Sitting of 1 March 1984

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

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered upon Thursday 8 March.

    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

      ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time upon Thursday 8 March.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 6 March.

    DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

      LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time upon Thursday 8 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Land Loss (Subsidence)
    Mr. Heddleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of agricultural land were lost due to coal mining subsidence for the last year that figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Heddle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she consider the remarks of the chairman of the National Coal Board on Tuesday at a meeting of the Select Committee on Energy, as reported in today's papers, which imply that more needs to be paid to property owners, and especially farmers, for subsidence caused by coalmining activities? Does she agree that, especially with regard to consequential losses suffered by farmers whose land is over coalmining workings, the law and the voluntary code derived from it do not adequately compensate the agricultural community for the loss suffered by coalmining subsidence?
    Mrs. Fenner: It is rare for subsidence damage to render agricultural land completely unworkable. I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to ensure that farmers whose land suffers from subsidence should receive appropriate compensation, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

    Forestry Grant Scheme
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expenditure he made in 1983 in England under the forestry grant scheme; and what percentage of this was allocated to the planting of small woods and broadleaved species.
    Mrs. Fenner: Expenditure in England under the forestry grant scheme for the year ended 31 March 1983—the most recent date for which information is readily available—was £593,000. Of this, £332,000, or 56 per cent., relates to broadleaved planting. The records held centrally do not differentiate between the sizes of the woodlands involved and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the grants, although welcome, barely address the scale of the problem bearing in mind that since the second world war we have lost between 30 and 50 per cent. of our ancient woodlands? Were any of the ancient woodlands which are recipients of the grant included in the 956 woods which the Forestry Commission recently announced would be sold?
    Mrs. Fenner: Any woods sold under the programme of disposals, if subject to sites of special scientific interest status, must, in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, be used in the same manner as all sites of special scientific interest. The recently published "Forestry Commission Census of Woodlands and Trees for England and Wales" — the most detailed survey since 1947 —

    375
    reveals that in neither of those two aspects has there been a reduction in the total area of broadleaved cover. There have been some changes in the species.
    Mr. Farr: Can my hon. Friend say what has been the net loss or gain of woodlands in recent years? For example, in the last year for which figures are available, was there a net loss or gain of woodlands nationally?
    Mrs. Fenner: The figure of £332,000 which I gave for broadleaved planting represents 662 hectares, compared with 583 hectares of broadleaved planting grant-aided under the dedication scheme, which is now closed to applicants, so this is an improvement.
    Sir Paul Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend pay a visit to Thetford forest in the eastern conservancy area and see what a marvellous job is being done there in felling and then replanting, with many hardwoods, in an area which previously was Scots pine and Corsican?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that I should be unable to resist such an invitation.

    Wildlife and Countryside
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the meeting between the Minister of State and the Council for the Protection of Rural England on Friday 10 February, on Her Majesty's Government's current European Economic Community negotiations in relation to the future of the United Kingdom's wildlife and countryside.
    Mrs. Fenner: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the CPRE and other conservation bodies on 10 February to hear their views on how support for conservation should be incorporated in the proposed EC structures policy. My right hon. Friend indicated that he was very sympathetic to the conservation interests, but pointed out some of the difficulties of striking a balance between farming and conservation in this area of policy.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will not the structure proposals trigger damaging environmental consequences, such as the devastation of ancient woodlands, the drainage of wetlands, the development of moorland and all sorts of consequences to habitat which were deplored in the discussion on question No. 2?
    Mrs. Fenner: No, Sir. On the contrary, there are a number of references to the need for environmental protection in the Commission's draft proposals. Indeed, environmental consideration is given greater prominence than in the existing structures measure.
    Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that most farmers are well aware of their responsibilities to the countryside, to conservation and to wildlife, and that anyone who thinks differently does them a grave injustice?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, I support my hon. Friend in that.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister reflect that the heart of most of our traditional market towns was destroyed in the 1930s and 1940s by developers and that only when much of the best had been destroyed did people decide to try to conserve what was left? What is she doing to make sure that the same does not happen to our lowland countryside; that we will not start to conserve it only when
    376
    a few unique examples are left? Does she appreciate that what we want is to conserve the whole and not just a few isolated examples?
    Mrs. Fenner: That was the whole purpose of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that pressure is applied to wildlife and damage done to it, as well as to the countryside and agriculture, by the failure to reform the CAP, by the failure of our inner cities to remain places in which people want to live and by the loss of agricultural land? Is she aware, in other words, that the issue goes much wider than the original question?
    Mrs. Fenner: I agree with my hon. Friend on those three matters.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in asking the question was to show that the price support mechanism of the common agricultural policy as currently working runs counter to what we wish to achieve, and that nothing in the structures scheme will undo, or even mitigate sufficiently, the damage caused by price support at its current levels to the countryside and wildlife?
    Mrs. Fenner: I had hoped that I had reassured hon. Members by referring to the Commission's draft proposals, in which there are a number of references to environmental protection — indeed, rather more such references than in the structures measure that has expired.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be a statement later this afternoon about the EC Council of Ministers, and therefore I propose to go rather more rapidly over EC questions than would normally be the case.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    EEC (Agricultural Structures)
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he anticipates any shift in agricultural aids as a result of the acceptance of the present draft European Economic Community regulation on agricultural structures.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The European Commission's proposed draft Council regulation on agricultural structures is currently being discussed by officials. It is still too early to anticipate the outcome of those discussions or the likely shape of any agreed regulation.
    Mr. Hughes: I accept what the Secretary of State has said, but will he accept that if the present draft proposals are implemented without amendment the financial incentives of the scheme will work against the protection of both landscape and wildlife? There is not yet any clear sign that the policies for environmental and agricultural protection have been brought together by the Community to the benefit of our countryside in general.
    Mr. Jopling: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We are examining the proposals very carefully. I can only

    377
    repeat that, as my hon. Friend has just told the House, environmental considerations are given greater prominence in these proposals than in the measures that are now in force.
    Mr. Watson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has recently earned the gratitude of 28,000 grassland farmers in Britain as a result of the successful negotiations over marginal land? Could he, however, give us some more details of the success of the negotiations? In particular, when are we likely to get the money?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As I am to make a statement on that very matter at the end of Question Time, it would be more appropriate to deal with it then.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the Secretary of State given an assurance that the uplands amenity budget will not come from the uplands livestock budget which is already in place?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we made alterations to the capital grants last year we introduced new measures to encourage the construction of hedges and walls in upland areas. That was a great move forward into new ground, and has been widely supported by environmentalists.

    Environmental Improvement (Incentives)
    Mr. Hayesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the adequacy of existing financial incentives available to British farmers from Community funds for environmental purposes.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): Under the present EC structures policies, aid may be paid in respect of environmental projects associated with agricultural investments. Similar provisions are included in the new structures policies which are currently under discussion.
    Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer and for the efforts that he and his Department have made. However, has he seen the recent report by the chief scientific officer to the Nature Conservancy Council, which refers to the alarming waste and destruction of wildlife habitats? Is it not time that there was a proper allocation of assistance for environmental matters, as well as agricultural assistance?
    Mr. MacGregor: The whole purpose of the Wildlife and Countryside Act was to ensure that the situation was improved. However, under the terms of article 43 of the Treaty of Rome, under which the structures programme is run, it is not possible to use the structures programme for purely environmental purposes. Projects must also, and primarily, have an agricultural investment content.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Are not the interests of conservation best served, not by increased expenditure, but by a better balance between corn and horn? The livestock sector is at a serious disadvantage because of the high cost of cereals. Is that not bad for the countryside and for British farmers in areas such as the west country, where it is difficult to grow cereals?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of our principal objectives in our current discussions of the reform of the CAP, and in the price review
    378
    proposals, is to get a better balance between corn and horn. My hon. Friend is also right about the impact on the west country. When we consider conservation and the environment, it is important to stress the other side of the coin. The attractiveness of our countryside is primarily due to the efforts of the majority of our farmers who, with the aid of capital grants—and our capital grant charges have emphasised the environment—are undoubtedly making our countryside more attractive. Without them, I shudder to think what the countryside would look like.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in reforming the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: I expect to make a statement on the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers held on 27 and 28 February later today.
    Mr. Deakins: In the circumstances, perhaps I might defer my supplementary question until after the statement has been made.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the European Economic Community Commission proposals for a revaluation of the green pound.
    Mr. Colvinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy regarding the green pound; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: The Government no not consider the Commission's proposal to revalue the green pound to be justified.
    Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this proposal by the Commission would put our farmers at a marked financial disadvantage compared with their European counterparts? Will he therefore give a categorical assurance that this option is totally ruled out as a negotiating position?
    Mr. Jopling: I have made it clear in the past that the Commission's proposal to the Council of Ministers is not acceptable and that we intend to resist it.
    Mr. Colvin: I am sure that the House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In view of the sharp fall in farm incomes in 1983, will he also reject any other proposals which are likely to damage the competitiveness of British agriculture? Will he take this opportunity to deny reports in the press that No. 10 Downing street considers farmers to be a privileged sector of the economy, and confirm once and for all that if only the rest of British industry had done half as well as British agriculture we should have no economic problems in Britain?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity that he affords me with that question. I am glad to hear what he said about the success story of British agriculture. I can give him the assurance for which he asks. I utterly reject the notion that the Government are somehow mounting a campaign to undermine the capacity and confidence of the agriculture industry.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister accept that he is also the Minister of Food? Does he accept the figure given by his erstwhile colleague, Mr. Tugendhat, that food prices have been some 5 per cent. higher than they need have been because of monetary compensatory amounts? Does he agree that the present effect of MCAs is to divide corn and horn and create difficulties and disparities within the agriculture industry?
    Mr. Jopling: I reject Mr. Tugendhat's figure for food prices. I believe that it is wrong. I reject also the suggestion about the green pound being used as a food tax. I remind the hon. Gentleman that only last spring we had a negative MCA and that if we had aligned the green and market rates for sterling then we would have had to increase food prices rather than being able to reduce them.

    Intervention and Trade Prices
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the customary period of notice before changes in the European Economic Community intervention and trade prices for agriculture take effect.
    Mr. MacGregor: Any changes in European Community common prices for agricultural products generally do not take effect until the start of the marketing year for each product. There is no customary period of notice for market management measures for which the Commission takes responsibility.
    Mr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a recent meeting of the beef management committee the export refund for beef trade to third countries was fixed at such late notice that traders were unable to take advantage of the customary procedure for advance fixing?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are two points here. I am aware of them. The first is that the rates for export refunds were changed. My hon. Friend will recognise that, because of the budgetary and cash problems of the Community, it was necessary to take that step. I understand that it is not normal to give advance notice for that. It is rather like giving advance notice for changes in VAT in Britain. The second point is that the Commission exercises emergency and retroactive powers to decide that all applications for pre-fixing between a given period should be rejected. Perhaps that is what my hon. Friend has in mind. The Commission felt that it had good reasons for doing so in this case. I hope that that retroactive action on pre-fixing will not be necessary in future.

    Agricultural Produce (Marketing)
    Mr. Freudasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the marketing arrangements for agricultural produce.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am never satisfied that we have reached a stage where further progress cannot be made, but there have been considerable advances on the marketing front. The priority that we attach to the effective marketing of agricultural produce was demonstrated a year ago in the setting up of Food from Britain with the objective of achieving a lasting improvement in the marketing and promotion of British foods. Food from Britain has made encouraging progress in its first year, and I am confident it will achieve success.
    Mr. Freud: If the Minister refers to "advance" in marketing supermarket eggs, which were labelled fresh last year and are now being marketed as free-range, can he tell the House what the difference is and what they are likely to be called next year?
    Mr. MacGregor: I knew that this question would enable hon. Members to raise all sorts of issues. Stretching into the recesses of my memory, I seem to recall that there are considerable technical disputes about the matter, which are currently being pursued with the Commission.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that tremendous improvements have been made in marketing, particularly in meat marketing, to meet the demands of the new multiple retailers? Will he also bear in mind that we could do a lot more if there was more freedom of export to the Community? There are still difficulties which need to be overcome, particularly for firms like North Devon Meat.
    Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend on the points that he made about progress on marketing. I regard it as a fundamental aspect of what we should be achieving in the next five years. As to his question about difficulties over exporting, I am not sure whether he was referring to the problems of clawback, but we have those very much in mind. That is one of the issues that we are pursuing in the current CAP negotiations.
    Mr. Deakins: Can any marketing arrangements other than a price reduction ensure that the British consumer will eat more products currently in surplus in the EEC?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, undoubtedly, by improving quality, processing and marketing itself. Indeed, under the charter bacon scheme we have increased this year the amount of bacon produced by British producers and consumed by British households from 41 to 46 per cent. I believe that there is quite a lot more that we can do in that direction.
    Mr. Leigh: Has my hon. Friend any plans to curb the overweening powers of the large retail chains, which are holding to ransom many agricultural producers, particularly North Devon Meat, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir Peter Mills).
    Mr. MacGregor: That, of course, is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I understand that discussions are going on with him about the matter.

    Fisheries Inspectors
    Mrs. Roeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in completing the recruitment of fisheries inspectors as agreed in the Council of Ministers on 25 January 1983.
    Mr. MacGregor: Nine of the 13 Community inspectors are now in post. The remaining four inspectors have been nominated and are expected to take up post within the next few months.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my hon. Friend confident that these inspectors will be competent to manage the conservation measures for the Community, with particular reference to our stocks of herring and mackerel?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, the primary responsibility lies with the national inspectorate,

    381
    in which I have confidence. I hope and believe that the Community inspectorate will add to that. Indeed, some of them are British inspectors. The fishing industry has been pressing us strongly to get on with this. If it is necessary to develop further, we shall be prepared to argue for that.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we need an example of the urgent need to get the additional inspectorate into post we need look no further than the south west mackerel fishery, where, despite the conservation measures in the so-called box, a number of EC boats are fishing beyond our limits for mackerel, in addition to the dodge perpetuated by Scottish fisherman inside the limit of so-called bottom trawling? When will he do something about that?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows, because he and I have been in constant touch on the matter, that we closed the box to mackerel fishing at the beginning of last month. We are continuing to watch the situation outside the box, and if it is felt necessary to take steps for conservation reasons, we shall argue for them.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will consider seriously the economic necessity for Scottish fishermen to fish for mackerel in the south west box? Will he give a guarantee that when the box is reopened it will be on the same basis and with the same fishing capabilities as formerly? In regard to the inspectors, while it is true that the logbooks and so on have to be checked by national inspectors, what can the Minister do to ensure that other countries in the EEC, which have a particularly bad record of reporting timeously the true amounts, report properly?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I am aware of the Scottish fishing interests and I have constantly stressed that the decision on the closure of the mackerel box was taken only on conservation grounds and for no other reason. The hon. Gentleman will know that Scottish fishermen are still able to fish for mackerel outside the box.
    As to working on the same basis in the future when the box reopens, the hon. Gentleman will know that this is a matter for discussion within the Community, the Council of Ministers and the Commission, but there is likely to be a proposal from the scientific and technical committee about bottom trawling, which we shall have to consider.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that once the Community inspectors are in place they can make their reports to the Commission, which can inform members of any irregularities and call upon them to conduct an administrative inquiry in which the Commission may participate. We shall have to see how this goes, but I think it will be considered acceptable.

    Tree Felling
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider a review of procedures concerning tree felling; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: A review of felling licensing procedures was carried out comparatively recently and changes were announced in the House on 27 May 1982 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The revised procedures provide effective controls over tree felling and a further review is not comtemplated at present.
    Mr. Proctor: I accept that a majority of farmers take a responsible view on and attitude to these matters, but does my hon. Friend think that the available powers are strong enough to prevent the rogue farmer from cutting down trees, as has happened in my constituency at Little Burstead, where some very fine oaks were chopped down by a farmer, to the understandable fury of my constituents?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am aware of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers, but that matter is now to be dealt with by the courts, so it is sub judice. I am satisfied as to the adequacy of the controls, which are linked with effective consultation procedures, and are designed to resolve any conflict in interests.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the practice of taking a heavy plough between trees that are under a preservation order may so damage the roots that it will be necessary to fell the trees in subsequent years? Is this not a singular breach of the spirit of the present regulations, and will my hon. Friend see whether there are some ways to strengthen the regulations?
    Mrs. Fenner: I know about my hon. Friend's deep concern. Tree preservation orders are for the local authority but I note my hon. Friend's concern about the treatment of the land between the trees and shall raise the matter.

