from the lists from October 1982 because they did not or could not claim benefit. He says:
  "The extent of misery and hardship caused by unemployment and the Government's failure to remedy the situation are being disguised by statistical manipulation."
  When the Government took office, there was an average of 5 per cent. unemployment. It has now rocketed to 16 per cent. One in eight are on the dole. In London it was only 3·4 per cent. Now it is 10 per cent., the highest figure since records began some 30 years ago. Even with the manipulated and doctored figures to which I have referred, there are 400,000 people unemployed in London. We read of 12,500 people trying for 60 vacancies at Birmingham's new £60 million airport terminal, and of the 500 women seeking 50 part-time jobs in the market town of Sudbury when the jobs are only for three weeks at £50 a week.
  The CBI claims that only 7,000 jobs a month will be lost in the coming quarter compared with 11,000 a year ago and 50,000 a couple of years ago. It does not mean that the patient is getting better; he is sinking more slowly. We hear every week of the deaths of patients due to the lack of funds to employ nurses. We hear this from the Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester to the Heath hospital in Cardiff, and yet thousands of doctors and nurses are on the dole.
  Some of the reasons for the unemployment are to be found in the decline in the United Kingdom's trade in manufactured goods, which created in 1983 a deficit of over £5 billion, the first such deficit in 200 years. That is the result of this Government's economic policies. But they are only part of the reason for the massive unemployment the like of which this country has not seen for 200 years.
  I have no wish to refer only to my area or my community programme scheme. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the cutbacks in their areas. Early-day motion 377 refers to yet another vast area that has received cuts. If, as the Minister will probably try to prove, there have not been any cutbacks, will he tell me where 64 places in CATO have landed up? Why have we not reached the target in Wales? They must have been allocated outside Wales. Will the Minister say why 130,000 places were not reached in 1983? Whose fault was it? Was it that of the Manpower Services Commission for being enthusiastic, or that of the organisers of the scheme for working flat out to provide the jobs that the Government's economic policies have taken away by the thousands? Was it the fault of the Treasury for underestimating the cost, or that of the Cabinet Ministers for not respecting their proper
  740
  responsibilities at the time? Perhaps they were paying attention to matters of a more personal nature, or concentrating on trade union bashing instead of job creation. Let us have the facts.
  For example, 134 more jobs could be available for my constituents if the scheme submitted had been accepted. But it is dreadful to lose 64 jobs from the number that we had in 1983 and then to hear the Minister boasting about the scheme as if it was a lifeline for those out of work for over and above 52 weeks. Last week, the January unemployment figures published by the Government—the ones that are manipulated and doctored—stated that there had been a 120,000 increase in the number of unemployed in one month. Does not the Minister realise or understand the significance of those figures? Despite all the effort, expense, administration and parliamentary work of creating 130,000 jobs through the Minister's community programme, overnight, in one month, we find, when the unemployment figures are announced, that they have been lost.
  What a desperate situation the Government are in. Banana skins abound and no one knows who will be next to take a skid. Will it be the Foreign Secretary, or could it be the Minister, or the Tory party chairman? I noticed the Minister's eyes light up just then. Perhaps he was thinking of the promotion for loyal and trusty servants. However, the Minister referred to Dickens' great work when he likened one hon. Member to Oliver Twist—"Please Sir, I want some more." The Minister said:
  "That is the constant theme of those who stand on the sidelines."—[Official Report, 10 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 441.]
  I suggest that the Minister should continue his reading of that great work. He will find that Oliver was one of the first trainees on a predecessor of the youth training scheme. He will recall that the child, desperate with hunger, reckless with misery, advanced from the table where he had one porringer of gruel to the master basin and, spoon in hand, said:
  "'Please sir, I want some more."
  There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.
  "For more," said Mr. Limbkins. "Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more after he had eaten a supper allotted by the dietary?" "He did, sir," replied Bumble.… Oliver was ordered into instant confinement; and a bill was next morning posted on the outside of the gate, offering a reward of five pounds to anybody who could take Oliver Twist off the hands of the parish."
  That is an extract from chapter 2 of "Oliver Twist".
  I have no intention of seeing people return to those Victorian values. Where does the Minister stand on the sidelines? What positive action is he demanding to improve the lot of the present-day Olivers? Has the Minister read the report published in the November bulletin of the unemployment unit which says that men out of work for more than a year are 18 times more likely to commit suicide than men with jobs? It states that there is grave cause for alarm. It also says that already 35 per cent. of unemployed males have been out of work for more than a year. It predicts that the figure will climb to 40 per cent. in the next two years.
  Mr. Stephen Platt of the medical research council for the study of psychiatry at the Royal Edinburgh hospital calls for urgent Government action to reduce unemployment. Is the Minister aware that one in three of the unemployed have been without work for more than a year? That is well over one million people.

  741
  Did the Minister read about the young man from Liverpool who killed himself because he could not get a job? His story was reported in a Daily Mirror front page article which said that 23-year-old Gary Keeley left his mother a note asking her to forgive him for his selfish action, telling her that he had lost his fight to live, with his pride eroded for the past two years. What sort of society is this that places young people in such agony, misery and degradation that pride and self-determination are denied them? The Prime Minister's son can fail his accountancy examination and because his name is Mark Thatcher he can clinch a deal in Oman — with his mother around—for £3 million. What is the future for young men when one million people have been out of work for one year, some for two years, some for three or even four years? What future for them when jobs worth £60 a week are cut from schemes within the community programme? It is a national disgrace. It is a bleak world for those living in the misery of a Tory Britain.
  The Policy Studies Institute states that even skilled workers cannot get unskilled jobs. About 30 per cent. of families have another member who is jobless, 56 per cent. of people live in below-standard housing and 85 per cent. depend on supplementary benefit to maintain the minimum decencies of life.
  Government Members should try living on £26·80 on the dole—one of them has just found out what it is like. Then they might stop pretending that the unemployed do not want to find a job and they might start thinking positively about how to provide jobs.
  I have a message for the Minister. People out of work need a message of hope. They want the positive creation of jobs — real jobs — to restore their dignity. We in Wales have suffered for more than a century. We are asking for basic rights within a democracy. We want the right to work for a reasonable wage, for a bowl of soup —and for another if we are hungry.
  The Minister's responsibility is to ensure more jobs and more funding for his community programme if the demand is there. We want more job creation schemes. We have the skilled work force. We have an abundance of bricklayers, plasterers, plumbers, carpenters, painters and electricians who are wasting away on the dole. The Government's responsibility is to provide jobs for them, not to demoralise the workers and people and to condemn them to a life in which death offers them the only relief possible under the present Administration.
  1.39 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am pleased that at last we are able to discuss this important matter. I remember all too well the night in December when we did not manage to hit it off and when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) raised the subject of the community programme in relation to his constituents.
  The hon. Member was kind enough to say that I had quoted Oliver Twist saying, "Please sir, I want some more." The hon. Gentleman did not understand what I was saying. I was trying to explain that those words do not work in a genuine market economy. They do not work, because one must ask where the "more" comes from.
  In his concluding remarks the hon. Gentleman said that the Government have an obligation to provide jobs. The Government cannot, as such, provide jobs. However, they can provide a structure in which jobs can be created. As
  742
  the hon. Gentleman will know, jobs are created only when a product or a service is provided at a cost or of a quality which he, I and other people wish to buy.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out—I understand it—the difficulties facing his constituents in the transition from the traditional industries, such as steel and coal, to the new industries in his part of Wales. They are difficulties because moving from old to new industries is bound to be a painful process, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman—perhaps it was only rhetoric on his part—that I do not take kindly to his expectation of my using what he chose to describe as the usual excuses for the community programme. He referred to what he described, in terms of the unemployment figures, as statistical disinformation. If he wishes to do that, he should substantiate his case more carefully.
  Is the hon. Gentleman aware that each day of the week, 365 days a year, 20,000 people find a job? Is he further aware that in manufacturing industry 1,000 jobs are created each day of the week? Is he further aware that last week the CBI, having consulted many of its member firms, came to the conclusion that the prospects for the future are good? Investment and output are up, and orders are the best for five years. I hope that he understands that, in terms of the major economic strategy being followed by the Government, that must be good news for the immediate and long-term future.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman has a strong personal interest in the community programme. We have corresponded and discussed the matter at intervals, and I am extremely grateful for his interest in it. As I hope he knows, the community programme is an important part of the Government's strategy to help back into the world of work those who have been unemployed for a long time. Our total package costs about £2 billion, and at present 660,000 are involved in the programmes. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government are not discarding those who are bridging the difficulties between the old and traditional industries and the new industries. Far from it; we are doing everything that we can to help them.
  The community programme was announced in March 1982 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a successor to the community enterprise programme. It provides full and part-time jobs, as opposed to only full-time jobs under the community enterprise programme. It began to get going in October 1982 and, compared with the community enterprise programme, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, had 30,000 places, the community programme has a target of 130,000 places. By the end of December 1983, of those 130,000 places 116,000 had been filled.
  We had a faster take-up and expansion from the 30,000 community enterprise places than we had anticipated. Of the 116,000 filled places, a little more than 39,000 were full-time, and a little more than 76,000 were part-time. I am happy to say that all those places have been filled without difficulty. Contrary to what some had said at the outset of the programme, part-time places were acceptable.
  However one looks at them, the economic resources—the taxpayers' funds—that have been committed to the programme are substantial. In 1983–84 they amount to £403 million and in 1984–85 to about £570 million. I hope

  743
  the hon. Gentleman understands that the Government have a major commitment to the long-term unemployed in terms of the amount of money being set aside.
  The programme sponsors, to which I should like to pay tribute, are the local authorities, which are sponsoring about 47 per cent., and the voluntary organisations, which are sponsoring about 40 per cent. For an application to be successful the sponsor must come forward with work done on behalf of and for the benefit of the community, not work done in the normal course of events. We do not want —I use the jargon—to have substitution.
  The eligible participants in the programme are those who are 25 and above and have been unemployed for more than 12 out of the previous 15 months and, in the 18 to 24 age group, those who have been unemployed for six out of the previous nine months. The programme rightly benefits, on the margin, the younger age group—the 18 to 24-year-olds. In fact, 54 per cent. of the entrants into the programme are in the 18 to 24 age group.
  Last November we announced that the programme would be extended to October 1986 and that the target of 130,000 filled places would be retained. Despite the announcement then of an additional £10 million being allocated to the programme, we had to put a freeze on it because of the speed with which the programme had advanced. A freeze, of course, is followed by a thaw and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, on 10 January we were able to lift the moratorium by making available a further £15 million. The original target of 130,000 filled places can thus be reached by the spring of this year.
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have to plan the programme on a nationwide basis. It is therefore
  744
  important that allocations are allotted to regions according to the number of long-term unemployed. To achieve the correct balance, there may have to be some revision or rejigging to ensure that the programme is in the right context in the right areas.
  The hon. Gentleman understandably spoke of his commitment to CATO, which has been a community programme agent since January last year. That programme has 264 filled places at present. I believe that there are two other schemes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—one sponsored by Ogwr borough council, with 65 approved and filled places, and another sponsored by the Bettws boys club with 12 approved and filled places.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the three programmes together represent 16 per cent. of the mid-Glamorgan filled place target figure. He will understand that not only in Wales and in the United Kingdom but in his constituency competition for places is intense. As I have said to him both in conversation and in letters, I appreciate that in September last year CATO was considering an expansion from 264 to 342 places, but I hope he will agree that that proposal was never approved.
  The question which the hon. Gentleman has posed is whether there should be a reduction in the number of places in the light of competing bids. I can tell him that I am even now considering how best to proceed on this point——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nine minutes to Two o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Audit Commission
  Audit Commission
  Judges (Masonic Bodies)
  Judges (Masonic Bodies)
  Steventon Stagg Inquiry
  Steventon Stagg Inquiry
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Police Officers (Masonic Lodges)
  Police Officers (Masonic Lodges)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Concessionary Television Licences
  Medical Records (Confidentiality)
  Medical Records (Confidentiality)
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Youth Custody
  Youth Custody
  Police Authorities
  Police Authorities
  Chief Constable of Humberside
  Chief Constable of Humberside
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  ompanies Register (Files)
  ompanies Register (Files)
  Companies (Annual Returns)
  Companies (Annual Returns)
  Company Registrations
  Company Registrations
  Industry (Educational Requirements)
  Industry (Educational Requirements)
  Higher Education (Advisory Board)
  Higher Education (Advisory Board)
  Investor Protection (Gower Report)
  Investor Protection (Gower Report)
  Company Statistics
  Company Statistics
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Oftel (Director General)
  Oftel (Director General)
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Companies (Accounts)
  Companies (Accounts)
  Messenger Group (Accounts)
  Messenger Group (Accounts)
  Companies House (Staff)
  Companies House (Staff)
  Footwear (United States Exports)
  Footwear (United States Exports)
  Nissan Motor Company
  Nissan Motor Company
  British Technology Group (Regional Boards)
  British Technology Group (Regional Boards)
PRIME MINISTER
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  European Community Budget (UK Contributions)
  European Community Budget (UK Contributions)
  Confidential Material
  Confidential Material
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Civil Servants (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Civil Servants (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Counter-Intelligence Operations (Publication)
  Counter-Intelligence Operations (Publication)
  Local Government
  Local Government
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Open University
  Open University
  School Equipment (Lead Content)
  School Equipment (Lead Content)
  Textbooks
  Textbooks
  Socially Deprived Areas
  Socially Deprived Areas
  Science Teachers
  Science Teachers
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Pupils (Teaching Costs)
  Pupils (Teaching Costs)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Departmental Powers
  Departmental Powers
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Hoteliers
  Hoteliers
  Pound Sterling
  Pound Sterling
  Productivity and Exports (Incentives)
  Productivity and Exports (Incentives)
  Value Added Tax (Agents' Commissions)
  Value Added Tax (Agents' Commissions)
  Cable Television
  Cable Television
  Unpaid Taxes
  Unpaid Taxes
  Fraud Investigation
  Fraud Investigation
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Freeports
  Freeports
  Age Allowance
  Age Allowance
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  EEC (Rebate)
  EEC (Rebate)
  Tax Return
  Tax Return
  Moonlighting
  Moonlighting
  Pay-as-you-earn and National Insurance
  Pay-as-you-earn and National Insurance
  Schedule E Taxation
  Schedule E Taxation
  London Dressmakers and Allied Contractors' Association
  London Dressmakers and Allied Contractors' Association
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Benefits (Taxation)
  Family Income
  Family Income
  EEC (Rebates)
  EEC (Rebates)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  London Regional Transport Bill
  London Regional Transport Bill
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  Express Coachway
  Express Coachway
  Heathrow Airport
  Heathrow Airport
  British Rail (Flexible Rostering)
  British Rail (Flexible Rostering)
  Motorway Signs
  Motorway Signs
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Severn Crossing
  Severn Crossing
  London Transport (Fares)
  London Transport (Fares)
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  British Rail (Mileage)
  British Rail (Mileage)
  A329(M)
  A329(M)
  Air Ambulance Operators
  Air Ambulance Operators
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  Advertising Campaigns
  Advertising Campaigns
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Heavy Lorries (London)
  Heavy Lorries (London)
  British Rail (Property Disposal)
  British Rail (Property Disposal)
  Principal Roads
  Principal Roads
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  BR (Passenger Services)
  BR (Passenger Services)
  Rail Electrification
  Rail Electrification
  Rural Areas (Bus Services)
  Rural Areas (Bus Services)
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  "Transport Services"
  "Transport Services"
  BR (Line Closures)
  BR (Line Closures)
  Lorries (Overloading)
  Lorries (Overloading)
  BR (Stations)
  BR (Stations)
  Vehicle Registration Marks
  Vehicle Registration Marks
  Motor Cars (Dim-dip Regulations)
  Motor Cars (Dim-dip Regulations)
  National Air Traffic Services
  National Air Traffic Services
  Air Transport (Europe)
  Air Transport (Europe)
  A65 (Addingham Bypass)
  A65 (Addingham Bypass)
  M11 (Loughton)
  M11 (Loughton)
  A20 (Improvement)
  A20 (Improvement)
  Sealink UK Ltd.
  Sealink UK Ltd.
  Kaptan Beksak
  Kaptan Beksak
  Dangerous Goods (Accidental Deaths)
  Dangerous Goods (Accidental Deaths)
  Dangerous Goods (Regulations)
  Dangerous Goods (Regulations)
  Windsor Link Scheme
  Windsor Link Scheme
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Roads
  Roads
  Brooks and Williams Ltd.
  Brooks and Williams Ltd.
  Weedkiller (North Sea)
  Weedkiller (North Sea)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  National Emergency (Appointments)
  National Emergency (Appointments)
  Hill Farm Subsidy
  Hill Farm Subsidy
  Land Settlements
  Land Settlements
  Food Industry
  Food Industry
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Agricultural Derating
  Agricultural Derating
  Milk
  Milk
  Agricultural Statistics
  Agricultural Statistics
  Agricultural Production
  Agricultural Production
  Crop Acreages
  Crop Acreages
  Weedkiller (North Sea)
  Weedkiller (North Sea)
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Agricultural Undertakings (Property Taxes)
  Agricultural Undertakings (Property Taxes)
ENERGY
  Electricity (Export-Import)
  Electricity (Export-Import)
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  South Devon Fuel Surgeries
  South Devon Fuel Surgeries
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Energy Efficiency (Advisers)
  Energy Efficiency (Advisers)
  South Africa (North Sea Oil Exports)
  South Africa (North Sea Oil Exports)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing
  Housing
  Empty Properties
  Empty Properties
  Rates
  Rates
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Asbestos Cement Water Mains
  Asbestos Cement Water Mains
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Nuclear Material (Accidental Discharge)
  Nuclear Material (Accidental Discharge)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Benefit Scheme (Lambeth)
  Housing Benefit Scheme (Lambeth)
  Palace of Westminster (Clocks)
  Palace of Westminster (Clocks)
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Charities
  Charities
  Rate Equalisation Scheme
  Rate Equalisation Scheme
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Shire Counties
  Shire Counties
  Clayton Square, Liverpool
  Clayton Square, Liverpool
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Village Shopkeepers
  Village Shopkeepers
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Block Grant
  Block Grant
DEFENCE
  Quality Assurance Directorates
  Quality Assurance Directorates
  Falklands Airport
  Falklands Airport
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Neko 140 Corvette
  Neko 140 Corvette
  Trident
  Trident
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  United States Communications Centre, Menwith Hill
  United States Communications Centre, Menwith Hill
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
THE ARTS
  Sponsorship
  Sponsorship
  Army Printing Survey Service
  Army Printing Survey Service
  CS Gas (Animal Experiments)
  CS Gas (Animal Experiments)
WALES
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Caravan Sites Act
  Caravan Sites Act
  Welsh Housing Association Council
  Welsh Housing Association Council
  Agriculture and Food Research
  Agriculture and Food Research
  Rates
  Rates
  Training (Resources)
  Training (Resources)
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Right to Buy (Discount)
  Right to Buy (Discount)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Social Security Fraud
  Social Security Fraud
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Schools (Denominational Proportions)
  Schools (Denominational Proportions)
  Remedial Teaching
  Remedial Teaching
  Irish Music (Teaching)
  Irish Music (Teaching)
  Ulster Museum
  Ulster Museum
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Western Education and Library Board
  Western Education and Library Board
  Housing Repair Grants
  Housing Repair Grants
  Prison Service
  Prison Service
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Her Majesty's Prison, Maze
  Her Majesty's Prison, Maze
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Straits of Hormuz
  Straits of Hormuz
  Outer Space Treaty
  Outer Space Treaty
  Esprit Research and Development Programme
  Esprit Research and Development Programme
  USSR (Visit)
  USSR (Visit)
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  GCHQ, Cheltenham
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Civil Servants (Trade Union Membership)
  Civil Servants (Trade Union Membership)
EMPLOYMENT
  Independent Motor Trade Wholesalers
  Independent Motor Trade Wholesalers
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Community Programme Schemes
  Community Programme Schemes
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Unemployed Persons (Interview Costs)
  Unemployed Persons (Interview Costs)
  Rochdale
  Rochdale
  South Devon Fuel Surgeries
  South Devon Fuel Surgeries
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
SCOTLAND
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Conveyancing
  Conveyancing
  Central Regional Council (Director of Architecture)
  Central Regional Council (Director of Architecture)
  Cumbernauld (Employment)
  Cumbernauld (Employment)
  New Town Development Corporations (Chairmen)
  New Town Development Corporations (Chairmen)
  Local Authority Officers (Legal Expenses)
  Local Authority Officers (Legal Expenses)
  Pharmacists (Payments)
  Pharmacists (Payments)
  Bridge of Allan (Flooding)
  Bridge of Allan (Flooding)
  Grampian Region (Weather Conditions)
  Grampian Region (Weather Conditions)
  Electricity Disconnections
  Electricity Disconnections
  Highland Health Board
  Highland Health Board
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  India Welfare Society
  India Welfare Society
  Health Strategy (Oxford)
  Health Strategy (Oxford)
  Weather
  Weather
  Specialist Claims Unit
  Specialist Claims Unit
  Homoeopathic Medicine
  Homoeopathic Medicine
  Newcastle upon Tyne (Demography)
  Newcastle upon Tyne (Demography)
  Operations (Waiting Lists)
  Operations (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. M. V. Reynolds
  Mr. M. V. Reynolds
  Young Unemployed
  Young Unemployed
  Voluntary Unemployment Deduction
  Voluntary Unemployment Deduction
  Cardiologists
  Cardiologists
  Coronary Bypass Graftings
  Coronary Bypass Graftings
  Supplementary Pension
  Supplementary Pension
  Non-dependent Deductions
  Non-dependent Deductions
  Fuel Benefits
  Fuel Benefits
  Doctors' Deputising Services
  Doctors' Deputising Services
  Chest Patients (Wythenshawe Hospital)
  Chest Patients (Wythenshawe Hospital)
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Sex Monitoring
  Sex Monitoring
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Health Authorities (Use of Buildings)
  Health Authorities (Use of Buildings)
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Services (Local Authority Charges)
  Services (Local Authority Charges)
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Family Expenditure Survey
  Nurses
  Nurses

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

London Docklands: Transport
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in connection with the development of the area covered by the London Docklands Development Corporation, the Government are prepared to authorise the operation of an independent light rapid transport system operated by private enterprise.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government will want any proposals for private participation in rapid transport systems in the docklands to be carefully evaluated on their merits. I regret I cannot be more definite than that in the absence of specific proposals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately encouraging reply. Am I right in assuming that it means that the Government do not rule out both an essay in privatisation and the experimental development of one or other of the modern methods of rapid urban transport which are now being developed in other cities of the world?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend is right in both his assumptions.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the last report of London Transport emphasised that, in October 1982, the Government had approved a proposal for light railway in docklands to be financed jointly by the London Docklands Development Corporation and the GLC? Is that not an excellent example of public enterprise? Moreover, as it is to link up with the ordinary Underground system, is not the matter best left there?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This is a joint development between the LDDC and the GLC through their agents London Transport. At the moment there is no question of its being left or removed. That is the position. But the scheme will not come into use before 1987, and there is much preparatory work yet to be done.

NHS General Practitioners: Training and Employment
2.39 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the numbers of students in training
880
for future employment as general practitioners within the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there are very many young doctors who, when they finish their pre-registration course, are not able to get full employment as medical practitioners because of the shortage of posts? This is causing grave anxiety among the members of the BMA and, indeed, among many people who are interested in the National Health Service having enough doctors at all times. Is the Minister able to comment on that and give us an assurance that something will be done to prevent young British doctors being put on the dole by the activities of this Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are not aware of any significant unemployment among general practitioners. The evidence available to us is that unemployment among doctors in general is largely frictional and concentrated on junior doctors in the South-East, where competition for hospital jobs is most intense. As in other areas of medical employment, openings may not be readily available where the doctor may prefer to live, but that does not mean that openings are not available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the Question refers to general practitioners and does not differentiate between general medical practitioners and general dental practitioners, can my noble friend explain why he answered only in respect of doctors? Is he aware of the great shortage of work for general dental practitioners at the moment which may eventually involve early retirement and which is certainly involving cut-hacks in training? There is an over-supply of general dental practitioners in training: is there also an over-supply of general medical practitioners?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend any facts so far as general dental practitioners are concerned. I think that in my answer to Lord Molloy's supplementary question I referred to unemployment among general practitioners, and not just doctors.
Lord Ennals: My Lord, would the noble Minister not agree that, on average, medical general practitioners have lists which are too large and that the trend should continue towards smaller, shorter lists in order that GPs may better fulfil their functions, particularly in large conurbations? Is he aware that, while there is a small but steady increase in the number of doctors undertaking the three-year vocational training course, as my noble friend Lord Molloy has said, there is now an increasing number who are failing to get into practice and who are unemployed? If the noble Lord does not have that information, perhaps he could get it from the Royal College of Medical Practitioners who would confirm it. Can the noble Lord's right honourable friend take some action, perhaps, to encourage general

881
practitioners who are of a great age to retire earlier in order to give some of these young doctors an opportunity of getting into practice?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when I answered my noble friend Lady Gardner I referred to the figures for dentists, which are, I think, slightly different. But the rate of growth in the number of family doctors in general practice has doubled in recent years and is now running at about 2 per cent. per annum, and the overall average patient list size continues to fall. At 1st October 1982 there were 22,786 what are technically called "unrestricted principals"—that is to say, family doctors—working in England, and the overall average patient list size was 2,155. The noble Lord also asked about early retirement. As regards that matter, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is awaiting the outcome of some research which is being undertaken at present.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, on the question of pre-registration posts, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that last November grave anxiety was expressed on this by the Joint Consultants' Committee, and that the then chief medical officer gave an assurance that this situation would not happen again? Already this month—and there are not many days in it—the new chief medical officer has had to apologise and explain that nothing much has been done. If we ultimately have a situation in which even only 10 doctors cannot get jobs after they have qualified at a cost of £1 million to the nation, surely the Government must take this very seriously.
Lord Glenarthur: Of course, my Lords, the Government take seriously the employment of doctors; but, as I tried to indicate to the noble Lord, there is not the evidence to suggest that vast numbers of doctors are unemployed. It is a local matter, and is one that is generally considered to be frictional. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, accepted that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend assure me that, when the Secretary of State looks at the matter of early retirement for medical practitioners, he will also look at this same matter in relation to dental, optical, pharmaceutical, and all general practitioners who come under the General Practitioner Scheme?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's views to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say to what extent it is true that some areas of the country are far more attractive to medical practitioners than others, and that there is a problem in certain areas? Can he confirm that this is the case, and will he look at this as a matter of urgency?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I think it is true to say that there are parts of the United Kingdom which do not attract doctors in the same way as other parts do. I believe that that touches on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, briefly, in so far as the Junior Doctors' Association of the British Medical Association and the Royal College are gravely apprehensive, it might be worth while if the Secretary of State—indeed, the noble Lord the Minister himself—would agree to meet them to talk about their grave apprehensions on this matter.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will note what the noble Lord says.

Housing Benefit
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: 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 representations have been received in connection with the proposed changes in housing benefit; and what is the estimated number of present recipients who will suffer a reduction if the proposals are implemented.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have received a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee and comments from the local authority associations, which were formally consulted about the proposals. We have also received a number of other representations.
In the light of these representations, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will today make a Statement in another place about the Government's proposals. With the leave of the House, I shall be repeating that Statement later. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness and your Lordships will agree that it might be best to defer further discussion until then.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friends will agree that we should wait for the Statement. However, just for the record, as I understand it, the noble Lord has not given a full list of the representations that have been received. Have not the Government received representations from the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, describing the scheme as inequitable and unworkable, from the Conservative Members of Parliament, from the Government's own Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances, from SHAC, from the London Housing Aid Centre, from the Institute of Housing, which described it as a nightmare, from the Child Poverty Action Group and from the Parliamentary Group for Pensioners? Surely it would be fairer if all the representations could be put on the record?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, a very great number of representations have been made. I do not have the full list in front of me now, but I shall have it in front of me later on in the afternoon.

Hospital Development in Wales
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gridley: 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 how many new district general hospitals have been built in Wales since 1978–79, and what has been the cost of this initiative.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, a new district general hospital has been completed since 1978–79 at Bodelwyddan in Clwyd and major district general hospital developments have been completed on the sites of the Royal Gwent and St. Woolos Hospitals in Newport, Gwent. The cost of these developments at current prices is about £60 million. In addition, the new district general hospital at Bangor in Clwyd is virtually complete and will be opened in the spring, and major construction is in progress on new hospitals at Bridgend and Llanelli and the redevelopment of existing hospitals at Wrexham and Morriston. The estimated cost of these at current prices is £76 million.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very full information. How does this Government's performance in hospital building in Wales compare with that of the late Labour Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have a good record but, to be quite fair to the Opposition, I do not think that they necessarily had a very bad one. Major construction works can seldom be attributed solely to any particular government because they go through a process starting with identifying a need and running right through to commissioning and getting patients treated in the hospital. In Wales, Her Majesty's Government have vigorously pursued the hospital building plans which they inherited, and have pursued positive initiatives to improve services for the handicapped and the elderly and to develop regional services. If a commitment can be judged in purely financial terms, total expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales this year is expected to be nearly £800 million, an increase in real terms of 9 per cent. on the spending plans we inherited.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is it not a fact that at the present time seven other hospitals, or parts of hospitals, are being constructed at a possible cost of £76 million?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether the figure that my noble friend gives is correct, but certainly there are plans which indicate that the amount that has been spent by this present Government has been in excess of what was inherited towards the end of the period of government of the party opposite.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for being so fair about the record of the
884
Department at the time when I was Secretary of State? Will he confirm that the three hospitals that have already been completed and the one hospital that will shortly be completed were all under construction in 1978–79, and therefore represented the pre-1978 capital programme? Will the noble Lord also confirm that since 1978–79 the hospital capital programme has slackened substantially in Wales? Perhaps he could say when the construction work will commence in Wrexham and also on the third hospital in Gwent, an area of very high morbidity?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what I can tell the noble Lord is that the estimate in capital expenditure for this year, 1983–84, is £39.8 million and in 1979–80 it was £36 million, which was inherited from his Government's time. The noble Lord asked me some other questions about the Wrexham hospital. Perhaps he could repeat them?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, for his interest in Welsh hospitals, which I know will be of great encouragement in Wales? May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his pronunciation? However, is it not the case that the only hospital to have been started in the Principality since 1979 is the one at Bridgend?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, one of the complications in answering a question about Wales is that some of the answers which I have are written in the Welsh language, and some in English, so I have to translate them back again. I am glad that the noble Lord is not stretching me any further with my Welsh pronunciation. I think what the noble Lord says is correct. If he is in fact not correct—and I am sure he is—I shall write to him.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in regard to the figures which the noble Lord has just given, would he tell the House whether they are truly comparable? That is to say, are they on a real basis or at current prices?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, they are in 1983–84 prices.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the withdrawal of United Kingdom forces from the Lebanon.
This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Elton, who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the death of Mr. Mhatre.
This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who will, as he has already said, and again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on housing benefits.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
2.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which was laid before your Lordships' House on 26th January, be read a second time. I shall listen, as always, with the greatest of interest to what your Lordships have to say in the course of this debate; but I shall listen with a greater interest still to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, whose maiden speech it will be. He has been forced to listen in silence to so many of my banalities in the past that I am, to say the least of it, apprehensive of what he may say now that, at last, he is so deservedly free to utter.
There is something repugnant to the British spirit in the limitations to the rights and freedoms of individual citizens which such legislation as we now contemplate necessarily provides. It is for that reason that Parliament doles out these necessary powers so reluctantly and for such short periods of time. The Home Secretary, upon whom responsibility for internal security rests, is not given these powers indefinitely, or for the duration of a particular state of affairs, or even for the life of a Parliament. Year by year the Home Secretary, and his predecessors, have had to come to the House of Commons and justify their continuance—just as I, and my predecessors, have had to come to this House to convince your Lordships that they were still necessary.
This mistrust of special powers is shared by Governments of all complexions. It was for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was asked to prepare the report on the working of the 1974 and 1976 Acts, which he made in 1978. It was for that reason that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe was asked to prepare the report on the working of the 1976 Act, which your Lordships debated, and deservedly approved, in March of last year. And it is for that reason also that I now come before your Lordships with an application for powers even more carefully doled out, in an Act which must not only be annually endorsed but which, after five years, becomes automatically defunct.
I shall return to my noble friend's report in a moment, but before I do so I must make one comment on the extreme caution with which Governments request, and Parliament grants, powers such as these. It is simply this. To an outside observer this caution would seem notable under any circumstances. Under the circumstances in which they actually take place, they are very remarkable indeed. I need not catalogue to your Lordships the hideous backcloth of clandestine and murderous violence that has been unrolled these last 10 years. Citizens of every rank and members both of another place and of this House have been cut down in a campaign of which the chief irony is that every blow which its members account a success puts its ultimate aim even further beyond their grasp. But that campaign costs the lives and limbs of innocent citizens; of servicemen and policemen and, indeed, policewomen preserving the Queen's peace; of old
886
people on holiday; and, only a few weeks ago, of young people doing their Christmas shopping.
I do not think that in these circumstances I need to convince your Lordships that legislation is needed. In that connection, I return to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe's report and, specifically, to paragraph 65. In it he puts it beyond question that if powers such as these were removed from them the forces of law and order in this country would be seriously handicapped in their duty of protecting the lives of our citizens. That is the conclusion to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, came in paragraph 136 of his report, so there has been consensus about that. And the right to life, my Lords, is the most fundamental human right there is. That right is shared by all our citizens and the citizens of every other country living in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend made the point in his report that international terrorists have shown a marked tendency to bring the internal struggles of their own countries on to British streets. I had at this point intended to refer to the shameful attempt upon the life of Mr. Argov when he was Ambassador of Israel to the Court of St. James; but since then there has been another stark and repulsive example of the assassin's work marked by the death of Mr. R. H. Mhatre, Assistant Commissioner in India's Assistant High Commission in Birmingham. I shall be speaking shortly of the deep regret and the fundamental revulsion which that event has caused in Her Majesty's Government. In this debate, however, let me say only that that, very sadly, points up the necessity seen by my right honourable and learned friend and Her Majesty's Government for ensuring that the relevant powers in this Bill extend to international as well as simply to Northern Irish terrorism.
It is in the light of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe's observations and recommendations that this Bill has been drafted, and it is to meet his recommendations that most of the changes from the 1976 provisions have been introduced. My noble friend made 59 recommendations altogether. Forty-four of these required action, and the remaining 15 amounted to conclusions or suggestions that the status quo should be preserved. Thirteen of them are directly incorporated in the Bill. Four will be incorporated in a Prevention of Terrorism Supplemental Order that will be introduced following its enactment. Seventeen either will be or already have been introduced by administrative means. Four which may be implemented by administrative means are at present under consultation with those concerned with their operation, and a further six are included for legislation not in this Bill but in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which will come before your Lordships from another place later this year.
One recommendation was rejected in another place on a free vote. It catches the eye first because it affects the Title, but it cannot be said to be first in importance because it does not affect the powers. An amendment carried in another place inserted into the Title the words "Temporary Provisions", which my noble friend had sought to exclude from it. The arguments for and against this are finely balanced, and I dare say your Lordships will be content to let another place have its way on this.