    Performance Reviews
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in developing systems of annual performance reviews in his Department.
    Mr. Jopling: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to performance assessments of staff. As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Civil Service said on 28 November last year in reply to my hon. Friend the Member of Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), the Management and Personnel Office has been discussing with Departments and Civil Service unions major revisions to the procedures for staff reporting and appraisal. My Department is currently considering how it should develop its own systems in the light of these discussions
    Mr. Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. Friend back from the Antipodes and ask him whether his experiences there help him to comment further on the benefits expected from these ideas?
    Mr. Jopling: The new systems are intended to give a more accurate assessment of each individual's strength and weaknesses and will be used in improving and developing staff and in identifying those whose performance is not up to standard.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: In terms of annual performance reviews in his Department, will the Minister accept that the table that he has published in the annual review of net farm income, size by size and commodity by commodity, is a welcome step forward? Will he continue that in future and can he give us comparable figures for the past five years?
    Mr. Jopling: I am afraid that I am not able to apply this question to the annual review of farm incomes that we put out a few weeks ago, but perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Sites of Special Scientific Interest
    Mr. Andrew F Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the Nature Conservancy Council about agriculture and the protection of sites of special scientific interest.
    Mrs. Fenner: My colleagues and I maintain regular contact with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council on matters of mutual concern.
    Mr. Bennett: What are we doing to plug the three-month loophole?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am sorry, but I should need notice of that question, as I am not sure what is meant by the term "the three-month loophole".
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the relationship between farming and the Nature Conservancy Council has never been better, and will she do all that she can to encourage that harmony so that each will understand the other's problems?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, indeed. I suspect that my hon. Friend has as deep a knowledge as anyone, having piloted the relevant legislation through the House.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that a simple step that she could take to further conservation would be to make cost-benefit analyses in drainage schemes available for public scrutiny?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about that. He will know that there has been an important review of drainage schemes and I shall raise the subject of his concern before the review is completed.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: May I assist the hon. Lady by saying that the three-month loophole referred to by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is the time allowed while matters are being considered? There are three months during which farmers can do terrible mischief to wildlife and conservation efforts. Will the hon. Lady answer my hon. Friend's question, now that she understands what the gap is?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I do not have details of the so-called "terrible damage" that farmers are claimed to do between the declaration and finalisation of SSSI status. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member wishes to bring particular cases to the Department's attention, we may be able to pursue them with the NCC.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the view of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) of the relationship between farmers and the Nature Conservancy Council is not a reflection of the views of farmers in my constituency, who feel that the council is being starved of the resources necessary to enable it to give compensation for land that has been designated? As a result of that lack of funds, the council cannot do its job. The matter is urgent, and will the Minister give it her full attention?
    Mrs. Fenner: The funding of the NCC is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. So far as I am aware, the NCC has experienced no difficulty to date in funding its management agreement.

    Hill Farmers
    Mr. Bruceasked the Minister of Agricultural, Fisheries and Food whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to secure the long-term future of hill farmers and the less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: The Government have amply demonstrated their concern for farmers in the less-favoured areas and their determination to safeguard the future of those farmers by the high level of support that they have given them since taking office in 1979, despite the severe pressures on public expenditure. We have also shown our determination by pursuing the case for extending the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas, and I shall be making a statement on that later today.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Will he acknowledge that, although hon. Members from both sides of the House welcome the decision to go ahead with payments under the hill livestock compensation allowances, the threatened delay is causing serious concern to hill farmers who require a reassurance from the Government that there will be a sustained, long-term commitment to hill farming, which is vital to many areas of my constituency and throughout rural Scotland?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in cutting the red tape surrounding the Community legislation and directive, we decided to continue those payments although the Community directive had not been renewed. I hope that my statement will give an ample and clear demonstration of the Government's determination to look after farmers in our upland areas.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers in highland Perthshire and Angus are very appreciative of the Government's efforts to ensure that farming will continue in those less-favoured areas? Is he further aware that many ewes were lost in the recent ghastly weather suffered by our area and that there will be a substantial reduction in lambing this year?
    Mr. Jopling: I am aware of the difficult weather conditions that hill farmers have had to put up with in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for these matters, will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that there is also considerable concern among farmers about possible proposals for a three-year price freeze? Will he give urgent attention to this and to any protestations on the subject from the fanning community?
    Mr. Jopling: I think that farmers throughout the country realise that, as I have said many times before, they have no God-given right to go on producing more and more food that we can neither eat at home nor sell abroad. However unpalatable that may be, it is a basic fact of life. Nevertheless, we shall do our best to ensure that the difficulties that will be faced by the whole agricultural community will not be unfair to British agriculture and that the restrictions are lifted as soon as possible.

    Sheep Scab
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy for 1984 as far as sheep scab is concerned.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Government's policy is to take all practicable measures to control and eradicate the disease. The support of the industry and local authorities is essential. Dipping requirements for 1984 will be announced shortly and it seems likely that strict measures will have to be followed for several years.
    Mr. Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend for her robust and construtive reply. Does she appreciate that there is great concern among sheep producers about the spread of scab? Will she ensure that enforcement is 100 per cent. and that adequate publicity is given to the fact that sheep scab is a malicious and evil killer disease?
    Mrs. Fenner: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We shall certainly ensure adequate publicity. As I have emphasised, however, we must have absolute support from the industry and local authorities in the attempt to eradicate the disease.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: May I assure the Minister that she has the total and absolute support of Labour Members for the strictest possible regime to ensure effective dipping and the eradication of this very dangerous disease?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This disease must be eradicated. We have recently had the worst series of outbreaks for the past 11 years.

    EEC (Support Prices)
    Mr. Andrew Stewartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to get agreement on new European Economic Community support prices for the 1984–85 marketing year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that agreement will be reached soon.
    Mr. Stewart: When agreement is reached, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, unlike last year, commodity prices — especially for beef — are paid from the beginning of the market year rather than when the announcement is made?
    Mr. Jopling: We are doing our utmost to achieve settlement of the 1984 price changes. We are working very hard on it. There are further meetings of the Agriculture Council next week and the following week. We are going as fast as we possibly can.

    EEC (Agricultural Structures)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the current draft of the proposed new European Economic Community regulation on agricultual structures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: I am concerned about the high cost of the proposals and one of my objectives in the current negotiations is to reduce it.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that that reply will be most disappointing to the agriculture industry and
    386
    to those concerned about the future of the rural environment? Does he accept that out of the present £4 billion total community funding for agriculture it would be reasonable to make some resources available under the directive to improve and preserve the countryside and thus provide work for local people, who are not the best employed in increasing surpluses?
    Mr. Jopling: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give a little more attention and credit to the changes in capital grant structure that we announced last year, whereby we stopped grants for the grubbing-up of hedges in lowland areas, introduced new grants for hedge and wall construction in upland areas and stopped grants for the improvement of grassland in lowland areas. That is a major step forward and has rightly been welcomed by environmentalists.

    Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will instruct the Forestry Commission not to sell land in England designated as sites of special scientific interest.
    Mrs. Fenner: The transfer from public to private ownership of land designated as an SSSI does not affect such designation or the protection given by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My right hon. Friend does not propose therefore to instruct the Forestry Commission to exclude such land from the disposals programme.
    Mr. Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend accept that local trusts for nature conservation feel that they must bid for this land, thus using their scarce resources, which should be used for their many other vital activities to protect the countryside within their area? Will she look at this problem sympathetically?
    Mrs. Fenner: I assure my hon. Friend, in the terms of the original answer I gave, that I cannot accept that private ownership prejudices the nature of the SSSI. I am well aware that some conservation groups clearly hold different views, but I am trying to reassure them that this is not so.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Browneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the National Pensioners Convention.
    Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security situation in the Gulf is deteriorating rapidly, with the likelihood of the gravest consequences for the world in general? Will she assure the House that Her Majesty 's Government are taking firm steps to ease this situation by working through the United Nations, and that she is working closely co-ordinating intelligence, planning and actions with our allies, in particular with the United States of America?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the situation in the Gulf. We are working closely

    387
    with the United States and with our other allies on this matter, and we are also supporting efforts of mediation, especially those made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware of the conspicuously evasive answers given on Tuesday by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the other place, about the removal of certain documents relating to the Falklands from the Public Records Office? Will she accept that, now that the Argentine has returned to democracy, open and informed discussions on the future of the Falklands is surely in order? Will she look into this and see that these historic documents are put back as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that a number have been put back, or are about to be put back.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the admiration of the nation for the courage and determination with which she won a great victory at Cheltenham, in its way no less significant than the victory she won in the south Atlantic? Does she agree that the fruits of both victories are more likely to endure if she now shows a spirit of conciliation towards the vanquished in both those conflicts?
    The Prime Minister: The decision at GCHQ was urged upon us by the management of GCHQ. It was very welcome for some. I realised that it caused difficulties for others, and I am very grateful to the overwhelming majority who have now signed their forms at GCHQ, numbering well in excess of 90 per cent.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister take further time today to reflect upon the decision that her Government took at GCHQ and, if she will not take note of what has been said from the Labour Benches and from the TUC, will she take note of the many Conservative Members who have disagreed with her policy on GCHQ, particularly her right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who obviously disagreed with the action taken by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I had hoped that I had answered the hon. Gentleman's question in my reply to the last question. There were differing views. I realised that it caused some difficulties for some people at GCHQ, and I am grateful to them for signing the forms as they have done. I believe that the decision was right.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: In between her engagements, has the Prime Minister noted that seasonally adjusted unemployment has increased by 28,600 while the Government are receiving £900 million a month in tax from oil revenues? Why does she persist with a policy of paying people to be unemployed instead of using oil revenues to create jobs by investing in public works and British industry? Does she realise that these policies of waste will be decisively rejected by the electors of Chesterfield today?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the unemployment figures are disappointing. The seasonally adjusted figures
    388
    have increased while the raw figures have diminished. The Government take extensive special measures to try to alleviate the problem. We cannot spend the oil revenue twice over. It is already being spent either on current expenditure or capital expenditure, and a good deal of it is being used to help the creation of small businesses. About 300,000 people a month go off the unemployment register—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many go on?".] I was about to give that precise figure. I am so grateful to Labour Members for asking the question. Between January and February, 336,000 people became unemployed while 346,000 were leaving unemployment.
    Mr. Montgomery: Did my right hon. Friend note that during the day of protest on Tuesday no meals on wheels were delivered in the London borough of Southwark, funerals were jeopardised and there was serious disruption at the Glasgow royal infirmary? Does she agree that it is disgraceful that the elderly, the sick and the bereaved should suffer in this way? Is this not another example of militant trade unionists' inhumanity to man?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I thought that those who went on strike on Tuesday hit out at members of the public who were entirely innocent. It was they who suffered, whether the travelling public or those who rely on meals on wheels or social services. I thought it was very bad that the Labour party, which prides itself on compassion, backed the strike.
    Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of man's—or should I say woman's — inhumanity to man or woman, I understand that the Prime Minister is meeting a deputation from the National Pensioners Convention this afternoon. When she sees Mr. Jack Jones and his colleagues, will she be undertaking to scrap the fuel price increases and the housing benefit cuts?
    The Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is that not disgraceful when, a few moments ago, the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Conservative party, made claims to humanity, especially when we bear in mind that if the Prime Minister had not got rid of the link between pensions and earnings a single pensioner would be £1·25 a week better off and a pensioner couple would be £2.50 better off? When will she stop filching from the pensioners in this way?
    The Prime Minister: Housing benefit costs about £3·7 billion a year. It goes to 7 million households including, after the adjustment, 3.65 million pensioner households. The special fuel allowance costs about £360 million and about £200 million of that provision goes to pensioners. Both figures are vastly in excess of any record achieved by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: In many, many respects what the Prime Minister alleges is not true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in making her comparisons with the previous Labour Governemnt. Does she think that the National Pensioners Convention would be seeing her this afternoon, demonstrating in London, or constantly urging upon all hon. Members that larger pensions are needed, if what she provides was anything like enough?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure which figures the right hon. Gentleman is challenging and I doubt whether he knows, either. The proposals of the National Pensioners Convention for pension increases would cost

    389
    over £15 billion a year. That would add £24·30 a week to national insurance contributions for those on average male earnings. The right hon. Gentleman is usually taking me to task for increasing the national insurance contribution, and now he is proposing to increase them for the working population by an intolerable amount. Does he challenge any of those figures?
    Sir Paul Bryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that later today the Minister with responsibility for sport will answer questions about the entirely predictable behaviour of our so-called soccer fans? Will she say for how many more years our neighbours on the Continent must suffer violence to their people and cities and for how long we must suffer this disgrace before the Government take direct responsibility at the highest level to end this shameful position?
    The Prime Minister: The Government and, I believe, right hon. and hon. Members of all parties would condemn the appalling behaviour of a small minority of the visitors to France, who disgraced our country's name abroad. My hon. Friend will reply later. He took an initiative after previous incidents in Luxembourg, and special measures were taken this time to ensure that such events did not recur. Clearly, they were not successful. My hon. Friend is in touch with the French Minister for sport and is requesting a full report of the incident. He will also meet the chairman and secretary of the Football Association tomorrow afternoon to discuss the matter. We must all make strenuous efforts to ensure that these appalling incidents do not occur again.
    Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: If Liverpool city council brings in an illegal rate, will the Government use their powers of direction under section 22 of the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act 1982 to command that an extraordinary audit takes place? Does the Prime Minister agree that the problems of the city are made worse by the cuts in rate support grant—about £140 million—since the late 1970s? Does she agree that threats of violence and rioting will do nothing to enhance the image of Liverpool, but will drive investment and jobs from the city?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman with regard to the last part of his question. Threats of violence do not help Liverpool. Indeed, they do Liverpool and the name of Liverpool great damage. I hope that nothing further will be heard about them and that nothing further will be done. With regard to what Liverpool might do, no illegal rate has been made. I hope that it will not be made, because the consequences of such action would be serious for services, the people of Liverpool and the councillors. I hope that more moderate and responsible opinion in the council will prevail, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to that end.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend today consider making a new approach to the Soviet Union to see whether an initiative to work for world multilateral disarmament can be started? Could she build on the success of her visits behind the iron curtain to make the Soviet Union understand that, while we are determined to remain strong, equally we wish to do everything we can to work for world disarmament?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, which all hon. Members share because we all wish to see a reduction in the amount spent on armaments. We want to see disarmament take place in a balanced and verifiable way. We are more likely to achieve success at the several disarmament talks if we try to get greater general understanding between the Soviet bloc and the Western Alliance. That is what we are striving to do. Meanwhile, discussions continue at the Stockholm conference, which is a valuable forum.
    As my hon. Friend will know, we have made proposals about chemical warfare. We have destroyed all our chemical weapons and are urging the Soviet Union to take a more active role in reducing its chemical weapons. We would like to ban them altogether.
    Dr. Marekasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Prime Minister accept that the first report of the Select Committee on Energy for 1983–84 is openly contemptuous of Government economic policy on heating costs? Does she accept, with her hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), that it is disgraceful that old people should suffer in that way? Instead of coming to the House with facts and figures about what the Labour Government did, and with selective figures that purport to show what she may or may not have done for old-age pensioners, will she go back to the Cabinet and ensure that the aged and the infirm can afford to pay for gas and electricity?
    The Prime Minister: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to give facts and figures about the Labour Government's record, but of course I shall do so. This Government increased the price of domestic electricity by 2 per cent. for the first time for two years, compared with the Labour record of a 2 per cent. increase every six weeks.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Council for Social Democracy in Scotland recently produced a policy proposal on devolution that called for the abolition of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does she agree that such a step would deny Scotland an effective and influential voice in the Cabinet and in national and international affairs?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, wholeheartedly. I cannot have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland abolished.

France-England Soccer Match
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he would make a statement on the behaviour of English fans attending the France-England soccer match in Paris on 29 February 1984?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): No one in the House can feel anything but a sense of shame, disgrace and revulsion at what occurred in France before, during and after the international soccer match in Paris yesterday.
I am awaiting further details from my and other officials in Paris, but early reports show that 30 English fans were arrested following violence in the stadium: 26 have been released and four are still being held. My officials will be holding further discussions to assess the extent of the damage caused by the disturbances.
In the light of previous incidents caused by English football supporters abroad, notably in Luxembourg in November, pre-match planning for this game, on the part of Government, the football authorities and the French football and law and order authorities, was particularly extensive. Considerable efforts were made to implement the measures agreed by European Ministers with responsibility for sport at our meeting in Rotterdam in November. The initiative for European agreement on these measures to combat football-related hooliganism was taken by me in January 1983, when I met European Ministers in Paris. The paper agreed by European Ministers for sport contains a number of recommendations for action by Government and by football authorities. Two in particular — the control of ticket sales and crowd segregation—would enable a considerable reduction in the opportunities for crowd disturbances.
In addition to my visit to Paris in January 1983, I met the French Minister with responsibility for sport again in Paris in September 1983 and discussed football hooliganism and the great importance of co-operation between European Governments. I also wrote to the French Minister on 10 February 1984 stressing the need for adequate policing within and without the stadium and the need to deter offenders by resolute action by the police and the courts.
Representatives of the English Football Association, including its overseas liaison officer—a retired senior Metropolitan Police officer—visited Paris on 9, 10 and 11 January 1984 and met representatives of the French football authorities, the French police and our embassy in Paris. Arrangements were made regarding control of ticket sales, crowd segregation, sale of alcohol, supporter travel routes and policing.
The European agreement is a major and constructive document reflecting the positive action and intention of Government to do all within their power to combat hooliganism. We are confident that proper and effective implementation of the measures contained in the agreement would greatly reduce the problems.
I am in touch with the French Minister for sport requesting a full report of the incidents, and will also be meeting the chairman and secretary of the Football Association tomorrow afternoon for discussions.
I shall be conducting a full appraisal of the incidents with the parties concerned. I shall need to establish
392
whether the measures agreed by European Ministers were fully implemented on the day. I fully intend to continue to urge all concerned to do everything possible to rid the game of these mindless louts, and to urge European countries to use stringent penalties against convicted offenders to act as a deterrent.
Dr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that everyone in Britain, particularly all those who hold our national game of football in affection, and—in a wider sense—all those who value the reputation of this country, must recoil in horror from yesterday's events in France, not only in the French football stadium but elsewhere in that country? Were not yesterday's events foreshadowed by the attitude of and information from the Football Association, which acted responsibly by refusing to sell tickets unchecked, other than to recognised and registered fans and through authorised travel agents? May I make it clear that, in our view, the Football Association is not to blame for what happened?
Is it true that the National Front was behind much of the ugly violence that we witnessed? Is it also true that the National Front deliberately organised for its members to attend this match in force? Since 1980, we have seen similar events perpetrated by English soccer followers—not the Irish, not the Welsh, not the Scots — in Denmark, Holland — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may think it is insulting, but it happens to be a fact. We have seen such events in Denmark, Holland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Italy and now regrettably, in France. It is clear that, in spite of the long list of activities that the Minister related to the House, the Government's initiatives in this matter are failing. That is surely apparent. Will the Minister say whether the special arrangements that he mentioned with the police and other authorities were carried out as he had requested, and what liaison, if any, took place with the French authorities?
Is it not time that we prevented these hooligans from travelling abroad, where they besmirch the reputation of our game of soccer and of this country? De we not now need a new initiative from the Government and tougher controls to prevent innocent travellers and decent football fans, as well as our European neighbours, from being not only insulted but injured? Does it not demonstrate that we are dealing not with a sports policy or with football, but with a matter of public order, and should not the Home Secretary take charge of events?
Mr. Macfarlane: Although I am grateful for some of the hon. Gentleman's observations, I must point out that it was for that very reason that the Government took action. We believed that it was not just a domestic but a European problem, and clearly the reputation of English fans has had a triggering effect in many countries. I shall want to examine all the details of all the reports of what took place. Whether there were co-ordinated minority groups, I do not know. That is what I want to find out.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there was the closest co-operation between all the police forces on this side of the Channel and the other. Trains on Tuesday evening with fans travelling to Paris for the match were escorted by the British Transport police from Victoria to Dover. No alcohol was on sale on those trains. At the request of the master of the French ship, the St Eloi, on which the bulk of the fans travelled, the British Transport police accompaned the fans across the Channel. The master

393
closed down the bars during the voyage, but trouble broke out between rival fans just before Dunkirk, and damage was done to the ship's fittings. The ship was met by the French police and the fans were escorted by train to Paris.
Obviously control whilst on French soil outside the stadium is very much a matter for the French police and civic authorities.
We in this country had a duty to try to help the French authorities to plan and prepare. That is why we took all these actions. I shall not apportion blame, but the House must remember that we are dealing with a minority of 1 per cent. or less and that 99 per cent. of people are having their sports disrupted and their enjoyment curtailed by a mindless minority. We must remember that statistic.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that these disgraceful scenes are almost invariably on account of the consumption of too much alcohol? Will he bear in mind the success of the Scottish system under which drink is banned from football grounds so that fans tend to go to a match to watch football and not to enjoy a drinking spree?
Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the document that was agreed in Rotterdam in November touched on this. Not only did it stress the importance of segregating the rival supporters in the stadium; it was anxious also to ensure that tickets were controlled on the day of the match. This is something that I shall want to look at.
Equally, there should be a restriction, if not a ban, on the sale of alcoholic drinks. I shall consider this, too, but would point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been very helpful in many of these matters in recent months in requesting the authorities on ferries and trains to close the bars.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Will the Minister accept that most genuine football supporters recognise that there are difficulties and know that there are no instant solutions to the problems of the kind that arose last night in Paris? Further, will he recognise, when he comes to speak to it, that the all-party football committee which I chair accepts that the problems that he has already recognised should be aired in a larger forum? We suggest that he convene a special conference of bodies concerned with football. I understand that the Football Trust is prepared to sponsor such a conference to give the Minister an all-round view of the problem. Will he also recognise that those who disgraced this country and football yesterday are a minority of fans who are not genuine football supporters but football animals—and I use that word with apologies to the animal lobby?
Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful for any contribution that any organisation feels it can make. I pay tribute to the contribution that the Football Trust has made over the years to football in this country. Many conferences have taken place, under both the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), with the leading authorities in both police and football. I believe that in many respects they have had largely successful results, but it is still the 1 per cent. of people who cause the trouble.
Mr. John Page: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is virtually nothing else that any
394
Government can conceivably do to improve the situation? Therefore, would it be right to ban all fans from attendance at football matches abroad until the need for decent behaviour is recognised at football matches in this country?
Mr. Macfarlane: I still consider that I and other European sports Ministers must ensure that there is effective implementation of what we have agreed to in the past. One must remember that 99 per cent. of spectators enjoy their football and behave properly, as people do in most spectator sports. It is up to the courts and to the magistrates to ensure that the legislation is recognised" notably that of 1981, which has the football hooligan very much in mind.
Mr. Clement Freud: While there can be no excuse for the appalling behaviour of the spectators who were only peripherally football supporters, will the Minister accept that anyone who saw the television pictures would conclude that the French police had acted with needless violence and that that can only have exacerbated the trouble? In view of the fact that this reflects very poorly on all decent British travellers, will he look into ways of making it harder for people to obtain passports and perhaps placing some responsibility on the sponsors of those who are given them?
Mr. Macfarlane: The deployment of the French police force is not my responsibility. Fans should understand that the French police have their responsibilities and duties. I am sure that they were deployed in the way that was envisaged by the French Minister for sport when we discussed the matter last year.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Bearing in mind that only a tiny minority of people behave in this way, has not the time come to consider withdrawing passports from those convicted of offences arising from football hooliganism either abroad or in Britain? Although that may be an anti-libertarian measure, is it not better to keep our louts in Britain rather than inflict them on our neighbours?
Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend will know that there is no statute by which Ministers can withdraw passports. In recent years one of the problems has been that those guilty of violence and mayhem abroad have been returned on the first train, ferry or aeroplane and have not come before the courts. Many are arrested but not charged. Only after a person is charged, convicted and has served some form of detention do the British football authorities have any idea who to ban from their grounds and deny tickets for further away matches.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Minister aware that among the groups of hooligans shown on television last night was one carrying a banner marked "Blackburn National Front"? Is he further aware that that group is unrepresentative of the people of Blackburn and its harmonious and multi-racial communities? I am sure that I speak on behalf of my constituency when I say that, in so far as that group was responsible for the violence, the people of Blackburn wish to apologise to the French Government and wish to see the strongest possible action taken against them.
Mr. Macfarlane: I shall convey those views to the French Minister for sport. I also recognise Blackburn's fine football record. I did not see the scenes to which the

395
hon. Gentleman referred, but that is one of the matters that I want to consider. I feared that there would be some problem and that is why I sent my officials there yesterday.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend accept that one question needs to be investigated? My hon. Friend said that the British Transport police accompanied the train and the boat and that the scum—that is the only word that I am prepared to use—broke up some of the fittings on the ship. They were met by the French police and the scum then damaged British cars awaiting distribution. Why did the British Transport police not liaise with their French counterpart to stop those characters from landing?
Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend raises a point that I shall want to look at closely. I am assured by the Football Association liaison officer that there was the closest collaboration between police on both sides of the Channel.
Mr. Michael McGuire: We all deplore this action, but will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of the excitement that soccer is supposed to generate which could be the cause of some of the problems? As a rugby supporter, I must ask him to examine that matter with the soccer authorities. One would get more fun at a sock-knitting contest than watching these games of soccer. A point that I have made before that must strike our friends on the Continent is that when Wales played France in Wales recently — I think that it was agreed that, although the Welsh lost they should have won—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but will he get to the question?
Mr. McGuire: It is a heart-warming fact and of some importance that the French fans mingled both before and after the game with the Welsh fans and there was not one ounce of violence. Is that not a tribute to the game of rugby and should we not be encouraging its spread?
Mr. Macfarlane: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be noted outside the House and guarantee him a supply of tickets for the rest of the season. Everyone has his own ideas about the type of excitement that sport and recreation generate and there are no doubt many other sports which do not trigger any violence at all except on the field.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his problems in dealing with soccer
396
vandalism and hooliganism. I have had some experience of them because I had the privilege of being the chairman of Cardiff City football club. When I took over the club, passes—and I have one of them, exhibit A, here—were issued to young boys between the ages of 12 to 20. The system worked wonderfully. My hon. Friend should take note of that system. It worked in the past, and I am convinced that it would work in the future.
Mr. Macfarlane: I congratulate my hon. Friend on representing a football club in a predominantly rugby city. A feasibility study is being worked on with a number of people to see whether that system would work.
Mr. Robert Parry: Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I am worried about football hooliganism abroad and at home. I hope that on 25 March, when Liverpool and Everton play in the Milk Cup final, they will set an example to all British soccer fans. I hope that the mixture of Liverpudlians and Evertonians will show that even soccer fans can be civilised.
Mr. Macfarlane: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and endorse his statement. I am confident that on 25 March the two great clubs from that great city will continue with their excellent behaviour.
Mr. W. Benyon: Does my hon. Friend realise that we shall never get on top of this problem at home or abroad until the perpetrators realise that they will be sent to prison? Fining is no good.
Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I was pleased to have the support of other European Ministers at Rotterdam to encourage the judiciary and the authorities of each European sovereign state to deter those people and to implement stiff sentences.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have reached the stage in the cycle of violence when the football organisations here and abroad can take no further action? It is up to the House to deal with the problem by way of punishments that will stop lads from carrying on as they did this week in Paris.
Mr. Macfarlane: The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 1981 was designed very much with football hooligans in mind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. We come now to the business statement.

Business of the House
3.53 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 MARCH — Consideration of a timetable motion on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day) (First Part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the use of the immigration rules to attack family life.
TUESDAY 6 MARCH—There will be a debate on a motion to take note of the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1984–85 to 1986–87", Cmnd. 9143.
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH — Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords].
Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations.
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Estimates days (1st Allotted Day): Consideration of the following Estimates:
Class XI, Vote 1 (Health and personal social services, England) (Compensation payments to NHS staff)
Class IV, Vote 3 (Assistance to the coal industry)
The appropriate reports will be shown on the paper as relevant.
The Question will be put on all outstanding Votes and Supplementary Estimates.
FRIDAY 9 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 12 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Kinnock: Monday's business next week sees the Government impose a guillotine on the rate-capping legislation as it affects Scotland. The Opposition bitterly oppose this limitation on a measure which includes a major constitutional change and results in great disadvantage for Scottish communities. On Wednesday we shall be voting against the Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords], since it imposes threats to the security and livelihood of tenant farmers. It is to be condemned, especially as it comes from a Government mainly composed of large owner farmers.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the following week's business will be taken up by a debate on the Budget, we shall want a debate in Government time on the devastating indictment of the Government included in the unanimous report of the Select Committee on electricity price increases?
It was regrettable that at the back end of last year time was not provided for a debate specifically about the Athens summit. May we have an assurance that we shall have a debate after the Brussels summit on 19 March?
Will we soon have a debate on foreign affairs, especially in the light of the dangerous situation arising in the war between Iran and Iraq?
Mr. Biffen: I note that there will be the most vigorous opposition to the proposed timetabling motion, which has been drawn only with proper consideration of all the issues involved. Nevertheless, I look forward to the debate on Monday.
398
I accept that during the course of the debate on the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords] on Wednesday the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will wish to demonstrate why they seek to vote against this legislation. If they intend to engage in some sort of socio-economic analysis of the membership of the Conservative party and its relationship to land ownership, that will certainly be a diversion that will help enliven what might otherwise be a rather technical consideration.
The Government will be responding in due course to the findings of the Select Committee on energy prices. Whether these matters should lead to a debate is a matter that we can consider through the usual channels.
The whole House will recognise the importance of debating the consequences of the European summit meeting in Brussels and the importance of a general foreign affairs debate, but particularly having relevance to the issues in the middle east. Again, this is a matter that we can discuss through the usual channels.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware, that despite the short time between the publication of the Government public expenditure White Paper and the debate scheduled for next week, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has managed to complete a report on the subject, which should be available early next week and which should be of help to those who wish to take part in the debate?
Mr. Biffen: The whole House will recognise that we are in debt to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for the speed with which it has worked on this topic. I shall see that the report is put down as a relevant document for the debate.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House seen the remarkable decision by the Court of Appeal last week to the effect that doctors have no obligation to disclose the risks of medical treatment to patients? As that decision has far-reaching implications for doctors and patients, and suggests that we need legislation to give patients the right to know, may we please have a statement on the subject next week?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not comment on the Court of Appeal decision. However, I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend wall be aware that, following the publication of the powerful and illuminating report by a Select Committee in another place on science in Government, the Government responded by asking the advisory board and research councils to produce, for the first time, an annual report on research for the nation. That has been done and it has been debated in another place. Should it not be debated here?
Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that I can offer no Government time for such a debate next week, but as my hon. Friend is a most effective campaigner on this issue I can but draw to his attention all the opportunities that are contained in the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. A. J. Beith: May I impress on the Leader of the House the need for an early debate on electricity prices? The Government are making the electricity industry to behave like the worst kind of monopoly, forcing up the price above what would be a