887
I now turn to the provisions in the Bill itself. Part I gives the Secretary of State the power to proscribe organisations concerned in acts of terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs. The organisations already so proscribed are listed in Schedule 1, which is dependent on Clause 1. Part I also creates a related range of offences.
Part II enables the Secretary of State to exclude persons from the United Kingdom, from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland if he considers it expedient to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism. Part III makes it an offence to contribute or solicit support for acts of terrorism and to withhold information about such acts. Part IV gives to the police the power to arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant and to detain them for a limited period which can be extended on the authority of the Secretary of State.
The present Bill follows the 1976 Act in very many of its provisions and I doubt whether your Lordships will wish me to catalogue them all. Instead I will concentrate on the most important powers in the Bill and specifically on the places where it differs from the 1976 Act.
The powers which have attracted the greatest interest are those of arrest and detention in Clause 12. The equivalent section, Section 12, of the 1976 Act differs from the remainder of that Act in that its application is not restricted to deeds of terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs. This was intended to give the police the power to arrest a suspected terrorist without first having to identify the particular cause he supported. However, following an undertaking given during the passage of the 1976 Act, the application of those powers was restricted to acts of terrorism in connection with Northern Irish affairs by means of a circular to the police.
This Bill does specify the acts of terrorism to which the powers of arrest and detenion in Part IV apply. In doing so it embodies two of the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. First that the power should be available to deal with what might be called "international" terrorism as well as with Northern Irish terrorism. And, secondly, that it should not be available to deal with terrorist acts concerned solely with the affairs of Great Britain as distinct from those concerned with any part of the United Kingdom.
The point has been made by commentators on the Bill that as at present drafted Clause 12 empowers the police to arrest and detain members of organisations dedicated to the overthrow of what they, and sometimes we, ourselves, regard as oppressive regimes in their own countries. Such people might well be living here lawfully and with the agreement of my right honourable friend. They have viewed with understandable concern the possibility that they might now be subject to arrest under Clause 12 of the Bill. In response to this concern my honourable friend the Minister of State undertook, during the passage of the Bill in another place, to see whether the clause could be redrafted so as to allay those fears without removing from its scope those against whom we believe its powers should be available. In the event it did not prove possible to achieve the first of these objectives without seriously damaging the second. I must therefore advise your Lordships that my right
888
honourable friend the Home Secretary has concluded that the only means of limiting the scope of Clause 12 is to proceed by way of assurance and circular.
It is the Government's intention therefore, in giving guidance to the police, to advise them that the powers in Clause 12 should be used only in relation to international terrorists where there is some prospect either of a charge before a United Kingdom court or that the person would be deported under the immigration Act 1971. The practice of limiting the use of statute by circular is not perhaps entirely satisfactory. But, this method is now well established in the field of the prevention of terrorism legislation and it has worked well since 1976. I hope your Lordships will accept that the Government have gone as far as they can in seeing that those who should be protected are protected while retaining the power for use only against those whose activities bring them within the intended scope of the clause.
Clause 12 also incorporates my noble friend's recommendation that the powers of arrest and detention should not be available for use against those involved in "domestic" terrorism. By domestic terrorism I mean terrorism concerned only with the affairs of Great Britain. I would not wish the term "domestic" to leave your Lordships under the impression that what I am talking about is some innocent or prankish activity of no great consequence. We take the activities of those who are engaged for example in Welsh or Scottish extremist violence very seriously indeed. But the activities of such organisations have not been on a scale comparable to the vicious killings which have been the tragic and shameful hallmark of Northern Irish terrorism. I can assure your Lordships that if at any time the nature of the problem changed, the Government would have no hesitation in seeking the approval of Parliament to an extension of those powers so that they could be applied to suspected "domestic" terrorists as well.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said that he found consideration of the issues raised by the provision of powers of exclusion the most difficult part of his task. His recommendations have been incorporated in Part II of the Bill. They are designed particularly to ease the distress which exclusion can cause, not only to those excluded but also to their families.
Under the present system, an exclusion order remains in force indefinitely unless or until it is revoked by the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe saw no reason why exclusion orders should not be made for a fixed period, at the end of which they should automatically lapse. The Bill therefore provides that exclusion orders will have a life limited to three years. If, at the end of that period, the police believe that the person concerned is still engaged in terrorism they will be able to make an application to the Secretary of State, detailing the intelligence against him, for a fresh order to be made. And my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said in another place that, except in the rarest of circumstances, he will make a further order only where there is new intelligence indicating a continuing involvement in terrorism. The intelligence on which the original application was based will not be sufficient for this purpose.

889
Under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1976 Act a British citizen may not be excluded from a part of the United Kingdom—from Great Britain or Northern Ireland—if he has been ordinarily resident in that part for 20 years. The Bill incorporates my noble friend's recommendation that the qualifying period for exemption should be reduced from 20 years to three.
My noble friend was also concerned that very few people had made use of the chance to make representations against exclusion. He concluded that the arrangements in the 1976 Act combined to create a disincentive. Under the present system an excluded person may make representations within 96 hours of service of the order and may include in them a request for an interview with one of the advisers appointed by the Secretary of State. But such an interview cannot at present be granted if the person has already been removed. This means, in effect, that he must remain in custody until an interview can be arranged, if it is to be arranged. The Bill therefore provides, in Clause 7, for such interviews to be held within the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland and extends the period within which representations may be made from 96 hours to 7 days. The Government has also introduced in Clause 7 another measure designed to limit the time spent in custody. Under this an excluded person who agrees to be removed may have a further 14 days in which to make representations.
On a more general point, the Bill, as I have already told your Lordships, has a limited life of 5 years, after which time the powers will lapse unless re-enacted. We fully share my noble friend Lord Jellicoe's view that such exceptional powers should have exceptional safeguards.
Finally my noble friend made several recommendations which were designed to ensure that people detained under this legislation were treated in the same way as any other detainees. Accordingly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill provides for a person detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation to have access to legal advice and gives the right to have a relative or friend notified of one's arrest and whereabouts.
In the nine years that this exceptional legislation has been with us it has very properly received more parliamentary attention than almost any other. It has also had the benefit of meticulous examination by two distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. The quality that pervades my noble friends' report is one of balance between individual rights and public safety, and the same goes for that of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Even those who have opposed the Bill must welcome the fact that it makes some notable improvements over its predecessors. Successive governments have always recognised that this legislation is as distasteful as it is exceptional, and we must hope that the time will soon come when such powers as these have no place on the statute book. But as long as the all-too-evident threat of terrorism remains with us I believe that the powers are essential, and if we are to try to protect our way of life from the ugly savagery which terrorism can inflict upon it we must have this legislation. It is in that context that I
890
beg to move that your Lordships read this Bill a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Elton.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has introduced the Second Reading debate of this very important Bill with his usual clarity and we are grateful to him. With him, may I express my own pleasure and that of my noble friends that this debate will be graced by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, whose face and voice are already somewhat well known to this House. Both will always be very welcome. As the noble Lord the Minister said at the very outset of his speech, no British Parliament, with our proud traditions of benefit of law, civil liberties, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, rights of habeas corpus and freedom of movement within and out of our native shores, can relish for one moment having to contemplate the continuance of legislation such as this. Its provisions offend every one of these treasured concepts.
We have been passing temporary legislation and orders continuing it on a similar basis for some nine years. They have their origin and their cause in the inhuman, indiscriminate, cowardly crimes of gangsters posing as political idealists who have murdered in cold blood defenceless men, women and children who, in the majority of cases, had no connection whatever with any political conflict. Our justification for this temporary, special and quite exceptional legislation and for continuing it year by year was that we were fighting evil and remorseless men; and that it was hoped that by the use, the temporary use, of these exceptional powers, we would succeed in containing, indeed removing, the scourge of terrorism from Northern Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Only for such purposes and with such aims could we countenance, even temporarily, such statutory provisions as the banning of organisations, which appear to be concerned with terrorism, and the exclusion of our own citizens from one part of the United Kingdom to another on the mere edict of a Secretary of State—in both cases with no right of redress or appeal to any judicial process and in both cases without any reasons having to be given. Extended powers of arrest and detention and a new crime—that of withholding information from the police about future acts of terrorism or people involved in it—are connected with Irish affairs. Very properly, Parliament had to assess each year whether the aims and purposes of such legislation as this were being fulfilled and whether a continuance for a further year was justified. Very properly, as well, as the noble Lord the Minister pointed out in his speech, two distinguished Members of your Lordships' House were severally given the task of reviewing the operation of the then current legislation.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton, whom the House will observe with pleasure is to participate in this debate, reported in August 1978 (Cmnd. 7234) and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in February 1983

891
(Cmnd. 8803). Their respective terms of reference required them to accept-and I am quoting:
"the continuing need for legislation against terrorism".
It is fair to say, therefore, that there has been no inquiry specifically directed to that continuing need; but it is equally only right to say that, although not having the benefit of such a specific inquiry, both noble Lords at the time of making their reports were of the personal opinion—and I quote the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in this context in his more recent report—that,
"If special legislation effectively reduces terrorism, as I believe it does, it should be continued as long as the substantial terrorist threat remains".
As your Lordships will know, there will be no question of the Opposition dividing this House on the Second Reading of this Bill. It would be contrary to tradition to so so. In another place, however, my right honourable and honourable friends opposed this Bill in principle. In reasoned speeches, they weighed in the balance whether what had been apparently achieved or not achieved by straying so materially from our normal concept of criminal law and procedure had compensated, over this period of some nine years, for the dangerous sacrifice of vital principles of our law and civil rights; added to which—and such an experienced and courageous Northern Ireland politician as my noble friend Lord Fitt has made his views in this connection very well known while a Member of another place—was the antagonism which this legislation had created among good Irishmen both in Northern Ireland and, very much so, in this country.
As my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Hattersley, then shadow Home Secretary, put it in the debate in another place on the Jellicoe Report in March last, and as quoted in our debate on that report at col. 506 of 14th March last:
"There is much evidence to suggest that the alienation has already happened. Law-abiding Irish visitors feel threatened and harassed at the ports, and the Irish community in Britain feels that it is under constant suspicion. Propaganda victories are handed to the most disreputable elements in Irish politics".
He was referring in that context to paragraph 10 of the Jellicoe Report, which reads:
"The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate—either in their essence or in their application—any section of the law-abiding population".
The statistics available for the period November 1974 to December 1982, which were quoted in another place, were also very revealing. In Britain—that is, exclusive of Northern Ireland—a total of 5,555 had been arrested under the Acts; about 70 per cent. at ports and 30 per cent. elsewhere. The annual total has declined significantly since 1979; 88 per cent. were released without any charge or any exclusion order. The same percentage of apparently innocent people detained varied little over the years: 7.1 per cent. were charged with an offence and 4.7 per cent. were excluded. Only 2.1 per cent. were charged with offences under the prevention of terrorism legislation and 5 per cent. with offences under other legislation. Only 83—that is, 1.5 per cent.—have ever been found guilty of offences under the legislation, and
892
176—that is, 3.2 per cent.—of other offences, of which no less than 95 appeared to be non-terrorist crimes. If exclusion cannot be treated as guilt, and in the circumstances it should not be, 95 per cent. of those arrested under the Acts have either not even been charged or have been found after charge to be innocent.
Since these figures were discussed in another place, some further figures have very recently been released by the Home Office to cover the year 1983. The percentages remain constant and the picture remains the same. The evidence would appear to show that the powers of arrest under this legislation have largely been used not as a result of reasonable suspicion of involvement in anything to do with terrorism, but to gather information about Irish people and those involved in Irish politics. After detention, which can be for anything up to seven days, those involved are then released without any charge being made. It is an indication of a dangerous shift in the concept of crime as the basis of police action to that of political views. This is a shift which could be the beginning of a slippery slope. We must look at it very carefully, or we ignore it at our peril——
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords will the noble Lord give way for a moment? He has quoted a number of figures. I shall be quoting the same figures, but I will interpret them in an absolutely different way. I just wished to make that clear.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am grateful for notice of that fact, as I am sure the House will be, and it will be interesting, as it always is, to see how the noble Lord interprets matters. I emphasise that the statistics I have given relate to Britain; that is, not to Northern Ireland. Indeed, statistics in Northern Ireland for the same period show a contrast. There were 2,278 detained under the legislation, of whom 43.8 per cent. were eventually charged; 1.1 per cent. were excluded; 3.5 per cent.—that is, 79 persons—were charged with offences under the legislation and 40.3 per cent.—that is, 917 persons—with other offences, of which 12 per cent. were non-terrorist type offences and 55.1 per cent. were released without any charge or exclusion order. Unlike the situation in Britain, the number of people detained under this legislation has increased significantly in the last years. Here again, more recent statistics covering the year 1983 have just been published by the Home Office and they indicate the same sort of percentages and the same sort of picture.
Having, as I have said, weighed such matters as these in the balance and after some nine years' experience to look back on. my right honourable and honourable friends decided to oppose a continuation of this legislation and argued that the normal provisions and powers of our criminal law should be applied. Some of their political colleagues did not agree with their conclusions and did not follow them into the Division Lobby. Some of my political colleagues in this House do not agree with their conclusions. But, on any view, their decision was reached after very deep consideration and for good and honourable reasons. It will be the role of the Opposition in this House during succeeding stages of this Bill to scrutinise its provisions, to put forward and support amendments which endeavour to prevent, so

893
far as we can, abuse of powers given under the Bill and, where practicable, to introduce safeguards.
One of the provisions which we shall try to remove from the Bill is that containing the criminal offence in Britain of withholding information from the police about future acts of terrorism or people involved in it, if connected with Irish affairs. That offence has been repeated in this Bill, in spite of the fact that my noble friend Lord Shackleton recommended in his report that it should be allowed to lapse in Britain, and remarked that it had an unpleasant ring about it in terms of civil liberty. I remember also that in our debate on 14th March 1983, at column 498 of Hansard, he said that he still disliked this power to charge people for failing to give information and that it smacked very much of police state type legislation. I imagine that we shall have the pleasure of hearing from my noble friend later on when he addresses the House on that matter, but I shall be grateful if, when he comes to reply to this debate, the Minister can tell the House whether in connection with this offence someone is obliged to give this information about a third party even when such information might incriminate him, the informant, in some way. If so, it is an even greater and more serious incursion into long accepted principles of justice.
Among other areas which we shall have to consider are the exclusion provisions and the extension of the Act to allow the detention of anyone suspected of involvement in international political violence anywhere in the world, whether or not the acts had any connection at all with this country. I know that anti-apartheid organisations, for example, are very concerned at the effect of these provisions and the use that some future Government might be able to make of such powers. This clause could create unfortunate precedents and could also lead to unwelcome requests by other governments being made to our Government which we could find more than embarrassing. I personally was not at all happy with what the noble, Lord the Minister said about the limitation of this provision by a circular. That is not the way to legislate, and we shall doubtless return to that matter at the Committee stage.
In conclusion, I must say that we are faced with evil men perpetrating evil ends. Terrorism is one of the major scourges of our time, and only over the past 24 hours yet another foreign diplomat has apparently become the victim of terrorism on our own soil. The people of Northern Ireland face these evils daily. We have our own recent, bitter and sad memories of Hyde Park, of Harrods and of many tragically bereaved families. Throughout this House and throughout the kingdom there is detestation for the perpetrators of these deeds. Let us most certainly, in facing this continuing threat, give every possible and proper support to our police and security forces upon whom we admittedly place a tremendous burden, which in general they undertake with great courage and integrity. We rely upon them for the protection of our people, to apprehend the culprits and to see that these criminals are brought to justice. In legislating for special powers in the realm of criminal law, however, let us unite in this House, this bastion of law and order and justice, in our endeavours not to permit those who
894
would wickedly destroy lives and property to destroy as well values which are the very foundations of our society. We should do well to remember in the remaining stages of this Bill the principle which the great Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, enunciated centuries ago: that he would not deny the very Devil the benefit of law, since, if he did, it would imperil us all.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, nobody will know better than the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, how inappropriate it is for anybody to comment on the appearance of a maiden speaker in your Lordships' House other than the noble Lord immediately following that speaker in the list of speakers, and nobody will know better than the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that this is bound to be one of those occasions when that tradition is widely flouted. The noble Lord entered your Lordships' House last week to a roar of approval from all the Benches in the House—something almost totally unprecedented. I need say no more than that I know we are all looking forward with the greatest eagerness to his contribution to our debate.
Your Lordships have been over the ground contained in the Bill on many previous occasions. On many occasions noble Lords, including myself, have stood up and discussed the problem in terms of drawing a balance between the fight to combat terrorism and the threat to our civil liberties. The more I have said those words—and I have said them many times—the more I have become troubled as to precisely what they mean, and the more difficult I have found it to draw a balance between like and unlike and to weigh up the value of a loaf of bread against the value of a performance of a Beethoven symphony. I doubt whether trying to draw a balance between these considerations is very practical. In fact, having been over this ground so many times in the past, I believe that that is not the right approach to the problem which faces us.
The right approach is to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made perfectly clear, that we are facing, in the whole concept of terrorism, a vast evil: the deliberate maiming and slaughter for political purposes of, very often, innocent women and children. In those circumstances, I believe that any society is bound to have to take stringent measures in order to defeat that threat. In taking those measures we must be aware of the fact that very often they are a threat to our civil liberties, and in taking those measures we must try at all times to mitigate that threat. But I do not think it is possible in any practical terms to draw the sort of balance we so often talk about.
To give an example, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke of figures. I wonder what they mean. If a person who is subsequently not charged is detained and if, for each person so not charged, one mass murderer is found, prosecuted and convicted, I would suspect that most members of your Lordships' House would say that it is unfortunate for the person who is not charged but that it is acceptable in the circumstances. If 10 people are not charged while one person is charged, what, then? Or 100 or 1,000? Is it possible to determine this on a mathematical basis in an attempt

895
to draw a wholly artificial balance? It is my view—and the view I believe of my colleagues on these Benches—that we must approach the Bill by looking primarily at whether it will be effective in helping us to combat the appalling threat of terrorism. Secondly, we must ensure that if it is effective its consequences for civil liberties are kept to the very minimum.
Against that background, may I look briefly at the Bill. Part I deals with proscribed organisations, and I need say very little about it. I have repeatedly made the observation, and I am more and more convinced that it is right, that proscribing organisations is desirable for cosmetic purposes because the general public expect organisations such as the IRA to be proscribed and it is right that they should be. However, I do not believe that proscription performs any particularly valuable contribution in the fight against terrorism.
Part II of the Bill deals with exclusion and is a matter which causes us all concern. I do not think that it is helped by those who in another place have tried to draw parallels between the power of exclusion under the Bill and the treatment of dissidents in the Soviet Union. That is a very different problem, with very different consequences for the unfortunate people who are so dealt with. I am happy to see that the exclusion powers have been modified in the way that the Jellicoe Report suggested, particularly in Clauses 3, 4 and 7 of the Bill. I believe, with very great reluctance, that the power of exclusion, if exercised wisely and sensibly as one must hope it will be, must, in the present political circumstances, unhappily remain. I add only this. A determined and ingenious effort was made in another place to try to construct some form of judicial review for exclusion orders. An exclusion order is an executive decision. I do not believe that it is possible, with the greatest degree of ingenuity, to construct any form of judicial process which will give any satisfaction to anybody. This is an end after which we must cease to strive so far as exclusion orders are concerned.
Part III of the Bill deals with miscellaneous offences, in particular with the one which creates the offence of withholding information. This is one of the occasions when I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is an offence which has been prosecuted very, very rarely. In substance, there was only one case in which a substantial number of people were dealt with, and none was dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment. It is a wholly artificial concept in terms of life in Northern Ireland. How can one say to a person living in Belfast that he commits a criminal offence if he fails to disclose to the police some information which he might have obtained about his next door neighbour? That is one of the occasions in the Bill where an offence has been incorporated which has never been of any practical value and which offends against all our concepts of ordinary criminal law.
To turn to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with arrest, detention and court powers, I want to deal primarily with Clause 12. First, Clause 12 brings within the ambit of the Bill international terrorism, as limited by the assurance given by the noble Lord the Minister this afternoon. I find it difficult to argue against it. When one considers the links between
896
terrorists in all parts of the world—the way they train together, equip each other, pass on information to each other and work together—it seems to me to be rather unrealistic to try to limit a Bill of this nature purely to terrorism as between the Irish and this country.
As to the other matter contained in Clause 12—the extension of the power of detention up to a period of seven days—that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will know only too well, is no great innovation in our criminal law. He and I must have appeared on many occasions on behalf of people who have been detained for five, six or seven days before it was possible, by the threat of some writ of habeas corpus, to secure their release. I am bound to say, having been involved on more occasions than I care to think about in cases where terrorists have been tried for their crimes, that there have been a number of such cases where guilt has been brought home to them entirely as a result of the power contained in this clause to extend the power of detention, and therefore the power of questioning, in that way.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on, I wonder whether the House may have the benefit of his comments and great experience in regard to that part of the clause he was just discussing, which deals for the first time with an act of terrorism, so-called and so-defined, anywhere in the world, even though it has no connection with this country at all? Does the noble Lord not share the fears which organisations such as the anti-apartheid movement have about such a clause?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the answer to that is, I came to your Lordships' House with an open mind on that matter this afternoon. Bearing in mind very much the links between the various forms of international terrorism—and I do not seek to include anti-apartheid organisations in that observation; of course I do not—I listened very carefully to the assurance given by the noble Lord the Minister in regard to the way in which this clause would be operated. I should like to see in Committee whether it is possible to amend the clause to cover the terms of the assurance given by the Minister. If that is possible, I believe it would be desirable. If it is not possible, I am prepared at least to accept at face value the assurance as it has been offered to your Lordships' House this afternoon.
I come finally to Part V of the Bill: particularly to Clause 17, as to its duration. I am delighted to learn that the Bill is to be limited, whatever may happen in its duration, to a period of five years; that there should be regular re-enactments of this Bill is a proposal which, I believe, came first from the Liberal Benches. I am pleased to note also that there should be annual renewals by order, as there have been in the past. This does create the difficulty, as your Lordships will know, that it is impossible to argue on such an order the merits of any particular part of the Bill.
I do commend to the noble Lord the Minister the suggestion made in another place by Mr. Enoch Powell—and I do not always commend his suggestions—that it may be possible for the renewal order to be laid as three, four or five separate orders relating to each part of the Bill, so that it would be

897
possible for the House, if it wished to do so, to reject one particular part of the Bill if it turned out during the period to be inoperative.
I add, too, that there is much to be said for the suggestion made in another place that, because of the difficulty with an annual order for renewal, it is desirable that there should be a high calibre review body constantly scrutinising the working of the Act and how the various orders are being carried out under the Act—such as the powers of exclusion and the powers of detention—and reporting regularly to Parliament each year at the time when the renewal order comes forward.
As I have indicated, there is much in this Bill to occupy your Lordships in Committee. We look forward to playing our part in those proceedings. We accept of course that this Bill is one about which individuals feel very strongly and have very passionate convictions. Having said that, and accepting as we do that there will be individuals who will go their own way in respect of this legislation, I am bound to say that, as political parties, the SDP and the Liberal Party would find it quite irresponsible to oppose this legislation.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope that it is not considered indecent of me to make my maiden speech so soon after my Introduction, but I wish to make a few remarks about Clause 17 of this Bill. May I preface my remarks with a few brief personal words? First, I wish to thank those noble Lords who have spoken already for the kind remarks they have made. Secondly, I should like to say that soon after the new year, when my name was mentioned in the Honours List, I read in Country Life, on 5th January, these words:
"Anyone who has not heard of Henderson need not feel guilty".
I found some comfort in that. The article went on to observe:
"Henderson's value as an untouched example of an isolated coral atoll is enormous".
I do feel rather like a tiny speck in the Pacific Ocean as I make my maiden speech, but I believe that I am just on the map.
I agree with the necessity for this Bill—and I wish to refer to necessity later—subject to stringent safeguards, for the reasons set out by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his report and by the noble Lord the Minister when he opened this debate. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is much to be congratulated on having, when he was Home Secretary, asked the noble Earl to conduct an inquiry; just as his predecessor was much to be congratulated on having chosen the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in 1978. Both noble Lords are deeply committed to civil liberty as well as to the preservation of public safety.
It is misconceived in the highest degree to suggest that those noble Lords somehow had the wool pulled over their eyes. Listen to this comment, which was published in the Financial Times as recently as 30th January this year:
"The conclusions of both Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe were reached without objective scrutiny"
898
of any detailed evidence of the operation of the law's provisions from case to case; and that they,
"relied, not unnaturally, on what they were told by the security services and the police"
who enforce the law. The whole House knows, surely, that neither noble Lord would conceivably have reached their conclusions or put their names to their report without having ascertained all the facts and without objective scrutiny. Anyway, I do not suppose that any officials could bamboozle either noble Lord, and I should like to see them try.
May I now say a word about necessity; a concept, especially in the political field, which always makes me reach for my scepticism—and for my Milton. Your Lordships' House will remember that Satan played a rather active rôle in Paradise Lost and spoke frequently and at length. In fact he was, if I may say so without disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the leader of the opposition! In any event, in Book IV Satan made an unusually short and effective speech—and by no means his maiden. Milton, who followed him in the debate—and he was clearly supporting the government—did not feel obliged to compliment Satan on his speech. Instead he said:
"Thus spake the Fiend, and with necessity,
The tyrant's plea, excused his devilish deeds"—
a touch of asperity of speech in those words, I think. William Pitt picked up those words when he said in another place exactly 120 years later, in 1783:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants"—
which just shows that Pitt had read his Milton.
I attach special importance to the words of Pitt in the context of this Bill because it has for 300 years at least been one of the prime functions of Parliament to scrutinise closely any exercise of extraordinary powers taken by the Government. So the ability of this country to preserve freedom has been admired by others, from Voltaire to Dahrendorf. Lord Jellicoe, in paragraph 10 of his report, actually quoted Dahrendorf's recent words on this subject.
But it is as well to remember that Parliament does not always succeed as well as it should. For example, the emergency powers taken in the last war, expressed to last only so long as the emergency existed, were extended annually by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and were not finally extinguished until 1970, 25 years after the expiry of the emergency. So there is no room for complacency.
I very much welcome the provisions of Clause 17, following as they do, deliberately, the provisions of the Armed Forces Acts. This is, in my view, the proper model to follow in this Bill. However, I am not at all sure that simple annual renewal by affirmative instrument of the whole Act is sufficient as a parliamentary safeguard, even though the duration of the Act is expressed to last only a maximum of five years. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was particularly cautious about Part II—exclusion orders; indeed, he said in his report, in Chapter 9,
"that the possibility of abolishing it"—
that is, the power to exclude—
"should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers".
That is in paragraph 178.

899
I know that among the Home Secretary's advisers on exclusion are the noble Lord, Lord Alport—and no one could possibly describe him as a stern, unbending Tory—and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who is essentially a fair-minded man. But, even so, bearing in mind the noble Earl's own reservations about these provisions, I should like to see a separate affirmative resolution annually in respect of Part II. This is a more limited proposal than that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which was put forward in another place by the right honourable Member for Down, South, on 25th January, and about which the Minister of State said:
"We shall consider that suggestion seriously".
I very much hope that something on those lines will be pursued in this House and accepted by the Government. This, I think, would be a better and more appropriate safeguard than other courses that have been urged. Here I agree with Lord Wigoder; I do not consider that an appeal tribunal or some sort of judicial monitoring is suitable. The powers taken in this Bill are outside the competence of the court, and it is no use having judicial review of essentially non-judicial proceedings.
I have only one further comment before I sit down. My sole criticism of the Jellicoe Report was that after rehearsing all the arguments for making the provisions of the Act temporary it none the less, quite illogically to me, concluded that the words "temporary provisions" should be left out of the Short Title. I am glad to see that those words were inserted into the Short Title on a free vote in Standing Committee in another place shortly before Christmas. That seems to me entirely right and proper. My Lords, I thank the House for its pacific reception of my few remarks.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it has been my privilege to congratulate many maiden speakers, but I know of no occasion when I have been more happy to perform this duty than today. I have already paid a tribute to the noble Lord, at the time of his retirement as Clerk of the Parliaments, and it was very clear then how strongly the House thought of the value of his services and how sad noble Lords were that he was going to depart. But, luckily, he has not departed at all; and it is a measure of his popularity and of the appreciation we have of him that your Lordships' House has filled, not to listen to me—it did not even fill very much to listen to the Minister; or may be it is the Statement—but to hear the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
I was about to say that the noble Lord is a gamekeeper turned poacher, but that is clearly inappropriate. He is a lonely atoll, a coral atoll, and we are quite sure that he will continue to purify our debates with his wisdom and the common sense and scholarship which he has shown already. If I may call him my noble friend, which is unusual, I am bound to say that if anybody is a noble friend of any of your Lordships it is the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. His speech was a model of scholarship and wisdom and firmness. If I may say so, I have always felt that maiden speakers should not shrink from saying what they think. There is this rather misleading
900
concept that they must not be controversial, which means they must not say anything at all. They must say something. What they must seek to do is to avoid being so provocative that noble Lords wish to leap up and assault them. In this the noble Lord has more than succeeded.
I wish to intervene in this debate only very briefly—and it is a very happy circumstance that I have had this extra reason—to give my support to the legislation in front of your Lordships' House. I admired my noble friend Lord Mishcon's speech; it was the most skilful presentation of many issues which concern us all. But at the end of the day I genuinely believe we would be wrong not to renew this legislation. I am amazed that the Government—and I pay my tribute to the noble Viscount—have accepted virtually all Lord Jellicoe's recommendations. No one has welcomed the amelioration of the 20 years' qualification for exclusion: the 20 years after which people could not be excluded has been reduced to three years. It is a very valuable change that exclusion orders are to be reviewed after three years. I am rather sorry I did not think of this myself; I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has done a better job than I did. But at the end of the day he, like I, having seen the evidence, having looked at the evidence in detail, having seen the intelligence, having talked to many policemen and others in private, having heard excellent evidence against from bodies like the National Council for Civil Liberties, which I regard as a valuable institution, nonetheless came firmly to the conclusion that it was necessary to have this sort of legislation.
I am bound to take issue with my noble friend Lord Mishcon—and I know that the noble Lord Lord Donaldson, is going to do so—on his use of statistics. I have not got them at my fingertips. I used them a few months ago, and I am glad to say that they have escaped me. Of course a great majority of the' people detained, particularly at the ports, are detained for only a few hours—much less than many people who are taken into custody by the police before they are charged. In fact, the numbers detained for any length of time are relatively small. I rely on the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson, to set the record straight, since he has given notice that he is going to do so, and therefore my speech will be shorter.
At the same time, I should like to ask the Minister what steps are now being taken about the recommendation I made, and to which Lord Jellicoe referred, that conditions should be further improved for those who are detained for any length of time. Detention up to seven days in the Bridewell is enough to make many people, whether properly interrogated or not, have nervous breakdowns. That is especially so if the diet is inadequate. I hope we can hear something more about that.
That brings me to another point on amelioration—the extent to which the Government now give financial assistance to those who are excluded. It is very severe to exclude someone from his home and his job to go to other territory—possibly back to the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland—and it may sometimes involve heavy financial loss. Something could be done to help rather more on that.