399
commercial rate. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's past interest in the vices of monopolies, will he agree to take part in the debate?
Mr. Biffen: I will respond neither to the controversy contained in the initial remarks of the hon. Gentleman nor to the flattery in his concluding remarks. The Select Committee report on energy prices is of proper political concern.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Can the Leader of the House give the date when the House will resume after the Easter recess? Until the date is announced there will be some confusion about booking trips round the House and making other parliamentary arrangements.
Mr. Biffen: I am ever mindful of both the anxiety of the House to be certain about the dates of the recess and the anxiety of the Government to have sufficient time to conclude their business. I will try to make an early statement that will clear up any difficulties.
Mr. James Lamond: From time to time I have asked the Leader of the House if he could arrange for statements to be made about the progress of various peace negotiations such as Stockholm and Geneva, and he has invariably referred me to foreign affairs Question Time.
While Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are together enjoying 11 Question Times between Christmas and Easter this Session, only three Question Times are devoted to foreign affairs. We therefore have little opportunity to put such questions. If we can spend a long time discussing football hooligans, could we not spare a little time to discuss matters of infinitely greater importance.
Mr. Biffen: I think that I may say — plagiarising Litvinov — that peace and football hooligans are indivisible. I can, however, offer the hon. Gentleman a novelty. He will shortly have a chance to pursue his interests in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I also hope that—with the aid of the usual channels—there will be the prospect of a foreign affairs debate.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the early-day motion on the loan guarantee scheme, which has now been signed by over 160 hon. Members on both sides of the House.
[That this House congratulates the Government on the success of the pilot Loan Guarantee Scheme, and welcomes the important contribution this has made to the financing of 12,231 new and expanding small businesses; calls on the Government to develop and make this successful scheme permanent, by abolishing the Government's three per cent. premium, and by extending the upper limit for loans from £75,000 to £250,000 so that medium sized businesses, too, can have access to such loan capital for expansion.]
Many hon. Members feel strongly that the scheme should be both continued and extended. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on that important issue?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may well find — particularly if he is among the carefree conscripts on the Finance Bill Committee—that he has more than enough time to consider such matters.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman will have have seen that, on the basis of legal advice given to the London electricity consumers council, the legality of the proposed increase in electricity prices is now in question. Could we be given a statement next week that would inform us what consideration Ministers are giving to that aspect of a deeply controversial matter?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment upon the alleged legality or otherwise of the increase, but I shall refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Robert Adley: I believe that my right hon. Friend is aware of my opposition to the Government's proposals to increase the speed limits for lorries and coaches, which are to be debated on Wednesday. I believe that the proposals fly in the face of what most people in this country believe to be sensible. I have just obtained the statutory instrument from the Vote Office. Is my right hon. Friend aware that either it has no number or the number has been blacked out? Is he satisfied that it is the correct documentation that should now be available to the House? A draft statutory instrument can be unnumbered, but once a statutory instrument has been laid should it not be properly numbered? Would my right hon. Friend therefore consider withdrawing the document and rescheduling the debate for a time when the correct documentation is available and when I shall have had some more plotting time?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend must have been holding a banana skin in his hand rather than the draft White Paper. I shall consider that point and get in touch with him.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House gave us a clear undertaking last week that he would raise with the Prime Minister the question whether she declared an interest in the negotiations and discussions that took place with civil servants in relation to the contract to build a university in Oman. Will the Leader of the House give us the answer this week? Did the Prime Minister declare an interest?
Mr. Biffen: I undertook to refer the hon. Gentleman's question to Downing street, and that I did.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Could my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the future of the newspaper publishing industry? That future was severely jeopardised on Tuesday by the trade union's day of rest—an illegal and irresponsible secondary action.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may find that the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill will give him scope to ventilate that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House also, as he promised to do, refer to Downing street early-day motion 517?
[That this House calls attention to the fact that contrary to the Prime Minister's reply on 21st February, Official Report, column 695, Her Majesty's Government have never explained the discrepancy between the statement in paragraph 110 of the Falklands Campaign: the Lessons, Cmnd. 8758, that the Conqueror detected the General Belgrano on 2nd May 1982, and the statement of the Commander of the Conqueror made in the book, 'Our Falklands War: the Men of the Task Force tell THEIR

401
Story', by Geoffrey Underwood, introduced by Major-General Sir Jeremy Moore, K.C.B., O.B.E., M.C., that he sighted the Belgrano visually early in the afternoon of 1st May and followed the Belgrano for over 30 hours; and calls upon the Prime Minister either to make a statement to the House explaining this disparity, or to appoint a judge of the Appeal Court to determine whether her statement or that of the submarine commander tells the truth.]
What joy did the right hon. Gentleman get from Downing street? Might the Prime Minister make a statement next week telling us whether it was she or the submarine commander who deceived us?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, I think that, at the moment, the joy has been deferred. However, I will look into the matter again.
Mr. Greg Knight: Concern has been expressed recently inside and outside the House about experiments on animals at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down. Should there not be an early debate—or, at least, an early statement—on the matter? The House would then know what is going on, despite the unnecessary cloak of secrecy, and could decide whether or not it wishes these experiments to continue.
Mr. Biffen: I recognise that the matter causes widespread anxiety, and I shall draw it to the attention of the Ministers concerned. Meanwhile, I can point out again that the topic is suitable for debate on the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. David Winnick: May we have a statement tomorrow or on Monday about the latest position at GCHQ? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a statement is all the more necessary in view of radio and television reports of intense and unfair pressure on GCHQ employees to abandon their democratic right to belong to a trade union?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot in any sense endorse the arguments sustaining the hon. Gentleman's request, but I shall refer it to the Minister concerned.
Mr. Robert Parry: I fully support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) on the importance of debates and questions on foreign affairs. in view of the concern of many right hon. and hon. Members about events in Central and Latin America, would the Leader of the House try to arrange an early debate on the situation in that troubled part of the globe?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the importance of Latin America in any foreign affairs debate. Above all, I also recognise the real interest that the hon. Gentleman has established in that area. However, I have to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the middle east is the priority area in any general foreign affairs debate.

Consolidated Fund Bill
4.7 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Ajournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 12 March, to which the Leader of the House has frequently drawn attention this afternoon.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 7 March. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later that day. Normally the time allocated will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Aerospace Industry
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Government's policy towards the aerospace industry.
Last November the Government announced launch aid of £70 million to assist with the development of the E4 version of the Rolls-Royce RB211–535 engine, now powering all Boeing 757s in airline service. Earlier this month I informed the House that approval had been given for Rolls-Royce to participate in the V2500 project, and to collaborate with General Electric of the United States on larger civil engines. Those programmes represent the core of a civil engine strategy based on international collaboration and dedicated to commercial success. The House will be informed when launch aid arrangements for the V2500 are finalised but, as with the E4 scheme, the Government will expect a real return on the taxpayers' investment.
In September 1982 launch aid of £41 million to assist Westland was agreed for its W30 civil helicopter, and last month the Government announced £60 million in launch aid towards Westland's civil costs in the Anglo-Italian EH101 project for a helicopter for civil and naval use in the 1990s and beyond. These investments will help to bring Westland into the expanding civil market and will be repayable with a return in real terms by a levy on sales.
British Aerospace has now decided to participate in the A320 and to launch the advanced turbo-prop. The Government have reached agreement with British Aerospace on the terms of launch aid for the A320. Launch aid of up to £250 million, repayable on terms designed to yield a return in real terms on the Government's investment, has now been agreed. As a result of our agreement I understand that the company will now join its partners in formally launching the A320 programme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry will be meeting his French, German and Spanish colleagues shortly to endorse this. British Aerospace will also proceed, without Government assistance, with the advanced turbo-prop aircraft. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing these projects every success.
Taken together, these decisions express a clear commitment by the Government to support the efforts of the aerospace sector to maintain its position as an internationally competitive industry for the future. I believe that the House will welcome our determination to see this sector of British industry, management and production work force alike, given the chance to succeed.
Mr. Peter Shore: On a day when the real unemployment figures have risen yet again, and after many months of campaigning by all the interests involved, especially the workers and management of the great establishments engaged in the aerospace industry in Britain, it would be churlish not to welcome a decision such as is contained in the statement. I have no intention of being churlish. I welcome it warmly. If the statement had not been positive and had not announced that launch aid is to be given to the A320 we should have been furious indeed. The House knows that the Secretary of State can always rest assured that when he acts in the national interest he will have the backing of the Opposition.
404
May I also point out what pleasure the Secretary of State's decision will give, especially on St. David's Day, to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and all those who are employed in the British aerospace industry, whether Welsh or not? Having said that, I should like to ask several questions which go to the heart of the matter. Both the Secretary of State and I know that there is a problem. I am glad that he has taken the trouble to set out his decision within the context of a series of decisions about the future of the aerospace industry. We needed clearly stated decisions about the V2500 engine and the Anglo-Italian EH101 to get a proper picture of the strategy for our aerospace industry.
With regard to costs, however, will the Secretary of State tell us what led him to the conclusion that the £430 million that British Aerospace seriously and deliberately asked for should be met with an offer of £250 million? Where is the additional £180 million to come from? The Secretary of State will know that the German Government's contribution, which was announced last week, is to be up to 90 per cent. of the cost. Is the Secretary of State not a little worried that if British Aerospace has to scrape the barrel of its resources to find the additional £200 million or so, that could prejudice the excellent prospects of going ahead with the ATP aircraft—I am glad that it is also mentioned in the statement—for which the Government have specifically told us there is to be no Government assistance?
My next question is fairly simple. The Secretary of State will clearly have to re-write the public expenditure White Paper, especially in the sections that deal with the part of the Department of Industry's expenditure which shows, when dealing with engines and airframes, nil expenditure for the year 1984–5 and minus £10 million in the following year. It is obvious that some adjustment is necessary. I assume—I shall not press the Secretary of State on it now — that although he has set forth his views in an important statement on the future of British civil aviation, he knows very well that he is leaving on one side, only for the time being, the important military projects about which we hope to hear more, and healthily sooner rather than later.
Mr. Tebbit: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the statement. I especially welcome his assurance that he will always back me when I act in the national interest. That will make my job extremely easy and I shall get his backing every day of the week.
With regard to the amount of money being provided, we worked closely with British Aerospace examining its costings and the various assumptions that had been made to determine how we could most effectively provide backing through launch aid. That has been done and it has enabled us to find that British Aerospace is happy to launch on the basis of £250 million of launch aid. It is a tribute to our vigorous private sector company that it requires less Government assistance than its German or French counterparts. The fact that the company is going ahead with the ATP aircraft without Government aid is also a tribute to it. It is a testimony to the fact that the launch aid for the A320 is adequate.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about public expenditure, the lines relating to my Department will clearly have to be amended to cover the project. I assure him, however, that the total expenditure that has been agreed for the Government will not increase.

405
With regard to military aircraft, I share the right hon. Gentleman's hopes that some of those programmes can go ahead. I hope that he will direct his questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when the time comes.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that there is a great deal of interest in this matter, but I have to protect subsequent business. Although the debate on the next item of business, the Northern Ireland order, can continue until 11.30 pm, we have another statement so I propose to allow questions on this statement to go on until 4.30 pm.
Mr. Edward du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this obvious vote of confidence in the British helicopter industry and its ability in future to compete in worldwide civilian markets is to be welcomed most warmly? On past experience it is undoubtedly fully justified. Is he further aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have studied projects such as the EH101 believe that the prospects for it are excellent and that we are more than gratified that he has given such encouragement to the skilled and devoted work force of Westlands in Somerset? That work force also deserves that encouragement.
Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, especially for what he says about the suitability of the Westland helicopter project for support from the Government. That is especially important, knowing his particular interest in public expenditure.
Mr. Bruce Milian: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the A320 and his earlier statement on the V2500. I look forward to the details of launch aid for the latter. As Rolls-Royce did not succeed in penetrating the earlier Airbuses, is it a condition of the help for the A320 — or is there an understanding—that the V2500 engine will be genuinely available for the A320, and what are the respective time scales involved?
Mr. Tebbit: Not only shall we have adequate understanding within the Airbus consortium, because clearly I have spoken to my French and German colleagues about the matter, but, perhaps more important, there is little doubt that the engine will be the one that is demanded by most of the customers for the A320.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a great day and one that will feature as a turning point in the history of the European aerospace industry? Does he agree that it will mark the point at which Europe took off to provide a true competitor to Boeing in civil aviation, and that we are at the threshold of a historic opportunity that should not be missed? In that connection, will he ensure that adequate launch aid is also available for the V2500 engine, since British Airways, which is probably the most important prospective customer for the A320, has always expressed confidence in Rolls engines?
Mr. Tebbit: Indeed, Rolls-Royce has already announced its intention of going ahead with the V2500 programme. Only the details of the financing are to be agreed. The fact that Rolls-Royce felt able to go ahead indicates its confidence.
Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most sincerely on his wise decision to give the A320 project financial backing, but does he know that there will be relief and pleasure in the British Aerospace works at Broughton in my constituency where 4,000 workers are employed? Will he guarantee that my constituents will get a fair share of the Airbus A320 work, as they have on the A300 and the A310? Does he agree that the Broughton factory might be called the jewel in the crown of the British aerospace industry?
Mr. Tebbit: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. It is a particularly suitable announcement for St. David's day, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said. I am sure that management and the other workers at Broughton will be well able to stake their claim for a proper share of the work on this aircraft. The distribution of work is in the hands of the management of British Aerospace, and it would not be proper for me to say more than that. I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are confident of their ability.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: May I commend the balance in my right hon. Friend's announcement between purely British airframe products, a co-operative European venture and an engine programme which develops employment and income from spares as well as from the initial sale? Is it not worth pointing out that we are in a position to do this only because of the often painful economies which the Cabinet makes in other directions?
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is our tight control of public expenditure elsewhere that has enabled us to offer launch aid on several of these projects. It is a remarkable achievement of Rolls-Royce to have entered into collaborative arrangements with both Pratt and Witney and General Electric.
Mr. Stephen Ross: May I also thank the Secretary of State for the aid he has given to Westlands, which has a very good work force, not only at Yeovil but in the Isle of Wight? It is a lifeline to those of us whose constituencies have an unemployment rate approaching 17 per cent. The Secretary of State has made the right decision on the British Aeorospace ATP because there are competitors. Has he not been slightly mean about the contribution to the Airbus? It was reported that the company wanted £437 million. Is the door still open if it needs to come back?
Mr. Tebbit: No. The amount of money is as agreed between the Government and British Aerospace. I do not think that it is a matter of being mean. One has to be careful in the use of taxpayers' money even on good projects. It is right that we have ensured that the taxpayers' interest is looked after as an investor in this just as much as the general interest of the economy in backing the project.
Mr. Rob Hayward: May I congratulate the Government on coming to what I believe is a sound and sensible decision with British Aerospace? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision will be greatly welcomed in and around the Bristol area where British Aerospace is a major employer? Over what time scale will the Government funding, which he indentified as being £250 million, be phased?
Mr. Tebbit: I am glad to be bringing so much happiness to so many parts of the United Kingdom. In regard to the pattern, the launch aid will be paid so as to cover the launch costs of British Aerospace in the early years of the project. In the parlance of the day, it will be front end loaded.
Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Minister knows, there is heavy unemployment in greater Manchester, and 456 redundancies were announced recently by the Manchester division of British Aerospace. Is his statement today likely to allow any of those who were being made redundant to continue in employment? In this regard, is there anything more he can say about the ATP project, about which many of us on both sides of the House have had very strong representations from British Aerospace?
Mr. Tebbit: I do not think it would be right for me to take from management the responsibility for the announcements concerning numbers of staff who will be required or who may not be required, even at Manchester. Certainly the company's decision—it is the company's decision and not that of the Government—to go ahead with the ATP must be good news in Manchester. It is a 64 to 72-seat advanced turboprop aircraft. The first flight is scheduled for October 1986, with deliveries from September 1987. It is believed that there could be a market for as many as 900 aircraft of this category by the end of the century. British Aerospace would obviously hope to capture a reasonable proportion of that market.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I applaud the Secretary of State's announcement. Will he tell the House why the combined public and private investment expected from this country for the A320 does not give us anything like the percentage of participation that the investment of the same sum of money gives the Germans in the A320 project? Will he be so kind as to tell us what form of public accountability will be available on all the projects he has listed this afternoon?
Mr. Tebbit: I think partnership shares and shares in this project are inevitably slightly different things. If my hon. Friend discusses the matter with British Aerospace, or if he talks to me about more of the detail than I can give at the Dispatch Box, where it is difficult to talk of too many details, I am sure he will find that the arrangements are satisfactory to British Aerospace. Of course, I hope it will also bring along many of the equipment manufacturers in this country who, I hope, will get a much better share of the work on this aircraft than on the earlier Airbus, where we were rather late in coming in as a full partner.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his victory, for it has been a victory. Will he ensure that the V2500 engine is acceptable for the A320 without modification? Will he also congratulate British Aerospace on launching the advanced turbo-prop on its own? Will he keep a close eye on the needs of British Aerospace for funding for the A320 should difficulties
408
develop? Above all, will he take the Prime Minister's advice and encourage the other part of his brief, trade, to ask British Airways to buy British in the A320?
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is not for me, since my Department is no longer the sponsoring Department for British Airways; that is the Department of Transport. In any case, it is in the interests of airlines that they should buy the best aircraft available for their purposes. I very much hope, of course, that British airlines will find that the A320 is the best aircraft and that the Rolls-Royce engine is the best engine to put on it. Now that the engine has been formally launched, the consortium is entering into discussions with Airbus Industrie with a view to ensuring that the engine is, indeed, on offer on the A320 from the beginning of the project. We are making it clear to the other Governments concerned that we consider it essential to the success of the A320 that the V2500 should be offered to potential customers on an equivalent basis to that on which the CFM56–4 is being offered now.
Mr. Michael Stern: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) expressing the delight at the Minister's announcement that will be felt among those people working at Filton. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effect of the decisions that he has either announced or confirmed this afternoon will be that the British civil aircraft industry can look forward to playing an active part in whatever project emerges for the remainder of this century and for the early part of the next century in civil aviation?
Mr. Tebbit: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that British industry will engage not in every project, but in the profitable ones and not the unprofitable ones. That is the way that we should like it.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement of this public investment of taxpayers' money in these ventures is welcome on the alliance Benches and will be supported as long as the Government continue this partnership with industry that we have advocated for many years past? Will he explain to the House how British Aerospace will raise the £187 million that will be necessary to fund the rest of the A320 Airbus programme?
Mr. Tebbit: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I am aware that he has always believed in such launch aid, whichever party he has belonged to at the time. In that he has at least been consistent, even if he has not been in many other things. The remainder of the cash will be found from British Aerospace's resources, not least from cash flow from other projects.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that it has not been possible to fit in every hon. Member who wishes to ask a question. I shall bear them in mind when we return to this subject again.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
4.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers, which took place in Brussels on 27 and 28 February. I represented the United Kingdom Government with my hon. Friend, the Minister of State.
Most of the time of the Council was taken up in detailed discussion of the Commission's price proposals and adaptations to the common agricultural policy. No decisions were taken, but there was further clarification of individual national positions on the various commodity sectors and other issues. These negotiations will be resumed at a further Council meeting next week.
The Council agreed that the existing structure directives should be extended with effect from the beginning of the year until the end of June. Under this agreement, FEOGA will contribute in the normal way to payments made since 1 January under the Community schemes for capital grants and hill livestock compensatory amounts. Aids to dairy investment are not included in the roll-over. This means that no applications for development plans under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme, which include dairy investments, will be accepted from today onwards. Nor will claims be accepted under the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme on dairy expenditure incurred from today onwards.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Council agreed to the extension of the less-favoured areas in the United Kingdom. This is an important decision for about 28,000 farmers on about 3 million acres of marginal areas. As foreshadowed in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) on 30 November, it enables the Government to make arrangements for paying enhanced rates of capital grant in the marginal areas and to consider in the autumn review appropriate intermediate rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances to be applied in 1985.
The Council also agreed that the present import arrangements for New Zealand butter should be extended for a further month so that 20,750 tonnes can be imported during the first three months of 1984 pending a decision on the proposal which the Commission has made for a five-year agreement.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for the statement. Is there any prospect of agreement over the next few weeks, during which the right hon. Gentleman is going to Brussels yet again? Will he publish in the Official Report what is happening inside the Council of Ministers as regards the different proposals? It is not enough for those of us who have to try to follow these matters carefully to skim through the pages of the popular, or the unpopular, press to find out what is happening.
I welcome the extension of the less-favoured areas scheme, as far as it goes. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some more information by publishing, as soon as possible, a detailed map so that we can see the areas that are affected? Will he tell us something about the extension of the less-favoured areas? What will be the cost? Is it not the case that if we were to go on the figures in today's press of 1 million ewes and 100,000 cows, in today's rates that
410
would be a total of £8·75 million, of which we should have to find 75 per cent.? Whatever the order of the money, will there be new money? Given that the public expenditure White Paper shows that the budget of the Minister's Department will be substantially reduced, does that mean that the additional money will come from other programmes, such as land drainage?
What will the rate be for these new less-favoured areas? Why do we have to wait until the autumn to know what it will be, when we know, both from the speech that the Minister made at the Tory party conference in October last year, and his statements, that he is thinking of some sort of intermediate rate, so far unspecified, for the hill livestock compensatory amounts? Why is it that there will be no money going into these areas until 1985? We need answers to these questions?
As I understand it, from the part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the development schemes and the capital grants in relation to dairy investments, no matter how small the dairy element of a development plan might be, the total cost of that plan is disqualified under the scheme. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, or is he saying that only purely dairy investment will be disqualified? The statement speaks of schemes "which include dairy investments" so we shall need clarification on that. Is not cutting this off today particularly difficult for those farmers who are trying to plan ahead and get developments, and trying to raise private capital for the future?
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions. First of all, with regard to the prospects for agreement, I believe that there is a general determination in the Council to try to seek agreement on 1984 prices and the broader restructuring of the common agricultural policy as soon as possible. Efforts will be made—I do not know whether they will succeed—to reach agreement before the European Council meeting on 19 March. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would publish details of the negotiations. That is difficult, because it is a negotiation and the positions of some states on certain issues change even within a day.
I have with me some of the broad maps showing what parts of the country will be included in the extended areas of the less-favoured area. The best thing would he if I deposited copies in the Library. It is possible that they are there already, but if not I shall ensure that they are put there as soon as we can possibly do so.
As to the cost of this, we have to go into the details of the extension of the less-favoured areas. We are not yet in a position to publish the details.
The figure of £8·75 million referred to by the hon. Gentleman was for the hill farming compensatory allowance. In general, those allowances will be at about half the rate for what I would describe as the high hills. On top of that, capital grants will be available at the high hill rate in the newly created marginal areas. I am pleased to say that marginal areas will be included in the public expenditure amounts available in the next financial year, as I explained in my earlier statement.
With regard to dairy aids, the suspension will apply to all expenditure incurred from today in relation to the new arrangements under the agriculture and horticulture grants scheme. Works already completed but not yet claimed for, and work in progress will be eligible under existing provisions. Similarly, the agriculture and horticulture

411
development scheme will not apply to approved plans or variations, work carried out or in progress in anticipation of approval of a variation, or to plan applications received before 1 March but not yet approved. I hope that that will be helpful
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that a heavy day is in front of us, and I ask for brief supplementary questions and answers.
Mr. Edward du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing appreciation in the British farming industry of his skills as a negotiator as his successes become apparent? Even so, I have not seen such low morale in the farming industry or so much apprehension about the future during my time in the House. Will my right hon. Friend take as the starting point in his future negotiations over prices—we all wish him success—that it is essential for the British economy that a prosperous and effective British agriculture should be maintained?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks and for what he said earlier. I am well aware of the uncertainty in the agriculture industry. I have referred to it before in the House as well as at meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, where I urged that a decision on the restructuring of the common agricultural policy should be reached as quickly as possible, to put an end to the uncertainty. However, we are faced with grave overproduction and overspending on the budget and we must do something about that.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In which Estimates does the Minister expect that the specific provision for the additional less-favoured areas will first appear?
Mr. Jopling: I am not yet sure when we shall be able to start paying the capital grant rates for the high hills to farmers in those areas. I suspect that it will be done in the next financial year. The hill livestock compensatory amounts, as I said earlier, will be subject to the normal review of upland areas next autumn and will become eligible for payment from 1 January 1985.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the application for an increase in less-favoured area status for Northern Ireland from 45 per cent. to 75 per cent. has been accepted, giving an additional 30 per cent.? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the criteria for granting status to the original 45 per cent. were also met by the other 30 per cent., which was not then included. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the capital grant in the new area will be the same as for the original area, and tell us what other grants will be available for the extended area, and when they will apply to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Jopling: The details of the scheme's application to Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The agricultural development programme for Northern Ireland is governed by a separate regulation. However, the Northern Ireland grassland scheme provides enhanced rates in the marginal areas.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman put our minds at rest about the disquiet felt by the director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Mr. Robin Grove-White, that the EEC negotiations will have devastating implications for wildlife?
Mr. Jopling: I do not believe that that will be so. Wide understanding of the needs of the environment has been shown in the negotiations that I have attended in Brussels.
Sir Peter Mills: Will the Minister accept my congratulations, on behalf of the industry, on the progress that he has made in difficult circumstances while trying to reach agreement over surpluses with the Ministers of many countries? Will he, further, take no notice of the unfair and unjustified criticisms from some parts of the National Farmers Union, and continue to fight and do his best in difficult circumstances for British agriculture, especially to ensure, in particular, that there is fairness throughout the Community, and that the reduction is negotiated very gently?
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall continue to battle on behalf of British agriculture, which is one of the jewels in the crown of British industry. I shall continue to do my utmost to make sure that the difficult decisions that must be taken will not discriminate against home agriculture.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will realise by now that we are being complimentary to each other today. I am not sure whether that is due to the influence of Wales's patron saint, Saint David. May I add my tribute of thanks to the Minister? Many of the 28,000 farmers living in the marginal land areas are in Wales and they will be delighted at the news that the Principality has been included in the marginal land scheme on Saint David's day. Does the Minister hold the view that the new scheme will stem depopulation from the rural areas and restore confidence? Can he give an assurance that payments will be made in 1985 to marginal land farmers, and that money will not be taken from the hill farmers to pay those moving into the extended area?
Mr. Jopling: On the last point, I can give that assurance. I am anxious that these payments should not be made by taking money from those farming in the high hills. I hope that the new marginal land grants will help to restore confidence in a difficult area. I first made speeches about the difficulties of farming in those marginal areas about 19 years ago, and I have waged a long campaign for them. This result gives me considerable personal satisfaction.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the marginal land scheme includes those areas where it is difficult to farm, especially the weald of Sussex—it is difficult to find land that is more difficult to farm—and upland areas of the Sussex downs? If those areas are not included, will my right hon. Friend explain why not, considering that most of the weald is farmed by small tenant farmers? Will he agree that there is room for a change in the balance of farm support away from cereal farmers and in favour of pig and chicken producers?
Mr. Jopling: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the current imbalance between grain and livestock. I am doing my utmost to correct that imbalance and shall continue to do so. With regard to the weald of Sussex, it is news to me that parts of Sussex are hard to farm. I always believed that it was the land of Goshen. I shall let my hon. Friend know whether those areas are included, and no doubt he will be able to see for himself when the plans are deposited in the Library.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware of a resolution carried by the National Farmers Union in Cumbria, which includes his constituency, condemning the Government's failure to negotiate satisfactory arrangements for British farmers? Is he aware of the great concern of farmers in Cumbria about the arrangements for livestock and milk production support? When will there be a successful outcome to the negotiations in Brussels and why is uplands amenity money being taken out of the uplands livestock budget?
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I have just given an undertaking that the new money for the marginal areas will not be taken from farmers on the high hills. I have not had news direct from the Cumbria NFU but I am glad to say that in a discussion earlier today with the Westmoreland Gazette—a well-known and extremely responsible newspaper in the area—I was informed that the Cumbria NFU was delighted at the extension of the less-favoured area provisions.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I, too, welcome the extension of the less-favoured area provisions to marginal land. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that where there is a dispute about classification as marginal land the normal local inquiry procedure will apply if a farmer wishes to challenge the Department's ruling?
Mr. Jopling: I am most obliged to my hon. Friend. We have both felt strongly about the marginal areas for many years. With regard to farmers who wish to appeal against exclusion, I shall make an announcement at the appropriate time about the representation procedure to be introduced for farmers whose land is excluded from less-favoured area status.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite even one major reform of the common agriculural policy likely to be agreed by the Council of Agriculture Ministers before the meeting of Heads of Government later this month? If he cannot do so, does not that seriously undermine the negotiating position of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the meeting of Heads of Government?
Mr. Jopling: If the Council of Agriculture Ministers cannot reach conclusions before the meeting of Heads of Government on 19 March, the job of the Heads of Government will be a good deal more difficult. I believe, however, that there is a general understanding among Agriculture Ministers—this was certainly apparent in Brussels earlier this week—that we must do all we can to resolve as many of our difficulties as possible and to leave as few items as possible outstanding for the Heads of Government.
Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that livestock farmers will be most grateful for his firm statement about the imbalance between the
414
cereal and livestock sectors? Without going too far, can he say whether the views that he has expressed so firmly today are shared by other Ministers in the Council?
Mr. Robert Hughes: If they were, there would have been agreement by now.
Mr. Jopling: I believe that they are. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) says that in that case agreement should already have been reached, but there is nothing unusual about agreement not having beer reached at the very beginning of March. If the hon. Gentleman checks the record for earlier years under both Labour and Conservative Governments, he will find that the average date for settlement of the annual price-fixing is a great deal later than 1 March. I believe that we are making good progress and I hope that a settlement will be reacted very soon.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I underscore the compliments already paid to my right hon. Friend on his progress on behalf of this important industry? When he indulges in further negotiations next week and thereafter will he bear in mind that support for United Kingdom farming has been steadily declining as a proportion of output and that farming profits in real terms have declined sharply in the past decade? Is he aware that in real terms total United Kingdom farming income is lower than it has been since 1945?
Mr. Jopling: I do not accept that projected farm incomes for 1983 are lower in real terms than at any time since the war, as the projections for 1983 were higher than the figures for some years. Nevertheless, I am conscious that in real terms farm incomes are lower than they have been in recent years. That is constantly in my mind.
Mr. Mark Hughes: I wish to ask two short and specific questions. First, will the Minister return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)? The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that from today onwards no applications would be accepted under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme for plans which included dairy investments. If just 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the plan involves dairy investment, will the whole plan be excluded or only the proportion relating to dairy investment?
Secondly, in the light of the expenditure White Paper issued a few days ago, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which Peter is being robbed to pay this Paul? The White Paper states that provision has been made to provide more money for this scheme, which we welcome, but the Ministry's total agriculture budget is being reduced" so where is he finding the money for this?
Mr. Jopling: I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest on the first question. Businesses with mixed enterprises will be eligible for grant for their non-dairy investments. I hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me for not saying that earlier.
On the second point, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement last year, when the public expenditure figures were announced. Various adjustments were made to capital grants and other matters, which we discussed earlier today, and I announced that we had found money out of the budget for various new schemes, including the

415
glasshouse scheme and the extension of the less-favoured area provisions. The hon. Member will find that that is firmly on record.

Mr. Ernest Kirkwood (Extradition)
4.58 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the imminent extradition of Mr. Ernest Kirkwood to the United States of America."
The matter is specific in that Mr. Kirkwood, a United States citizen, is accused on two counts of murder and one of attempted murder in San Francisco. Under article 4 of the extradition treaty between the United States and this country, the Home Secretary signed a warrant of surrender on 2 February. In so doing he exercised a discretion that he was not bound to exercise and this raises the point of importance and difficulty which I believe should be considered by the House.
Unusually, Mr. Kirkwood has applied to the European Commission of Human Rights for consideration to be given to the argument that extradition would be in breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights in that the inordinate delays in carrying out the death penalty in California amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
The European Commission—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to the arguments that he might use in his speech if the application were granted.
Mr. Maclennan: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
The commission has given notice to the Government that it intends to consider the admissibility of the application during its session beginning on Tuesday. If this extradition is proceeded with today or tomorrow—and in the light of a judgment given in the House of Lords this morning, that appears to be the prospect — the commission will be frustrated in its purpose of hearing the case, and this country, as a party to the convention, has an interest in ensuring that the purposes of the convention are not so frustrated. This is the last opportunity that Parliament has to consider this issue, which is why it is urgent.
Mr. Kirkwood has applied to the commission under rule 26 of its rules, and has asked for the commission to give an indication to the Government that they should not allow this extradition to go ahead, which application would be considered on Tuesday. I do not seek to oppose the extradition beyond the hearing of the case by the commission, but to frustrate the purposes of the commission is a most serious matter, almost without precedent. In the only case where there was a precedent, the Amekrane case in 1974, the British Government allowed a deportation to Morocco where a man was subsequently executed, and damages were paid by the British Government of £36,500 to the widow because of the failure to observe the provisions regarding the European convention. I submit that this is a specific, urgent and serious matter for your approval, Mr. Speaker, and for the House to consider.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member 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,