901
One of the arguments that I offer to those of my noble friends who wish this legislation to disappear is to ask them whether they are aware of the importance of the legislation in restraining counter-terrorism. There have been some horrible terrorist acts by those who have been attacking the Catholic community, and I do not believe that any Government at this time could possibly come before Parliament in the light of the atrocities that continue and say, "We are now going to dispense with this legislation".
We may have particular criticisms—I still dislike Clause 11—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. Certainly when I carried out my investigation I had no evidence to justify it and it had a nasty ring to it. On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, went into this issue very thoroughly. He found evidence and has come to an opposite conclusion; but I still wonder how necessary it is because it was that aspect of the report which I found most objectionable in terms of civil liberties. I also share concern on Clause 12. I totally accept the sincerity of the Government that they will issue instructions that the clause is not to be used in the way that some fear. However, even at this stage, I should like to ask if they will consider further whether there is some way of providing for legislation.
The Government have behaved absolutely correctly in their extension to Clause 12 in not seeking to use the Act unamended. It would have been improper for them to have done so. It is therefore perfectly proper to put in this provision on international terrorism. I still question how valuable and how necessary it is, notwithstanding the horrible event that has just taken place. Nonetheless, that is something that will need to be looked at.
I conclude by saying that when the Bill was originally introduced by the right honourable Roy Jenkins he referred to it as draconian. At that time I pointed out that any classicist would know that Draco—I know the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will take this point—went in for rather more severe treatment than is represented by this Bill. This is a minimum intervention into our civil rights. We are right to question it and to find objection; but if at the end of the day we find it reduces—it is my judgment and that of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that it will—the amount of terrorism, murder and maiming that otherwise would take place we would be failing in our duty not to renew these measures. The noble Lord referred to the conflict between human rights and public safety. Public safety involves individuals, and the individuals who were murdered and maimed outside Harrods are part of the public safety but they are also individuals. Therefore, I think it is right that we should renew this legislation. It is right that we should be critical, but I certainly support it.

The Lebanon
4.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement a reply being given by my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to a Private Notice Question
902
being asked in another place on the United Kingdom forces in Lebanon. The Statement is as follows:
"Fighting broke out on 2nd February in Beirut between the Lebanese armed forces and the Shia Militia Amal. The fighting escalated on 3rd and 4th February and continues today. Heavy Lebanese casualties have been reported.
"The Lebanese government resigned on 5th February but continues as a caretaker adminstration. President Gemayel has begun consultations on the formation of a new government and has issued an appeal to all parties in Lebanon to resume reconciliation talks.
"The British contingent of the multi-national force has not been the target of any deliberate attacks. Stray rounds have landed on or near the contingent's base. The contingent has suffered one minor casualty.
"We are today consulting our partners in the multi-national force and will keep the situation under close review. We wish to see an early end to the violence and bloodshed, an effective ceasefire, and more vigorous efforts by the government of Lebanon and all the parties to settle their differences by negotiation.
"Against the background I have described we have to judge with other partners whether the MNF can still help in this process. But we do not intend to withdraw our contingent precipitately."
That is the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The developing situation and the increased fighting to which the noble Lord referred are a cause of concern to all of us. I know that we are all glad to, learn that talks are now taking place between the Government, the United States administration, France and Italy, who are the other participants in the multi-national force.
Can the noble Lord say whether any consideration is being given to asking for a special meeting of the Security Council to discuss the matter in view of the implications of the crisis for neighbouring countries, and indeed for the peace of a much wider area than the Middle East? Can he comment on two further points? First, can he say what is the reaction of the Government to the comment of Mr. Dany Chamoun, which has been reported in the newspapers—including yesterday's Sunday Times—that he believes there will be a major war within a few days in the Lebanon? Have the Government any evidence for believing that that prediction has any certain grounds? Secondly, does not the noble Lord agree that the withdrawal of British troops from the Lebanon now becomes an even more urgent necessity as it is essential we should not become involved in a full scale civil war?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. Can the Government tell us what they are doing to keep continuously under review the possibility of mounting a United Nations' force in the Lebanan—a force from the medium and smaller members? We should like to

903
hear of continuous diplomatic activity in the capitals and in New York towards that end. We do not hear of it at the moment.
Have the Government noted yesterday's 40,000-strong demonstration by the so-called Peace Now movement in Jerusalem, which is said to have been the largest in the history of the state of Israel, in favour of the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanon and of other cognate aims?
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, can we have an assurance from the Government that, after the consultations mentioned by the noble Lord, the Cabinet will act on its own unfettered and independent judgment, as the elected Government of this nation, in deciding the future of the small British contingent in the Western four-power force?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. If I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the responsibility to convene a United Nations meeting of, say, the Security Council would rest in the first instance with the Government of the Lebanon, and they have not so far indicated any intention of doing that. Naturally we shall keep in touch with their views on this matter; but, as I say, for the moment they show no signs of so doing.
As for the prospects of a major war in the Lebanon, to which the noble Lord referred, I cannot hide from your Lordships that the position there is a very grave one, but we do not feel that the situation is as grave as has been suggested in some reports lately. We hope that with good sense on all sides the cataclysm which has been forecast will not happen; and, indeed, taking the wider view, we believe that it will not.
As for unilateral withdrawal of our soldiers—and perhaps I may reply, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who raised a similar point—we believe that it is necessary for us to consider the future of our forces there in consultation with our partners in the multinational force. I think that it would be wrong for the United Kingdom to initiate some form of precipitate withdrawal, and we most certainly will not be doing that. As the Statement says, we have today begun discussions—or rather continued discussions, because we have been in touch with them throughout the time that our forces have been there—with our colleagues in the multi-national force to try to chart a new way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also asked me about diplomatic activity. I have referred to some of the diplomatic activity already. I am not sure that it is always particularly productive to discuss in detail the nature and the kind of diplomatic activity that is going on, but the noble Lord may be assured that we are ensuring that our views are known in all relevant quarters and, likewise, that we know the views of the others concerned in this matter. Certainly we noted the Israeli demonstration to which the noble Lord referred. Naturally we take an interest in these matters, but the decisions for Israeli action, of course, rest with the Israeli, and not with the United Kingdom, Government.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, despite the Minister's doubts about whether there will be a resumption of civil war in the Lebanon, it will be noted that he is unable to furnish any guarantee. Indeed, it is not at all unlikely that there will be a resumption of civil war—in which, by the way, the Israelis would not be participating. I hope that note will be taken of that.
What I want to know is this. This may be a simple domestic question which is frequently asked in other contexts in your Lordships' House; but, first of all, will the Minister say what expenditure has been involved in the presence of our small contingent in the Lebanon? What does it cost this country to indulge in that gesture? In all the circumstances, irrespective of what the Security Council may decide—and, with great respect to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I must say that I regard mention of the Security Council as completely irrelevant. It is as useless as ever. I hardly think that it is on my noble friend's intellectual level to refer to that possibility—or, rather, impossibility.
To come back to the point, what is it costing this country to have that small contingent there? In all the circumstances, and in view of the fact—and it is an undoubted fact—that the members of the British force are getting no experience or training there and are in danger of being assaulted in that area, is it not better that they are withdrawn?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the British forces there are serving no useful purpose. On the contrary, the British forces there have played a useful role by patrolling and by providing a guard for the ceasefire talks. As I have said, they are still there and playing a useful role. I think that it is too early to say that there is no such role for them in the future.
The noble Lord also referred to the imminent prospect—or probability, as I believe he thought—of a major civil war in that country. But, apart from the United Kingdom force, there are of course several thousand other troops forming part of the multinational force in Beirut, added to which, of course, there is the United Nations force situated in the south of Lebanon. So, as I said earlier, I believe that the prospect of a major civil war in the Lebanon is not as likely as some have suggested.
The noble Lord also asked about the cost of our forces in that country. I have a figure of about £2 million, being the cost of the United Kingdom contribution to the multi-national force during the year 1983–84.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I ask a very short question which I hope will have the approval of my noble friend Lord Shinwell? Over the past two days there has been some talk about the possible reconvening of the Geneva talks. Is there any validity in that? Is it possible that, in spite of the worsening atmosphere and climate in the Lebanon, these talks might be reconvened?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is of course no government as such in the Lebanon at the present time. The reconvening of such talks would be for the new government, as and when they come to office. It

905
seems to me that the earlier talks in Geneva made some useful progress, and, if there is more progress to be made, therefore, I think that it would be a good thing for the Geneva talks to be reconvened. But I am certain that it will be necessary for this to be decided by the incoming government in the Lebanon, and I hope that this will be before very long.
I should like to also refer again to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who poured scorn on the idea of a United Nations initiative in this area. I must say that the United Kingdom Government do not take that view. We think that there might well be a useful role for the United Nations to play in this particular situation, but in the first instance it is for the government of the Lebanon to ask for that.

Mr. R. H. Mhatre
4.16 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short Statement.
"I deeply regret to have to tell the House that Mr. R. H Mhatre, an Assistant Commissioner in the Birmingham office of the Indian High Commission, was found dead at about 10 p.m. yesterday near Hinckley in Leicestershire. It is clear from the circumstances and the nature of his injuries that he was murdered. Mr. Mhatre had been kidnapped close to his home in Birmingham at about 6 p.m. on Friday, 3rd February.
"I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy to Mr. Mhatre's family. The Prime Minister has sent a message of sympathy to Mrs. Gandhi, and I have sent a similar message to the High Commissioner.
"An organisation calling itself the Kashmir Liberation Army claimed to have kidnapped an Indian diplomat. It made demands for the release of prisoners in India and for the payment of money. It threatened to kill the diplomat if its demands were not met.
"The Chief Constable of the West Midlands police has been in charge of the case from the beginning. I have been in close touch with him throughout and have given every assistance I can. The police have given the case the highest priority and are making every effort to bring those responsible to justice. I shall, of course, give the police any further assistance they require in the investigation. Arrangements have been made to enhance the protection given to Indian diplomatic staff.
"The seriousness with which this matter is being pursued and the fact that I have reported to the House at the earliest opportunity underline the Government's determination to stand firm against
906
terrorists and their violence. There can be no place whatsoever for either in this country."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for carrying out the sad duty of repeating the Statement made in another place, may I associate my noble friends most sincerely with the expression of sympathy to Mr. Mhatre's family in their tragic bereavement? If I may, I should like to ask a few questions for elucidation. One notices in the Statement that the Kashmir Liberation Army is mentioned as the organisation which claims to have carried out—if that is the appropriate expression—this outrageous act. Have we any information at all about such an organisation? Have we had any experience of that organisation before now?
One also notices from the Statement that the noble Lord the Minister mentioned that the kidnapping took place at about six o'clock in the evening on Friday, 3rd February. There has been a press account—I do not know whether or not the noble Lord can confirm its correctness—that on the evening of that very Friday a packet was sent by this Kashmir Liberation Army to Reuters news agency and that the packet contained documents. Did that packet, if this is true, relate to this matter? Was it promptly handed over to the authorities and, so far as the Minister is at present aware, was prompt action taken in regard to such documents as there were?
Lastly, may I put this question? The noble Lord the Minister referred to protection being given to the Indian diplomatic corps. I believe it to be right that India has missions in London. Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow but that up to this moment only the High Commission in London has had the protection of the armed police of the diplomatic protection group. Can the noble Lord confirm that protection will now be accorded at all the centres I have mentioned and not only to the Indian diplomatic corps? Cannot the protection that is given in London to members of the diplomatic corps similarly be afforded to them in the provinces?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, we, too, are appalled by this news and would wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy both to Mr. Mhatre's family and to the Indian Government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their sympathetic reception of this tragic news. So far as I am aware, the Kashmir Liberation Army had not come previously to notice in any form. I can tell the noble Lord that the package to which he refers was an envelope pushed through the letterbox of a building occupied by Reuters at one o'clock on the morning of 4th February. It contained two documents. The first stated that an Indian diplomat had been kidnapped by the Kashmir Liberation Army and would be killed if the listed demands were not met. The second was a copy of a letter purporting to have been sent by that body to the Secretary-General of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. It asked that that body should act as an intermediary. The deadline was at seven o'clock. Reuters informed the Metropolitan Police, who in turn notified the Indian High

907
Commission and the West Midlands police. All that had been completed by six o'clock that same morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised another point. He gave the locations of the Indian diplomatic missions correctly. He is correct in assuming that protection is being extended to them. I could not commit my right honourable friend to what I imagine would be the large resources of a commitment to extend similar protection to every diplomatic outpost around the country'. I am reluctant to be drawn further because security discussed is never altogether secure.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, obviously, I take what the noble Lord the Minister has just said in the proper sense. I should not wish to press him in view of the words that he used and in view of the care that one should exercise. Will he at least undertake to the House to take to his right honourable friend the concern of the House—this being the second time in recent years that a diplomat on our shores has met with the results of severe criminal acts—that diplomatic missions should have proper protection?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I will take the concern of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend.

Housing Benefit
4.24 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the housing benefit scheme.
"I announced on 17th November last year that the Government proposed to make some changes to the housing benefit scheme with a view to containing the rapidly escalating cost of the benefit. As is required by the 1980 Social Security Act, I submitted drafts of the regulations giving effect to those changes to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am today publishing the committee's report together with the Government's response to it. I am also laying before the House amended regulations which take account not only of the views expressed by the committee and local authorities, but also of the debate in this House last month.
"Before moving on to describe the Government's new proposals, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Arthur Armitage, chairman of the committee since its inception, whose death very sadly occurred last week.
"In their report, the Social Security Advisory Committee were particularly concerned about the effect of the proposals on lower-income beneficiaries and the possible cumulative impact of the proposals on a minority of families. They suggested a number of amendments to the proposals designed to alleviate these effects. At the same time they conceded that there were some aspects of the
908
housing benefit scheme which extend financial help further up the income ladder than anywhere else in the social security system, and that, if cuts in social security spending are essential, it might be reasonable to take resources from there rather than from the means-tested safety net.
"I have considered the committee's report and all the representations which have been made very carefully. Clearly, it is essential for the Government to maintain firm control of public expenditure and in the last 10 years cash expenditure on the former rent and rate rebates scheme has increased tenfold—an increase of 140 per cent. in real terms. It is also reasonable to propose that, where a non-dependant is living in the house of someone claiming housing benefit, that non-dependant should be expected to make a contribution to housing costs and that the housing benefit paid to a claimant should be reduced accordingly.
"Nevertheless, in view of the representations made, the Government have decided to modify the proposed changes with three principal objectives: to lessen the scale of any reductions in benefit to be faced by individual families; to minimise the impact of the changes on those on lower incomes, including pensioners; and to simplify the changes which will have to be made. The revised proposals take full account of the administrative problems involved in the changes.
"The Government now propose to make only two changes to the housing benefit scheme in April. First, the "tapers" for assistance with rents will increase from 21 per cent. to 26 per cent., instead of 31 per cent. as originally proposed, and for rates, from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. This will have the effect of halving the losses resulting from taper changes in assistance with rent.
"Second, the deductions made for non-dependants aged 18 or over will be increased as orginally proposed; but the qualifying period for modification of those deductions will be reduced from 90 days to 56 days as proposed by the Advisory Committee. In addition the proposed changes on the supplementary benefit non-householders' housing contribution will go ahead. Other changes which were to have been made in housing benefit in April have been either postponed or dropped. This will allow time for families and for local authorities to adjust to those of the changes which still have to be made.
"The remainder of the proposals therefore provide that there now will be no change in the minimum payments for the poorest claimants—those with income levels below their needs allowance; that increases in the minimum payment levels for other claimants will not take effect until November 1984 and the minimum payment for rent assistance will be set at 50p instead of £1 originally proposed; that the requirement for 16–17 year olds not on supplementary benefit or youth training schemes to make a contribution to housing costs will not come into effect until November 1984 and will not apply to those in receipt of non-contributory invalidity pension; that the modification to the criteria for eligibility for high rent schemes will also be postponed to November

909
1984, when current authorisations expire; and that the rent tapers will be increased in November, but only from 26 per cent. to 29 per cent., not 31 per cent. as originally proposed.
"The restructuring of the proposals which I have outlined will reduce significantly the savings which can be made, particularly in 1984–85. I have therefore had to postpone the real increase in the housing benefit children's needs allowance which I had announced would be introduced from April. The allowance was to have been increased from £11.90 to £12.90. That cannot now be achieved in April. But I am glad to say that it will still be possible to implement an increase of 50p in November 1984 and a further increase of £1 will be made in April 1985. The children's needs allowance will then have been increased by £1.50 in real terms compared with the increase of £l originally proposed.
"Mr Speaker, taken together, these modifications will help about 1,300,000 households and will mean that about 300,000 families will not now lose entitlement to benefit in April. Moreover, I propose to discuss with the local authorities how a limit on individual losses from the taper and high rent scheme changes can be brought into effect in November.
"Mr Speaker, all these changes will be accommodated within the Government's existing expenditure plans. But the enormous growth of housing benefit expenditure and the income levels at which it is paid require further consideration. Equally, the continuing difficulties which some local authorities are still experiencing in handling claims and payments are causing anxiety for individual families.
"The Government feel, therefore, that a review of the scheme and its operation is required. Its main objectives will be to examine the structure and scope of the scheme to ensure that it is as simple as possible and that help is concentrated on those most in need; and to improve its administration by local authorities.
"I shall be appointing a small review team under independent chairmanship to report to me so that I may consider urgently what action needs to be taken. I shall also ask the review team to consider the issues which the advisory committee identified as requiring further consideration.
"Mr Speaker, the revised proposals I have described today will soon be debated. Nevertheless, I thought it right that, prior to that debate, I should describe in a Statement to the House the changes that are being proposed. I believe they represent a reasonable balance between the protection of individual benefit recipients and the need to bring under control expenditure on housing benefit which is now running at almost £4 billion a year."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that Statement. First, I should like to express on behalf of my noble friends and myself our regret at the news of the death of Sir Arthur Armitage,
910
the chairman of the commission. He brought to this work a clarity of mind and a warmth of understanding not often to be found in combination and greatly to be appreciated and, therefore, greatly to be missed.
So far as the Statement is concerned, we welcome these few crumbs. We are glad to hear about the review team. We only wish that the work which it is being asked to carry out had been done before this absurd system was implemented. For example, the Minister refers in the Statement to:
"the enormous growth of housing benefit expenditure".
He does not say why that has happened. He does not say that it has happened because the economic policies of this Government, with the escalation of rent and rates, have brought more and more people into the poverty trap, into unemployment and therefore into a situation where they call for housing benefit. Surely that is an admission of the Government's inadequate assessment of the housing needs of thousands of our people and the stresses suffered by them through higher housing costs and higher unemployment.
I ask the noble Lord when we are likely to have a debate on the new regulations which will have to be brought before the House. If these changes are to be effected and worked over by the local authorities for implementation before April, we need to have the debate very soon, and that will affect the length of our discussion today. Obviously we should much prefer to have a full debate fairly soon, rather than ask too many questions on this Statement. In fact the Statement today indicates that the idea of a unified housing benefit is just a disfiguration of the English language. We have the most painful bifurcation of benefit ever invented by any Government. We have two old schemes persisting. We have two means tests taking place in different offices, never meeting up except with great delay and great confusion. Whatever small amendments are made, we must make it absolutely clear that the faults in this scheme are fundamental. It is not just a matter of changing the amounts here and there, although we appreciate where they are to be improved. The whole concept of the proposals has not worked out; it has been criticised by every political party and by all the professionals engaged in housing work and it must surely call for really systematic changes.
I want to put one or two quick points to the Minister. If these changes are to take place in April, can the Government ensure that there will be adequate facilities for staff and for training, instead of pressurising local authorities to economise in their expenditure? There are tremendous pressures on townhalls. Like myself, the noble Minister must have had information from all over the country about local councils which are hundreds of cases and, in some instances, thousands of cases in arrears. People are not getting their benefits. I do not know whether the Minister can tell me how many are in rent arrears. Perhaps he can tell me whether there have been any evictions due to non-payment of rent because people have not received housing benefit to pass on to their landlords, whether they be councils or private landlords.
Secondly, can the Minister take steps within his department to ensure that the time allotted for DHSS

911
offices to transfer certificates to councils is reduced? Until the council gets a certificate in each case from the DHSS, the council cannot pay out the benefit. There are weeks and in some cases months of delay. That is very unfair and most distressing, especially to older people who have never been in debt in their lives and who take a pride in seeing that the rent is paid.
Can the Minister also take steps to ensure that payment is made from the date of application and not from the date of the laggard finish of these tormenting processes. which drag on far too long? Also, there is a need to speed up cases for reassessment. Every time there are changes in family circumstances—for example, a young person leaving home or perhaps a woman becoming widowed—there is a case for reassessment. This process is taking weeks and sometimes months. Moreover, if we are to have these changes in April, it must be borne in mind that at the present rate of progress it will be well into midsummer before individual cases are dealt with. Do I understand the Minister to say that then the whole bureaucratic process will have to be gone through again in November because of the up-rating of benefits in November and the other changes referred to in the Statement which are also to take place in November? Who is to do all this work at a time when local authorities are being pressurised to reduce their staff and are experiencing great difficulty in dealing with the matter? I am sorry to press these details, but they are so important to millions of people in this country.
There is confusion about the heating addition. Some people find that, through all these manoeuvres of bureaucracy, they are losing their heating additions. There is something called the "excess income figure" which the DHSS has to send to the council before the council can pay benefit to a person. Again there are complaints of weeks and months of delay before the council gets this information. I want to be constructive, so may I suggest to the Minister that his department looks very thoroughly at the forms which are sent out in this connection? At present, each local authority can compose its own form, and these forms are self-completed. A very high percentage of forms are not completed properly and have to be returned, often because the forms themselves are unclear to start with. This high failure rate is very wasteful of time and money. I am sure that it would not be too difficult for advice to be given on this by the department.
Lastly, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give consideration to the setting up of an appeal system in the area of housing benefits similar to the appeal system that operates for supplementary benefit, with its appeal tribunals, with, if necessary, further appeal to the social security commissioners. At present, people who think that they do not receive a fair deal from these benefit arrangements are deprived of a proper appeal system. I very much hope not only that that will be set up, but that the widest publicity will be given to it.
There is no doubt that all over the country confusion, disappointment, poverty and anxiety are being caused by this housing benefit scheme. Although I do not expect the Minister today to promise a fundamental review of housing policy in this country, I hope that, when the committee which is to be set up
912
reports, no time will be lost in making fundamental changes to what was a really hopeless, stupid innovation.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating this Statement. We should like to include our voices in the tributes that have been paid to the late Sir Arthur Armitage, whose Social Security Advisory Committee has done such valuable work.
On the question of the SSAC, is it not the case that the consultation period was extraordinarily short, and that all the local authority organisations complained about this? Would it not have been better to spend more time on this process of consultation and thus to have avoided the cumulative effects, of which the Government do not seem to have been aware? For example, in the original proposal some families might have been adversely affected as to £14 a week, or even more.
We certainly welcome the less savage increase in the rent and rate tapers. We also give a qualified welcome to the proposal that the qualifying period for modification of deductions for non-dependants aged 18 and over will be reduced from 90 days to 56 days, as proposed by the advisory committee. However, will the noble Lord confirm that apart from a young person qualifying under that clause, there will still be a huge increase in contributions by young people—from £3.10 to £8.20; in other words, a £6 increase in the contribution of non-dependants aged 18 and over? Are those still the correct figures?
The Statement also refers to people on YTS and it appears that their position will not be changed until November 1984. Can the noble Lord tell us whether normal young people on YTS will be expected to contribute the full rate of £8.20? Is that not an enormous amount on an allowance of £25?
The Statement refers to the enormous growth of housing benefit cost, and the original saving proposed was of the order of £230 million. Can the noble Lord tell us what the new figure is? In other words, what is the value of this package to consumers? In fact, was not this enormous growth in housing expenditure partly caused by the decision to raise the upper limit of mortgage tax relief at a cost of £200 million in the last Budget?
Finally, the Statement refers to a review team. Would it not be better to defer all changes until after the review—that is to say, until November? Is it not the case that local authority associations made it plain that they would find it very hard to rewrite their computer programs by 1st April? The Statement refers to full account of administrative problems having been taken. Is that really so? A rushed job will surely lead to over-payments or no payments, and increase frustration.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for their comments on the Statement which I have repeated. First, perhaps I may deal with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The noble Baroness queried whether or

913
not adequate facilities were available within the local authorities to cope with the changes. The fact is that facilities have been made available by the DHSS to help the local authorities cope with the changes that need to be made.
The noble Baroness asked about the date for a likely debate on the regulations. The fact is that the regulations are negative resolution regulations, so local authorities can start preparing for them now, as they actually have the force of law because they have been laid. However, it is up to the noble Baroness and others to decide whether or not they wish to debate them. No doubt, if they want to, that will indeed happen. Others of the regulations which are connected with these regulations are, in fact, affirmative regulations and I am sure that, when the noble Baroness sees them, she will realise that they are another matter, although they are not unconnected.
The noble Baroness said that we would have to go through the whole performance again in November. As she knows, round about July, when the rate of inflation for May is known, it will be possible to start making the necessary calculations to achieve the results for the up-rating in November. So the answer is not in any way other than in any other situation where benefits must be up-rated. The noble Baroness asked particularly whether payment could be made from the date of the application. Perhaps I may assure her that the regulations provide for back-dating of benefits to the date when the claim is received. Indeed, for standard cases—that is to say, for those not on supplementary benefit—local authorities have discretion to back-date benefit up to a year before the claim in exceptional circumstances.
I have already answered the question: why double the changes by effectively introducing them again in November? The noble Baroness asked whether an appeal system could be introduced following the review which I described when I repeated the Statement. This is very much a matter for the review to examine, and I hope that the noble Baroness will leave the matter at that. She asked various other questions on heating additions and other excesses which go slightly wide of the particular matter before us. If I can find any information on that, I shall of course let her have it.
I do not think that I can usefully be drawn on the question of forms now. Forms which are incorrectly filled in may be partly due to the fact that they are complex and partly due to the fact that those who are filling them in are not good at filling in forms. It is incredibly difficult to produce a form which satisfies everyone, but some substantial changes have been made in the quality of forms for matters of this sort over the last few years, and, from visits that I have made to local offices, I have seen the effect that these changes are having.
The noble Baroness asked about the need for adequate facilities for training and the need to improve administration, including the flow of certificates. The April changes are deliberately limited to changes in rates of benefit so that they can be administered quickly and without great training. The department has agreed with the local authority associations a number of proposals to improve the administration of
914
the scheme. Some of these are contained in regulations laid today; some require only administrative action. A joint circular will shortly be sent to both local authorities and local offices about this, and it will stress the need for quick transfer of information, including certificates.
I turn to the points of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. He indicated that the consultation period was too short. The need to restrain the excessive growth of public expenditure, as was made plain at the time of the autumn statement, allowed a short period; nevertheless, to have allowed spending on the benefits of which these are part to have ripped ahead of sensible public expenditure would have been very unwise. Therefore, it was necessary to have a comparatively short time for consultation.
The noble Lord asked for some facts about whether the 16 to 17 year-olds on the youth training scheme would have a rise in their contributions up to £8·20. The answer is, no. The 16 to 17 year-olds who at the moment contribute nothing will contribute up to £3·10 but, if they are on supplementary benefit, or on the youth training scheme, or in receipt of non-contributory invalidity pension, the answer is that they will not be required to make any contribution.
The noble Lord asked about the value of the package. By this I imagine that he is asking what the value of the package is overall; the sum total that is going to be reduced. When it was announced original, the effect would have been a saving of £230 million in 1984–85. This has been reduced by some £33 million and further by about £20 million in 1985–86. The question of mortgages is not a matter for me. That is a matter of general taxation policy and so is for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble Lord asked about the review team, and suggested that it might have been better to wait until the review team had got under way before doing what we are doing now. The fact is that steps had to be taken now. It is a subject which has been exercising many people and causing a great deal of uncertainty. It was right that certain changes should be made. It was equally right that my right honourable friend should announce that there is a review team under the independent chairmanship to which I referred, and that will be given effect to in the way I described.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that his Statement this afternoon will have done little to alleviate the fears of people up and down the country who know that this benefit scheme is in total chaos? Many town halls are struggling with reduced resources and reduced staff to come to terms with the original proposals. We have now had this new package, welcome though it may be, and I understood from local authorities and the computer people who advise them that it was going to be impossible to implement the original proposals by this April. Therefore, any further changes like this will only help to emphasise what we all said at the beginning—that the scheme was ill thought-out from the start.
The fact that the Government have had to have this major reshuffle before the original scheme has been totally implemented would seem to be an admission that the thing is not working. For that reason I had

915
intended to ask the noble Lord, in the supplementary I withheld on my noble friend's original Question, to suspend the whole operation and have a review first, then introduce the changes, rather than, as the Government seem to be doing, introduce the changes and then have a review. That seems the wrong way round, and in my view will cause even more chaos than exists at the moment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, says about chaos and the way he has referred to it. We have to contain public expenditure now. We cannot necessarily contain it only in the future, and therefore it is important that these adjustments are made now. So far as the problems faced by local authorities are concerned, what I have repeated this afternoon indicates that only two major changes are going to go ahead in April; that is, the change in the tapers and the non-dependant deductions. That, of course, simplifies the matter for local authorities. In any case, our advice is that local authorities will be able to cope with the limited changes which are now being implemented. This is commented upon by the management consultants who have been looking at the matter with local authorities, and they are satisfied.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does not the Minister agree with my noble friend that this really is a minimal crumb to come before us today? During the Statement the noble Lord said that, by concentrating it in this way, it will help local authorities with their administrative problems. How, by dealing in this rather stingy, mingy way, with tapers, by increasing from 21 per cent. to 26 per cent. in April, then from 26 per cent. to 29 per cent. in November, is this going to help any administrative problems? It is probably going to cost even more than it gets in by trying to deal with the matter in these two bites at the one cherry.
If the Government had taken the view that the 31 per cent. and even the 29 per cent.—which I agree is a slightly welcome reduction—were still too high, would not that have done much more to deal with this? Secondly, does the noble Lord accept that some real hardship will be caused by postponing the real increase in the housing benefit children's needs allowance from April, when it was to be increased by £1? Is it not true that, even if it will be £1·50 in April 1985, with the way inflation and unemployment are going up we do not even know what that will be worth in real terms?
Finally, on the question of housing, with which I am particularly concerned, is it not a fact that it is just a postponement of the higher rent scheme, and that in fact the amount of arrears which have been mounting up, as my noble friend pointed out, will in fact be getting even higher, and that unfortunately we shall by then have seen a great many evictions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks about tapers. She suggested, if I understood her drift correctly, that taking two slices at it would have the effect of increasing the work for local authorities. The Social Security Advisory Committee made the recommendation that the taper changes should carry some transitional protection. That is a recommen-
916
dation of theirs, and one that we are adopting. So far as the children's needs allowance is concerned, it is not possible to contain public expenditure in the way that we are trying to contain it without some measure of control to try to mitigate the effects of the adjustments which are being made. The children's needs allowance is the one area in which it is possible now to make some restrictions. But by 1985 that will have been more than compensated for by increasing it to £1·50. I cannot forecast what inflation is going to be in 1985, but I can say that it is a great deal lower than it was in 1979, whichever way one looks at it.
So far as the higher rent thresholds are concerned, it is a fairly technical matter, as the noble Baroness will be aware. While the figure that we had before indicated an increase to 150 per cent.—which is what the figure stood at before—which has been gradually eroded, it is bad news, to some extent, I suppose one can say, that it is going up to 130 per cent., but it is good news that it is not going the whole way to 150 per cent. I hope I have got that right, but, if I have got it wrong, I hope I may explain it to the noble Baroness in writing.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have had a pretty good discussion on this subject, and I hope that it will be the will of the House that we now resume the debate on the Bill.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
4.59 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, before I get down to the meat of the business I should like to join other noble Lords in their congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I do not think that I have ever heard a tribute paid in better terms than the tribute by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I should like to endorse everything that he has said.
At the outset I should like to welcome the Bill. I agree with so many other noble Lords in their sadness that in this day and age we should be discussing the suspension of civil rights and not their extension. The facts are that criminal violence and international criminal violence have grown to such an extent that without some legislative action the prime right, as my noble friend the Minister said, the right to live, is in great danger. It is a balancing act. We can go too far, but we can go not quite far enough. If we do not go far enough, the population will lose confidence in the forces of law and order and then retaliate and take the law into their own hands. That is the balance we have to carry out.
This is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Other noble Lords have been using statistics. I believe that it is impossible for those statistics to tell us the truth, which is: as a result of the operation of the previous Act, how many acts of terrorism have been prevented? I believe that many have been prevented.
The Bill is part of the legal paraphernalia to aid the forces of law and order. It is because of that that I heard with dismay the hysterical complaints about the