417
"the position of Mr. Ernest Kirkwood, at present held in prison following the refusal of leave to appeal to the House of Lords, and his subsequent application to the European Commission of Human Rights for an interim stay of the enforcement of the warrant for his extradition under rule 26 of the Commission's rules."
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that his arguments will be noted by those who are responsible. I have to rule, however, that I do not consider that this matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
5.2 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.
This order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1074. The purpose of the draft order is to appropriate the 1983–84 spring Supplementary Estimates, and the 1984–85 Vote on Account of Northern Ireland Departments.
Part I of the schedule covers the issue of some £43 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in respect of the spring Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments, and appropriates this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. This sum is in addition to some £2,729 million, which was approved during 1983 for the 1983–84 financial year, and brings the total Estimate provision for 1983–84 to just over £2,772 million.
Part II of the schedule gives details of the issues for which the Vote on Account of £1,226 million for 1984–85 is required. This provision is necessary to enable those services to continue until the 1984–85 main Estimates are debated and approved later in the year.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for intervening so early in the Minister of State's speech. He mentioned that the schedule gave details of the expenditure to which the Vote on Account refers. When is it expected that the details will be published in the form of the respective Estimates?
Mr. Butler: I require notice of the right hon. Gentleman's question. He will be as aware as I am, I think, of the time at which we debate these matters. The booklet which the right hon. Gentleman should have in his possession, the "Statement of Sums Required on Account", gives details. That might be sufficient for his purpose, at least for the time being. I intended to mention that in a few moments.
Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to the Minister. I was referring to the fact that hon. Members representing other parts of the Kingdom have the opportunity to take pan in debates on the Estimates after those Estimates have become available to them and to the House for study in detail. It was to that point that I wanted to draw attention.
Mr. Butler: It will be possible, as usual, to debate the main Estimates when they are printed. The purpose of today's debate, as I have said, is to approve the final Supplementary Estimates, and merely to vote on account the sums required for 1984–85, because otherwise those moneys would not be available. It has been the practice over the years that we should do this in respect generally of 45 per cent. of the sums that are likely to be required, the final main Estimates for 1984–85 being framed within the total provision set out in the Government's White Paper on public expenditure, which was published last month.
The details affecting part I can be found in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume, and, in regard to part II, the booklet entitled "Statement of Sums Required on Account", copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. I hope that they give the necessary information to

419
indicate at least the magnitudes of the expenditure and matters which, subject to what the Chair has to say, are entirely appropriate for debate.
It is customary to highlight the main items covered by the Supplementary Estimates, and I will follow that practice. Afterwards, I intend to set the sums required on account in the context of the current economic scene, the prospects for the future and the Government's policy for tackling the continuing and undoubted social and economic problems of Northern Ireland.
Taking first the spring Supplementary Estimates. I draw particular attention to one specific area, for a start, before referring to individual Estimates. The House will note that provision is being taken for receipts from the European Community under the urban renewal regulation. This measure enables 100 million European currency units, which is approximately £60 million, to be paid from the European Community budget for the years 1983 to 1985 for urban renewal in Belfast.
We have had little doubt of the European Commission's concern to find ways of helping to alleviate Belfast's longstanding social and economic problems. The urban renewal regulation, now that it has come to fruition, is a very welcome and concrete expression of that concern. The order before the House makes provision for the receipt of the bulk of the first tranche of aid relating to the Community's 1983 budget. This tranche amounts in full to some £18·7 million, which was approved by the Commission on 23 December 1983. The money has been earned on 69 publicly funded infrastructure projects in the greater Belfast area, and has enabled the Government to increase their planned expenditure on urban renewal, including housing.
Estimates conventions mean that the actual sums received cannot always be shown on the face of the Estimates. However, the explanatory prefaces to the relevant Votes show in full the actual receipts which fall in the following classes, that is, Classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
I turn to the major supplementary provisions that are sought in the draft order. I am sure that hon. Members will be reassured that I do not intend to speak to each provision that is sought in the Supplementary Estimates, but I shall highlight those for which substantial provision is being sought.
In Class I, Vote 3 an increase of £303,000 is sought in the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture which is mainly to accommodate carry-over of expenditure on fishery harbour contracts at Portavogie and Ardglass, which were delayed because of technical and weather problems. These major works are now all but complete and are making an important contribution to the facilities available.
The House will recall that I spoke at some length about the reform of the CAP during the Appropriation Order debate in December. I shall have something more to say about that vital economic sector but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear in his statement only a short while ago, the CAP log-jam effectively continues. Nothing was agreed at Athens, and the examination proceeds under the French Presidency. My noble Friend the Minister of State will
420
continue closely to monitor the negotiations and to ensure that the Northern Ireland case is put clearly and effectively.
Turning next to trade, industry and employment, I draw hon. Members' attention to the £2·2 million reduction in the provision for assistance to Harland and Wolff in the current year. This saving is possible largely through the beneficial cash effect of the work recently carried out on the Falklands floating port contract. Harland and Wolff did a first-class job on this order, despite some extremely adverse weather conditions, and created a good impression with potential customers, including the Ministry of Defence. This is most encouraging; and although its demands on public money remain high, it is pleasing to see that Harland and Wolff is taking effective action to reduce its dependence on subsidies.
I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the requirement at subhead C8. This is for £10·5 million to enable repayment of assistance from the European regional development fund, earned by two industrial projects in Northern Ireland — the De Lorean Motor Company and Courtaulds at Campsie — which subsequently failed. This amount has been withheld from United Kingdom claims for assistance by the Commission, this procedure being in line with standard conditions attaching to assistance provided under the fund. This is a purely cash transaction and has no implication for public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Public expenditure levels are decided on the basis that anticipated Commission receipts are taken into account. If the receipts do not match up to expectations, the Government can either cut expenditure or retain the planned level of public expenditure, accepting that it will have to be financed from domestic as opposed to Community sources. In this particular instance expenditure will not be cut on foot of the withholding of receipts from the United Kingdom.
On the Employment and Training front under Class II, Vote 5, functioning of the labour market, it has been found necessary to make a number of compensating adjustments. A major factor here is that uptake of the youth training programme over the past year, in some respects, fell below our original expectations. The prime element in this programme is the guaranteed year for minimum age school leavers. Here I have been encouraged by the uptake, almost three quarters of those eligible. I believe that this is a very creditable response, particularly since the numbers in the eligible group of unemployed youngsters has slightly reduced. However, I am still concerned that some young people are failing to take advantage of this valuable preparation for employment.
It is in the second tier provision under the programme—that is, in training opportunities targeted at 17-year-olds—that there has been a disappointing response, with only half or less of the training places offered being occupied. I am currently examining how we can make the arrangements more attractive and realistic for 17-year-olds, bearing in mind the need to emphasise experience and development in a real working environment. The concentration of the young workers scheme on 17-year-olds who are taking up their first job at a realistic wage level — we shall be doing this in Northern Ireland in parity with Great Britain — will encourage the employment of that age group and, I believe, slightly increase the uptake of the guaranteed year.
The result of this lower demand is that the financial requirement for YTP for the current year is reduced by

421
about £4 million. We have been able to find good use for this shortfall, and we are seeking increased provision for other schemes within the labour market area: for example, the uptake of grants for apprentice training is an encouraging sign of an improved outlook by employers and will require over £2 million of additional funding this year. I have also been encouraged by the initial success of the pilot enterprise allowance scheme and the response to its extension on a wider basis, for which almost £500,000 will be required in the current year. Other moneys have also been reallocated: to the action for community employment scheme, Enterprise Ulster and the young workers scheme. The financial statistics for this reallocation show additional expenditure of £4·8 million against savings of £5.3 million.
Moving on to Class IV, Vote 1, road services, a net additional provision of about £1·2 million is being sought. Some £2·4 million is required to finance essential maintenance on roads. The road network in Northern Ireland is extremely good and an important asset to the Province's economy and environment. A major objective must therefore be to meet essential maintenance needs on all principal routes and to maintain the minor routes in a satisfactory state. As part of this process we have been able to respond to the pressures in this area by reallocating public expenditure resources. This has been made possible through our highly efficient monitoring systems, which operate during a year and allow us to identify shortfall at the earliest possible moment and to reallocate resources as the year progresses.
Additional receipts amounting to £1·4 million, including those under the urban renewal regulation, are available as appropriations-in-aid to meet a substantial part of the required increase in expenditure.
The housing supplementaries seek additional provision for housing services of some £8·7 million. In fact, the increased provision is nearer £12 million, but that is offset by an increase in estimated appropriations-in-aid of £3 million. The increases set out in Class V, Vote 1, are mainly attributable to an increase in the housing grant, which is payable to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to cover the differences between its rental income and approved revenue expenditure, and the level of expenditure on house renovation grants. A further requirement of approximately £1·8 million additional assistance to the voluntary housing movement is more than offset by increased receipts of some £3 million expected in loan repayments by housing associations.
The increased requirement for the housing grant is due mainly to a revised estimate for loan charges payable by the housing executive on its housing loan debt, while the increase in provision of £1·6 million for renovation grants reflects the Government's decision last year to allow the housing executive to lift restrictions on grant approvals—a move which was welcomed by those hon. Members who had made representations on this issue.
The House may wish to note that the total provision for housing associations, net of receipts from loan repayments, now stands at some £37 million for this year. The voluntary housing movement continues to play a significant role in the provision of housing, through refurbishing inner city areas in Belfast; in meeting the needs of the elderly, the disabled and other groups whose
422
housing needs require specialist provision and management; and enabling those who cannot take the full step towards home ownership to part-own and part-rent through co-ownership arrangements.
The House will note that a new subhead is being provided to cover the private housing grants scheme. This provides grants in certain circumstances to persons who purchase a house in the private sector through the co-ownership scheme. This is an experimental and time-limited scheme and the response so far has been much lower than expected. The provision sought will provide grant for about 20 cases.
The supplementary provision sought for the education services in Class VIII, Votes 1 and 2, relates almost entirely to increased costs arising from the April 1983 salary award for school teachers and further education lecturers, which amounted to just under 5 per cent. as compared to the 3·5 per cent. assumed in the main Estimates.
In Vote 2 this increased expenditure is offset by savings on the recurrent grant payable to the Ulster polytechnic, partly as a result of slightly lower than anticipated tuition expenditure, and partly from increased fee income. These supplementaries bring the total provision for the salary costs of school teachers to £210 million in 1983–84, which represents some 38 per cent. of overall public expenditure on education and related services.
In Vote 1 an addition of £300,000 is also required for capital grants to schools under voluntary management to meet increased expenditure on certain minor works, including health and safety schemes, which have arisen at these schools.
As to health and social services, the supplementaries are found in Class IX. In Vote 2, an additional £ 12·2 million is sought, of which the family practitioner services require an additional £11·7 million net to meet greater demand and increased costs over the original provision. The bulk of the increase is required in the area of pharmaceutical services for costs of drugs, remuneration and expenses.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that I did not misunderstand the Minister. He referred in the extra expenditure on the general practitioner service to the financial result of increased demand. It is difficult to follow why, in the absence of an increase of general practitioners in post, the increase in demand should result in a higher estimate. I am sorry if I failed to take his point.
Mr. Butler: The higher requirement can result from an increase in demand over and above what was originally anticipated, and that is what happened in this case. I understand that there has been a greater off-take of such items as drugs and prescribed medicines, and that the amount allowed for them in the original planning total was not adequate for the purpose. We hope that we have now provided sufficient for future years, but in the current year we must find this not insubstantial sum to make up for the shortfall. If the right hon. Gentleman is not happy with my reply, which I believe to be correct, perhaps he will ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary or raise the point during his speech, when my hon. Friend can intervene, if necessary, to clarify or amplify the explanation that I gave him.
In the social security programme, which is Class X, additional provision is sought under Vote 1 for an increase

423
of £2·9 million in respect of supplement from the Consolidated Fund to the national insurance fund. This is because contribution income, on which the supplement to the fund is basically calculated, has been higher in the current year than originally forecast.
In the family benefits Vote, Vote 3, an extra £1·9 million is being sought, of which £1·4 million is required for child benefit, to meet the cost of the uprating of this benefit in November 1983 by 11 per cent., which is set against general provision of 5 per cent. for benefit uprating in the main estimates. The introduction of "equal treatment" regulations in November 1983 means that either parent in a dual-parent household can, if employed, claim family income supplement. This is expected to lead to an increase in eligible claims costing £0·5 million.
In Class XII, which provides for superannuation and other allowances, extra provision is required for some £1·7 million mainly to meet higher than expected expenditure due to the revised retirement age and redundancies.
I hope that I have made sufficient comment on the spring Supplementary Estimates. Inevitably, they become a catalogue and one goes through them at speed. I hope that I have done neither the items nor the House a disservice my moving so fast through them. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I shall say a few words about the economic prospects for Northern Ireland as I see them in the coming year, and about public expenditure plans for 1984–85, within which main Estimates will be prepared and submitted to the House later in the year, and against which we are now seeking sums on account.
On the economy I am glad to say that national output grew by just over 2 per cent. last year, after rising by 1·25 per cent. in 1982. The output measure of gross domestic product rose by 0·5 per cent. in the final quarter to stand 2·5 per cent above its level a year earlier. There are, therefore, clear and indisputable signs of continuing economic recovery in the United Kingdom. It is our aim to maintain conditions which will enable Northern Ireland, at least to share in the effects of this recovery, which will be seen as local firms meet increased demand, and as the flow of internationally mobile investment increases.
Despite some grounds for optimism, however, the Northern Ireland economic scene is still far from rosy. Northern Ireland, because of its unique combination of circumstances, has suffered a more severe impact from recession than other areas. The Province has been hard hit in maintaining levels of employment—hardest hit have been manufacturing and construction. Unemployment stood at 122,537 on 9 February 1984, or 22 per cent. compared with 17·6 per cent. in north England—the worst region in Great Britain—and is half as bad again as the average for the United Kingdom as a whole. It has to be said, nevertheless, that while, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the trend in unemployment is still upward there have been signs that the rate of increase has been moderating.
However, it is not all gloom. There are encouraging signs that the recovery is fairly broadly based, with most sectors now displaying stability or even some improvement. All the signs from our own and indeed the CBI's industrial surveys are that firms are regaining confidence and that economic expansion is likely to continue.
Mr. Clive Soley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I cannot listen to that much longer. Ever since I have known him he has used that same phrase again and again. There are limited signs of recovery, but it is time that he admitted that the economy is bouncing along the bottom. Everyone knows, including the CBI and even the OUP, that the Northern Ireland economy will not recover until the Government intervene effectively and on a larger scale than they are at present.
Mr. Butler: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not accept my view. I am entitled to give it and to draw attention to the facts and surveys, such as those prepared by the CBI, which come straight from the business man's own experience. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I spend much more time in the Province than he does. I probably spend a great deal more time talking to those who are trying to make a living there and visiting factories than he does. I am aware of the many cases where workers are being taken on and economic activity has increased. That is what I draw attention to.
Mr. Soley: I do not dispute that, but is it not correct that the Minister has been telling the House ever since he came to the Front Bench that there were signs of economic recovery. How long ago is that, and for how long has he been saying that?
Mr. Butler: I hope that I have always tried to paint a realistic picture of the scene. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with my and the Government's recipes for dealing with the matter. He may have the opportunity to make the same speech on the subject that he has made for the past three years, with which I shall disagree. I hope that I have never falsified the figures. I have not said that an economic recovery, which can be measured by increases in output, has been taking place in the Province when it has not. The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that he is all gloom. He is not prepared to welcome some positive signs of improvement in the Province. However, as I said earlier, and as I shall doubtless continue to say, we have a considerable task in front of us.
I was about to come to another point with which the hon. Gentleman will not agree, because if the Labour Party were in government it would do all that it could to increase public expenditure, thus boosting the rate of inflation and destroying the prospects of improving competitiveness. One element in sustaining the recovery is the control of inflation. The reduction of the rate of inflation to less than 5 per cent. has been a major achievement, along with others, of this Government and has exceeded the expectations of the forecasters. But it is still not low enough, certainly not as low as that of countries which we might look on as our principal competitors in world markets: America, West Germany and Japan. The battle against inflation must and will continue, and success in that battle will be as important to Northern Ireland as it will be to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Equally, Northern Ireland industry, with the rest of British industry, must go on fighting to improve its competitiveness. There is a great temptation after going through a period of hard times to take it easy, to work less hard but to expect the same—or more—money for it. We cannot afford to let up; and that applies perhaps even more in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain.

425
Public expenditure must continue to be restricted. The Government's plans are laid out in the public expenditure White Paper, and it is clear that the pressures on resources will be considerable, not least in health care and in meeting the needs of an increasingly elderly population. Northern Ireland will continue to be dealt with generously, in recognition of our special needs. But it seems self-evident to me that we can expect continued public expenditure constraints in coming years; we therefore have to address ourselves even more intently to conserving expenditure, to seeking the most cost-effective way of achieving our ends, and especially of making sure that our spending priorities are right. This latter exercise should involve the elected representatives of the Province, members of the House and of the Assembly, as well as various consultative bodies; inevitably, it will mean difficult and sometimes painful decisions.
Ministers remain convinced that top priorities must continue to be given to the industrial development drive, and we are generally supported in this. Our principal aim must be the creation of employment through the stimulation of viable and sustainable jobs in the private sector. To this end, we have allocated to the industrial support and development area some £175 million for 1984–85, which is in line with our latest assessment of requirements. That provision will, of course, be kept under review throughout the year in the light of how demand for the various types of assistance develops.
The role of the industrial development board in this work is crucial, and I would like to say a few words on how I see its achievements to date. Before doing so, however, I must emphasise, as I have done on previous occasions, the importance of all those connected with Northern Ireland working together to present an image of the Province which will give potential investors confidence.
The industrial development board has been operating for 18 months, during which it has acted in a businesslike manner and overall has responded well to the difficult challenges facing it. During 1983 it dealt with 160 projects and assisted a total of 17,200 jobs. That figure represents 25 per cent. of the total employment provided by potential IDB companies in Northern Ireland, and 17 per cent. of the total manufacturing base of the Province.
One of the board's main tasks has been to strengthen and build on the existing industrial base. Indigenous industry has experienced a most difficult time in recent years and inevitably much of the IDB's efforts to date has been directed towards protecting home industry and encouraging it to become more competitive and to expand. Last year the IDB provided assistance to local firms which had the effect of securing about 14,600 jobs. While new overseas investment will bring the necessary diversification and employment on the scale which is required to make an early impact on the Province's unemployment problem, it is necessary to create a healthy home base to attract and support that inward investment. The board has performed well in supporting home industry.
Of course, the board seeks the same success in attracting inward investment, but mobile investment remains scarce and competition for each potential project is still extremely tough. Northern Ireland's distorted image abroad continues to act as a major obstacle in attempting to present the business opportunities afforded by the Province. In October 1983, the IDB launched the Northern Ireland partnership as a major initiative to counter the
426
image problem. The partnership is a unique association of more than 150 companies and organisations, covering almost every aspect of the business and social life of the Province, and it has already been active in combating the prevalent adverse impressions of Northern Ireland abroad. This work will continue in 1984 and includes plans for five partnership missions to the United States and Europe.
Prospects for inward investment are a little brighter, and the added interest of potential investors is shown by the higher rate of visits to the Province. More than twice as many visits were paid during 1983 than in 1982 or 1981, with the rate accelerating in the second half of the year; but it remains difficult to close deals with potential investors.
The strategy of the IDB in job promotion is straightforward. The past year has seen a necessary concentration on saving jobs, and on helping to sustain companies in difficulties. Without this, the manufacturing base of the Province would have been eroded beyond the point of no return. With economic recovery, the board can build on other work which has been undertaken during the year — the encouragement of established industry to maximise its potential.
Inward investment activity is an essential complement to work with indigenous industry and will be directed at those companies and those industries which offer the best prospects.
Mr. Peter Hordern: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which has a somewhat different view of the effectiveness of the industrial development board in the past, whatever it might he doing now, may I ask my hon. Friend to expand on what the Secretary of State said last year about the relief of corporation tax in the Province? On 23 March 1983, he said that corporation tax would be relieved at up to 80 per cent. on projects in the Province. We have heard nothing more about that excellent initiative, and perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us what has happened since then.
Mr. Butler: I respect my hon. Friend's position as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. I remind the House that the industrial development board has existed for only 18 months, so the sins of the grandfathers should not necessarily be visited upon it. The corporation tax relief grant was one of three or four additional measures introduced in Northern Ireland in the spring of last year. They were part of the incentive package made available to the board. Another measure that may be of more immediate importance was the total industrial derating of manufacturing premises, which enabled an instant cash injection into industry.
However, we had been conscious for some time that, when it came to company profits, we could not match what was on offer from the Republic of Ireland, where in certain circumstances there is a straight 10 per cent. rate of corporation tax. We sought to find something equivalent to that, without altering the fundamental principle that United Kingdom taxation should be uniform across the board.
That relief grant was worked out so as to apply to individual companies that were setting up, or to subsidiaries, or even to separate divisions of other companies which could be seen to be operating at arm's length and whose financial results could be sufficiently well monitored to allow the tax relief grant to apply. It has

427
been used on a number of occasions by the industrial development board. As I have said, it is one of just a few new incentives that were introduced last spring, and it is part of a much larger package that is available to the industrial development agency. Certainly it had an immediate impact on a number of investors who were apparently dissuaded from considering Northern Ireland because of the absence of this incentive. It is particularly attractive because it will apply to those companies that are successful — that is, the companies that are making profits. So it is one of a number of incentives, and a valuable one at that.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the incentive package that is available in Northern Ireland has been claimed to be the best in the United Kingdom? If that is true, why do companies still refuse to accept the bait?
Mr. Butler: It has been judged by some independent authorities to be the best package in Europe, not just in the United Kingdom. Companies invest for various reasons, and I do not need to rehearse what I believe are the attractions of Northern Ireland. They are better known to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) than even to me. However, the image of the Province being a place of continual terrorist activity is still off-putting, and much of the work of those of us who try to promote the Province is spent on putting across the high degree of normality there. I repeat that a further inhibitor, apart from the image of terrorism, is political instability, and a number of us have a part to play in trying to combat that factor.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On the question of political instability, has the Minister discovered in his travels, as I have discovered, that one aspect of political instability is uncertainty about whether Northern Ireland will remain for the foreseeable future a part of the United Kingdom, or whether those who are trying to shunt us out of the United Kingdom win the day, so that firms may not want to go outside the United Kingdom?
Mr. Butler: I am sure that, when the hon. Member has dealt with that uncertainty, he has drawn attention to the legislation which says that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom unless or until a majority of the people decide otherwise, subject always to the approval of Parliament. That is usually sufficient to persuade people.
Nevertheless, outside observers see the differences that exist, the in-fighting that takes place in Northern Ireland, and they wonder what the outturn will be. So we should seek reconciliation on the political front, just as much as putting across the correct image, if we genuinely want to resolve the unemployment and economic difficulties as well as the other difficulties.
I was completing a passage of my speech about the industrial development board, reviewing its work over one and a half years. I was about to say that it consists of a representative cross-section of people with wide industrial and commercial experience. They deserve the fullest support and co-operation as they tackle the difficult terrain that lies ahead of them.
Outside the economic field, priorities attach to other areas. Within the social and environmental field we have
428
given first priority to housing. The 1984–85 allocation of £340 million represents an increase over the provision published in our earlier plans, after making some technical adjustments for the housing benefits scheme. As well as the increase in the public expenditure committed to the programme, there is a further substantial increase when account is taken of the Housing Executive's income from rents and from house sales, so that gross expenditure on housing in 1984–85 will be some £520 million. While we shall continue with a substantial new building programme, with some 3,000 new starts next year, greater emphasis than in the past will be placed on the rehabilitation and improvement of existing dwellings.
I want to say a word about agriculture and the Government's attitude to it in Northern Ireland. The importance of that industry is self-evident and, I think, universally acknowledged. It is important in regard to its own direct contribution to economic activity and to employment. It has a further vital importance as a source of raw material to the Province's expanding food processing sector.
The Government have demonstrated their recognition of that special importance—and of the special problems of Northern Ireland farmers—by a generous programme of support, some of it exceptional to the Province. I will not attempt to deny the real and understandable anxieties that prevail in the industry as to the outcome of the CAP negotiations. I will, however, point to the £10 million entry in the 1984–85 public expenditure statement, an amount additional to the original planning figure, which will allow next year for a substantial level of local support over and above what will be available under national and Community arrangements. This is a continuation of the practice of the last few years. What is new is that the Government have carried forward the same sum in the planning figures for the two following years. It is an earnest of Ministers' intentions that, given the availability of resources and current priorities, some special assistance should be forthcoming.
I add my welcome to the extension of the less-favoured areas. Three quarters of Northern Ireland will now receive favourable treatment, and this will prove a boost to both income and morale. The time that it has taken to resolve this matter illustrates that, however strong the resolve of national Ministers, even the most deserving case can take months to negotiate the labyrinthine ways of the Community.
Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister concede the possiblity that if the United Kingdom Government had been prepared to make money available and had said so much earlier we might have settled the problem years ago?
Mr. Butler: I do not believe that the hon. Member is correct. I was told — perhaps even by the hon. Gentleman—that the extension that had to be agreed by the Council of Ministers would be a matter of days or weeks. I assured him that I thought it would take longer, and I regret to say that for once I was right and he, or whoever suggested that it would take a short time, was wrong. He was, I believe, in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made his statement and would have been interested to hear, as I was, that my right hon. Friend reckoned that he had spent some 19 years trying to improve the position

429
of hill farmers. We must be grateful for this extension and for the fact that about 400,000 additional hectares of Northern Ireland land will be included and that as my right hon. Friend explained, decisions will be taken as to the financial advantages which will flow to the extended areas.
I trust that I have given a fair presentation of the draft order. I have also taken the opportunity to restate the Government's economic policy, which adds up to a coherent and positive approach to the problems of Northern Ireland. During the storm years of recession it has too often been a case of having to bale out the boat to keep it afloat. Today I cannot pretend that the weather is set fair, but I believe that the gods are smiling a little more kindly. I hope that the Province will respond to the more favourable economic conditions and to the support that the Government are prepared to give.
5.51 pm
Mr. Peter Archer: I can assure the Minister of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will not be making the speech that he has been making in the past because on this occasion I am making it. I will at least try to cover somewhat different subjects from those that I endeavoured to cover on 8 December, but I cannot forbear from telling the hon. Gentleman that when he said that he thought that the gods were smiling a little more my hon. Friend muttered under his breath, "Heaven help us if they ever frown on us."
This is not one of the occasions when hon. Members find it difficult to obtain seating accommodation in the Chamber. I notice that the Liberal and SDP Benches are totally denuded. It is hardly surprising that Liberal and SDP Members have no policy on Northern Ireland; they are never here to listen to the debates. I find that regrettable, because the procedure that we are following today is deeply rooted in history. Perhaps that is one reason why it will commend itself to hon. Members from the other side of the water.
As I understand it, this is not the opportunity which we will have later to debate in detail the Estimates for the forthcoming year. Rather it stems from the principle that redress of grievances by the Executive should precede Supply. On such occasions hon. Members are entitled to put forward the specific grievances of their constituents. For that reason, it is not an occasion when the Front Benches should claim a high proportion of the time available. There are, however, some matters which have been expressed to me as showing real anxieties and I believe that I ought to invite the hon. Gentleman, when he replies to the debate, to comment on some of them.
First, I should like to invite the hon. Gentleman's comments on Class H of the schedules, the sums to be spent on industrial development, and to ask how much of the sum that will be available in 1984–85 it is intended to spend on Enterprise Ulster. The Minister of State has already reminded us that the unemployment figure for Northern Ireland now stands, tragically, at over 122,000. Of those, more than 56,000 have been unemployed for at least 12 months and some for very much longer. That is not a figure that gives great encouragement to the optimists to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. But something will have to be done meanwhile for those who find themselves in that tragic situation.
430
In 1972 the Government felt the need for a direct labour organisation designed to help the long-term unemployed who were then, of course, substantially fewer. It was not intended as one more cosmetic scheme to reduce the statistics of those to whom the community offers nothing but the dole, but to help the long-term unemployed to feel that they were making a genuine contribution, to retain their self-respect and, in the process, to reduce the destructive frustrations of prolonged idleness and to maintain the habits and discipline of work.
The first report of Enterprise Ulster described what were intended to be its principal characteristics. Comparing it with the ordinary winter unemployment relief schemes, the report said:
"we have consistently viewed Enterprise Ulster, although operating in the same labour market … as having more extended horizons, more ambitious objectives, both in the kinds of work it would attempt and in the prospects it would offer its employees".
It described Enterprise Ulster as
"a bridge between the dole queue and regular work".
It was therefore intended to meet the needs of the people, to get the unemployed working for an end product with a purpose and to offer real opportunities for those with skills and initiative to develop.
The report also made the point that it was intended to be flexible, to react to the number of unemployed who were in need of it, so that, although the numbers are now substantially greater, the intention was that, whether they became greater or smaller, the scheme would be flexible enough to react. In the context of total unemployment in Northern Ireland at any particular time, it said,
"it should be sufficiently flexible to respond to changes in the state of the unemployment register."
The scheme boasts an impressive record. It has given employment to more than 10,000 people and for over half of them has provided a channel into regular employment. It has completed some 400 community projects such as playing fields and parks, erected some 300 bus shelters, decorated some 4,000 homes occupied by the elderly and the handicapped and assisted in schemes of the National Trust.
While any statutory scheme must absorb some resources on administration and technical advice, 61 per cent. of Enterprise Ulster's budget is now spent directly on paying wages and salaries, largely to those who otherwise would be in receipt of dole benefit, so a substantial saving to the Treasury can be deducted from the cost of the scheme.
As I understand it, the Minster of State recently announced plans to reduce job levels available to Enterprise Ulster from 1,250 to 1,000—I assume, in the forthcoming financial year—at a time when the number of long-term unemployed is increasing and when district councils are putting forward an increasing number of schemes of which the community stands in need. The hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the cuts in the youth training schemes for the present year. If we are to accept what was said in the Belfast Telegraph of 21 February, that involves possibly 1,000 places in Belfast in those schemes, and, in the process, placing at risk the jobs of at least 34 of their staff.
I understand the reason, as the hon. Gentleman has just explained it. It is that the number of places taken up is short of the capacity of the programme. It may be that the Government have asked themselves why there is a lack of take-up. Can it be part of the total despair in the hearts of

431
the young people who see no point in undergoing training if there is no prospect of work when the training is completed? Last year a survey by the Northern Ireland Youth Forum found that only half the young people undergoing training believed that there was a prospect of a job for them at the end of the training. Obviously they do not share the Minister's optimism.
If there is to be a saving on YTS schemes, the House will be delighted to hear, as the Minister told us this afternoon, that some of the savings for the current year are to be allocated to Enterprise Ulster. Presumably there will be savings next year, too. If that is so, perhaps we can be assured that some of those savings will be redirected in the next financial year to Enterprise Ulster.
Mr. Butler: I think it reasonable that I, rather than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, should answer this point about Enterprise Ulster. I endorse what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says in regard to Enterprise Ulster's performance. It has had in its comparatively short life a good record of providing employment and of doing work for the community. What I have been concerned to do is to ensure that the resources available have gone as far as possible and have been put to best use.
In the first year that Enterprise Ulster was set up, it employed nearly 2,000 people. For the same funds in real terms, under Enterprise Ulster and the action for community employment scheme, although not doing exactly the same work, both providing jobs for the long-term unemployed, 4,000 people will be occupied for the same resources.
That is the sort of decision that one has to take. Enterprise Ulster will now continue at what is considered to be the minimum level for viability, which is 1,000 jobs. The provision will be £7 million. If a shortfall is detected in other schemes below what is already planned, one has to consider whether sums will be made available to Enterprise Ulster against competing priorities. But that basically is why Enterprise Ulster has been reduced. It has been too costly in job terms compared with other programmes and we are now getting twice as much for the same amount of money.
Mr. Archer: I am grateful for that explanation, although I hope that it will not be included in the time that I am to occupy. I do not complain in the least that the Minister took that opportunity to give the explanation that he did.
We shall have to debate this at greater length on another occasion, but I rather doubt whether the Community will derive much pleasure from being told that it is now Government policy to run Enterprise Ulster at what the Minister describes as the minimum level at which it is viable.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will realise that any organisation, including Enterprise Ulster, has certain minimum overheads. If the numbers are being run at the absolute minimum and overheads remain the same, the cost per unit of employment will be higher than if the number employed were much greater.
Mr. Archer: I am certainly not complaining that too few people are being offered the advantage of Enterprise
432
Ulster. My complaint was rather the reverse. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that. We may have an opportunity to debate that matter at rather greater length on some future occasion. In a debate such as this, one cannot give a great deal of time to any one matter, no matter how important.
I note that part of the sum for which the Government are asking in Class II is to be spent on the aircraft industry. That prompts me to voice an anxiety which is not confined to the Labour Benches, on the future of Short Brothers. It is fast becoming one of the most remarkable success stories of our period. It is Northern Ireland's largest employer with a work force of 6,300 and with obvious possibilities for further expansion. It is to be congratulated both on its sales success and on its capacity for meeting production targets. Yet it seems that a question mark is now hanging over its future. At Question Time on 23 February it was confirmed that the Government had it in mind at some time in the foreseeable future to sacrifice Shorts on the altar of privatisation.
In the past a substantial amount of public money has been injected into Shorts and we make no complaint about that. But it appears that as soon as it becomes profitable the public are to be deprived of the asset. It seems to be at risk of sharing the fate of all profitable investments in the United Kingdom. During the first four years of office the Government deprived the public of £1,758 million worth of businesses and services. They have already admitted that they plan to sell a further £2,000 million-worth every year for the next three years. The Financial Times has calculated that if the Government implement their election threats the assets disposed of within the next three years could reach £13,000 million. The Government are paying their way, not by producing goods but by selling off the laying hens.
I mention that because the Government are aware that Labour Members do not oppose Government Measures for the sake of it. We recognise the problems of the Northern Ireland Office and I hope that no one will suggest that we have been less than responsible on Northern Ireland matters. In fact, there are those who criticise us for being too responsible. We appreciate the problems and we seek to be fair. But let no one assume that the king under the mountain will continue to sleep. If the Government seek to sell a public asset such as Short Brothers and to denude the country of control over what becomes of its contribution to the economy, its relationship to the community and its work force, they will be confronted with complete opposition from Labour Members.
I turn now to Class V. The Minister will recollect that in the debate on the Appropriation order on 8 December 1983 I made some references to the housing situation generally. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary of State, accused me of being less than generous until I pointed out that I had been quoting from the last annual report of the Housing Executive itself, which on these matters was substantially less complacent than the Government. Now we are to have a new housing survey — indeed, not before time. The latest was in 1979. But I am content to await the result of the survey before embarking on any further discussions on housing generally.
Today I wish to mention only one specific aspect of housing. In Northern Ireland there is no equivalent to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. There is no statutory obligation on the Housing Executive, as I