917
visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to Armagh barracks to the Grenadier Guards. These complaints were made by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and his great rival Mr. Haughey, and other Republicans in Northern Ireland joined in in condemning that visit.
The protests were in the tone and in terms which have given comfort to the IRA—the largest element of comfort or boost it has had since the escape from the Maze Prison. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen the statements issued by the Government, but I thought that I would take all I could find to show that the Government have aided this comfort by failing to be clear about their position on this visit. On Friday the Northern Ireland Office said that it had no foreknowledge. On Saturday the Northern Ireland Office said that it was aware. On Sunday the Northern Ireland Office said that His Royal Highness was in the barracks for two hours. On Sunday Buckingham Palace said that His Royal Highness was there for 15 minutes. Lastly the MoD statement came out and I thought it crowned the whole lot. It said, "Prince Philip is rather a difficult fellow".
It is a serious point, but can we not stop apologising? The visit happened. The Irish Government had no right to speak, certainly nor did Mr. Haughey, and that should have been the end of it. But many people have been slandered. And I thought I should try to put into perspective for this House the conditions and the state of County Armagh which is where that battalion is operating and from which battalion eight men have been charged with serious crimes including murder. They have been charged as a result of a supergrass. When supergrasses put away Republicans then "supergrass" is a dirty word and should be condemned. I have yet to hear any Republican condemn the use of a supergrass for the eight men in the UDR.
At the outset I should make it absolutely clear that I condemn murder without equivocation or qualification whatsoever. There are certain Prelates in Northern Ireland who never condemn in the way that His Holiness the Pope did when he said, "Murder is murder" and that is that.
The first point I must make clear is that these eight men come from a battalion of about 600. They are innocent until they are proved guilty. I believe that the protestors are in contempt of court because, were the trial to be a jury trial, the defence in my view—I am not a lawyer—would be quite right to say that in front of a jury a fair trial would be impossible. I hope that the Attorney General might look at those who are within our jurisdiction. There are some who are not.
It is intolerable to have Dublin politicians interfering with United Kingdom justice. There are hundreds of honourable and brave soldiers in that UDR battalion. They should not be labelled "guilty" when they are not even suspected. Mr. Haughey, probably the future Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, called for the disbandment of the Ulster Defence Regiment, because there were few Roman Catholics in it. I should like to remind the House that when the UDR was first formed the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants—both
918
communities—was a satisfactory balance. But the Roman Catholics have been so murdered and so intimidated by the IRA that their numbers have become minimal. That has happened as a result of the IRA, whose foundation was laid by certain Southern politicians with the aid of a large sum of money.
The history of the Ulster Defence Regiment is something of which I am very proud. Some 32,000 Ulstermen have either served or are still serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Of course, they are not all angels, but what group of 32,000 Englishmen, Irishmen or Scotsmen would all be angels? Their record of service is unbelievable. The risks they have run on our behalf will never he repaid. On a recent agricultural visit I had the honour of taking some noble Lords round to meet some of those brave men in their isolated farmhouses and other places where they live. I invite any other noble Lords to come to Northern Ireland and I will take them round so that they too may appreciate the bravery of these men.
The particular climate in Armagh since that battalion started is no excuse for retaliation, if retaliation has occurred. But since 1969, 161 Protestants have been murdered in a deliberate attempt at genocide. If one multiplies the population in those two police areas up to that of London and then multiplies the murders, the rate would be running at 25,000 murders. That is the climate in which they are serving. Most of the murders originated and were carried out by people from across the border—Mr. Haughey's country and that of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.
This describes the atmosphere. If these eight soldiers are found guilty it is the Government's failure to protect that population which has led to the frustration which has caused the retaliation. Thereby, if they are found guilty, they are playing into the hands of the IRA and I condemn it absolutely. There is no excuse.
A great boost has been handed to the IRA because of the rivalry—that is all it is—between two politicians. Mr. Haughey is trying to take the carpet from under the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic has made a statement because he knew Mr. Haughey was going to try to take the trousers off him—and he did on television yesterday. But this rivalry is putting our lives at risk. It is totally unjustified and I protest against it. Like the noble Lord, I should like to express my complete confidence in the forces of the Crown as, I hope, would all in this House. I recognise that this Bill makes their task possible. Without it, it would be impossible.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, even after three Statements I think that we can all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he says that terrorism is one of the greatest scourges of the modern era. Contrary to what is sometimes said, I suggest that it is seldom completely mindless or unthinking and is usually very coldly calculated. It is dangerous, in particular, because it inspires fear and panic and induces irrational behaviour, even sometimes in Governments. I think we have a duty to take measured and considered steps against terrorism. Our aim

919
should be to protect democratic law and order, with minimum harm to human rights and civil liberties. We need also to beware of the illusion that security measures alone may be able to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland, as some parties have sometimes suggested, although I know that it is not the Government's view.
I should like to welcome all the considerable improvements that this Bill incorporates over its predecessor. As to the proscription of organisations, I agree entirely with what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, noted in his report and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, confirmed in his introduction of the Bill, the growth of international terrorism. I think it is by no means absolutely certain that present powers to protect very obvious targets such as Parliament itself, the Royal palaces and diplomatic premises are adequate. We might well consider whether protection could be improved either in this Bill or by other means.
Under the Bill, it is possible for a person to be detained for up to seven days. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill lays down a maximum of four days' detention. Can Her Majesty's Government really justify the extra three days? I should like to see applications for detention of more than 48 hours decided by a judge in chambers. Such an application is similar to a bail hearing. Judges are experienced in these matters and, of course, are a good deal more available than the Secretary of State himself. As to access, I should like to see rights of access by a doctor—and, when possible, a doctor of the detainee's choice—after 24 hours and by a solicitor after 48 hours. This would follow the recommendations of the Bennett Committee.
Can the noble Lord the Minister say whether those who will be detained under this Bill will be covered by the access provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill? Those who are arrested under Prevention of Terrorism provisions in Great Britain will, I hope, he supplied with a written statement of their rights. Again, it would be good to have confirmation of this. This, too, would be in line with the Bennett recommendation (paragraph 91) and with the Home Office draft code of practice on the treatment of suspects, which came out in November 1982. Will Her Majesty's Government provide compensation if loss, rather than just brief inconvenience, is suffered by a person wrongly arrested and detained, for example, in cases of mistaken identity?
May I urge Her Majesty's Government to consider the various points that have been raised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland? The commission wanted the period of detention under Clause 13 to be very much shorter than that under Clause 12. They suggested a period of only four hours. This, I think, would be enough to establish the identity of the arrested person and is, in fact, the same period as has the Army in Northern Ireland for its arrests under Section 14 of the Emergency Provisions Act. I am sure that the Government will take very seriously the commission's points about discrimination against Northern Ireland residents legitimately travelling to and from the mainland. The commission is very well placed to
920
assess the impact of this and other points on community relations and their potential for arousing dislike, and even hatred, of the United Kingdom Government.
This Bill, it has been pointed out, perpetuates major restrictions on traditional liberties. It confers wide and sweeping powers on the Secretary of State and it was very little, although slightly, amended in another place. I had hoped that it would omit anything to do with exclusion orders, or at least confine them to persons who had already left either Great Britain or Northern Ireland. The Standing Commission described these orders as providing for internal exile and said that they could be punitive in effect. I take it from what the noble Lord the Minister has already said that the Secretary of State before making an order takes into account the likelihood of a man losing his job or his house and the probable impact on his wife and children, if any, along with all the other security factors. I should like to follow, again at this point, what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about compensation for persons who are excluded.
For these and other reasons your Lordships should examine the Bill most minutely and possibly amend it. I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in what he said about the scrutiny arrangement of the workings of this Bill. I should be very much happier if there could be a standing parliamentary committee, perhaps drawn from both Houses, to oversee this legislation and also the Emergency Provisions Acts. I think that such a committee would greatly improve the annual or six-monthly debates on renewal. The committee could receive complaints from individuals and could take evidence in camera. We already have two European conventions, one on human rights and one on terrorism. Like many others, I should like to see the former convention incorporated into English law. I should also like to see these conventions backed up by a European code on the treatment and interrogation of suspects.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I am sorry I was not present to hear the opening speeches of this debate; and, because I was not, I will make my speech short. I wanted to express my feelings of opposition and concern that if this Bill, together with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in its present form, are passed through Parliament during this year, then together that will represent a victory for the most authoritarian elements in our society. What started as being a temporary emergency measure has become, as such measures so often do become, something permanent and normal, with, now, the legislation being renewed with little essential change in its most objectionable features. The more it becomes entrenched and the more it becomes used, the closer we become to abdicating the rule of law in matters of individual liberty and giving power to the Executive.
When a Government Minister, as under this Bill and its predecessor, unchecked by any court, can order the detention of a citizen for seven whole days; when a Government Minister, unchecked by any court, can order the banishment of a citizen to a particular part of the country in which he lives; when a Government Minister, unchecked by any court, can declare that an

921
organisation is to be banned; and when those measures, enacted for a temporary purpose, become a permanent part of our legislation, then the time is coming to say, "We are going too far". We are allowing ourselves to be deceived, by those who do not want to give up those powers, into believing that they are necessary for the prevention of crime. But the police have all kinds of powers now, irrespective of this legislation, for the prevention of crime, for the arrest of suspects, the searching of homes and the exclusion of undesirable aliens. These powers increasingly are being used not for the prevention of crime but for the control over those who are thought to be dissident.
Lord Somers: My Lords, might I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I am always astonished at the reluctance of certain people to prevent the criminal from going his own happy way. How about the law-abiding person? Are his rights of liberty to be sacrificed because the criminal must have his way?
Lord Gifford: My Lords, the difficulty with legislation of this kind is that more and more law-abiding people get sucked into detention under this. When criminals are suspected of being guilty of offences the law has, and always has had, a full measure of authority to arrest them, to charge them and to bring them to trial.
I would wish to make two protests over certain aspects of this Bill, and particularly of Part IV, which have a significance far beyond the conflict in Northern Ireland which was the genesis of this emergency legislation. The first is that we are being obliged to discuss the re-enactment, with some changes, of the provisions of Part IV, dealing with the arrest and detention of suspects quite separately from the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The Government are due to bring before us later this year a wide-ranging measure which is now being discussed in the other place. When it comes to this House, there will, I hope, be a very serious discussion about the limits of police powers and the extent to which police powers need to be increased, to the detriment of civil liberties.
The Government in their wisdom have put forward a pattern in the Bill that there are certain offences to be considered serious offences which justify detention of up to four days, subject to safeguards that the detained person must be brought before a court and must have access to a lawyer. Those provisions we shall debate: but we are now being asked to pass a measure dealing with what I suppose the Government are putting into a separate category of "super-serious offences" where the time limit is to be seven days, where there is to be no right of access to a lawyer and, still worse, there is to be no right of access to a court. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, tried to frame his recommendations on the basis that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill was going to be passed, but we have not passed it and we, should have the right to debate the whole question of police powers of arrest for serious crime in a package. I would ask that the whole of Part IV be taken out of this Bill and discussed in the context of the Bill to come before us later this year.
My second protest deals with the same part of the Bill and with the definition of those who are to be subject to the powers of arrest and detention of up to
922
seven days under Clause 12. The people who may be detained are those who are suspected of being
"concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies".
Further down we read that that means,
"acts of terrorism of any description"
occurring anywhere in the world unless they are related exclusively to the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland. Later in Clause 14 we read that:
"'terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends"
Therefore, anyone who is suspected of even instigating the use of violence for political ends anywhere in the world and in any connection other than a purely English or British one is liable to arrest and detention under this Bill.
We live in a violent world. There are deep conflicts taking place around it. There are people of every political and social creed and description, engaged both as governments and not as governments, using violence for political ends. If I support, as I do, the right of the people of South Africa to take up arms against the intolerable régime of apartheid, am I instigating the use of violence for political ends? And if other noble Lords support the right of the people of Afghanistan to rebel against the rule of the Soviet-backed government, are they instigating the use of violence for political ends?
One can look around the world and see Saharans, Eritreans, Namibians, Salvadoreans, Palestinians and so on who are engaged, rightly or wrongly, in the use of violence for political ends, some of whom regularly and legitimately come to this country to explain why they are engaged in such acts. Are they all to be subject to arrest? Presumably not. Or are they to be subject to arrest only if their particular creed or form of struggle is offensive to Her Majesty's Government? That makes it still more arbitrary. This clause is dangerous, and I hope that in Committee we shall manage to limit it, at the very least, to offences or suspected offences which have a connection with Northern Ireland, which was, after all, the genesis of this legislation.
I have kept to the wider issues. I do not want it to be thought that I am happy with the other parts of the Bill which are limited to the affairs of Northern Ireland. I am not; and I hope to be able to take part in the Committee proceedings. But even if every clause relating to the affairs of Northern Ireland in this Bill was necessary, the Bill would have more fundamental and wider objections. It goes far wider than the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is, the more we keep it on the statute book, and, still more, the more we use it, a threat to our liberties.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow an hereditary Peer from what I may describe as the younger generation who has made by far the most radical speech of the day. I do not agree with a word of it so I shall not follow it in any sense, except that what I am going to say I hope will be largely on the other side. But, first, I must say with what pleasure I heard the admirable maiden speech of my noble friend—I must call him so—Lord Henderson of Brompton. It is, and has been, a tradition in this House that maiden speeches make

923
reference to literature of some kind or another, and we had a rich dividend from the noble Lord today. I should like to cap his comments about Milton's speech in the House of Commons in this way: it is a pity that Dr. Johnson did not overlap enough to report him in his Hansard-writing days, because he thought absolutely nothing of him, as the noble Lord will remember from his steady perusal of the lives of the poets. He made several important points but they are all really points we shall come to in Committee, so I will say no more than that his speech gave great pleasure to me and to everybody else in the House, and we look forward to hearing a great deal more from him.
I was shocked and depressed that the Labour Party in another place could not vote for a Second Reading of this Bill but found it necessary to move an amendment in a contrary sense. I was glad to see that most of my former ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland were hestitant about this. Not one of them spoke in favour of it. Two of my favourites, I am sorry to say, voted in its favour, but neither of the two Secretaries of State with whom I was concerned, nor any of the others, seemed to have voted at all. No doubt they were diplomatically elsewhere.
I was a junior Minister in Northern Ireland when the original Bill was brought in in 1974. I welcomed it wholeheartedly then and I welcome it wholeheartedly now. The changes recommended by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, approved this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and explained by the Minister, are sensible and I support them. I shall not go into them again. I am at a loss to understand the Labour Party's opposition but I absolutely accept the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it was for good and honourable reasons. I accept that fully. I know how difficult it is in party politics not to have to support a certain number of things about which you are not at all sure, but it is very awkward indeed to support things which you ought, in my opinion, to be absolutely certain are wrong. However, that is the nearest I shall go to criticism. I was just very much upset by this and I think it was a very serious mistake. I think it is due to a complete lack of understanding of the sort of struggle and the ruthlessness of the struggle which is going on.
I remember the first speech that I ever made in your Lordships' House as a Northern Ireland Minister. It must have been early in the troubles—I suppose, March 1974. Several speakers said that they thought the new Labour Ministers there were giving too little support to the RUC and the military, and one said that the army was having to fight with one hand tied behind its back. I promised to look into this, and did so. Of course, it was my Secretary of State's business, not mine, but he said, "Go round to the local army commanders and see what they say" I did and I met with no complaints of political holding back. The army were always very understanding of the political position. They knew very well that the terrorists could succeed only if a fair group of the local population would give them safe shelter. They knew that too much harrassment worked against the decent people who deplored violence and who sheltered gunmen
924
only because they had relations among them or would be beaten up if they did not.
Even so, there was a lot of information gained from interviews and the number of knee-cappings in those early days shows that it is not only supergrasses who tell tales. There was constant information coming and constant punishment of people who gave it. It does not suggest to me that they gave it under very much pressure, but this is a matter about which it is very difficult to be certain. I certainly think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he complained of certain practices there, was right, though I must say that I travelled back in the aeroplane with a Brigadier—he has just got an important job somewhere else—who said. "I have never heard such rot in my life. I was tortured properly by the Japanese. What we are doing is kids' play". Still I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was absolutely right to see that we did not do it and I do not think it has been done since. It was a question of making people stand up in a certain position for a long time and things of that sort. It was very unsatisfactory and I am glad that we stopped it.
The security forces told me then, and they would tell your Lordships now, that they know almost every gunman by name and often his address over the border. It was, and is, extremely difficult to pin the crimes on people who had pretty certainly committed them, particularly when witnesses usually refused to appear in court to confirm their evidence and often got shot-up if they did; hence the Diplock courts.
I know very well that the mainland is not the same. The population here, thank goodness, is 99 per cent. totally hostile to the gunmen wherever they come from. But the IRA, the main enemy, is well organized, well fleeced with money and weapons, and I do not believe we can do less than give the police everything, in reason, that they ask for in their difficult and dangerous task of defending this country from terrorists. In Northern Ireland, it was true that too much searching, too much roughness on the part of the RUC gave great offence and it was gradually eased down, because it was absolutely essential not to lose the support of the ordinary population. When my Secretary of State gave up the detention system, by which people were sent into the Maze without trial, it was for that reason and it was with the total understanding of the army.
Nothing of that sort exists here. I do not believe for a moment that ill feeling is being worked up because certain people, a few hundreds, are stopped at the border. Five hours ago, just to make sure about this Bill, I rang up Sir Kenneth Newman, with whom I worked over there eight years ago and whom I greatly admired, and asked his views. He said simply, "The Bill is essential to our success".
We must not send them out with one hand tied behind their backs. It is, of course, a balance between the civil rights of the ordinary man and support of the police against the most ruthless gangsters. I believe that the ordinary British citizen, and a majority of the Irish citizens who live in this country, will be wholeheartedly in support of this Bill, which gives the police the support that they need to do their job, and would put up with the inconvenience of temporary detention and questioning without complaint in a

925
good cause. I have the same figures as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted and I draw an absolutely opposite conclusion from them. There were 5,500 people detained in the eight years that the Act has been in force and 655 were charged, which is over one in 10. Of these 655,261 were excluded and 109 were charged under the Act. The rest of those 655 were charged with offences not under the Act. Of the 370—that is, 261 plus 109—who were excluded or charged under the Act, I think on e can say that each one might have been a bomber. The only existing charge under the Act which is not of the most serious kind is under Clause 11; the question of information. It may have been that a great many of them were stopped for that reason, although it seems most unlikely. In any case, if you get 300 out of 5,000 and you think you have stopped 200 potential gunmen, then the price is extremely cheap and I draw exactly the opposite conclusion to that of my noble friend on the Labour Front Bench.
I do not believe that the ordinary citizen would grudge the inconvenience, which, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, is usually an hour or two and not a day or two. It is only a day or two when there is something that needs a great deal of explanation. The only people who are likely to complain are those who have some connection with the IRA or with any other terrorist organisation which they are frightened may be exposed. When it is not exposed, which is very often the case, good luck to them. They go off and have another go. But if you think I mind because they are minding, I assure your Lordships that I do not and I hope the House does not either.
We support the Bill in its entirety and we shall have the chance in Committee to introduce any minor variations which may seem desirable. There are two clauses which need closely looking at. One is Clause 11, which we have talked about, and the other was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and is the universal clause, which needs very careful examination. It is an agreeable and unusual position for me to be supporting the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, but I am very happy to do so.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I believe that I owe the Minister an apology for not being in my place when he commenced his speech, but I had been obliged to keep a previously arranged appointment. Your Lordships will know that I am one of the most junior and least experienced Members of your Lordships' House, but I recall with gratitude the guidance which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, gave me about 12 months ago when I became a Member of your Lordships' House. Although I very much appreciate the historical references in his speech, I regret that on this occasion I am unable to accept the guidance which he has tendered.
The House is being asked to form a judgment on a difficult and important issue. The Minister and, indeed, all Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken this afternoon have properly acknowledged that the powers bestowed on the Secretary of State and the police by the Bill are exceptional. We have been reminded about how the Home Secretary who introduced the predecessor Act of 1974 described
926
his powers as draconian and unprecedented in peacetime. The powers are so abnormal that the legislation is to be subject to annual renewal and expressly limited in duration, but we recall that the 1974 Act was to last possibly for no more than six months. Subject to annual review, this legislation will endure for five years. Therefore, the legislation is becoming that much more permanent, though I, for my part, am grateful that the word "temporary" has been reintroduced into the title of the Bill.
I shall not go over the clauses. However, it is right that I should very briefly draw your Lordships' attention to three of the powers contained in the Bill. The noble Lord the Minister has referred to two of them. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to these powers so that we may perceive how fundamental they are to the liberty of the subject and see, even if we do not always sympathise with it, the force of the criticism which has been levelled at them.
First, the Bill gives to the Home Secretary the unlimited power to ban any organisation which appears to him to be concerned with terrorism, but his belief as to the association is subjective, the proscription order is not made after an inquiry to which the organisation is a party and the Secretary of State's decision cannot be appealed against. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, concluded that he would be loth to see any addition to the list of proscribed organisations, but we note that he did not go further and recommend the removal of this part of the existing legislation.
The second power to which I wish to refer is also contained in the predecessor Act. It is the unlimited power given to the Secretary of State, without cause assigned, to exclude a citizen from his domicile if it appears to the Minister to be expedient to do so in order to prevent an act of terrorism. The House should be reminded, if indeed it requires to be reminded, that until 1974 the power of banishment or exile had for centuries been unheard of in peacetime in our country. I shall not refer to the dissidents in the USSR, but I will refer to Article 24 of the Soviet Criminal Code which provides for exile and banishment as (this is my point) a form of punishment for a convicted person. But the article in the Soviet Criminal Code provides that exile is not to be applied to a convicted person who has not attained the age of 18, or to a pregnant woman, or to a woman with dependent children.
Thirdly, the Bill gives to the police the power to arrest without warrant a citizen if they reasonably suspect that he is or has been concerned with acts of terrorism. Moreover, such a person can be detained with the consent of the Minister for a period of up to seven days. During that very long week the most famous writ in England, the writ of habeas corpus, is not available to the detainee. Therefore, a brief reference to these powers brings us back to the point from which I started: that the Bill represents an extraordinary interference with the civil liberties of the subject.
Very substantial risks are inherent in a situation where there is a conflict between the interests of national security on the one hand and the basic liberties of the individual on the other. It is argued that if the powers contained in this Bill are not introduced, the executive could lose control of the situation. If, on the other hand, those powers are too severe or are

927
abused, such powers can be counter-productive. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has great experience of the situation in Northern Ireland, has spoken of how counter-productive the legislation can be. The balance is a matter for Parliament. Usually Parliament gets the balance right but it may get it wrong.
It appears to be the accepted view—although the great Lord Atkin, had he been among us, would probably have questioned and challenged this view—that the exercise of the powers contained in the Bill, being powers to be exercised for the protection of the state, cannot be examined by a court of law. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, referred to this view. It is claimed that in this situation one cannot substitute the decision of the judges for the decision of the Minister. We are familiar with the reasoning: that the facts placed before the executive authority are confidential matters of public importance and should not be disclosed to a court of law. That reasoning was accepted in 1942, 40 years ago, during the crisis of the second world war. But Lord Atkin, dissenting in a powerful speech and using these words, to which I attach a great deal of importance, said:
"In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed but they speak the same language in war as in peace. And it has always been one of the pillars of freedom and of the principles of liberty for which, on recent authority, we are now fighting that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempt at encroachments on his liberty by the executive".
The accepted view, that a court cannot explore the mind of the executive authority, certainly applies in wartime, but should this be an unshakable view in peacetime? First things come first. Before the executive arms itself with such powers it must establish to the satisfaction of the Houses of Parliament, drawn from every class and corner, that this is absolutely necessary. Has that been established in connection with this Bill? Has that case been made out?
There is no unanimity in 1984 as to the need for granting such powers to the Executive. Certainly the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in the light of the facts and reports which he carefully studied, found that the powers should not be dispensed with. That was also the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. The Government rely heavily on that guidance. But there is also an opposite view. It is argued by many individuals and organisations—and not only by the ever-vigilant National Council for Civil Liberties—that the noble Earl's conclusions are not conclusive of the matter.
There exists one powerful argument against reenacting the anti-terrorism legislation to which reference has not been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon. In 1974, the legislation itself had been shaped by conflict and fear. It could be argued that it has increased tension. We cannot undo history, but we need persistent efforts to relax the tension. It is a matter of judging the occasions when to stand firm and when to begin moving towards reconciliation. It is our belief—and I accept that it can be no more than a belief—that the non-re-enactment of the Act may lead to the gradual relaxation of tension. This, in turn, could lead to a breakthrough to a broader social order in Northern Ireland embodying justice and reasoning.
928
It behoves Parliament to seek to move beyond legislation shaped by conflict and confrontation and to seek broader solutions. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that the re-enactment of the 1976 legislation could be a step towards that end.
If, on balance—and we accept that the argument does go this way—it is considered proper in peacetime to renew that legislation, then Parliament must be constantly vigilant and alert to the possible abuse of these powers; bearing in mind that the possessor of those powers may not always realise that he is abusing them, and bearing in mind also that we cannot assume that a detainee will always receive fair treatment. We cannot overlook that there is, as always, a seamy side to life.
In January 1983 the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made a large number of recommendations to help ensure that such powers were not abused. He made about a dozen recommendations which could be implemented by circular or administrative action. That was more than a year ago. I shall be grateful if the Minister will inform the House how many of the noble Earl's recommendations which did not have to wait upon legislation but which could have been implemented by circular or administrative action have been accepted but not yet implemented, and how many have been rejected.
As my noble friend Lord Mishcon has explained, the Committee will have to consider whether the Bill should include more safeguards for the citizen. Should the aggrieved citizen be given the right to make representations to a standing advisory committee, as I believe was provided for in wartime legislation? Again, should the Home Secretary be under a duty to publish a monthly report to Parliament as to the actions taken by him under the Act, as I believe was also provided for under wartime legislation? Our concern from these Benches will be to safeguard our people against the abuses of power. The abuse of power can in itself be a form of tyranny.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest of attention and respect to all that your Lordships have had to say. I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton (I cannot forebear from calling him "my noble friend" as well—why should I be left out of this?) on a remarkably concise and lucid maiden speech. I can assure the noble Lord that I shall never think of him as an isolated atoll. I can think of few people who are less of an island unto themselves alone than the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I shall, on the contrary, think of him as a principal adornment of the distinguished archipelago which has its place on the Cross-Benches of your Lordships' House.
I will try first to pick up a number of specific points which your Lordships have raised and will then return to general matters. I will say first to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that we must obviously consider very carefully in Committee the case he has advanced for separate orders under Clause 17. But I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Government, having looked closely at this aspect, believe that the Bill contains adequate provisions for parliamentary review and that further changes will not be appropri-

929
ate. But our ears and eyes are not shut to what your Lordships may bring before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who has contributed notably to the progress of these issues since they first reached the statute book, referred to his recommendation about the welfare of persons held under the legislation in Great Britain and to my noble friend's recognition that its implementation had been patchy. This relates to the noble Lord's Recommendation 16. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the draft code of practice on the treatment of suspects issued in conjunction with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill includes in paragraph 8 the requirement that cells in use for detainees should be adequately lit, heated and ventilated, aired and cleaned every working day; and that bedding must be regularly cleaned and fit for use. The code lays down also other requirements for access to washing and toilet facilities, exercise, and the provision of replacement clothing. The draft code will apply in this respect to persons detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation in exactly the same way as to any other persons detained by the police.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may intervene at this point, there is a difference between somebody being held for a relatively short peiod of time and being held for seven days and given baked beans for his meal every day. Is there anything on diet? I hope that there can be some special provision for those who are detained under this particular Act.
Lord Elton: I would rather wait until Committee, my Lords, to give the noble Lord a more specific reply to his question. I accept entirely that there is a difference between being kept in a cell for seven hours and for seven days. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised a number of important matters. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down some of the paths he tempted me with. I must confirm that those members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who face serious charges have not yet come to trial, so no judgment can be passed in this House or anywhere else. It is certainly true that the UDR as a whole has shown great courage and dedication in the fight against terrorism. The regiment has suffered nearly 140 deaths since 1970. That should be on the record, but I do not wish to go further.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for giving notice of the points that he raised. He referred to the need for legislation of this kind to be subject to very close scrutiny. He suggested that a standing parliamentary committee should be charged with that work. The Government have accepted the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe that this legislation should be of a limited life, and that is incorporated in subsection (3) of Clause 17. We believe that by providing for the Act to have a limited life, and for retaining the requirement for annual renewal—and bearing in mind my noble friend Lord Jellicoe's clear recommendation that a thorough review should precede any re-enactment—I hope your Lordships will accept that exceptional arrangements for close scrutiny have already been made. I do not believe that a specific body should be set up to keep an eye on the situation from day to day.
930
Like my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the serious disruption which may be caused to the lives of those who are excluded under Part II of the Bill and to their families, to which a number of noble Lords referred. It was this consideration which led us to accept the recommendation that the period of ordinary residence in a part of the United Kingdom which exempts a British citizen from exclusion from that part should be reduced from 20 years to three years. I should also draw attention to Clauses 4(3) and 5(3), which require the Secretary of State to have regard, in deciding whether to make an exclusion order, to whether the person's connection with any other country or territory is such as to make it appropriate that such an order should be made. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend does consider very carefully the implications of exclusion not only for the individual but also for his family.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was concerned with compensation for improper detention. Here I have to direct his attention to Section 48 of the Police Act 1964. This section makes the Chief Constable liable in respect of torts committed by officers under his direction and control. Any damages or costs awarded against the Chief Constable are paid by the police authority. The police authority may, if it thinks fit, make a payment in settlement of a claim; any payment made is wholly a matter for the police authority concerned. In other words, there is a procedure for the compensation of those improperly detained. I can assure him and other noble Lords that Clause 52 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, as drafted, gives persons arrested under the prevention of terrorism legislation an absolute right to see a solicitor 48 hours after their arrest. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill draft code of practice on treatment of suspects provides that if a detainee requests a medical examination it must be carried out as soon as possible, either by a police surgeon or by a doctor of the detainee's choice. If a detainee makes an allegation of assault while in custody the police surgeon must be called immediately to examine him, and the detainee must be asked whether he wishes his own doctor to be called. Although the arrangements for detention of suspects in Northern Ireland provide for a medical officer to see detainees every 24 hours, the Government's view is that for Great Britain the arrangements I have just outlined provide sufficient safeguards both for the detainees and, I should add, for the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, drew our attention to the suggestion of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights that the initial period of detention should be four hours, in line with that permitted to the army in Northern Ireland under the emergency powers legislation. I think it is clear that this is not appropriate to a police operation. It would be impracticable for the police to seek authorisation for an extension after such a short time. It would in practice mean that the Secretary of State would have to base his decision whether or not to grant an extension on the same information or intelligence as the original arrest instead of being able to take into account any additional considerations which had come to light during the initial period of the detention.

931
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked about the position of a person who failed to give information about a third party because he could not do so without incriminating himself. Section 11 has been amended in pursuance of Recommendation 59 of my noble friend's report so that it is clear that the information in question must be about a third party. In the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred there can be no general answer; it must depend on the facts and on the court's application of the defence of "without reasonable excuse" in the light of their understanding of the facts. I suspect there is a certain opacity in that which the noble Lord will want later to test.
As I said in my opening speech, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that only four of the 59 recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and requiring actions are still under consideration. The remainder have been incorporated in this Bill and in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, or implemented by administrative means. That is not a bad score, if I may say so.
With the noble Lord, Lord Shackelton, I should also like to congratulate Lord Mishcon on what Lord Shackleton rightly said was a very skilful speech. In so far as he said that your Lordships would be wise to test the need for every provision in the Bill which diminishes by one iota the natural rights and freedoms of British citizens, I can have no quarrell with him. With Milton, Pitt and Henderson, whether in the House of Commons or out of it, I regard the term "necessity" with suspicion. I do not plead necessity; I plead duty. The duty of Government is to protect the rights of individual private citizens, and immeasurably the most precious of those rights is the right to stay alive. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, rightly reminded us, the people who died outside Harrods were individuals, and they lost that right. If we were now to disarm ourselves of some of the powers to pursue and interdict those who murder and mutilate our fellow citizens, that would indeed be a very grave dereliction of duty by the Government. We are arguing about inescapable principle. There are people and there are organisations dedicated both to the overthrow of part of this state and to achieving it by slaughtering its citizens. Against that we must always arm ourselves; and the rights that we diminish are but a fraction of the right that we seek to preserve.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, deplored continued extension of special powers to deal with terrorism on the grounds that thereby they were becoming entrenched. He was echoed from his Front Bench. He maintained I think an almost total silence about the steady and quite remarkable process of curtailment of these admitted infringements of individual liberties. This is not entrenchment, it has always been subject to annual debate. It is now for the first time given an absolute limit of five years. All these constraints have been imposed not by a reluctant Government but by a Government which has actually commissioned the advice on which these contraints have been extended.
One of the paradoxes of democracy is that in order to defend its essential components from those who seek to destroy them entirely, it is from time to time necessary to constrain some of those components
932
themselves. Here there is a question of balance; for it is not much consolation to be free if, as a consequence, you are also dead. Noble Lords opposite can advocate constraints on the use of these powers with absolute propriety. But where they advise us to lay them down, I think that they have got it entirely wrong. It is not for us to put the lives of innocent fellow citizens in the balance against the theory of liberty and find them lighter in consideration. That is something to which we shall doubtless return at Committee. It must be fundamental to our whole treatment of this Bill. Parliament has to get it right—and, with the House of Commons, we are Parliament. To believe that non re-enactment would herald a movement to peace on our streets and in our towns would be to delude ourselves. I think that we must look at all the amendments put down to the powers in this Bill with that very much in mind, because we are not a tyrannical Government, nor do I see how we can be painted as such. Your Lordships have been good-tempered, lucid and short in your speeches. I have tried to emulate you in my reply.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Town and Country Planning Bill
6.9 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Application for planning permission etc. in anticipation of disposal of Crown land.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, leave out from beginning of line 4 to ("but") in line 7 and insert ("(8) Any permission or consent granted before the date on which this section comes into force which would have been a valid planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent but for the fact that—

(a) the land in respect of which it was granted was Crown land; and

(b) no interest in the land was for the time being held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown,

shall be deemed to have been a valid planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent, as the case may be").
The noble Lord said: During the debate on Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, whose absence from the Committee I regret but the reasons for which I fully understand, referred to doubts which had been expressed about the drafting of this very important subsection (8) of Clause 1. Of course, the same point had been made earlier in another place and in writing by the Association of County Councils. It remains our view that the original drafting achieved the desired effect of validating permissions which authorities had unlawfully granted for the development of Crown land in which there was no

933
subsisting private interest on the basis of a misapprehension about the effect of Section 266 of the 1971 Act and its Scottish equivalent.
Nevertheless, we have felt it right to ask parliamentary counsel to redraft the subsection to overcome any doubts which might still exist in the minds of some authorities about the validity of these permissions after the Bill comes into operation, and this amendment is the outcome. It has the same effect as the original subsection (8) but we hope that those who were worried will find it easier to understand. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I begin by thanking the noble Lord the Minister for the care which clearly has been taken and the notice that has been taken by the Minister and those who advise him of what has been said outside this Committee and the other place. I would not cavil with some of the words he used, that Ministers and his advisers felt that the purport was clear and that one could understand what was meant. However, I am sure the Minister understands that when we come to retrospection, and clarity, and although I tried to elicit from the Minister the number of cases that might be involved where people might be worried and for whom this is an absolute cover—that is a proper word—we are uncertain. What we are about to do is to ease the minds of people who, through no fault of their own, have been given advice or have been acting upon advice and as a result find there is a doubt as to whether their position is, as it were, legal and valid. It is therefore right that the Minister should begin what I think will be a short exchange by clarifying the situation.
The Minister will also be aware that on Second Reading I drew to his attention a local case relating to the Enfield War Memorial hospital. May I say how grateful I am for the prompt and full reply that he sent me. There was a point of uncertainty, and we must ensure that once this legislation is enacted there is no dubiety.
Our objective tonight and at other stages is to try to look backwards and make sure that there are no circumstances which might be found and could be pointed to in the future as a loophole or a certain circumstance. The Minister and his advisers are wise to have tabled this amendment. If he had merely come back to say that the words were clear that would have been helpful; but he has done even better. As the Minister says, the words are more or less the same but in a form which I believe, and which I am advised those outside the Committee believe, will be clearer and therefore acceptable.
The Minister was right to draw attention to what was said by my noble friend Lady Nicol, who had raised this point. Having read the report of what took place in another place, it is quite clear that some Members were able to put forward a number of illustrations in their areas which were of considerable concern. The Government are wise, and I am grateful to the Minister. I thank him for making sure that an unhappy situation has been corrected. I repeat that, other than the point I made on Second Reading, it was no one's fault and there is no party animus in this matter at all. It is clear that in the light of the court judgment in November one needed to try to put the
934
matter right. Therefore, we on this side of the Committee fully support the words and the spirit in which this amendment has been moved by the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but would also say that even where there are anxieties in only one mind, and not the tens, dozens, hundreds or even the unnecessarily high (as I think) thousands that have been quoted in certain quarters—not by the noble Lord, I know—if we can allay that one anxiety we will have done a good job this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Control of development on Crown land]:
6.18 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment was to have been moved by my noble friend Lady Birk, but the Committee will know that I am not her. However, I have her authority, approval and support in relation to this amendment. I am assuming, not having seen what I would call a marshalled list of how the amendments will be taken, that the Minister will be aware that Amendment No. 2 and Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 very much hang together.
Amendment No. 4: Page 4, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of section 90 of the Act of 1971 (power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice) shall have effect where a special enforcement notice has been issued under the provisions of this section as if that notice were an enforcement notice issued under section 87 of that Act.").
Amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 32, at end insert—
("( )If, on the determination of an appeal under section 88 of the Act of 1971 against an enforcement notice purporting to have been issued under the provisions of section 87 of that Act or a special enforcement notice purporting to have been issued under the provisions of this section, it appears to the Secretary of State that the notice was not validly issued under those provisions but would have been valid if it had been issued as a special enforcement notice under the provisions of this section or as an enforcement notice under the provisions of section 87 of the Act of 1971, as the case may be, he may, if satisfied that this can be done without injustice to the appellant or the local planning authority, vary the terms of the notice so as to convert it into such a notice; and upon any such variation the notice shall be deemed to have been issued and at all times to have had effect and been valid as such a notice, but without prejudice to any challenge to its validity on any other grounds.").
Amendment No. 6: Page 4, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of subsection (2)(a) of section 266 of the Act of 1971 shall cease to be applicable to any notice issued under the provisions of section 87 of that Act.").
What we seek to do is delete a part of the clause and spell out why we believe that part should be deleted. That is the main substance of what I intend to deal with tonight.
Amendment No. 2 deals with what is in some quarters the vexed question of the necessity for the department which owns the Crown land to have a power of veto—that is what it amounts to—over the actions of the local authority. The part of the Bill that we seek to strike out is, as the amendment states:
Part 3, line 22, leave out subsection (3).

935
This relates to the power and the control of development on Crown land. The part we want to strike out is:
"No special enforcement notice shall be issued except with the consent of the appropriate authority."
We need to raise the question of "special enforcement notice", which of course is different and is additional to, and must serve a different purpose from, what we all know in planning matters as an enforcement notice and what it is supposed to do. The main point I want to make, therefore, is that we on this side of the Committee, and outside—I am not saying that the Minister will not be able to persuade us by giving assurances on how this will work—jib at why on such matters there is a necessity for the decisions of the local planning authority to be capable of being overridden by "the appropriate authority".
We shall need to make reference to what was said in the other place as well as here on Second Reading. Your Lordships must bear in mind that we are talking about Crown land and about undesirable developments by other than the Crown. We are referring to the manner in which that undesirable development can be stopped or controlled, with all the safeguards that that will mean. In another place the Minister said, on 7th December, in respect of this subsection and the "special enforcement notice":
"The service of such notice will require the consent of the Government Department or Crown authority concerned, and this is more than a formality."
That is our first unease.
"The authority would have to be satisfied that it is right for such action to be taken, before giving consent."
The authority in this instance is not the local authority but authority with a capital "A". It is the department which owns or controls the Crown land. In effect, the local authority has to decide, and then it will be covered by the superior authority.
The Minister continued:
"The right of appeal against a special enforcement notice would be more limited than in the case of an ordinary enforcement notice. As the action will normally be taken against a person who has no right to be on the land, we consider that he should not be able to raise issues relating to the planning merits or what he has done, but should be restricted to the factual grounds of whether what is alleged has actually taken place and whether it amounts to development".—[official Report, Commons, 7/12/83; col. 350.]
That is what the Minister in another place said.
The Association of Municipal Authorities has been following this matter with special care and diligence. The Committee wants to be sure that as currently drafted the special enforcement procedures—those contained in Clause 2—would enable action to be taken against contraventions of planning conditions. We are not at all certain of that; nor are we certain that the procedures would enable an authority to require steps to be taken to make an unauthorised development comply with conditions or to remove or alleviate injury to amenity.
I consider that by providing that Section 87 of the 1971 Act shall apply to breaches of planning control on Crown land—without the need to have the special enforcement notice—that would be adequate. In the amendments we are really querying whether the subsection is necessary and whether the action that the Minister wants to achieve cannot be achieved in
936
another place. We also wonder whether there is any need for it at all.
The special enforcement procedure is complex. The Minister needs to spend a little time spelling out for us how it will work. My honourable friend in another place, the Member for South Shields, Dr. David Clark, spelt the matter out clearly. He said:
"Under the proposed arrangements, before taking enforcement action a local authority will have to do several things. First, it will have to establish that the land involved is Crown land. Secondly, it will have to discover whether the operator in question is a licensee or a trespasser on Crown land. Thirdly, if the operator is a trespasser, it will have to initiate special enforcement procedures and seek the agreement of the relevant Government Department. Lastly, it will have to take the necessary enforcement action.
There is a real problem with the existing legislation, but we have approached it in a rather complex manner".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/83; col. 354.]
The Minister needs to satisfy us on this series of amendments whether there is a necessity for this action.
We then come to the question of the response of the Minister in another place to these matters. On this side of the Committee we fully accept that trespassers on Crown land should not be in a special category. By virtue of it being Crown land, and of their having no entitlement to an interest in the land, we do not consider that they should be excluded from action to stop or prohibit development. As far as we are concerned, anyone who is in that position needs to be dealt with. We are concerned to make sure that the manner in which they are dealt with is as simple as possible. We ask the Minister: why not just amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to remove the exemptions from planning control on Crown land where the development has been undertaken by a private individual or organisation that does not have an interest in the land?
We know what the Minister said in another place, and it is very interesting indeed. He said:
"The question of enforcement notices was raised by a number of honourable Members, who argued that a planning authority should be able to serve a special enforcement notice under clause 2 without the consent of the Crown".
That is the point that I am making at the moment.
"However, there will be cases where the Government Department or Crown authority considers that there are good operational reasons for allowing the development to continue which outweigh the environmental reasons for taking action against it".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/83; col. 366.]
We are not at all certain whether in actual fact that is the situation. The illustrations that were given are far from satisfactory. The illustrations related to the actions of people who were contravening the use of Crown land; for instance, in lay-bys. That is a very thin base from which to argue the point.
I hope that the Minister will understand not merely why we wish to strike out Clause 2, subsection (3), but also the reason for the other amendments that we seek. The Minister may tell us that, contrary to the fears of the authorities, the special enforcement notice will not be used punitively and there is only a very limited basis on which action will be taken. In that case, on this side of the Committee we are willing to accept that. But we want a clear statement from the Minister involved that consent for enforcement action would not be unreasonably withheld. That would go a long way to

937
persuade me at the end of the discussion to withdraw my amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Lord Byers
6.27 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I deeply regret to have to inform your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, collapsed in his room at the House this afternoon. He was immediately taken to Westminster Hospital but was found to be dead on arrival. The House will have the opportunity to pay tributes to the noble Lord at the beginning of business tomorrow.

Town and Country Planning Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Skelmersdale: After that very sorry news we return to the discussion of Amendment No. 2. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, with his customary courtesy, advised us that he would like to speak to the entire series of his amendments. I had not quite anticipated that, but I shall certainly respond in the same manner. I hope that by the time I have finished I shall have been able to give the noble Lord a comprehensive review of the amendments.
I took it originally that Amendment No. 2 was probing, especially as it has come up at almost every stage of the passage of the Bill so far, both here and in another place. I can only assume that the noble Lord is unhappy with the replies that he has received, either in person or vicariously. As has been explained before, there may very well be operational reasons for a Government department to wish to allow a particular activity on land which it owns to continue. This is sometimes—rather flippantly in my view—referred to as the snack bar in the layby case; but it may very well be for operational reasons that it is temporarily convenient to allow such a thing to continue to operate while being able to remove it once these operational reasons cease to be valid, perhaps when a service station is contemplated, and of course a more normal regime would apply.
So far as planning law is concerned, if the department carries out the activity itself, it is not subject to planning control. The Government can see no reason for allowing enforcement action to be taken against the department's wishes just because the activity is being carried out by someone else. The service of an enforcement notice on a person with an interest in Crown land under Section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 already requires the consent—this is the point—of the Government department or other appropriate authority concerned. Until now, this requirement has not been questioned by either Governments or
938
Oppositions of any complexion over the considerable period that these planning Acts have been the law of the land. The Government consider that the requirement of prior consent is both reasonable and prudent and that the same requirement should apply to special enforcement notices served on trespassers.
Like my honourable friend in another place, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Graham referred, I must reject any suggestion that this requirement makes the whole clause of little value. Of course, there will be a few cases where there is a difference of view about the need for an activity to continue on Crown land despite its environmental effects and where consent for enforcement action is refused. If consent were going to be granted as a matter of course in every case, there would, I submit, be no point in the requirement at all, but Government departments will—I can make this assurance to the noble Lord—give due weight to the environmental argument when considering applications for consent. They will not prevent action being taken unless they have good, valid reasons for doing so. There will no longer be any doubt—as there has been in some situations in the past—that it is possible for action to be taken on environmental grounds provided that the department concerned agrees. If consent is refused, the department concerned may well be called on to justify its decision publicly.
As I have said, this is not a new requirement. It is modelled on an existing provision which the Government believe operates perfectly satisfactorily, and strikes an appropriate balance between the operational needs of a Government department and the rightful environmental concerns of a local planning authority.
Amendment No. 6, as the noble Lord has said, is a logical extension of the amendment that we are now discussing. The Government believe that the requirement for consent before the service of an enforcement notice in relation to development carried out by a private person on Crown land is appropriate, necessary and—as I have just said—works perfectly well in practice. In that case, why change it? I can perhaps put the onus back on the noble Lord for once.
Amendment No. 5 is a little different but again is a slight extension. I regret that it is another amendment where I can only offer sympathy and not support. The Government share fully the objective of making the special enforcement procedure as simple as possible. My colleagues thought carefully about the suggestion that enforcement notices and special enforcement notices should be interchangeable. Unfortunately, our conclusion is that it would not work. An enforcement notice alleges a breach of planning control. In the case of a special enforcement notice, there has, by definition, been no actual breach of planning control because, as the Committee will know, planning control does not exist for Crown land where there is no other interest.
A copy of an enforcement notice has to be served, not only on the owner and occupier of the land, but on "any other person having an interest in the land" and such a person then has a right of appeal. There is no such requirement in relation to a special enforcement notice because it is only issued when no such person is believed to exist. An enforcement notice in respect of operational development may be issued only within a

939
period of four years from the date of the breach of planning control. There is no such limitation for a special enforcement notice. Above all, the right of appeal against a special enforcement notice is more restricted than against an ordinary enforcement notice. Indeed, the only part of the two notices that may be the same is the specification of the steps required to comply with it.
Over and above this, the amendment begs more questions that, it answers. It refers to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the notice can be varied without injustice to the appellant. What about a third party who is found to have an interest in the land? That is, after all, what this part of the Bill is all about. He will certainly need to be given an opportunity to have his say. What about the additional grounds of appeal in the case of a switch from a special to an ordinary notice? The appellant will have to be given a chance to argue them. There are others. I can only conclude that we shall finish up with a very complicated procedure. It will be much easier, where there is a doubt, for the local planning authority to issue two alternative notices, an ordinary notice and a special notice at the outset. Alternative notices are already issued in this way in other cases when a doubt exists about some particular aspect of what is being alleged.
I regret having had to come to this conclusion. Unfortunately, the amendment, attractive as it appears, simply would not work. I could not therefore recommend the Committee to accept it. I have, however, a little cheer to offer the noble Lord if he will bear with me a few more moments. The Government are fully prepared to accept the principle that the stop notice procedure should be capable of being applied to special enforcement notices. This is obviously sensible. The problem is that this is extremely complicated to achieve because the terms of Section 90 of the 1971 Act need modification before they fit the special enforcement notice situation. I have taken advice on this matter. I am informed that at least seven or eight different amendments of Section 90 would be required and yet more amendments to the equivalent Scottish provisions.
Bearing in mind that complaints have already been made about the complexity of this part of the Bill, we concluded that this was not the right way to proceed. The regulation-making power in subsections (8) and (9) is intended to achieve the same objective. The main use that we intend to make of these two subsections is to achieve exactly the same thing. We consider this to be a much neater way than a whole phalanx of amendments to the 1971 and 1972 Acts. In other words, a similar amendment to that currently before us—I refer to Amendment No. 4 on the Marshalled List—would only be one of many. I did, however, say that I would offer the noble Lord some cheer. I am therefore very happy to be able to give him the assurance that once the Bill has been enacted, the Secretary of State will make regulations for the purpose that the noble Lord so obviously requires in this series of amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful. Every crumb of comfort is welcome. Let me say at
940
once that even those outside with a great deal of experience in these matters are always willing to acknowledge that when it comes to drafting precisely to take account of anomalies that emerge, one often creates other problems. The Minister will take on board that it is almost the pride of local authorities that they do not need someone else to rubber stamp or endorse. The Minister was right in saying that if the issue of a special enforcement notice, although containing the caveat that it requires to be approved by another authority, was never used, why have it at all? I wanted from the Minister a clear assurance that it would only exceptionally be the case that any action would need to be taken. I think the Minister understands what I am trying to get at. I can understand that he is not prepared to say that it would be very rarely used. If we are talking of operational circumstances, we do not know how often those circumstances would arise.
I took note of the words which the noble Lord used. He said that there would need to be "good, valid reasons". It would be good if local authorities could assume either from this moment onwards or from when the Bill becomes an Act that, every time there were good, valid reasons, they would be told those reasons. Indeed, if they were good, valid reasons, then a reasonable authority would, in my view, be prepared to accept them as good, valid reasons as to why their decision to enforce the law had been overridden on what were called "operational grounds".
Although the use of the word "operational" begs the question, the Minister has persuaded me that, if something irked and irritated a local authority on environmental grounds and, for example, they wanted to remove a snack bar from a layby on environmental grounds, then that snack bar—if it were left in position—would serve a good purpose until a more permanent structure which was in the process of being built was actually finished. That would be a good, valid reason as to why the operational decision ought to be taken. I appreciate that, without giving anything precise tonight, the Minister has asked me to realise that what we are trying to achieve in this series of amendments is well understood and, when possible, to look at the consequences particularly as regards Amendment No. 4 which relates to the stop notice.
The Minister is telling us that there is sympathy as regards what we are trying to achieve by the amendment and that care will be taken about the matter. But because of the consequences on other legislation—Scottish legislation as well as our own—particularly in the aftermath of what was certainly an unhappy episode last year.on this particular point, we on this side certainly do not want to rush the Minister into taking precipitate action only to find that he will have to take yet more. So we are satisfied.
However, I should be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity—and this could well be the last point that needs to be made in this series of debates—to give us an assurance that enforcement action (and here I would like to link him with my words) would not be unreasonably withheld. The Minister is saying that it would only be applied provided it was requested for good, valid reasons. If in fact it would not be unreasonably withheld, and only withheld for a good, valid reason, then honour would be served on all sides.
Lord Skelmersdale: After that necessarily lengthy exchange, I would say that there are two minds with but a single thought. The noble Lord asked me particularly whether good, valid reasons—my phrase—would always be given to the local planning authority. The answer is emphatically, yes. As far as his point relating to enforcement action is concerned, the answer would also always be, yes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("condition") to end of line 29 and insert ("before the development took place or for discontinuing any use of the land which has been instituted by the development.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 is an entirely drafting amendment which is intended to achieve greater clarity in the provisions of Clause 2(4)—I do not think I need say any more to the noble Lord and the Committee except that I hope it does. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Requirement of planning permission for continuance of use instituted by the Crown]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 7.
Page 5, line 26, after ("had") insert ("required planning permission and").
The noble Lord said: But for the intervening words I would say, "ditto"; this again is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The condition referred to in subsection (2) above shall not be enforceable against any person who had a private interest in the land at the time when the agreement was made unless the local planning authority or planning authority by whom the agreement was made have notified him of the making of the agreement and of the effect of that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a little more complicated. It meets an undertaking given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State during the Committee stage in another place. Clause 4 of the Bill is the clause which empowers the Crown to make an agreement with a local planning authority to ensure that a use of Crown land which results from development carried out by the Crown shall be discontinued when the Crown ceases to occupy the land. Subsections (3) and (4) already ensure that a potential purchaser of the land or of an interest in it from the Crown is made aware of the existence of such an agreement. But it has been pointed out that this does not necessarily bring it to the notice of a third party who already has an interest in the land—for example, the freeholder in cases where the Crown is a leaseholder.
The amendment will make the agreement unenforceable against such a person unless the planning authority have notified him that it has been made, and of its effect. We consider that it is right that the necessary notice should be given by the planning authority—they are, after all, the body who benefit from the making of the agreement and, therefore, have the incentive to make sure that the necessary notice is given. At the same time, we recognise that they are likely to need to rely on the Crown for information about the existence of any private interest, but we do not see why this should in practice give rise to any difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Again I am grateful to the Minister and of course to his ministerial colleagues who indicated at Second Reading and during the Committee stage that they were mindful of the need to take this action. I would simply say that when reading the Second Reading speeches I noticed that this point was made by Members from all parties with an interest in these matters. In fact, it was an attempt to be fair to people who, out of ignorance and certainly not out of maliciousness, are parting with the land, to make sure so far as possible that their interests are protected and that the procedures are available. We on this side of the Committee are very grateful to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.50 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Power of the Scottish Tourist Board to engage outside the UK in the promotion of Tourism in Scotland]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will be familiar with this amendment. We discussed it at some length in Committee. A fair number of noble Lords took part in that debate and showed considerable interest in this amendment. I think that all of them supported the amendment that was tabled on that occasion. In the course of withdrawing the amendment at the end of our debate I suggested that we would resubmit the amendment in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, would read what had been said by various noble Lords and consult with his officials; and ultimately I had hoped that reason would prevail and he would agree to omit the word "only" from Clause 1 (2).
As my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said in Committee, it is a tautology to say that "only" with the consent of the Secretary of State shall the Scottish Tourist Board be allowed to take part in promotions

943
outside Scotland; whereas without the word "only" the Bill would read:
"The Scottish Tourist Board shall exercise the power…to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom with the consent…of the Secretary of State".
The more I look at the inclusion of the word "only ", and I am sure the more noble Lords look at it, the more I wonder how much the Secretary of State is to be reprimanded. If it clearly says that they shall use the power "with the consent of the Secretary of State," it is absolutely implied that they must have the power of the Secretary of State, and therefore I believe that the word "only" is superfluous.
I am not making a great point of this only because of the word; but it has been suggested that the Bill was introduced because it is the one item of the Scottish Conservative manifesto that has been put forward which has been honoured. It may be easy enough to say to Scottish electors, "We have carried out this part of our manifesto", but how will the noble Lord feel when he realises, or when the people of Scotland realise, that, although a part of the manifesto has been put forward, it has been put forward grudgingly? We welcome whatever has been given in the Bill, but the whole question of the Bill has been grudging. We say to people, "Oh yes, the Scottish Tourist Board is to be given powers to carry on certain activities overseas only if it has the consent of the Secretary of State".
The noble Lord said that he did not want to discuss the figures, but we are speaking about £200,000. It is not a great deal of money, but we are grateful for it. In addition to that, the other parts of the Bill hedge in the whole question even more. The good aims of the Bill are hedged in by so many conditions. Having given the noble Lord time to look at the amendment and time to read the discussions that took place in Committee—the Liberal Benches took part, some of my noble friends took part and some of the noble Lord's noble friends took part—surely a little concession like this would at least indicate that the Scottish Office is in charge of the Bill and is aware of the importance of Scotland, and that there is seen to exist a certain amount of trust between the Secretary of State and one of the very important bodies promoting Scotland. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, this amendment was given very full discussion in Committee. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that he would give the Government time to think about it, and I certainly have been thinking very hard about it. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said this evening. But I am bound to say that I do not find the arguments compelling.
I hope that noble Lords and my noble friends will forgive me if I state what to them must be very obvious. The phrase "with Mr. X's consent" is ambiguous. It conveys a condition which may or may not be necessary. By contrast, the phrase "only with Mr. X's consent" clearly describes a necessary condition. The condition "only with the consent of the Secretary of State" is the logical form which makes clear beyond any possible doubt that under no circumstances is the activity in question lawful unless
944
the Secretary of State—and he alone—has consented to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, may feel that in a legal context such nice distinctions can be disregarded. He may say that the phrase "with the consent" would, as a matter of statutory interpretation, invariably be construed as "only with the consent". This is arguable, but let us avoid all ambiguity and express our policy clearly. Why noble Lords opposite should find this little word so objectionable I really am at a loss to discover. It supports and gives due emphasis to our policy intention in the Bill. The phrase "only with the consent of the Secretary of State" is entirely natural in spoken language, adding useful emphasis which assists the reader to obtain more easily a clear idea of what is intended. The phrase is also well precedented in statute. Indeed, it is the usual way of expressing a requirement that a power can be exercised only if a particular consent is given.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is widely experience in these matters. As he will recall, I mentioned during the Committee stage that in 1968 the then Labour Government, of which the noble Lord was a member, amended the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. The 1968 Act increased the powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in much the same way as this Bill increases the powers of the Scottish Transport Board. But in subsection (2) of Section 1 it is declared that the new powers:
"shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary, of State".
All that is happening here is that the same form of words are being used to express the same intention as is in the 1968 Act. The new power should only be exercised if the Secretary of State consents. We could have arguments as to whether or not it is a good idea for the Secretary of State's consent to be needed. But that is not what we are arguing about in this amendment. We are arguing about the little four-letter word "only". There are many four-letter words which are often better left unsaid and unwritten; but this little four-letter word is important, and I believe it is necessary.
Of course, I want to see the best possible legislation for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said many things with which I could not disagree; but, naturally, this is what we all aim to achieve. Where we disagree is how best to achieve it. It is important to have absolute clarity. I believe that that is what we are achieving in the Bill; but the proposed amendment would be counter to the Government's desire. Therefore, I hope that in due course the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble Lord does not like four letter words. There are many four letter words, he says. May I suggest that "Gray" is one of them?
Lord Gray of Contin: "Ross" of Marnock is another.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I know, one is good and the other bad, you see. I want to thank the noble Lord for the thought he has given to this important

945
amendment. I wondered why he was absent from the Roads (Scotland) Bill, with all those hosts of amendments which have taken three days so far. Now I know what he has been doing. He has been looking at this amendment. What does he say? He does not know why we consider it objectionable. I consider it objectionable because it is unnecessary.
Let me thank him for telling us that it was precedented all over the place. He instanced one Act; the amendment to the Highlands and Islands Development Act, for which I was responsible, and I dare say I was also responsible for the 1968 Act. He now tells us it was the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1968. It would have been helpful if he had got it right the first time. I have Hansard here. He said:
"he will not be surprised that I have in front of me a copy of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965". [Official Report, 20/12/1983; col. 600.]
Today he says 1968. Noble Lords will appreciate that my eyesight is not what it was. I am nearly 10 years older than the '65 Act and I spent the last two hours going over that Act of Parliament which the noble Lord cited as his precedent—that is, the 1965 Act, which laid down all the powers of the Highlands and Islands Board. I did not find his reference at all. Such is my faith in the Scottish Office and the briefs they give to Ministers that I was sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, must be right. So I did not read it once, I read it about six times, and still did not find it. So he owes me something, and that is one of the reasons why he ought to accept this amendment.
If it was so important to have this word "only" in, I should have put it in in the first Act. It was not there. All the important powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board are there "with the approval of the Secretary of State", not "only with the approval of the Secretary of State". Why it should have come in the last one I do not know. I shall need to have another look at the Act, but I cannot do it in the middle of a Report stage. It would have been helpful if we had been told the page, the line, and the functions or duties to which this referred. There may be some reason.
I am not satisfied with what has been given. If you take the word "only" out of here you revert to the position in the majority of statutes where it says, "with the approval of the Secretary of State". The Secretary of State has to give his approval. No wonder the Lord Advocate is not here. It would have taken us another hour if we had had the Lord Advocate's advice. There is no ambiguity in this. It is perfectly clear. It is an unnecessary restriction. It is an offensive restriction.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, must know that before the Bill was published and when the information was given to the people of Scotland at long last some measure of independent action had been given to the Scottish Tourist Board, there was great praise for the Government. Then of course the Minister in the other place brought us down to earth by saying, "Well, what has been happening is that the power given to Scotland is a very little one". The more the Minister of State in this House tells us why this word "only" is in, the less becomes the power given to Scotland. The more he hammers this word "only" and gives it a restrictive
946
importance, the less feeling of triumph there will be in Scotland about this breakthrough.
We consider it important even from the point of view of just pure English, in view of what was said by the Stodart Committee Report. The Committee of Inquiry into Local Government of Scotland thought that the tourism aspect was so important that it may well he that they went a little beyond their inquiry powers:
"We are however convinced that the distinctive attractions of Scotland and its high dependence economically on tourism merit a separate promotional effort abroad…the Scottish Tourist Board should be given overseas promotional powers in its own right, and he solely responsible for promoting Scotland abroad".
That was the background. Well, we are not solely responsible for promoting abroad. It is the British Tourist Authority which at the moment is spending £3,500,000 abroad on behalf of Scotland. I have seen a letter from the present chairman of that authority which I may get an opportunity of referring to later. Certainly in this Bill we are being given not the sole power but some power, and then this offensive "only" with the approval of the Secretary of State. Then there is another thing, he has to consult the British Tourist Authority. So we get a continous build up, reducing the measure of independence being given to the Scottish Tourist Board.
The word "only" does not make any difference at all. It may remove emphasis. That is all. But from a practical point of view it still means that the Tourist Board in Scotland has to have the approval of the Secretary of State. There is no ambiguity there. I have been complaining about combing through of statutes in respect of getting rid of the words "street", and "highway". I think we have got to 50 pages so far in respect of one of the sections of the roads Bill. I do not know what it is going to be like if we have to put this word "only" in to avoid ambiguity in all the statutes which refer to approvals by Ministers. In fact, in every statute you get where there is a power given, whether it is to a local authority, corporation, or board, it is with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury.
You do not need the word "only". It is quite unnecessary. It may have been that the noble Lord's judgment has been warped by reading what we have been saying about the roads Bill (because it is within his duties, it is his department) and that he has just lost sight of the real meaning of this. I do not know who gave the noble Lord that speech, but there should be a bit of transferring down in his department because he is completely out of touch with the feelings of the people of Scotland, and certainly with the feelings of his own party when he underlines the fact that you are only going to get a small power, and only, and only, and only after, and after and after.
I am not happy about this. I hope that the Government will think again. In the meantime, I should be glad if the noble Lord would give me the proper reference to the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1968 so that I can follow that one through at my leisure when I get away from inshore fishing Bills, roads Bills, education Bills, and all the rest of it, for Scotland.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can see that the noble Lord is up to his usual form. The day that he gets away from all these Bills he will be a very sad man, and it will be a great loss to Scotland. Now I shall be nice to him. I shall tell him exactly where the reference comes from.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble Lord is not being nice to me, he is being fair to himself.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord enjoys having the last word. I will not deprive him of that. I am being nice to myself, and that is a nice thing to do occasionally as well.
I should refer to the reference, which is the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1968. Section 1(2) says:
"The powers specified in the foregoing subsection shall be exercised only with the approval of the Secretary or State and the Treasury".
That is the reference, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will digest the rest of it at his leisure in due course.
I am sorry, my Lords. Before I said anything to the noble Lord I should have said, "By leave of the House I will reply". I apologise to your Lordships for omitting to do that.
The word "only" is not unnecessary. It makes the Government's policy in this matter absolutely clear. That is what I seek to do in the Bill. I want there to be no doubt what the Government's intention is, and in my view the word "only" emphasises that. It is only with the consent of the Secretary of State that the Scottish Tourist Board can proceed as outlined. We believe that the consent requirement should be observed without exception and that it is only fair to state in our proposals as plainly as possible that overseas activity by the Scottish Tourist Board is in no circumstances to proceed unless the Secretary of State has consented to it. By including the word "only" the consent condition is spelt out with the maximum clarity, and in that at least I am sure we have the blessing of noble Lords opposite. I hope that they may consider withdrawing the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment that we dealt with at considerable length last time. Part of the whole question of this Bill is its tone and style. Perhaps things would have gone through rather more easily if there had not been this continual grudging feeling behind it all. This was not started by the noble Lord himself but by his honourable friend in another place, the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, who kept retreating in the face of the comments from English Members and kept saying, "It is not really terribly important…it is not terribly important". I must emphasise that while we are glad for the Scottish Tourist Board to have the power to promote Scotland overseas, we feel that it has been spoiled by the grudging nature of it.
In our amendment we are suggesting that the Secretary of State, before giving or withholding consent to an action or promotion of the Scottish Tourist Board, "may" consult the British Tourist Authority rather than "shall". The point was made by a number of Members in Committee, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who made it clear that he thought the possibility was that the Secretary of State could be put to considerable trouble because an order was being given to the Secretary of State that he must consult a Government quango. He is not able to do something unless he positively consults that quango. He cannot give consent before doing that. There is no question that he "may" consult but that he "must" consult before he can give his consent.
At the Committee stage your Lordships were convinced that enough had been said from every side—from the Liberal Benches, from our own and from the Government Benches—to make the point that to instruct the Secretary of State in such a way, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, was a possibility and a necessity that might land the Secretary of State in great difficulty. I hope that the Minister will not take this as a personal matter, but the tone and style of the Bill has been so disappointing after the beliefs we had that the Scottish Tourist Board would have some real authority of its own. But that has been hedged round with so many conditions that what could have been a good idea, however small, has been badly spoilt. I hope he will take it in that spirit and consider this amendment very carefully. It is a small amendment, but it could, perhaps, in the eyes of the people of Scotland, retrieve the position a little. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is not being wholly fair in his suggestion that everybody is concerned about the style of this Bill. That is not what I have found in Scotland. I have found that the Bill has been received with a great deal of acclaim by those involved in the tourist industry. The Scottish Tourist Board is highly delighted with the Bill.
It has been suggested that the Scottish Office has done extremely well to manage to get £200,000 extra at a time when everybody is having to make cuts and is having to review their expenditure seriously. Therefore, I believe we have achieved a lot with this Bill. I accept that it is a small measure, but I do not for one moment suggest that it is an unimportant measure. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was generous enough to say he was thankful for small mercies and that he welcomes the Bill in that way. But the Bill is much more significant than noble Lords opposite have given it credit for being.
This amendment would remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority before deciding whether to approve the Scottish Tourist Board's overseas proposals. It would provide, instead, that such consultations may be undertaken at the Secretary of State's discretion. Our policy is that the British Tourist Authority should remain the organisation with prime responsibility for the coherent, co-ordinated promotion abroad of Great Britain and its constituent countries. We wish the British Tourist Authority to maintain its current, very significant efforts on behalf of Scotland abroad.

949
Recognising, however, that Scotland has in certain markets a quite distinctive and saleable identity and that there would be economic benefit in capitalising on this identity, we wish to enable the Scottish Tourist Board to top up the British Tourist Authority's Scottish efforts. We want the Scottish Tourist Board to be able to add a specialised and distinctively Scottish dimension to the promotional work carried out by the authority. The overseas role we envisage for the Scottish Tourist Board is limited. I acknowledge that that is so, and make no apologies for it. I believe that to allow promotion initiatives overseas to proliferate without central co-ordination would be a recipe for wasted effort. It would merely cause confusion among potential visitors.
We believe, therefore, that the authority should always have the opportunity to comment at the point at which the Secretary of State is considering whether to approve proposals put foward by the Scottish Tourist Board. The obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority ensures that that authority has the chance to make a final check on the compatibility of the Scottish Tourist Board's proposals with overseas efforts being undertaken for Britain as a whole.
I spoke at some length in Committee about the mechanics of consultation. I assured the Committee that the procedures would not be time-consuming or bureaucratic. I pointed out that we envisaged the Scottish Tourist Board preparing an annual programme of overseas proposals and submitting it to the Secretary of State well in advance of the promotion season. In the circumstances, there can be no real risk of the Scottish Tourist Board losing promotion opportunities as a result of the consent requirement. I would remind the House also that the British Tourist Authority is under a statutory obligation to advise any Minister on tourism matters in Great Britain. A request by the Secretary of State for Scotland for comment on the Scottish Tourist Board's overseas promotion proposals would place the BTA under a clear duty to respond.
Statutes abound in provisions requiring the Secretary of State to consult before taking a decision on permitting certain things to happen. There is nothing extraordinary in the consultation formula in this Bill and neither is there any inconsistency in requiring the Secretary of State to consult but yet maintaining that the final approval decision rests with him and with him alone. Consultation never forces the consulting party to accept the view expressed by the person consulted, only to give the view proper consideration.
This amendment would effectively erode the BTA's co-ordinating role. Such an effect would be fundamentally at odds with our policy to grant the Scottish Tourist Board scope itself to promote Scotland overseas while maintaining the integrity of the BTA's efforts on behalf of Britain as a whole. I therefore trust that the noble Lord, on reflection, will consider withdrawing this amendment.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am deeply touched by the concern and emotion that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, managed to get into his plea for us
950
to reconsider this and to drop it. We have been told—and told again in a letter recently—how concerned is the BTA for Scotland's interests and how it consults the Scottish Tourist Board on all points, despite the fact that there is no instruction in anything here that it should do so. I am suggesting that there is no need to put in these words here to clarify the position of the BTA. If the noble Lord, Lord Gray, would cast his eye down to the next clause of the Bill, he would see that subsection (3)(a) of Clause 1 of this Bill says:
"Nothing in this section shall…affect the power of the British Tourist Authority to carry out any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Scotland".
There is no doubt that it remains there—and what remains, of course, is the power of the Treasury. At the present time, according to the British Tourist Authority, they are spending on behalf of Scotland £3.5 million. Against that, we can judge the suggestion that is made here that there may be an additional £200,000 for Scotland. There is nothing in the Bill about it. If the Secretary of State says, "You are not getting it. I don't approve of your project", then they do not spend it. Virtually, by writing this in in respect of the consultation with the BTA, one is imposing a veto on them in respect of the spending of this £200,000. So let us not be too happy about all these benefits.
The importance of this is, surely, that if the British Tourist Authority at the present time consults the Scottish Tourist Board—and remember that the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority—it is not likely that anything will go unconsidered by the tourist authority without this separate power of right of consultation being written in. Let us remember that the right is not given to the Secretary of State; the right is given to an outside body, the British Tourist Authority. It is an instruction to the Secretary of State that he "shall" consult, not that he "may" consult; not that he "may" through his appointment of a chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board (who, of course, he does appoint and who happens to be a member of the British Tourist Authority). In that way, he will get to know all that goes on before he gives his approval to a project.
Once again I think that the Government have gone out of their way to be offensive to the Scottish tourist interests. If they want it that way, let them have it, so that we can demonstrate to the people of Scotland how grudging they are. The Minister of State forgets, too, that not everything in the BTA shop window has been absolutely perfect. He will remember the words of his honourable friend in another place. There had been a review of the activities of the BTA and, in another place, it was said—and it is a Minister I am quoting—that they should not forget that the whole question of different tourist boards was looked at by consultants who reached the conclusion that there was a considerable overlap and that some money was not being wisely spent—and that was by the British Tourist Authority.
The solution to it is that the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority should come together. They are going to share accommodation. And, after the retirement of the present chairman, the chairman of the English Tourist Board is also going to

951
be the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. Now we are a suspicious lot in Scotland and we think that this could have been done a little more generously and a little better. I am perfectly sure that there will be consultation, as there is at the present time. But, to give this virtual power of veto to a soon-to-be-reorganised British Tourist Authority, the chairman of which is going to be the chairman of the English Tourist Board as well, is, I think, asking just about too much.
I am saying this merely for the good of the noble Lord. He said that, as far as he knew, everyone in Scotland was delighted with this. I can understand their being delighted in the Highlands, which is where the noble Lord comes from, because it does not affect them. The noble Lord is fully acquainted with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. He has told us this today. The Highlands and Islands Development Board have the power to do what is being denied the Scottish Tourist Board. They have independent rights to project the Highlands overseas, and they do not need to consult the British Tourist Authority. It may be that they do consult, it may be that they ask them to help; but they are not are not bound by statute to do so.
I can understand the people in his area being quite pleased about it, but let me assure him that, so far as the people of Scotland are concerned—with the hopes and expectations that arose from the Stodart Report that full powers were going to be given to the Scottish Tourist Board in respect of overseas advertising of Scotland for tourists—they will be far from pleased with this. I think it is quite unnecessary.
We do not seek to remove the whole thing. We merely suggest that the word "shall" should come out, that the word "may" be put in and to leave it to the good sense of the Secretary of State rather than telling the Secretary of State what he should do. There are times when I would have divided the House on an important matter like this. I have no doubt at all what will happen when it goes elsewhere. It would have been more graceful to clean up the Bill here than to leave it to people who will use rather less tender words when it goes elsewhere.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I comment on some of the points that have been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. First, he mentioned the Stodart Report on a number of occasions. I should tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, has dropped me a note, saying how sorry he was that he could not be with us today. But of course the noble Lord will recall that he has welcomed the Bill; and, although it does not go so far as he would have liked and so far as he suggested in his report, he has given the Bill a warm welcome.
On the question of consultation, consultation does not mean or require consent. There will therefore be no BTA veto. At the end of consultations the matter will lie entirely with the Secretary of State, and the decision ultimately will be his and his alone. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised the question of the two boards, the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, coming together. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept what I say when I tell him that
952
no decision has vet been taken on this matter and that the new chairman, Mr. Bluch, is going to look at this possibility. But there is no commitment at all to a merger: no decision has been taken, and this is a matter which will require a considerable amount of study. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I did not suggest that there was to be a merger. What I said was that the boards were going to share accommodation, they were going to be in the one place and they were going to have the same chairman.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord may not have said that in so many words, but he did imply that with them moving into the same premises and with one chairman, it was a logical step ahead. But what I am saying is that no decisions have been taken and the chairman is merely looking at this possibility: nothing more. The noble Lord reiterated a number of arguments which we considered at Committee stage, some of which were deployed by him at the time. But I must tell the noble Lord that despite his silver tongue and his persuasive style, I still believe that the Bill would not be improved by amending it in the way that he suggests. I therefore regret that on this occasion I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and his noble friends.
On Question, amendment negatived.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, after ("Scotland") insert ("after consultation with the Scottish Tourist Board").
The noble Lord said: If one looks at subsection (3)(a), we see it says that nothing in this section shall—
"affect the power of the British Tourist Authority to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Scotland;"
After all that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, about the necessity of having the law made absolutely clear and having conditions made absolutely clear, I shall wait with considerable anticipation to hear what he has to say on this amendment. I appreciate what the chairman of the British Tourist Authority says in his letter—and I am sure that the noble Lord will have a copy of the letter—about the amount of co-operation there has been in the past. Tributes have also been paid by people such as the Lord Provost of Glasgow to the great help given by the Tourist Board. I am sure that this is true. But this is merely present practice; and we are not discussing present practice but, as the noble Lord has said on many occasions in the two previous debates, we are discussing making law.
It has always been the fact that the British Tourist Authority in the past have helped the Scottish Tourist Board as much as possible and they have had very close relations with them. Nevertheless, they do not need to consult the Scottish Tourist Board, according to the Bill as it now stands, and as has been continually emphasised by the noble Lord the Minister. The words are very important and the omission of words is also very important; so as the Bill stands at present, the British Tourist Authority could make its own

953
assumptions as to how best to promote Scotland, no matter what the Secretary of State or the Scottish Tourist Board says.
The Scottish Tourist Board may say, "We think it is crazy; we think it is damaging and a waste of money", but in law there is nothing which would stop the British Tourist Authority doing what they want to do. They need not take advice from anyone. Of course, we hope that they will take advice. They have always taken advice up until now and as the Minister said, the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Authority Board is a member of the British Tourist Authority. But the British Tourist Authority are under absolutely no obligation to pay any attention to what is said by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Scottish Tourist Board. This goes back to the point that I tried to make earlier; that the Bill, with all its good intentions, has fallen down very badly in its wording and in its thrust. I know that it is very difficult to write an intention into a Bill, but I believe that this is one point which the Minister, using the arguments he has used previously, could not possibly refuse to accept.
Therefore I hope that on this occasion the Minister will see the importance of this amendment for the Scottish Tourist Board and for the promotion of tourism in Scotland, and perhaps it will save something of the intention and the fiavour of the Bill, because we all want tourism in Scotland and we all want a good co-operation between the British Tourist Authority the Secretary of State and the Scottish Tourist Board. You cannot have it all one way: there must be a come-and-go, and I suggest that this amendment would certainly provide some respect for the Scottish Tourist Board and for the Bill itself. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: This amendment is intended to ensure that the Scottish Tourist Board has a say in the scope and style of promotions which the British Tourist Authority undertakes on Scotland's behalf. I have no hesitation in saying that I subscribe to the underlying principle which the noble Lord has in mind, but the key point for the purposes of this discussion on this particular Bill is that this amendment is technically unacceptable.
First—and this is a minor point—the provision, if amended as suggested, could be subject to the interpretation that the British Tourist Authority undertakes activities abroad to encourage people to visit Scotland after they, the people, have consulted the Scottish Tourist Board. Secondly—and much more importantly—the Bill is designed not to affect the British Tourist Authority's powers under the Development of Tourism Act of 1969, and Clause 1(3)(a) is an avoidance of doubt provision. Noble Lords will know that one cannot introduce a new power or duty into such an avoidance of doubt provision. Any change in the British Tourist Authority's powers or duties would have to be effected by separate amendment to the 1969 Act. Any such change relating to the British Tourist Authority, moreover, would be outside the Long Title of this Bill.
Let me explain here how the British Tourist Authority sets up its overseas activities. In preparing its annual marketing plan, the British Tourist Authority invites each of the three national tourist
954
boards to make suggestions for English, Scottish and Welsh promotions to be carried out by the authority. These suggestions are then assessed by the British Tourist Authority and developed into a coherent package of promotional items covering Britain as a whole. Further consultations take place with the three boards at appropriate points. Therefore, the consultation which this amendment proposes already takes place. Indeed, the British Tourist Authority does not have the staff or the resources to go about compiling its overseas programme without this consultation with, and indeed assistance from, the three national tourist boards.
Let me also remind the House of a point which I made in Committee about the composition of the British Tourist Authority Board. The 1969 Act recognises the need to involve the national boards in decisions about the British Tourist Authority's marketing plan by placing a national tourist board chairman on the BTA board. The Scottish Tourist Board chairman therefore has a say at board level on the BTA's proposed activities. Such board level consultations supplement and safeguard the official level discussions which I described a moment ago. For these reasons, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, for once the noble Lord has a reasonable brief. I think that, technically, it is not a good amendment. It would have been a better amendment if it had been put in two lines earlier. We should then have avoided this business of the visitors consulting. The truth of the matter is that paragraph (a) of subsection (3) is quite unnecessary. If it were not there, the principal statute would remain giving power to the British Tourist Authority to do the overseas work for Scotland. So if you get into trouble with this clause, it is because you are doing something that is quite unnecessary. In other words, this is saying that the law remains unchanged. There was no ambiguity until somebody in the Scottish Office thought: we had better put this in to please the chairman of the British Tourist Authority.
There has been pressure and it is obvious from the letter that some people have received—I did not receive it, but I saw it—that there is a feeling of unfairness in the British Tourist Authority that it has not got the credit for all that it has been doing for Scotland over all these years, promoting overseas, spending £3½ million, working with Glasgow and getting credit from the Lord Provost of Glasgow for £27,000. But they did not get it from the British Tourist Authority; they got it from the British Government. The fact is that the authority did it because nobody else could do it.
The authority glories in the fact that money spent in Scotland by overseas visitors has increased by 50 per cent. in the past 10 years. Goodness gracious, my Lords! What has inflation been in these last 10 years? It should have done far better than that, even to retain the standard. The chairman goes out of his way to say that he employs Scots. That is terrible, is it not? Let me tell him that the Scottish Tourist Board employs Englishmen. I do not doubt that the present chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board is an Englishman. A former chief executive was certainly not a Scotsman.

955
We are much more catholic in our approach and I daresay that the chairman will be the same, if he happens to have a good marketing man who is a Scot. He would be foolish not to have him. In fact, if he wants the best men it is inevitable that he must employ Scots. But he has no right to expect that we should bow down and worship his fairness. When a Scot is working for a firm, then he is working for that firm. He is not working for something that is not in his remit. He is working for England, Scotland and Wales. He is working for the British Tourist Authority. If he is doing his job properly, he is not giving all his time to only one.
I admit that it is not a good amendment, but it allows me to say these few words about this rather sad letter that we have received from the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. No one will deny him any credit, but the fact is that nobody else, apart from the Highlands and Islands Development Board, has the right to do what he has been doing. He has been given all the money. What we are seeking to do is to ensure that there are even better statutory rights to consultation. If it is so good to write it in for the Secretary of State to consult the British Tourist Authority, why should the British Tourist Authority not have a statutory obligation to consult the Scottish Tourist Board? That is fair enough. The noble Lord says, "But they do it". He was not prepared to accept that argument in respect of the Secretary of State, that he would do it as a matter of common sense.
But the amendment which we should have put down was to leave out subsection (3). We might come to that at the next stage of the Bill, because I like to hear the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. It would be a shame if there were Scottish legislation without his voice being heard. We have missed him so much on the Roads (Scotland) Bill. So I advise my noble friend to withdraw this amendment and not to do it again.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Welsh Plant Breeding Station
7.48 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to safeguard and promote the work of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason why I put down this Question is the very deep concern felt by many individuals throughout Wales regarding the severe cuts in funding to the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. This is a concern which has been expressed by Members on all sides of your Lordships' House. It is a concern which has generated wide support from many organisations in Wales and beyond Wales which are concerned with agriculture, and from very many others which are not involved, or are only indirectly involved, in agriculture.
The Welsh Plant Breeding Station is the only agricultural institute in Wales which is grant-aided by the AFRC. There are seven such institutes in Scotland which are funded by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland—and I understand that they are unscathed by the cuts—and there are about 22 such units in England. We know that the Welsh Plant Breeding Station was established some 65 years ago by the late Sir George Stapleton. Over the decades, its research programmes have been of fundamental importance to agriculture in Wales and far beyond Wales. Its achievements have earned for the station an international reputation as a centre of plant breeding and grassland improvement research and teaching.
The proposed cuts arise from the AFRC decision to save £13 million from its current spending. I understand that this is necessary partly to offset a £6 million reduction in DES funding, possibly some reduced funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and partly to enable the AFRC to spend £7 million to extend its brief so as to include substantially more research in food science technology and to divert research work into the universities. In the result, the WPBS is required to save £300,000 per annum from its current spending, and an additional saving of £200,000 per annum will result from the AFRC's decision to transfer the station's barley breeding programme to other institutes. Therefore the total saving required from the WPBS amounts to £500,000 per annum, which is about 17 per cent. of its current budget.
The point should be made that agricultural research effort in Wales (this is true of all scientific research in Wales) is already seriously under-funded on any basis of comparison with England or Scotland. The annual funding of agricultural research institutes is £3 million for Wales, £26 million for Scotland and £70 million for England. The proposed cuts will worsen this already lamentable situation.
The response of the station to the reduction in funding which it will suffer is to declare that 26 posts will be made redundant, of which 11 are engaged in the barley programme and 15 are engaged in research work on pasture quality, crop physiology, plant nutrition and entomology. When considered together with posts which have already been lost by natural wastage, the total loss amounts to about 25 per cent. of the station's scientific staff.
I shall discuss first the loss of the breeding programmes. Over the past five years, the station has seen its breeding programmes on brassicae crops and field beans transferred to other institutions. The AFRC now intends to shift its barley breeding programme, the largest single United Kingdom arable crop, and associated research from the WPBS to other institutions in the eastern part of the country.
The barley breeding programme, with its emphasis on disease resistance and feeding quality, has particular relevance to Wales and the West. I understand that it has been producing excellent results. I am advised that, of the AFRC varieties in joint trials in 1983, the top five were all from the WPBS. Particular reference has been made to the F.1 hybrid barley breeding project which offers the prospect of increasing barley yields by about 20 to 25 per cent. in the near future. It

957
is the only project in the United Kingdom private or public breeding sector. After 13 years of personal commitment and endeavour, this work is apparently now to go down the drain, at the very time when it is reaching fruition. This will leave the field clear to our European competitors.
Any plant breeding programme draws its strength from the variety and the extent of its bank of genetic resources. This depends upon it maintaining active breeding programmes in a range of crops. The present proposals will plunder those banks and will therefore further reduce its range of interests.
I turn now to the so-called "budgetary" cuts affecting such areas of vital interest to the Welsh livestock industry as pasture and silage quality, fertiliser usage and clover establishment on the hills. The WPBS has had a long and proud tradition since the pioneer work of the late Sir George Stapleton for its multi-disciplinary approach to grassland problems. The cuts now proposed at the WPBS would destroy this carefully nurtured and successful amalgamation of disciplines. Many of us find this ironic and incomprehensible at the very time that the AFRC is extolling the virtues of the multi-disciplinary approach.
I am advised that the cuts proposed in the chemistry department, for example, would virtually eliminate all research activity in pasture quality and animal nutrition. I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House will have read the brief prepared by the staff employed in the chemistry department at the station and will have noted that the following research work will be terminated: the improvement of pasture feeding quality, which is aimed at reducing supplementary feeding costs; studies of the value of grass and clover mixtures for livestock feeding; work on forage conservation and silage quality; and studies of mineral requirement and the need for mineral supplementation.
We are also advised that the cuts proposed would terminate the station's research efforts in plant nutrition, crop physiology and entomology, all being areas of research which are vital to the station's integrated research programme and have a direct relevance to the specific problems of Welsh agriculture. I would mention in particular the plant nutrition group which conducts studies of fertiliser use in the hills and uplands and the production and establishment of clover. This work is specifically aimed at conditions in Wales and cannot be carried out elsewhere.
The proposed cuts at the WPBS are structurally damaging to its present remit and to its proposed new remit, which involves expanding work on hills and uplands. In the light of the proposed remit, many of us find the proposals to cut vital areas such as pasture quality and plant nutrition quite incomprehensible.
As against this, I must acknowledge the optimism of the Secretary of State for Wales. About a fortnight ago he said in another place:
"There is a firm future for that institution"—
that is, the WPBS.
"Its operations have just been extended by the acquisition of an upland farm in Powys and by work on the uplands".
However, in the submission of the people who are well
958
informed about the station, this statement is misleading. It is misleading on at least two counts. First, it assumes that the WPBS, which will have been so weakened by the redundancies to which I have referred, will nevertheless be able to undertake effectively the work allotted to it under the corporate plan. But how can this work be carried out effectively and to the benefit of the Welsh livestock industry if the expertise vital to its success has already been disbanded? Secondly, it does not acknowledge that the acquisition of the uplands farm in Powys is a replacement of an old uplands experimental station in another part of Powys whose lease has run out, and it does not acknowledge that the WPBS will not be a dominant partner in control of the work at the new farm but its role will be subsidiary to that of the Hill Farming Research Organisation—which will bring in Edinburgh staff, with a 750 mile round trip, to do the animal work at the new farm.
Significantly, we do not know what other less damaging alternative options, if any, were considered by the AFRC before it decided to demand this budgetary saving of £300,000 from the WPBS. Neither do we know what less damaging proposals, if any, were considered by the former director of the station—if he was the author of the detailed redundancy proposals—in order to meet this demand of the AFRC. In other words, we do not know what criteria were applied in deciding that this was the way it was going to go at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station.
I am not without some sympathy for the AFRC—a body which is not without its critics in England, also—which appears to have been trapped between civil servants under pressure (who do not appear to have fully grasped all the implications of their advice) and a contracting budget imposed by a Government firmly committed to cash limits in the management of public expenditure and the science budget.
I believe that I may best assist the Welsh Plant Breeding Station by addressing 10 questions to the Minister. First, when the AFRC gave its approval to the corporate plan, was it aware that 26 scientific posts would be made compulsorily redundant in order to achieve the savings required at the WPBS?
Secondly, when did the Welsh Office first become aware of the scale of the consequences of the budget-led cuts, and what representations were made by the Welsh Office to the AFRC, to the Minister of Agriculture or to the DES concerning the redundancies; and on what date or dates were such representations made? Third, when the budget-led cuts decisions were proposed, what account, if any, was taken of the new remit of the station?
Fourth, how do the number of proposed redundancies at the WPBS compare with (a), the other institutes engaged in grassland research—that is, the Grassland Research Institute and Hill Farming Research Organisation; (b) other institutes engaged in plant breeding—that is, the Plant Breeding Institute and Scottish Crop Research Institute? And what is the current funding and the proposed funding for 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 for each of those four institutes?
Fifth, will the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales ask the AFRC to publish

959
particulars of the alternative options, if any, which were considered by the AFRC in the process of formulating its corporate plan; and will they publish also the relative costs and cost benefits associated with each option?
Sixth, in view of the long and close association between the University College of Wales and its agriculture department with the WBPS, what consultations took place between the AFRC and the University College of Wales, and the University of Wales, in relation to the savings demanded by the AFRC? If there were none, why was it thought appropriate that the university authorities should be kept in a state of ignorance?
Seventh, as the WBPS barley breeding programme is 80 per cent. commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where and to what project or projects will this money be diverted? If it is to be retained by the Ministry, will the Ministry restore it to the WPBS?
Eighth, in the light of the particulars which have appeared since 23rd January, about the extent and the effect of the cuts, will the Secretary of State for Wales ask the AFRC to revise before April next its proposals for the station so that it is adequately funded and equipped to carry out the additional role envisaged in the corporate plan?
Ninth, if the AFRC takes the view that its proposals in respect of the station cannot be reviewed until, at the earliest, the next annual review—which I understand will be in 1985—will the Welsh Office, bearing in mind its responsibility for agriculture in Wales, set aside whatever funds are necessary to enable the station to continue its work and to accept new opportunities? Tenth, and finally, are there any valid arguments against financing agriculture research in Wales in a similar way to that which applies in Scotland and Northern Ireland?
At the end of the day we must come back not merely to the poor AFRC but to the role of the Government and its central departments. If the Secretary of State for Wales pleads that there is nothing he can do to protect the interests of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station, then we are entitled to ask: why do we have a separate Welsh Office with responsibility for agriculture?
8.7 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his masterly deployment of the case for the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. I agree entirely with a good deal of what he said. I will start by making two points. First, it is open to any Government at any time in their term to say to their agencies and departments that there should be some curtailment or limit to the amount of money that is spent—whether it concerns tourism (and we have just had a basin of that from Scotland), sport, the arts, or—as in this case—research. None of these very desirable avenues of our national life is inviolate; none may be left untouched by any Government.
The second point I wish to make is that whereas the debate tonight will be answered by my noble friend the
960
Minister, who has great knowledge of agriculture, in effect the person who ought to be answering this debate is not the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Wales, to whom the noble Lord referred, but the chairman of the AFRC. He alone can tell us what caused them to make these decisions, which we find totally repugnant. I make that point because the decisions were taken not by the Government but by an agency of the Government. It is the agency—in this case, the AFRC—which should be questioned upon this matter.
All I seek to do this evening is ask my noble friend to use his influence to nudge the AFRC—I will not go so far as to say that he should twist their arm because no doubt the AFRC greatly value their independence and would not like ministerial interference. But may I ask my noble friend to request the AFRC to read this debate? I see that a great number of noble Lords from various parts of the Principality are to speak, and by the time this debate has finished, a great deal will have been said.
I think the issue is one of extreme concern to us. This plant breeding station is of great significance, not just in the Welsh sense but internationally, all over the world and, nationally. It is particularly important because of the very close contact between the plant breeding station and the practical Welsh farmer, mostly in the hills. Those of us who have farmed in the hills of Wales, not actually making a fortune out of doing so during our lives but enjoying doing so and being immersed in the problems, will recognise what the plant breeding station has done for grasses, for legumes and for barley, and the advances that have been made in all these fields.
The noble Lord referred, quite rightly, to Sir George Stapleton. I would add the name of a man who possibly did more than anyone else to make it possible, by his financial support. That was the late Lord Milford, the father of the noble Lord who sits on our Benches here today, who always had great faith and gave a great deal of help at difficult times.
It has already been said that out of the 29 research institutes in Britain the Welsh Plant Breeding Station is the only one in Wales, and therefore naturally we feel that the size of the cut is pretty unfair. It is probably in the chemistry field that the cuts will be most severely felt, and in the work which goes on to improve animal and human nutrition. I notice that the National Farmers' Union believe that the decisions lacked detailed consultation and were done in haste. I cannot judge that; I do not know. I just want the AFRC to spend a bit more time before reaching a final decision.
I happen to be at the moment chairman of the council of the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society, a society which is very closely connected with the plant breeding station. Last year we held a two-day open demonstration of the highest quality at the plant breeding station, which attracted a vast number of people. I must tell your Lordships that our society views these cutbacks with disapproval and with an apprehension that this may lead to a running down of the station. This is what is at the back of people's minds. We need reassurance on that particular point.

961
May I finally say this. Previous Governments of various hues have decentralised a great number of governmental functions from London and the Home Counties to distant parts of the country. The Forestry Commission, during our time, went to Edinburgh. The Mint, I think during the time of the party opposite—I think I see the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, nodding; probably he sent it; or it may have been Lord Tonypandy, but one of the two—was sent to Llantrisant. There have been many other examples of this, and all I am saying is that Aberystwyth is a long way from London and that the cuts in terms of employment will be felt much more acutely there than they would be in a densely-populated area.
I have produced arguments tonight that I hope may be used to persuade the AFRC to think again. In Wales we are extremely proud of our plant breeding station. I have been happy to say a few words tonight on the subject.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for initiating this debate and for couching the Question in the terms in which he has—wide enough to give us scope for a proper debate on this matter. I must immediately cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, when he tries to dissociate the Government from any responsibility for these cuts. Surely the AFRC is carrying out a mandate given to it by the Government; and there is, of course, a joint consultative body which is consulted. If he reads the House of Commons reports on the financing of agricultural research and development he will read something of the background of this matter, which he already knows very well because of his great experience in this field.
In this debate I feel that I have three interests to declare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, though in a much more modest way, I am a hill farmer, and my grasses depend so much, as do his, on the research done at the plant breeding centre at Aberystwyth. Secondly, I was a "co-digger" with Professor John Cooper, FRS, the former director of the Plant Breeding Station. When I was a young student and he was a young lecturer we were in the same digs together, and I have the highest opinion of him. Thirdly, I was brought up by my father, who was a farmer, absolutely to worship, as it were, the name of Sir George Stapleton, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientific farming pioneer of our century; and as the years have gone by that value judgment has been wholly justified.
When I was a student at Aberystwyth it used to be a great argument as to which of the departments had brought the greatest glory to Aberystwyth, the agricultural department or the law department. In this House there are at least five members of the old law department, and it is a very good thing to see that four of them are speaking in defence of the agricultural department, which is so interwined in its work with the Plant Breeding Station. The fame of the agricultural department was great because, of course, Professor Stapleton, the founder of the Plant Breeding Station, was a professor at the university. The noble Lord has
962
made the point that the work of the university is so intertwined with the plant breeding station.
The fame of the plant breeding station and the agricultural department does not need any monuments; their monuments are to be seen on every green hill in this country. Indeed, as a matter of historical record, to put it into perspective, the first director of the Australian plant breeding station and the grass research programme of Australia was an old student of Professor Stapleton, from Aberystwyth. The first director of the New Zealand research effort into grassland came over to Aberystwyth as a postgraduate student to sit at the feet of the great man. To any farmer I have only to repeat the words "S22", "S23" and "S24", to quote only three of the famous rye grasses from which so many other developments have taken place in the last two or three generations, to realise what an enormous contribution the Welsh Plant Breeding Station has made, not only to the life of Wales but also to agriculture worldwide, and particularly, perhaps, in Australia and New Zealand.
It was, therefore, with astonishment that I read the first report from the Agriculture Committee in the other place, Session 1982–83, published and printed on 11th May 1983. The subject was organisation and financing of agricultural research and development. When I went through the report and its evidence, not a single witness came forward from the University of Wales, nor from the Plant Breeding Station, nor from the Welsh Office, to give evidence in this matter. Whose fault that was, I do not know. Certainly the Scottish Office gave evidence, the Northern Ireland Office gave evidence, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the AFRC, the University of Reading, and so many other organisations; but I cannot find, first, that there was a single Welsh Member on the committee or, secondly, that there was any representative of a farming union, whether the NFU or the FUW, for Wales. I cannot find in this report, which is full of interesting things on this very subject, a single mention of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station at Aberystwyth.
Baroness White: My Lords, if I may intervene, I have been trying all day to find copies of the two written memoranda which were sent to the committee of the other place from the University Colleges of Aberystwyth and Bangor, respectively. They are not to be found in the Library of the House of Commons, and they cannot be traced in the Victoria Tower. They were not printed; they were merely deposited. That shows the degree of concern, it would seem, which is paid to any of our Welsh affairs.
Lord Hooson: I am grateful, my Lords, to the noble Baroness for telling me that; but looking at the report of the committee and the list of memoranda, and so on, included in the minutes of evidence, they are not referred to.
Baroness White: Excuse me, my Lords; they are referred to but as papers which were deposited but not published.
Lord Hooson: But not published, my Lords. I am grateful for that intervention. In many ways it is the most famous plant breeding station, and certainly the most famous on grasses—after all, we are a country that depends so much on grasses—and its seems very odd that we did not have the position of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station properly considered. Also, it is within my knowledge that in recent times there has been a proposal which was turned down by some of the shrewd farmers on the committee concerned with this matter, that the name of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station should be changed. It was suggested that it be changed to the Welsh Agricultural Research Station or the Aberystwyth Agricultural Research Station. That was an attempt to downgrade the station and treat it as an outlying station, which I think the farming members of the committee realised immediately. That is the general fear in Wales. This is the only Plant Breeding Station or institution that is directly funded through the agency of the AFRC in Wales. That compares with many in England, and I shall presently come to the position of those institutes in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It is my view that if we are to safeguard the position of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station the first necessary step is to put it under the Welsh Office; that is, to transfer it from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and have it funded by one fund directly by the Welsh Office. In support of that I look at the findings of the committee in another place which referred to the Scottish system. I quote from paragraph 35 of that report, which I previously adverted to:
"To begin with there is one single funding source in Scotland, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland which disposes of some £25 million in research and development".
When one compares that with the £3 million that is spent—until recently, £3.4 million but if this cut goes through it will be £3 million—on the only plant breeding station in Wales, we see a difference of degree already. The report continues—and I quote from the end of paragraph 37:
"Overall there can be no doubt that the close link between advisers, agricultural college workers and university students in Scotland is of immense benefit to agriculture and we heard a good deal to support the view of one of the witnesses that the system was 'immeasurably more effective' than that south of the border".
I realise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund- Davies, the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales is to speak later and he can tell us of the importance of the very happy co-operation that has always taken place between the university and the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. If oral evidence had been given to the committee it would have appreciated that the co-operation between the WPBS in Aberystwyth with Trawscoed, the NAAS establishment with the Agricultural College of Wales and with the university faculty, which are all in a close physical proximity to Aberystwyth, make a Welsh set-up that is nearer in practice to the Scottish, although differently controlled.
When we consider the set-up in England, the committee said this in paragraph 45:
"The main thrust of the evidence given to us by the JCO was to the effect that the present administration of agricultural R & D is too complex and cumbersome".
964
The paragraph continued later:
"We hope to show that the entire weight of evidence of our enquiry has also been on the need for the development of such a strategy for R & D, though as we shall consider, opinions as to its shape and execution varied widely".
The thrust of the committee's findings is that it thought that the whole organisation in England, and the Ministry of Agriculture in particular, lacked a proper sense of strategy on these matters. In conclusion the committee said, in paragraph 99:
"We also believe that attention should be paid to the Scottish and Ulster systems in any reorganisation of the advisory service in England and Wales. In particular we would stress the advantages of the integration of agricultural education with advisory work at Scottish colleges, institutes and universities. Matters such as the training in communication and extension methods and a recognition of the importance of agricultural economics are valuable 'imports' that could well be brought South of the Border".
I submit that the detailed inquiry by the committee in another place clearly pointed to the enormous advantages of the Scottish system and, even more so, the Northern Ireland system—which I did not quote—where the committee found that the entire funding, even of the university chairs, lecturers, and so on, in agriculture in Northern Ireland is done by the Ulster Agricultural Department. That has enormous benefits. Therefore, I believe that instead of being an outlying station, which distant Aberystwyth no doubt is to the AFRC—it has a cut across the board and Aberystwyth must, as it were, pay its price regardless of the work done there—it would be very much better for Wales, for Welsh agriculture and for all concerned if the Welsh Plant Breeding Station came under the Secretary of State for Wales. Having said that, the immediate problems are obviously those which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I entirely agree with the points that he made, though I doubt very much whether he will get satisfactory answers to his questions.
However, I make one or two comments about the enlarged remit which it has been suggested should be given to the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. As it is obviously on the wet, west side of the country, and as Wales is very largely a country of uplands and hills, there is a great deal of sense in enlarging the remit so that there is not only the fundamental research that is required and carried out at the Plant Breeding Station, but the applied research can be carried out also in the new farm in Powys.
It seems to be stupid to cut out of the Aberystwyth Plant Breeding Station the very departments that could carry out some of research on this new hill farm in Powys. We read of the barley programme which in this country is now to be concentrated at Cambridge and Dundee. Undoubtedly the greatest amount of barley growing in this country is in the eastern part of the country. Nevertheless, it is right to point out that in Scotland, understandably, and in Cambridge the main thrust of the research into barley is for malting barley which, of course, is very important to the Scottish economy, in particular, and of some considerable importance to the English economy. On the western side of the country, including Wales and the West Country where, say, 25 per cent. of the barley is grown, that is feeding barley. The thrust of the research at Aberystwyth has been not into malting barley but into feeding barley and that is very different.

965
If we are dealing with the western side of the country we must remember that because of the wet areas we are more prone to some kind of diseases than is the eastern part and there is a great deal to be said for maintaining the barley programme at Aberystwyth.
But why do what the AFRC did? I suppose one could say, if one was looking at the whole question of research and development in agriculture anew, that one would not immediately select Aberystwyth as the obvious place for barley development. Presumably it was cut out for that reason. But it seems to me that it was a short-sighted attitude, particularly to cut it out at the time they did, when obviously the joint trial results showed how very well the work had been done. The development of hybrid barley, which has been referred to, was of great importance. Also the requirement on the director to save another £300,000 a year meant that he had to take his knife and suggest cuts here and there. Whatever he suggested would have been wrong.
In the light of what we now know, and of the enormous criticisms of agricultural research and development in this country—the detailed criticisms set out in the report of a committee in another place—one cannot have faith and confidence that the right decisions have been taken. In my view, an overwhelming case is made out for a complete review of the decisions that have been taken.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, some years ago, until I had to give up the position on becoming a member of the University Grants Committee, I was a member of council at the University College of Wales at Aberystwyth. I must confess that I was then better informed of the details of the work of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station than I would claim to be today. But I was recently in Aberystwyth and was able to make some inquiries on the spot. I did so because virtually everyone in Wales in university or farming circles has been shocked by the relative down-grading proposed for our one and only agricultural research station in the Principality.
I suppose that it could conceivably have been argued that in some directions the Plant Breeding Station might have been tempted to rely more than was wise on its past glories and international reputation. But the masterly description given by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies of the work done there leaves me very doubtful of the possible validity of any such argument. In any case, had there been dissatisfaction with the quality of the work done there, should there not have been a timely word in the right place; and who better to receive that than my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who is not only a former Minister of Agriculture and Secretary of State for Wales but is currently the president and chairman of council of the University College at Aberystwyth? One should perhaps remind the House that the director of the Plant Breeding Station is a full professor of the University of Wales and a member of staff of the University College at Aberystwyth—although the entire funding of the station comes from agricultural sources.
In view of the forthcoming debate on Friday of this week on the work of the research councils in general,
966
it would not be appropriate tonight to go into the full context of the five-year plan of the AFRC, of which the proposed partial dismemberment of the Welsh station is but a segment. But it is only fair to put our debate into context and to say that that plan has not received a particularly favourable press. For example, the recently retired director of the research station, Sir Kenneth Blaxter, who is a Fellow of the Royal Society, has just written in New Scientist:
"Britain's agricultural research has long been in need of reorganisation. But the five-year plan of the AFRC will damage research without going to the root of the problem".
He refers to the council's "parochial view" as being "devoid of vision and without moral concern".
This complaint comes from Scotland; but, as we have been reminded, the Scots are to retain their agricultural research institutions with very little, if any, diminution of resources. Both the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman rejoiced when the proposals in the plan were announced. They had good reason to. In England, too, one small institution will be closed and weed research will no longer flourish at Oxford. Otherwise, England is to retain its score or so of agricultural research institutions, no doubt under some pressures; but it nevertheless already has the lion's share of the agricultural research work done in the United Kingdom.
One of our complaints in Wales is that in general we are extremely poorly served in the number of publicly funded research institutions that we have outside the departments of the university colleges. We have a few small offshoots for hydrology, geology and terrestrial ecology and one shell-fish station. They are all very welcome and enjoy modest excellence. But the only research institute which can fairly claim to have an international reputation is the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. Opportunities for Welsh scientists to work at research in Wales are far too restricted.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who is Chairman of the Agriculture and Food Research Council and is extremely knowledgeable about apples, pears and hop growing in southern England, may say that this deprivation in Wales is no concern of the AFRC. But the disposition of the work of the research councils in the United Kingdom is not and should not be entirely a matter of pure or even applied research. In the United Kingdom we are a pluralistic society, and there are vital and important undertones and overtones in these matters—factors which presumably the AFRC, with its perhaps necessarily rather blinkered view, is unable to appreciate, but they are very real. It is partly because of them that tonight so many of us from all parts of the House wish to express our concern at what has been proposed. These matters cannot just be brushed aside.
Admittedly the Secretary of State for Wales is in a an awkward position. He is responsible for agriculture in the Principality but not, of course, for university education or for the work of the research councils, which in any case have their own independence. It may be that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that these matters should come directly under the Welsh Office—as in Scotland to a larger degree they come under the Scottish Office—is the

967
right course to pursue. But meanwhile there is universal concern in the Principality at the way in which we believe this matter has been handled.
The proposed cuts in staff have been fully and eloquently described by other noble Lords, so I shall not reiterate what was said beyond saying that no one believes that the cuts will stop at the 27 scientific officers who have already been given formal notice either of dismissal or of transportation to Cambridge—a rather luxurious Botany Bay but not necessarily to their liking. As I have found in Aberystwyth, further adjustments—to use a neutral phrase—are almost universally expected. For example, reducing the number of chemists from nine to one is bound to create a further imbalance. As we have been told, there may be advances in other directions. But it is understandable that there is concern when we are given to understand that the farm which has just been acquired will be permitted to undertake field trials but that the serious research will now be carried out in Scotland. That hardly brings a song to the heart. It gives us little confidence about the level of work which is likely to be carried out at the research station.
As for the redeployment of AFRC funds to food research—which is one of the reasons given for cutting down on the resources available for agriculture—so far as I can learn, little, if any, of the food research resources will come to Wales. If that is so, we shall lose both on the swings and on the roundabouts. We do not claim undue favours and nor should we be content with any but the highest standards. We believe that with properly directed effort these can be attained at our one institution in Wales. We ask for no more, but we can be satisfied with no less. The AFRC should think again.
8.40 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has explained, I am the chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I can therefore assure my noble friend that at least one member of the council will listen to, and not only listen to but read carefully, the observations made in this debate. Your Lordships are tolerant in these matters but I must nevertheless be careful not to speak on behalf of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I hope that I may be allowed to speak as someone who has more than a passing knowledge as a farmer. I can perhaps assure the noble Baroness that I grow more than just hops and apples. I involve myself in many crops, dairy farming and the like, which will be familiar to Welsh farmers.
In many ways, I find this debate of enormous encouragement. This may seem totally paradoxical when I have had to listen to so many strictures about the organisation of agriculture and food research. I find it a great consolation because, for 18 months to two years, as great chunks of funding have been knocked off agricultural research, it has been difficult to whip up any response. I do not know how many of your Lordships recollect the paper I hold in my hand from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. That
968
set a precedent, in that its advice was published in October 1982. It has not been published before or since. It was a most devastating document from which, not unnaturally, the secretary of the Agricultural Research Council, as it was then, dissented. To be fair to the advisory body, it printed in full the strictures and warnings of the secretary of the Agricultural and Food Research Council at that time.
My noble friend will correct me, but I do not remember an enormous cry from the Welsh farmers. The response was muted. It tended to be along the lines that we live at a time of Government cuts, that your party will obviously be looking at all such cuts and that the fact that there may be interests way beyond those that we have been discussing today—I have to say that there are many issues at stake—is something that just has to be borne. I remember even a leader in The Times making just this point; that farmers and the food industry are complaining once more and that they must take their medicine because agricultural support in one form or another in this country is simply too great.
We are looking now at a situation where devastating cuts have been made. I assure some of the speakers in this debate that the cuts are more far-reaching than might have been suggested. It is not fair to say that in England there is one small laboratory being closed down together with one or two cuts in other institutes. Two institutes are being completely closed down in England, with cuts of the order of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station in other institutes. The cuts about which we are talking tonight are certainly damaging. Everyone in the House, having heard eloquent speeches, must recognise this. But cuts of that order are common throughout the institutes that we are required to run. The simple reason can be found in the cuts in public funding.
I take issue strongly with my noble friend who makes the point that the AFRC can somehow organise its affairs that it should be able to manage without apparent public funding of the order needed to run its commitments.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, with great respect, if I may intervene, that is the last thing I said. All that I said was that every form of agency and activity under every Government must come, at some time or another, under the eye of economy. I never said that research in itself should be cut.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has put me right on that. When assessments are to be made, as they have been made, Governments do so presumably by taking a hard look at the strategic considerations which are implied by withdrawing support in one direction and increasing support in another. I do not quarrel quite so strenuously as some will with the concept that the food industry does need further support. The reasons can be well justified, as has been done in another report to which Sir Kenneth Blaxter, who has already been mentioned, was a participant. He made the point that we are losing in the balance of payments on our food industry. The food engineering industry has badly lost its share of the market. Unlike agriculture, be it in

969
Wales, England or Scotland, that has continued successfully to make a great contribution to the balance of payments and to reducing or preventing the full cost of living increase for food products, as for other industries, the food industry has a track record that is less impressive.
If there is to be a case for publicly funded research, it is fair to look at the opportunities which may lie for further employment and, from the farmers' point of view for assuring that the raw materials, which are mainly from the farm for the food industry, come from our own producers rather than through imported foods, thereby losing markets for our own farmers. There is a case, recognise, as the Ministry of Agriculture and others have urged. I accept that it would be only reasonable to expect that at least some of that food research should be undertaken in universities, colleges and the like throughout the United Kingdom. In the context of today's debate, the point has been made forcibly that at least some of that should come back to Wales.
What worries me in the broadest sphere is whether there is a sufficient understanding—not just for Wales but for England and Scotland as well—of the benefits that we expect from agricultural research. The industry is highly dependent on new research and new technology. The pace of change is perhaps bewildering. Sometimes, it is objectionable when the conservationists find that drainage schemes or the like do much to reduce the value of the environment. Certainly, for example, when it comes to pollution of water courses, this is in many respects objectionable. These are the areas where agricultural research can and should be making a contribution.
We are looking with great trepidation at the implications of static prices for agricultural products. This will hurt particularly the Welsh farmers who are living on lower margins than many of my neighbours in the South-East of England. The implications of static price levels for agricultural products must mean examining new systems and lower inputs in order to survive in what will be a fierce climate. There are considerations in the areas of social welfare and keeping rural communities alive.
The animal welfare considerations, which have been very much to the fore in recent years, have created a genuine requirement from a wide spectrum of society to know exactly what it is that puts an animal under stress, and what should be the relationship between the animals that we harness for agricultural purposes and the farmer. I worry enormously that the cuts which have been imposed deliberately as a result of this advice and as a result, more recently—only in November—of the cuts made in the commissioned research at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station by the Ministry of Agriculture and at the other 22-odd institutes have all been made calculatedly on the basis apparently of the sort of considerations that I have listed, are not of sufficient import.
The debate has demonstrated clearly that in the case of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station there is equally the Welsh dimension. I am sure that the point must be firmly upheld by all who organise research that the reputation of that institute must be protected from the sort of ad hoc cuts that are being inflicted widely
970
throughout all our institutes. I do not think that this will be very acceptable to those who have spoken before, but it is the case that the cuts about which we are talking tonight—the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned a cut from £3.4 million to £3 million, although I think it is rather less and of the order of 6 per cent. to 8 per cent.—are very much in line with the cuts which are being imposed on the agricultural research service.
The discussions which we have had on how we organise research rather missed the point, because there is always a temptation when funds are cut, when plans have to be produced which will upset everyone—and believe me at the moment the animal farmer, the top fruit grower, the soft fruit grower and a whole range of arable growers are extremely disturbed by the corporate plan—to say that it is the plan which is at fault and that we cannot possibly live with it. I make the point once more that when we are required to cut our cloth according to our means we invariably produce a plan which is of great consequence to many people. No doubt there will be other debates in this House about other areas of agricultural research, and even though the points will not be made with as much fervour as they have been made by so many of your Welsh Lordships' tonight, they will, I suspect, he made with almost as equal force.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I, too, have to be careful as the chairman of my country's tourist board reporting on tourism to the Secretary of State for Wales. I have no wish to preempt his rights, and plead the Addison Rules. In fact, 40 years ago in Pembrokeshire, as a young student writing a dissertation on the agricultural areas of my own County of Pembrokeshire, I was part of the great plan to upgrade grass as the mother of milk in Wales, and I feel that type of association with it. It was the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, reinforced later by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who said that it was the point of internationalism. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, actually said that this thing is not merely for Wales. It is their point that I wish to reinforce.
The Wales Tourist Board, in common with other organisations in Wales, was approached and asked to consider its views on the plant breeding station. The issue was discussed as late as Friday last week. At its meeting on that day, while recognising that the activities of the WPBS naturally remain outside the remit of the Tourism Act, the board were mindful of the international reputation that is enjoyed by the station and, more particularly, the fact that it is visited by scientists from all over the world. As a consequence, it remained, we felt, an important institutional ambassador for Wales which featured in our specialist literature and was part of the marketing of our country's attractions overseas. I have, of course, conveyed that to the Secretary of State, before I would ever speak to it in this House.
Although the benefits are indirect and difficult to measure, we believe that the Welsh Plant Breeding Station makes a significant contribution to the image

971
and the identity of our country. For that reason we formally resolved that I should convey to this House the concern that everything possible should be done to safeguard the future of the centre as a major centre for agricultural research, so that it might maintain its unrivalled reputation for innovative work on subjects that have a direct hearing upon the prosperity of our rural areas.
I am deliberately holding in my hand our own Wales Tourist Board's study of agriculture in relation to tourism. We have a very sophisticated product now in which we see tourism and agriculture together, integrating the rural community and being vital to sustaining life in an area which has for too long exported its best people. I thought it highly significant, when I asked for the figures, that, in 1982, there were no less than 2,170 official visitors to the station, 330 of whom came from overseas, and that in 1983 there were 2,500 visitors in all, plus 5,000 for open days. I asked for a breakdown of people so visiting and I found that they were scientists, advisers, students, farmers, media "dignitaries" and people who are extremely important in the promotion of Wales as a tourist attraction.
The decline of our traditional industrial base has placed agriculture and tourism together as providing one of the very few options open to our nation for stabilising its economy. There is evidence that tourism, together with the research that has been carried out at the establishment and the effect that it has had on agriculture within Wales, has at last begun to halt the great decline in the rural areas which has been the running sore of our country for a very long time indeed. It would be ridiculous—and I cannot stress this strongly enough as a private individual Member of this House—if, as we have done so often in the industrial field, we were to dismantle an asset now just at the time when its real value to the country is being understood. I can cite from within my own responsibilities the fact that we have learned over the last 10 years that those enthusiasts who worked to keep alive and working the mineral railways, which were clearly redundant in industrial and commercial terms, have created an asset that is now of infinite value to our country and is helping it to earn its living at a very difficult time.
For that reason, and underlining the points that have already been made without repeating them, I have travelled here from Wales tonight in order to add my voice to the plea that second thoughts be had upon this issue and that the Minister, when he rises to speak, should give the House the assurance that this plant breeding station will be allowed to continue its work.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, at the outset of my remarks I think it wiser to reveal that I have both a personal and at least a quasi-official interest in the important topic which is currently occupying the time of your Lordships' House. My personal interest arises of course from the fact that I am a Welshman. Any Welshman cannot fail to be interested in the matter currently under discussion. My quasi-official interest arises from the fact that I have the honour to be the
972
pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales—that is, as most people know, a federal university, the senior member of which is the University College at Aberystwyth, of which the present president will, in the near future, be addressing this House.
As far as the university itself and its connections with the WPBS are concerned, the director of the station is also a University of Wales professor of agricultural botany in the college; the scientific staff are listed both in the university calendar and in the college prospectus; and students are allowed to read for higher degrees of the university at the station, supervised by a scientific staff and under the direction of the director. I have to add that I, as a pro-Chancellor, have no knowledge of any consultations with the university at any time regarding the steps leading to the present position in which the WPBS finds itself.
I should have thought it was incontestable, and therefore accepted, that the work of the station was of both national and international importance. That that has been universally recognised is surely beyond challenge, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his notable opening speech, has given the necessary detail to emphasise—if that is necessary—the fact of the matter. It is the only plant research station in the whole of the Principality. Scotland has nine such major institutions; and England, 20. The annual funding of these institutes by the AFRC in the case of Wales appears to be approximately £3 million, in the case of Scotland. £26 million and in the case of England, over £70 million. Wales faces a cut of £500,000—approximately 17 per cent.—in its annual funding.
What the university does not know—and I cite the university because of its interest and particularly that of the college, which naturally has a more intimate daily contact than does the university with the station—is what are the proposed annual cuts in Scotland and in England. We should like to be supplied with those figures tonight. If, as I understand it, having read at least two of the newspapers published north of the Tweed, Scotland is actually destined to be better off in the future than it presently is—and I congratulate Scotland but I do not envy it; on the other hand, there must be some fairness of approach to all institutions of this character—I ask rhetorically, can the grave consequences of the proposed cuts in the Aberystwyth funding be justified if that is the position in other parts of the United Kingdom? Can it really be said that the interests of the WPBS are being safeguarded, "leave alone promoted" (to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies) by the events which are threatened?
I and the university should be grateful for enlightenment on these matters, and we urge the noble Lord to the conclusion that at the very least further urgent consideration of the topics is called for, the details of which have already been furnished by earlier speakers.
9.2 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I join with the noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the way in which he opened this debate. It is just 14 years since I had the great honour of being

973
Secretary of State for Wales. Like the noble Baroness, I have tried to keep in touch with what happens in the Principality. At that time I learned how much the agricultural industry in Wales looks towards Aberystwyth. The anxieties which have been expressed by noble Lords today from both sides of the House must surely give Her Majesty's Government cause for some concern.
I should like to say how deeply I appreciate the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I think it was a great courtesy to us all that, as chairman of the responsible research body, he has come to participate in this debate and to give us the benefit of his advice. As I listened to my noble friend Lord Edmund-Davies, who claimed a cut of 17 per cent., and to the noble Earl, who referred to a cut of, I believe, 6 per cent., I realised that there is a very great disparity between the sources of information that have been available to various responsible people who have taken part in this debate.
It would be a grievous error to brush aside the anxieties of Wales with just a passing remark about the fervour of the Welsh. It is true that from time to time our people speak with fervour; it is natural enough because we love Wales. But Wales—north, south, east and west—little country that it is, is not always easy to unite. However, it is united on this matter. From all parts—and apparently all parties—in this House, there is an anxiety that the consultation that did not take place should even now be allowed. It is not too much to ask that the Government should listen to a united voice from the Benches behind them, from the Opposition Benches and from these Cross-Benches, and that they should realise something has clearly gone amiss.
I do not wish to take the time of the House other than to say that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that consideration should be given to the research station being under the authority of the Welsh Office. If it were the responsibility of the Welsh Office, a misunderstanding of the mood of Wales of this sort would be impossible for whoever is in power, whichever side of the House happens to hold authority for the time being in the Welsh Office. It is a department that endeavours to be sensitive to the mood, the needs and anxieties of the Welsh people. I salute the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, who served a long stint himself both in office and as a Shadow Minister for Wales. I think that he did five years' hard work in another place. He speaks with very great authority on this subject. Therefore, tonight we have had the privilege of listening to people who know the agricultural industry in the Principality inside out and who know our university world thoroughly. I like listening to the Minister, but I shall feel sorry for him unless he has something hidden up his sleeve and unless he is able to say that he will think again.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I too join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies in initiating this debate, and indeed in the completely masterly way in which he opened his case. He did so with all the skill and painstaking accuracy that one associates with every case that he articulates. In
974
hearing the splendid contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Gibson-Watt and Lord Hooson, my noble friend Lady White, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, one had for a brief moment a nostalgic feeling that one was living again a previous incarnation not far removed in distance and not even far removed in time from one's present locus and experience.
But the debate indeed has been much wider than the confrontations that I have mentioned, and that I and others, were used to in another place. It has been greatly enriched and, if I may say so, leavened by the distinguished contribution from all parts of the House. If ever there was need to endorse the fact that this is in no way a political matter, then that most clearly—and in a most distinguished manner—has been done this evening in this House. Indeed, one only has to speak to almost anyone in any part of Wales to find that there is here a feeling that is deeply rooted and broadly based utterly divorced from any consideration of party-political advantage. I myself am glad that the Honourable Society of Cymrodorion have indeed played so leading a part in relation to this most worthy case.
I am glad of the opportunity to intervene, albeit for a brief moment so late in the debate. There is no need to rehash any of the arguments that have been so splendidly and succinctly deployed. But may I mention three matters. First is the question that has been touched upon by many contributors to this debate, and that is the inequity that Wales has suffered for many decades—it goes back a long time—in relation to the funding of agricultural research compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.
I can well understand why that should be so. It was not brought about by any malevolence on the part of central Government from year to year. I suspect that in this, as in more than one other instance, Wales has been the victim of its own success. So great was the distinction, so great the fame, so great the achievements of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station at Aberystwyth, that it could not have dawned upon most people—even people utterly knowledgeable in this field over the years—that Wales was getting only one proportion of 8½ units that Scotland was getting. What is the human population of Wales? It is about half that of Scotland. But what counts here, I suppose, is not humans but animals. The dairy population of Wales is greater than the dairy population of Scotland. The sheep population of Wales is greater than the sheep population of Scotland.
Scotland, as we have heard from so many noble Lords, has nine such institutions as these. It has one major institution wholly devoted to dairy research, and another to hill farming. I do not think that any Minister—and this is not a party point, it is a point which could have been made during the incumbency of any other Government over the last 30 or 40 years—or anybody could have justified the relatively meagre proportion of funding that Wales has received over the years. That, in my respectful submission, is the starting point. Whatever might be said about the necessity for Wales to take its medicine—if I understood the first part of the speech of the noble Lord opposite, although he rallied fairly strongly late in the day and said that Wales had a special case—that

975
is the beginning of it all. Wales starts in this field from a position of utter inequity in relation to the industry that is wholly central and vital to its whole economy.
Secondly, the Welsh Office does not, I am afraid, come out of this with very great glory. I appreciate the argument that was put, as always, attractively by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, but they cannot be exculpated completely. They do exercise an overall supervision in relation to the whole field of agriculture in Wales. I cannot conceive that a strategic decision would have been made in the first instance to subject Wales to an across the board cut. That is where it started. It must have started at the Treasury, then gone to the ARC and then relayed by the ARC to the various institutes, including Wales, on the basis of a broad across the board cut. I cannot believe that that could have been conceived without close consultation in the first instance with the Welsh Office. If there was no such consultation, it is an even graver situation than we had contemplated.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, would argue for a moment that the situation would have been the same in the time of Jim Griffiths, or my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, or the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, or the right honourable Mr. John Morris in another place. If that had happened in the day of any one of them, they and their friends would have descended upon the ARC like a shoal of hungry piranhas. It would indeed have been a gory confrontation. I do not think anything more need be said about that.
The Earl of Selbourne: My Lords, would it help if I informed the noble Lord that his noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos has already descended upon me like a shoal of fish as he has already said?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am charmed to hear that he is true to type, but I am in no way surprised. I would not have expected him to have acted otherwise. I am grateful for that intervention.
The case which the Welsh Office had to plead was not one that demanded a great advocative skill. The very heart and kernel of that has already been touched upon by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. In the corporate plan published by the AFRC for 1984–98—in the main it is a miserable document dealing with proposed cuts—there are from time to time certain shafts of light to relieve the gloom. One of them comes at paragraph 6.9(vi) of that report. It is very short and if the House will allow me I shall quote it:
"The proposals for the next five years are…to alter the remit of WPBS to reflect the station's decreased involvement in variety development"—
then there follow these words—
"and increasing interest in production studies and farming systems for the hills and uplands in Wales. This new work has already been initiated, jointly with HRFO, at a recently-acquired upland farm in Powys".
In other words, putting it in lay terms, the AFRC is saying that there should be greater concentration upon what might be described as the practical end of the whole exercise; the evaluation of the nutritive value for animals of the fodder prepared and the crops grown.
976
The body that was responsible for doing that in the Welsh Plant Breeding Station was the chemistry or nutrition department, which now is to lose nine out of ten of its members. That was the heart, core and kernel of the whole of that exercise. The subparagraph that I have quoted is utterly meaningless and rendered totally nonsensical by the disappearance of the nutrition section. Why did not the Welsh Office plead that utterly simply but totally irrefutable case?
I end on a local note. I, not unnaturally, am deeply saddened by what is proposed to happen at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. It was situated within the constituency that I had the honour to represent for eight years. It is located within a mile or two of my home. I suppose that I probably know more than half the people of all ranks who work there. I can tell the House—and I am sure the House will accept this in all sincerity—that morale is at a deadly low ebb. Even if those cuts were completely restored immediately, in my judgment it would take many years to repair the damage that has already been done.
Let me mention one other matter at a local level. The employment that is given by this institution locally in the area north of Aberystwyth is of immense significance. Even in more prosperous economic times that area had the deepest social and economic problems. The problems were not problems of unemployment, as many Members of this House know; there were the problems of employment. There were very few jobs; there were jobs that turned very much upon the sustenance derived locally from publicly-owned, publicly financed enterprises. The loss of even a few jobs will tell very heavily upon that community.
I am not interested in a witch hunt. I have my own views as to where the guilt probably lies. But I am not asking for any commission of inquiry to adjudicate upon such matters. I ask the Minister not to give a final answer tonight. I am sure that, with his usual good humour, and bonhomie, he will be able to deflect, or seek to deflect, many of the points that have been validly made. But I am sure that he is made of too genuine stuff to rely upon that. I urge him to consider that he is dealing, so far as Wales is concerned, with an invaluable, much cherished national institution. The damage that already has been done is considerable. It is possible to wreak immeasurable, even deadly, damage to it.
During the reign of terror of the French Revolution, a great and distinguished scientist, Lavoisier, was put to death. Someone said, a long time later, that cutting off his head took but a few seconds; replacing his scholarship was something that took many decades. Unless the Government are prepared to give agonising reappraisal to this matter, I fear very much that it could take decades to repair the damage that is now proposed.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it is rash indeed for an East Anglian farmer to enter into a debate which has shown itself to be the domain not only of Welshmen and Welsh women but of those who have, as most Welshmen and Welsh women have, the enormous grasp of the problem at issue, the deep feeling towards

977
anything concerning the Principality and the magnificent command of words, of oratory, that we have been privileged to listen to this evening. I do so for two reasons. The first is that, despite coming from the opposite side of the country, I have an admiration which is as high as that shown by any noble Lord who has spoken so far for Aberystwyth, for the work that has been done there and for the tradition so magnificiently started by Stapleton and carried on by his successors.
I think that there are perhaps relatively few of us engaged in agriculture today who realise what that debt is that we owe to Sir George Stapleton and to his successors and colleagues. When I started farming, nearly 50 years ago, in most parts of the United Kingdom grass was not looked upon as a crop; it was looked upon as something which just happened. If you left the field long enough, it would grow green and that green would be eaten in some form or another by animals. It was thanks to Sir George Stapleton and others, but primarily to him, that we now look upon grass as being a crop as complicated and as important as any other crop which is grown in this country—indeed, more so, because our greatest natural assets in agriculture are our soil and our climate, a climate which may be decried by those responsible for tourism and those who enjoy holidays by the sea, but which is a blessing to farmers, and particularly to livestock farmers, because it is a climate particularly favourable to grassland cultivation. We are now as good as any country in Europe in the cultivation of our grassland because of the work started and continued at Aberystwyth. There is scarcely a grassland officer in the country today or even in the English-speaking Commonwealth who is not called "Davies" or a similar name and who has not been trained for at least part of his time at Aberystwyth. It is an institution which is world renowned, and rightly so, and anything which diminishes the contribution that it continues to make to agriculture is something which can only be viewed with the greatest possible alarm.
I do not wish to introduce a discordant note, but I do not go along with those who, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, suggest that this should perhaps he one of the yardsticks, that there should be, as it were, an equality of misery and that cuts should be on an equal basis throughout England, Scotland and Wales. I think that research should be carried on no matter in which part of the United Kingdom——
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, I am sure there is a misunderstanding here: that is the last point I sought to make. I think there may have been an attribution here and it is not for me to say what might be the proper locality of the attribution, but it is certainly not at my door.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord and I am delighted to be corrected by him, because I am sure we all agree that the claim of Aberystwyth is not a parochial, local or Welsh claim but a national and an international claim. I will now move on to the second reason why I am intervening in this debate, and that is because of the overall importance of agricultural research—and I include food research there—and the very long-term nature of such research, which I know
978
the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, understands as well as anybody here.
We are suffering, if that is the right word, at the moment from an over-production of food within the Community. The need for food appears to have disappeared and the problem is: what to do with the surpluses? But we do not have to go back many years to remember the work of people like John Boyd-Orr and others who alerted us to the problems of world hunger. There is still world hunger and, once the world recession has been mitigated, as we are told is happening now, once the third world has rather more money coming from higher prices for its commodities, and as the population doubles, as it will during the next 25 to 30 years so that there will be another 4,000 million mouths to feed, we shall remember the words of John Boyd-Orr and his teachings and we shall look with amazement at this period in the mid-'80s when we are embarrassed by surpluses.
Food is needed now and it will be needed even more in the years to come. This country having lost its preeminent economic position—by the end of the century we shall be still lower down the scale—our need for food will become even greater than it was 20 years ago. That is the time when the result of research which is being carried on now and research which is starting now will begin to bear fruit. If' we abandon that research now, no matter where it is—whether it is in Aberystwyth, whether it is in Scotland, whether it is in Cambridge—we, as consumers or as farmers, will not suffer for it: it will not have any effect on us. But those who come after us, our children, are the ones who will suffer. The farmers of the coming generation and, above all, the consumers of the coming generation will suffer. That is why this problem of Aberystwyth highlights the inordinate folly and shortsightedness of the present Government's policy towards research of any kind at all and not just agricultural research, although that is what we are talking about tonight.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships read an article which appeared in yesterday's Sunday Times. With permission, I will read the first and the closing paragraphs. It starts by saying:
"More than 100 scientists from Britain's small but crucial pool of biotechnologists have left the country to work abroad in the past five years—a brain drain that highlights the major cash crisis facing British scientific research.
"The biotechnologists, though few in number, work in a field which has exceptional industrial potential in the near future. The exodus, revealed in a report prepared for the Science and Engineering Council, means that North America, Australia and Europe will be benefiting from research which could have been building up Britain's high technology industries of tomorrow."
It concludes:
"One overall effect of the research cuts is noticeable now: a significant change in Britain's position in the international reserach league. A study by the US National Science Foundation of American utilisation of foreign research—an indicator of its quality and commercial value—showed that the Japanese position had improved dramatically, the German and French markedly, while the British remained roughly static. And that was between 1973 and 1979, before the latest round of cuts."
Any of us who have any concern at all for the future of this country, any of us who appreciate, however modestly, the essential nature of basic scientific research and the long lag periods between the theoretical research in the universities and the research institutes and its application, whether it is in genetic

979
engineering and from there into the breeding of plants, or wherever it may be—as I think the noble Earl said, in what may seem a far cry, into the psychological stresses and environments of livestock, based on basic far-away research into psychology, with the enormous effect on animal production in this country today—must be, and are, horrified at what is happening now. It is not simply that we are eating our seed corn. We are deliberately taking our seed corn and throwing it away. Even half-developed research we are abandoning, and the results will make themselves apparent only in the years ahead.
I personally absolve the AFRC from responsibility in this matter. I do not know whether they have made a wise decision or a wrong decision, and, with the
980
greatest respect, I do not believe any noble Lords here can possibly pass judgment on them, because we have not heard the competing claims of the other research institutes, some of which have to be cut and some of which are able to go on as they are at the present time. The blame lies with those who have decreed that there is less money available for research, and, until that is put right, whether Aberystwyth is reprieved and Dundee suffers or whether East Mailing suffers and Cambridge expands, those are matters on which we cannot pass judgment because we do not have the evidence. All we can pass judgment on is the need for an increasing amount of money to be made available for research, and for an awareness of the damage that it is doing, and will do, to our future as a country and to future generations if the present trend continues.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I join all those who have expressed gratitude to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for asking this Question today and for his well argued and very impressive speech. Other noble Lords on all sides of the House have supported my noble friend in powerful and deeply-felt speeches. They have deployed all the arguments and made my task an easy one. From this Dispatch Box my duty is to plead with the Government to heed the appeals which have been made, for I can say without any doubt whatsoever that what noble Lords have said reflects the very deep feeling which exists in Wales on this matter.
Let me make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply and to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the Minister of State, whom we are glad to see in his place, so that there may be no misunderstanding about it after this debate is over, that on no other issue for very many years has there been such widespread reaction, dismay and shock right across the political spectrum in Wales as there has been on this issue. Let me follow noble Lords in explaining why, but first, like my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, I must to some extent acquit the Agricultural Research Council of total responsibility. The cuts are not of their doing. It is the Government, through the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are responsible for telling the AFRC that they must make substantial economies. I believe that the AFRC did at some stage seek to resist them, but when they came to revise their budget and to plan their reduced expenditure I say that the AFRC did not treat the Welsh Plant Breeding Station as fairly as they might have done.
Like others, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the chairman of the AFRC, for coming to the House and for making his speech. He and his colleagues had a very difficult task. I am grateful to the AFRC for the work they have done over the years. On this occasion they had a thankless task to perform. Of course I agree with the noble Earl that cuts were made in England, but because the Welsh Plant Breeding Station is the only research institute in Wales the cuts there were far more deep-seated and fundamental than they were anywhere else. As far as fervour is concerned, we are grateful to the noble Earl for the compliment he was good enough to pay to Welsh peers, but the fact is that on this occasion the fervour reflected a united conviction on this issue in the House today.
Other noble Lords have made this point, but there is no doubt that in Wales the plant breeding station at Gogerddan is regarded as one of our national institutions. For historical reasons, Wales is not endowed with many national institutions, but because of its development since its founding by George Stapleton, to whom many references have been made, it has achieved an international reputation. In passing, it is worth mentioning that many countries in the third world have cause to be grateful for the research carried out at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. The cuts, therefore, carry a significance well beyond the boundaries of Wales itself, although its work has been of incalculable value to Welsh farmers and in
982
particular to the hill farmers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, in his excellent speech. The proposal therefore deeply wounds a national institution in which we in Wales take great pride.
But it is called "national" because it is the only one that we have. It is the only research institute in Wales that is grant-aided by the AFRC. We are not seeking to gain some advantage this evening at the expense of England or of Scotland. As we have heard, there are 20 major institutes in England and nine in Scotland. I do not wish to see cuts imposed in those two countries, but you could make some and you would still have many institutes left. This is what is to happen in England after the AFRC have completed their plans.
But we have heard a great deal about Scotland this evening. This is what I read with great interest in the Glasgow Herald in its edition of 12th December:
"Scotland has miraculously escaped the cost-cutting axe wielded throughout agricultural research…this week. In fact, some of Scotland's research centres are gaining, being given work 'farmed out' from other establishments in a bid to rationalise and streamline projects".
I wish Scotland well. The Secretary of State for Scotland is to be congratulated on his success in preserving agricultural research virtually intact in his country. To keep several institutes intact is an achievement when we see the one institute in Wales severely mutilated.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales is fully aware of what is happening. I find it hard to believe that he would have tolerated this action if he had been aware of its full implications. On these occasions we are always told, "Wales is a small country and you must take your share of cuts vis-à-vis England". In fact, it is well known that a small country always suffers disproportionately if cuts are applied on an equal percentage basis. In this case, however, Wales has been treated not disproportionately but deplorably. I am staggered by the iniquity of the situation.
The reason is clear if we look at the annual funding of the institutes in the three countries. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, has given the figures. There was a figure of more than £70 million for England, £26 million for Scotland and £3 million for Wales. But let us break those figures down. They represent spending on agricultural research of £15·50 per hectare for England, £7·50 per hectare for Scotland and £3 per hectare for Wales. Those are the basic figures for agricultural research in the principality. We started off at a disadvantage before the cuts were ever made. If one looks at the cuts at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station in the context of those figures, one realises how grossly unfair and how totally indefensible they really are.
If the proposed cuts are implemented, the result will be to change the character of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station; that is something we find it hard to contemplate or to accept. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, said he believes that the WPBS will continue to operate "on a firm foundation". One begins to doubt whether anything is firm these days. Even if that be true, it will be a much smaller foundation—and the financial implications are very disquieting. The

983
reduction of £500,000 per annum over three years in real budgetary terms from a working 1983–84 baseline of £3,025,000 represents a shortfall of 16·5 per cent. compared with a forecast reduction over the same period of 7 per cent. for the AFRC as a whole. That is the reality of the situation to which I would direct the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.
We have been treated unfairly, and this can be seen in the AFRC corporate plan, on page 28, table 2. I find it very difficult to equate those figures with other figures used by the AFRC or by Mr. Nicholas Edwards in his letter and in his reply to questions in another place. Some have tried to argue that the WPBS reductions are half way in the scale of cuts which are being made in some other English institutes. But those, if I may say so with respect to the Minister, are based on changes over the first year only—1983–84 to 1984–85. Budgetary projections into future years give no such assurance.
One of our problems is that there was no consultation of any kind with the staff or trade unions concerned and therefore no opportunity to discuss the full significance of these measures as they should have been discussed with the people who are deeply concerned with these measures in Wales itself. This morning I received a note from the National Farmers' Union, which no doubt other noble Lords received in their post and in which they make plain how deeply they deplore the lack of consultation on this matter.
The repercussive effects go far beyond the immediate proposals, because in order to achieve the total reduction envisaged I understand that it becomes necessary to identify redundancy areas in research on plant physiology, chemistry and entomology including work on plant and animal nutrition as well as the barley programme. The loss of barley breeding and its associated research programme, together with the previous loss of breeding work in forage, brassicae and beans, considerably reduces the diversity of crops and associated expertise. The Welsh Plant Breeding Station will be left with oats as its only cereal programme. The loss of barley is crucial and must be emphasised; it is unique in many ways; it deals with breeding for disease and pest resistance—a vital consideration in the wetter climate of Wales and the west. It is ironic that this remarkable programme is now coming to fruition, as shown by the outstanding success of the WPBS varieties in current United Kingdom trials, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
It is proposed that the barley programme is to be taken over elsewhere. I note that barley breeding will be continued in the institute in Dundee. We could go for a long time discussing details, but I propose to desist. I will repeat what my noble friends have said; namely, that 40 staff posts will have to be lost, many of them involving compulsory redundancies. It is sad for them; it is sad for the WPBS, and it is sad in an area where jobs are hard to find and where unemployment is very high. It sharpens our anger and our resentment that so mean and ill-considered an act should be committed against Wales. I hope we can persuade the Government to think again. In the light of the argument they should do so. I know that the noble
984
Earl, Lord Swinton, is personally a fair and reasonable man with a knowledge of mid-Wales. I say earnestly to him and to his noble friend that I hope they will not commit themselves tonight but that they will talk seriously to their right honourable friend about this. They should tell him what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lady White said, that the retreat from research is the path to national decline.
I can say to the noble Earl that we speak with deep feeling on a matter which will develop into a profound injustice if it is not soon rectified. The University College of Wales, of which I have the honour to be president, has a special relationship with the WPBS, and many noble Lords here tonight have a close knowledge of the University College of Aberystwyth and the plant breeding station. We have heard a memorable speech from my noble and learned friend Lord Edmund-Davies, who is the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales. There are five former students of the University College here tonight and four have spoken. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has restrained himself with great difficulty, because as President of the University College of South Wales, Cardiff, he feels as deeply as any of us about this. We were deeply moved to hear the plea made by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy who has also shown great interest in the university and in the plant breeding station.
Time is rapidly running out for the plant breeding station but I think there is still enough left for wiser counsels to prevail. We deeply hope that this debate will lead Ministers to act without delay and to give careful thought to the cancellation or at least the substantial modification of these unhappy proposals.
9.49 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his Question and to the other noble Lords who have spoken on this important matter. I think I may say that I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Selborne, who obviously did not find it easy to come here and make the speech that he did in the circumstances; I am most grateful to him.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who said that morale is low, and that is why I am glad and grateful that this Question has been raised and that I have a chance to say something about this. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said he thought I had something up my sleeve, or wished that I had because I was in for a fairly rough ride. I have nothing up my sleeve and I will give your Lordships the truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth. I have been told, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that I should cover up and not answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. In fact, I was grateful that he gave me prior warning of his questions and I intend to answer every one of them.
Perhaps I may first give some background. As I am sure your Lordships know by now, the Welsh Plant Breeding Station at Aberystwyth is a state-aided institute funded by the Agricultural and Food Research Council. It is one of 22 agricultural and food research institutes which are supported by the council, and is the only one situated in Wales.

985
The Agricultural and Food Research Council is a body which operates under a Royal Charter and whose main purpose is the support of research in the sciences relevant to agriculture. It does this by awarding research grants selectively to teams of scientists in the universities and by running, or grant-aiding, the 22 research institutes. It also supports postgraduate training in relevant fields of science.
The council receives money with which to conduct its various scientific activities from two main sources. One is the grant-in-aid allocated annually by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science from his department's science budget. The other is the income for research commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. About half the council's income is derived from each source. For 1983–84 the council's total estimated income, from both sources, is £96·5 million. This is a cash limited sum.
The council is having to face the likelihood of a reduction of funds from DES and MAFF, in real terms, between now and 1986–87. It estimates that its budget will be up to 7 per cent. less than now, in real terms, by 1988. The council's loss of income is due in part to a decrease in MAFF's programme of commissioned research work and in greater part to a planned reduction in the council's share of the science budget. That reduction was foreshadowed in the Advisory Board for the Research Councils' 1982 advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The main reason why the ABRC recommended such a reduction was that the board's assessment of scientific priorities pointed to the need for an increase in the funds for one of the science budget's other client bodies, the Science and Engineering Research Council, to enable the SERC to expand its programme of research, especially in information technology. As the level of the science budget as a whole has been held steady in real terms, it is evident that this increase in funds had to be secured by reducing the provision for other councils. The main burden of the reduction has fallen on the Agricultural and Food Research Council and on the Natural Environment Research Council. This is not to say that the board doubted the quality of the science being supported by those two councils. It was a question, rather, of having to make harsh choices at a time of overall restraint in public expenditure. My right honourable friend accepted the ABRC's advice in this matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones; My Lords, does the noble Earl acknowledge the priorities that have apparently been established, bearing in mind all the matters that have been brought forward in this debate, on the importance of what is being done in this plant breeding station for the benefit of the country as a whole?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think if the noble and learned Lord listens to the rest of my speech he will find out what I think about these matters. My right honourable friend thought for a long time before he accepted the ABRC's advice and I think, as my noble friend Lord Selborne said, there was no great outcry when that advice was tendered to my right honourable friend.
986
It is for the Agricultural and Food Research Council itself to decide how best to accommodate to its reduced income. I am pleased to say that the council has acted very positively in responding to the challenges facing it, which have consisted not only of living within a reduced budget but also of redirecting its research effort so as to meet new challenges principally in the areas of plant biochemistry and in aspects of biotechnology, neurosciences, food and nutrition. In December last year, the council published its first corporate plan, covering the period 1984–88. The corporate plan, copies of which are in the Library of your Lordships' House, was prepared in consultation with the agriculture departments, the universities and the industries concerned. It covers the work commissioned with the council by the agricultural departments, as well as work done with grant-in-aid from the DES, and deals with the whole range of work in progress, with areas of new scientific opportunity, with the priorities identified by the council and, in broad terms, with the measures which will be necessary to achieve the desired objectives within the funding expected to be available.
Within the context of the plan, institute directors have over the past months been reviewing their priorities and deciding in consultation with the council which programmes will have to be stopped and how many posts will have to be lost. In the agriculture and food research service as a whole, about 240 posts—including non-scientific as well as scientific jobs—are expected to be lost in 1984–5, with the eventual loss of some 800 posts by 1988. To create headroom for the introduction of new programmes and the expansion of promising work, the council intends to terminate lower priority work to the annual value of £7 million by 1986–7. It has concluded that some areas of work, including arable crops research and cereal variety production, are over-supported in relation to their importance.
I come now to the Welsh Plant Breeding Station.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the noble Earl is talking of the general matter of financing and where the cuts will fall, may I ask whether due account has been taken of the income which accrues to the Government through the national seed development organisation as a result of plant royalties and specifically what is coming in from the work already done at Aberystwyth in that respect? Is that credited to each individual institute, is it paid back to the AFRC, or is it simply absorbed into the general maw of ministry expenditure?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that.
I come now to the Welsh Plant Breeding Station—and some noble Lords may say, "At last"! The status of the station and the high regard in which it is held in Wales, as elsewhere, is acknowledged. This has been based, and must continue to be based, on the quality of the scientific work which it undertakes. The fact that it brings renown—and, indeed, as we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, tourism—to Wales is an additional bonus. Within the overall constraints that I have mentioned, the task of the AFRC, in close co-operation with the WPBS, has been to direct the

987
available resources to those areas in which the station can excel. The station cannot escape programme reductions, and these will affect the station in two ways. The present estimates of the funds likely to be available to the station for recurrent expenditure over the next three years are £3 million in 1984–85, £3.04 million in 1985–86 and £3.08 million in 1986–87. This is compared with the station's budget this financial year of £3.2 million. This implies a reduction in real terms greater than the cash figures would indicate.
First, to live within these cash limits the station's director, in consultation with the council, has decided to cut back work in areas of lower priority, including developmental genetics and on chemistry. This should save about £300,000 annually over the period 1984 to 1987. Twenty-seven posts will have to be lost, including 14 in the science group. Natural wastage and voluntary early retirement are unlikely to be sufficient to achieve this reduction, and I understand that, unfortunately, some compulsory redundancies seem likely. Other economies, such as cutting back on fuel and power for glasshouses and making savings on laboratory supplies, will play their part in achieving the savings but cannot by themselves reach the total figure required.
I think that this might be a convenient moment to make clear a matter about which there was considerable argument, if not disagreement, in the House: exactly how the expenditure cuts will affect the WPBS. A figure of 17 per cent. was mentioned, but that just is not so. The 1984–85 baseline is £3 million, which, when compared with the 1983–84 cash limit of £3.218 million, represents a reduction of 6.8 per cent. The £3 million for 1984–85 excludes a contribution of £35,000 from DAFS for the hills and upland work at Bronydd Mawr. If this is added, the percentage cut is reduced to 5.7. Secondly——
Lord Hooson: My Lords, surely on those figures the noble Earl has just given one year, and he has not dealt with the cutting out of the barley.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall come to cutting out the barley if the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will bear with me.
Secondly, the Agricultural and Food Research Council, following its strategic review of programmes, has decided that spring barley breeding at the station must be stopped in 1984–85. This will leave the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge and the Scottish Crop Research Institute at Dundee with responsibility for breeding barley in the AFRC. The Welsh Plant Breeding Station will continue to survey cereal pathogens and to conduct trials of advanced barley lines developed at the other institutes. The most promising advanced barley lines in the station's present programme will continue to be assessed. Annual savings of £200,000 are expected to be achieved within two years as a result of this reduction. Fourteen posts will be lost, though of these, three retirements and three redeployments are already in prospect.
988
On a more positive note, so far as the Welsh Plant Breeding Station is concerned, there has been a substantial increase since 1980 in the station's work on hills and uplands in collaboration with the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. The station has gradually extended its traditional role of breeding improved forage crop varieties to studying animal performance and to general agronomic work on hill and upland pastures.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but it is not right that the speech should continue without the noble Earl agreeing that if you add £200,000 saved on the barley to the other savings that he has already mentioned, you get 17 per cent.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall have to have another look at my figures. As I shall say in answer to a question later, the savings in barley will be used to support new work on hill farms. If the noble Lord will be patient, again, all will be explained. Perhaps I am turning into a conjuror, as the noble Viscount said, and at the end everything will come out.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I doubt it!
The Earl of Swinton: The noble and learned Lord doubts it! Several noble Lords have mentioned the fact that the Principality is famous for its hill farming. I think that my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, declared an interest in that both benefit from it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that it is a country that depends so much on grasses. The Agricultural and Food Research Council has encouraged this diversification and last summer helped the station to acquire the lease of a 164 hectare upland farm, Bronydd Mawr, near Trecastle, Powys. The farm will be used for new work on pastures, animal performance and systems studies jointly with the Hill Farming Research Organisation in Edinburgh. The importance which the council attaches to this new initiative is evidenced by the supplementation of the station's budget this year by £159,000 for setting up costs together wth £7,000 for farm buildings. In 1984–85 further sums are being allocated for these purposes. I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture also intends to redeploy money saved from the cessation of the station's spring barley programme to support this new programme.
I was asked a great number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies I believe, asked me 10 questions. It was rather like one of those quizzes where, in order to win the 64,000 dollars, one question is in eight parts. I shall wade through and see how I get on. His first question was to ask when the AFRC gave approval to the corporate plan, whether it was aware that 26 scientific posts would be made compulsorily redundant to achieve the savings required at the WPBS. Yes, I understand that all AFRC institutes drew up plans for programme reductions in 1984–85. The corporate plan anticipates the loss of about 300 posts by 1986–87 as a result of the financial shortfall to which I have referred and a loss of a further 500 by 1986–87 as a result of programme restructuring.
His second question was: when did the Welsh Office first become aware of the scale and consequences of

989
the budget-led cuts, and what representations were made by it to the AFRC? The Secretary of State for Wales shares with his ministerial colleagues responsibility for decisions on the level of support for agricultural research. Reductions in the provison being made for the Welsh Plant Breeding Station are in line with the overall reductions being proposed.
As to the incidence of the cuts, the hills and uplands research programme has the full backing of the Welsh Office. It has been devised in co-operation with the WPBS and with the agricultural departments of the University College of Wales. It has been given priority by the AFRC. To achieve the overall savings and to create headroom for this new initiative, hard decisions have had to be taken, and the spring barley breeding programme at Aberystwyth has been abandoned, although testing of spring barley strains at Aberystwyth will continue.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Earl clarify one point that he made about Bronydd Mawr? He said that the budgetary allowance in respect of Bronydd Mawr had brought the percentage down to 7 per cent. Would he say whether the budgetary allowance to Bronydd Mawr is a recurring one or whether it is an ad hoc grant? As I understand it, the money for Bronydd Mawr is an ad hoc grant and will not be repeated, in which event, of course, our argument that the percentage cut is nearer 17 per cent. is the right one.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the importance that the AFRC attaches to the new work on hill and upland pastures is evidenced by the supplementation of the WPBS 1983–84 cash limit by £159,000 for setting-up costs, together with an additional £7,000 for farm buildings. Similarly, in 1984–85 the sum of £110,000 is being allocated for further setting-up costs, and about £186,000 for farm buildings, roadways, et cetera. So a total of £462,000 extra is being spent over the two years. I cannot, I am afraid, go beyond 1984–85.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? Can the noble Earl say whether the expenditure at Bronydd Mawr over the next year and the following year is of a capital nature and non-recurrent?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, from the facts that I have given that seems to be the case, but I am not absolutely certain. I may be wrong, in which case I will have to write to the noble Lord. The figures that I read out seemed to be more of a capital nature.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it appeared to me that the noble Earl was setting off the expenditure at Bronydd Mawr against the revenue cuts at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth.
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I think I was. In trying to answer noble Lords' questions I have got into a bit of a muddle here with all the papers. I think that I have answered the first and second questions of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Thirdly, he asked: when the budget-led cut decisions were proposed,
990
what account, if any, was taken of the new remit of the station? Full account of the new remit was taken both by the station and by the council. The council is providing £500,000 over two years and four new posts for new work on hills, uplands and permanent pastures. So there will be four new posts provided up there, which perhaps contradicts a little of what I said in answer to the noble Lord's last question.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it would appear to me that the new scientific posts at Bronydd Mawr will amount to two or, at most, four, whereas at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station there will be a reduction of at least 26, and possibly 40. Therefore, if the scientific staff at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station are reduced by 25 to 40, how can they undertake the expanding work which is anticipated at Bronydd Mawr?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the AFRC and MAFF are fully committed to the WPBS new initiative on hills and uplands. Any requirement for expertise in animal nutrition, et cetera, will be provided either by redeploying existing resources at WPBS or by additional funds, subject to availability.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords——
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I am not going to give way. The idea of an Unstarred Question is that the Minister may reply at the end. If the matter is put down in the form of a Question at Question Time, then I understand that the Minister may answer supplementaries. But this is being turned into a mixture between the two, and I will not give way again. I am doing my best to answer the noble Lord's questions.
I turn to the fourth question which the noble Lord asked me. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not read out the question before I answer it, because noble Lords can check in Hansard that the noble Lord did give numbers for all his questions as he went through, and this will save a little time.
The answer to his fourth question is as follows. I understand that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has yet to announce allocations to the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the Scottish Crop Research Institute for 1984–85. The budget of the Grasslands Research Institute is £3.284 million in 1983–84 and £3.250 million in 1984–85. Thereafter, as the corporate plan makes clear, animal production studies at the institute and at the National Institute of Research and Dairying are to be consolidated.
The budget of the Plant Breeding Institute is £3.146 million in 1983–84, £3.140 million in 1984–85, £3.15 million in 1985–86 and £3.23 million in 1986–87. No redundancies are proposed at the Grasslands Research Institute. The Plant Breeding Institute will lose 22½ posts in all.
On Question No. 5, I understand that, in formulating the corporate plan, the AFRC considered with each institute director the scientific priority of each programme and made judgments accordingly, hearing in mind the overall level of savings which it knew it had to achieve. On Question No. 6, the director of the WPBS is, as we have heard, a professor

991
of the University of Wales at Aberystwyth. I understand that in the course of discussions leading to the formulation of the corporate plan, the director discussed details of scientific priorities with his consultative committee, whose membership includes the principal of the university college.
Question No. 7 was directed to the hills and upland work at Bronydd Mawr. I think that is a question on the barley. On Question No. 8, nothing that has so far emerged suggests that there are grounds for reviewing the decisions that have been made, either by the AFRC or by the WPBS. At the same time, in view of the intense feeling of the House. I think it would only be courteous of me and quite right that I should draw the attention of my three right honourable friends—that is, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Education and Science—to the debates in your Lordships' House tonight.
Dealing with Question No. 9, funds for agricultural research are agreed by the appropriate departments. A change in the way in which they are determined would not increase the overall amount that is available. The funds which are being made available should enable the station to respond to the new opportunities that are arising.
On the final question, No. 10, agricultural research in Scotland is mainly funded by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland needs to assess the priority which he attaches to agricultural research against other priority areas in his programme in deciding how much money to allow agricultural research. If a similar system were introduced for agricultural research in Wales, it would not necessarily result in an increase in the money available for that purpose. There would certainly be a countervailing loss of the close co-ordination between research in England and Wales which exists under the present system.
Northern Ireland is set somewhat apart from Great Britain in nearly all aspects of public expenditure. Although there are arguments both ways, a change such as that proposed would not produce any net benefit for Wales or the wider national interest. Assurances have been given that the other reductions have been made in areas of lower priority. They will not affect the capacity of the station to undertake its work effectively.
I think that that answers all 10 questions of the noble Lord. Lord Prys-Davies. There were various other questions asked and points that were made. I believe it was the noble Lord. Lord Elystan-Morgan, who asked what account had been taken of cuts already made at the WPBS in the last five years, and several noble Lords mentioned the way in which Wales had been shabbily treated over the last few years. That is just not true. If the 1979–80 base line is inflated by the growth in the retail price index and compared to the 1983–84 cash limit, it will be seen that the WPBS budget has increased in purchasing power by 18 per cent. over the five-year period.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady White, and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-
992
Davis, asked me how the reduction in funding at the WPBS for 1984–1985 compared with that being experienced at other AFRC institutes. The WPBS is experiencing almost exactly the average percentage cut, as is Rothamstead Experimental Station, the council's oldest and largest institute.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, also asked why Wales is bearing an unfair share of the AFRC's cuts. One of the things I should most like to try to convey to the House is that this assumption is just not correct. Over the period from 1979–1980 to 1983–84, the Welsh share of the recurrent expenditure increased from 3·65 per cent. to 3·75 per cent., whereas the allocation to the rest of the United Kingdom fell from 96·35 per cent. to 96·25 per cent. The programme reductions now being implemented will not affect the national balance.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for going back on his statement that he would not give way. Does he think that 3·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure is a fair and proper figure for a country nation that represents 5·1 per cent. of the human population of the United Kingdom, 10 per cent. of its land surface and something like 12 per cent. of its animal population?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this is one of the first questions I asked when I received my briefing and I found out the reason. The reason why there are nine institutes in Scotland and only one in Wales is mostly historical. It was only the good and great Sir George Stapleton who started one in Wales, whereas there were nine just men and good who did the same in Scotland and 22 in England, and that is a fact. People may not think it very equitable, but had there been some rather more generous landlords, or landowners, in Wales the situation might have been the other way round. That is the reason for the budget. If you only have one institute you cannot expect to have the same percentage as the 22 in England or nine in Scotland.
I think that I have answered all the questions I have been asked. I have tried to stress the importance that the AFRC are placing on the new hill farm and the work that will go on there. In conclusion, I suggest to noble Lords that the programme changes at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station should be seen in a positive light, in the wider context of the AFRC's need to maintain flexibility at a time of declining budgets, and of the evolution of the station's programme away from a relatively narrow base of plant breeding.
The station will retain its roles of having the sole responsibility in the United Kingdom for oat breeding and for breeding improved forage crop varieties. It will also be extending its role in studying animal peformance and in general agronomic work on hill and upland pastures. The station will also continue to make an important contribution to the council's priority programmes on genetic manipulation and photosynthesis. I truly hope that noble Lords will be reassured that the work of the station is indeed being broadly safeguarded and promoted.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  SPONSORSHIP COSTS: TAX DEDUCTIBILITY
  SPONSORSHIP COSTS: TAX DEDUCTIBILITY
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL: CABLE INSTALLATION
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL: CABLE INSTALLATION
  SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO: NATO COMMITMENT
  SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO: NATO COMMITMENT
  SUBMERSIBLE CRAFT: LEGAL STATUS
  SUBMERSIBLE CRAFT: LEGAL STATUS