433
understand it, to rehouse the homeless. Usually, the provision of short-term or emergency accommodation is left to the voluntary agencies. If I understand the problem of the Housing Executive, it is that at the end of last year it had a waiting list of more than 23,000 families, many of whom have been waiting for a house for a long time. Of course, it would not be right without good reason to allow someone who is not on the list to go to the head of the queue.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that a high percentage of those on that waiting list are people in housing waiting for a change?
Mr. Archer: I hesitate to repeat some of the matters that we discussed on 8 December, but I recollect that the Housing Executive said that it was less than happy about the situation. It pointed out that many people were content to wait in substandard accommodation because the employment situation was such that they could not afford the rents of better accommodation. I hesitate to embark on a long debate on this subject at this stage. It was not about that that I wanted to address the House, but the Housing Executive does not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism.
Clearly there must be some exceptions. It is possible to receive emergency help if one is not intentionally homeless, but there are two problems. The first is the definition of who is intentionally homelesss. Someone evicted from a non-secure tenancy is regarded as intentionally homeless since he chose to accept the non-secure tenancy in the first place even if he had no alternative. Someone who has been offered work in a different area and wants to move is regarded as intentionally homeless.
There is a further problem for the homeless because to be included on the waiting list at all it is necessary to have an address in Northern Ireland. That leads to the paradoxical situation that having no address one has no prospect of being provided with one. People are not offered a home precisely because they do not have a home.
There are no helpful statistics about the number of homeless in Northern Ireland, but Shelter has calculated that in 1983 there were probably about 4,000 people without a home of their own. It says that in this year of grace 1984, in addition to those who are sleeping rough, on any night about 500 people depend upon hostels. We are not speaking about a vast number of houses, but we are speaking of some tragic cases. I ask the Minister to tell the House when he replies that he will discuss the matter with the Housing Executive.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would wish to know that I have set up a departmental working committee on homelessness, and when it produces its conclusions I shall be happy to share them with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members.
Mr. Archer: I warmly welcome that announcement, as will the House. It will bring a great deal of relief to a number of people. Can the Under-Secretary of State say when the committee will report?
Class VIII refers to the expenditure on education. The Minister of State told us that the increased Vote this year is accounted for almost entirely by the salary award. But we now have some yardstick by which to judge education
434
in the Province with the report published last December of the Department of Education's inspectorate. It recorded that the pupil-teacher ratio had been maintained, given that there are now fewer children to be taught. The numbers are diminishing. But the report shows that per capita allowances have not kept pace with rising prices. It speaks of a reduction in spending on textbooks and equipment. The per capita allowance for library books is 30 per cent. lower in real terms than it was in 1978. It records
"very serious reductions in library standards."
The report relates that trips, visits, field work and school activities have all been curtailed. Because of the reduction in the number of librarians and technical assistants, subjects of real importance to the economy such as design have been restricted. That is true of education for children from the age of five.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has told us that nursery education for the under-fives in Northern Ireland does not bear comparison with that in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Rev. William McCrea: When studying that report, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while the pupil-teacher ratio has been maintained, Northern Ireland is at the bottom of the league in the United Kingdom? The overall PTR in Northern Ireland is 18·6, in Scotland it is 16·9 to 17·6, and in England it is 17·9 to 17·7. In the area I represent the PTR is 19·2. Northern Ireland's PTR is anything but good.
Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, but the position does not appear to be worsening. I was mentioning a number of respects in which the position was becoming worse as day succeeds day. I was about to speak of nursery classes for the under-fives.
In 1978, the Child Poverty Action Group found that a major factor for many families in deciding whether family income fell below the poverty level was whether the mother was in work. Families where the mother had to work were more likely to be those with young children. It was found that 17 per cent. of all the children of working mothers were under five, yet in 1977 in Northern Ireland the number of places in nursery education as a proportion of the population was only half that of England and Wales. In 1978, the then Government prepared plans to deal with the subject, but they have not been implemented. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us about the future of nursery education?
The most worrying aspect is perhaps the capital budget. All education is an investment in the future, but the building and maintenance of schools is doubly so. Paragraph 71 of the report states:
"It is clear that the present capital budget available for school building is inadequate. Increasing numbers of pupils are being deprived of reasonable educational facilities and the proper environment for learning, and, in addition, the present level of funding would appear to be storing up greater problems for the future."
The inspectorate is troubled at the declining level of cleaning and caretaking services. Education authorities' returns show that some schools have not been painted for periods ranging from 12 years to 25 years. Broken windows are not being replaced but simply boarded up. It is small wonder that the report records that teacher morale is affected. Teaching staff have really worked wonders with inadequate premises and tools, but the physical condition of schools has an importance out of all proportion to its cost.

435
It is perhaps inevitable that many buildings in Northern Ireland cities look old, dingy and depressing. They make a substantial contribution to the mood of frustration and despair that sometimes exists. When last there, I was told that the youth training schemes were being used to enable young people to paint out the graffiti of hate on the walls of Belfast. But the only slogan I saw being painted out was "Love overcomes all things". If the physical environment were a little brighter and more cheerful, that cheerfulness might penetrate to those who must spend so much of their lives there. A beginning could be made in the schools. If children are accustomed from their earliest years to a tarnished, tired environment, that will contribute to a tarnished, tired outlook.
This is not a dramatic debate. We are discussing specific problems. The Under-Secretary of State will know that optimism is a function not only of actual conditions—though the Opposition dispute his interpretation of the actual conditions — but of the environment in which people live. Will the Northern Ireland Office provide at least a coat of paint towards a brighter Northern Ireland?
6.16 pm
Mr. William Ross: I know that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, visited the enterprise zone exhibition presently on show in London. He will be aware that a number of my hon. Friends visited that exhibition as well. I am sure that he, like us, was pleased with the show put on for Belfast and Londonderry by his Department. I concluded that the Londonderry stand was easily the best-looking one. I take great pleasure in that, because I represented Londonderry for about nine years. I notice that its present representative—the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—has not graced us so far with his presence.
On the last occasion we debated these matters I mentioned the effect of the carry-over provisions from one financial year to the next. The Minister said that the carry-over would be subject to adjustment in the autumn Estimates. Some people think that the carry-over means that next year's expenditure will be increased by the sums carried over from this year. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) said that the amount would be readjusted each time December rolled around. Where will the carry-over appear in the Northern Ireland accounts? Where will we find that provision in the July Estimates? Many of us would find that information of great interest.
The sums coming to the Coleraine council in general grants comprise two elements — first, the value of premises which, for some reason, have been derated, and, secondly, social costs, which are worked out on a formula of total net expenditure.
Coleraine council is in a peculiar position. It is the one council area in Northern Ireland to which each summer there is an enormous influx of people. It is estimated that for two or three months the population increases by 50 per cent. Although the council must provide services for that tremendous temporary increase in population, no grant is made available to the council to cater for that increase. I am not clear about the situation in Great Britain, but I believe that on this side of the Irish sea provision is made to give an extra helping hand to areas which have large
436
tourist numbers drifting in each summer. Those who have studied this matter in Coleraine tell me that they should be entitled to £200,000 or more per annum to meet the extra expenditure incurred.
I am mentioning this subject more or less in passing, but I would not like the Minister to think that I shall mention it and then forget it. I shall be persistent because the Government in respect of Londonderry city have accepted what the council there has said about the census numbers. If they are prepared to accept Londonderry council's representations that the census is wrong, that the numbers are too low and that, because of that, the Government must increase the amounts given to that council, the temporary population who arrive in the Coleraine council area each summer must also be taken into account. Coleraine has a case that is as good as, perhaps better than, the case of Londonderry city council.
Mr. Chris Patten: I have an obvious point to make to the hon. Gentleman, one that I made when I had the privilege of visiting Coleraine council a few months ago, although I shall say more on the subject when I reply to the debate. Tourists bring money into areas such as Coleraine as well as costing money in additional services. On the whole, that is welcome to those who live and work in Coleraine, for example in terms of shopping and other facilities.
Mr. Ross: The Minister makes a good point so far as it goes, but he ignores the fact that the people who live in the Coleraine council area earn and spend their money there to a far greater extent than the transient population of tourists who arrive each summer. The resident population, who form the numbers on which the grant is calculated, put in much more than the tourists because most tourists do not spend the sort of sums in such areas that they spent 20 or 30 years ago; many of them live in caravans and other temporary accommodation of their own. The Minister cannot get away with it as easily as that. There is a real case to be answered, a case which is unanswerable without more cash being forthcoming.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am not unsympathetic to the point that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) is making. While many thousands of those who go to the Coleraine borough council area in the summer months stay in caravans, because of this Government's policy they are having to pay rates to live in those caravans.
Mr. Ross: That is correct, and it adds to the case that I am making because if they are paying rates, they should be treated in exactly the same way as the resident population, who also pay rates. Although I leave the matter there, I suspect, despite what the Minister may say in reply, that I shall return to it before the summer recess. I do not intend to let the matter drop because my constituents are suffering an inequity that should be corrected.
I come to the question of the payment of repair grants under the Housing Executive scheme. There is an anomaly in regard to public expenditure, of which all hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are well aware, an anomaly that I hope the Minister will clear up, and I gave his Department notice that I would be raising this issue.
When somebody in a Housing Executive estate purchases his dwelling, he often knows before the

437
purchase that the dwelling needs a certain amount of repair. He may apply for a grant, in which case grant officials inspect the property and produce a list of defects in the dwelling on which grant is payable. It is my experience that many constituents do not agree with the list produced by those grant officials.
That remains the position, until the Housing Executive decides to do a general facelift and refurbishing of the estate. Whenever the executive does repairs to its dwellings, there is no question of replacing only that which is defective; it does the lot. It is all public expenditure. In other words, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
I do not see how we, as Northern Ireland representatives, can stand back and agree that the Housing Executive should be allowed to do repairs to one level while our constituents receive grants for repairs to a much lower level. There is an inequity here which is causing much concern, an inequity which rankles with those who suffer, and several cases have recently been brought to my attention.
The Minister must take the matter in hand and reach an equitable solution. If public expenditure is justified in respect of a publicly owned dwelling up to a certain point, the Housing Executive must accept that the same level of expenditure should be acceptable for a house which has been purchased, perhaps only a few weeks before. This issue cannot be swept under the carpet, because it will get worse.
Mr. Chris Patten: Why?
Mr. Ross: Because the person whose house has been improved by the executive may buy it a few weeks later. He may pay though the nose for it, but he will still get a lot off, and he could wind up doing better than the person who bought before the repairs were done. An inequity exists here and we must not shut our eyes to it. It must be resolved because it rankles.
There is another housing matter that I have raised with the Under-Secretary's predecessor and possibly with the predecessor's predecessor; indeed, I seem to have been raising this subject going back into the mists of time. It is the question of replacement grants, and again, this revolves around the difficulties faced by Housing Executive grant officials and their superiors in trying to do their best for very poor, principally rural, housing in Northen Ireland. As the Minister will be aware, they stretch the boundaries as far as the elastic will go, but sometimes it snaps and a poor soul loses his grant because he has stepped over the edge of what is permissible.
I know that the Minister does not like the present situation. I have had correspondence with him about it. Sometimes a satisfactory outcome is achieved, but all too often that is not the case. The problem of poor quality rural housing largely affects small farmers whose income is relatively small. The Housing Executive, in its efforts to improve the quality and standard of a house, does the best it can, but often that means improving a property that at best has a limited lifespan.
I believe that some grant money is being virtually thrown away. A short-sighted policy is sometimes followed, especially when a good deal of the grant that is paid is swallowed up in the extra expense of repairing an old house rather than the lesser sum that would be necessary to improve a better, or build a new, house.
438
The Minister knows about the case I have in mind because he wrote to me on 24 February about it. He set out, as did his predecessor, in both public and private, the objections to a replacement grant in such cases. I agree that there are real problems, but I believe that the Minister would like those problems to be overcome, and that with him I am pushing at an open door. I ask that, regardless of the situation elsewhere, the Minister will not allow his officials, the Treasury or the Secretary of State to put him off completely.
The most satisfactory long-term answer is to admit that certain dwellings in Northern Ireland would be far better knocked down and replaced. A replacement grant — perhaps, but not necessarily, as generous as the present repair and improvement grants — should be paid. Restricted to the narrow band of very poor rural housing and perhaps to a limited number of years, that would be much more satisfactory than the present arrangements. Far too many very poor quality houses have been repaired because the alternative to a grant was for people to continue to live in dwellings that were little better than hovels. The Housing Executive is doing its best, but the better answer would be a replacement grant for that class of housing.
It is pointless to say that all these people have small farms and will eventually be able to build new houses of their own. Very often, they will never be able to afford a new house without help from public funds. Given the willingness of the people of Northern Ireland to practise self-help in housing, a great deal could be done in that narrow field. If it was a success, the scheme could perhaps be widened, but I do not ask for that in the first instance. I seek help only for the small group of people who are afflicted in this way. I want to improve the quality of their housing. When the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is criticised for the poor quality of housing, it is forgotten far too often that most of the really poor housing is poor rural housing. Most of the towns, with exceptions—
Mr. Harold McCusker: All pnvately owned.
Mr. Ross: —are all privately owned. Most tenants of privately owned housing have long since had their house condemned and have moved into housing estates. A small group of people have been trapped by circumstances. Their dwellings need to be improved, and there is no answer other than the provision of a subsidy to replace the dwellings.
I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak. They have all prepard long and detailed speeches on their constituents' economic and social problems. I shall therefore not waste much of the time of the House. However, I believe that my points deserve an answer and I hope that the Minister will be able to give me acceptable answers — by which I mean answers that accept my view. If he cannot do so now, no doubt he will reply to me in July or December, or perhaps this time next year—provided that he lasts the course.
I wish to refer to the disastrous position in relation to the change of name of Londonderry. I have been deeply concerned about this matter since the first attempts were made to change the name. Perhaps I understand better than the Minister the motives that underlie the change. The hon. Gentleman met my right hon. friend the Member for Down South (Mr. Powell) to discuss this issue some time

439
ago. We put our view to him firmly but in a reasonable manner. I drew his attention to the use of Derry as a place name in the Northern Ireland and Irish context. I pointed out that the name Derry is used by itself as a place name in Ireland only twice, but that it occurs in hundreds or perhaps thousands of places as part of a name, because Derry simply means oak. Derry has never been used as the name of the city or of the island of Londonderry except as a shortened version of a longer name. The name was Derry Columbkille for centuries. It was Londonderry for centuries. Before that it was Derry Calgach which means, I believe, Deny of the hunchback. Those who sought the change sought it for no good reason. Their aim was to open a door.
I was disappointed when the Minister wrote to me saying that he was to make the change of name. When I explain the circumstances of his reply, the House may understand my disappointment. The Minister had told my right hon. Friend and me that, if he decided to make the change, he would let me know. The implication was that I would be told a day or so beforehand.
I understand that a friend of mine in the Unionist party—Mr. Alen, an Assembly Member for Londonderry—received a letter on the morning of 24 January, which was the day of the announcement. The letter was delivered by hand to his home. I believe — although I have not confirmed it with him—that a DUP Assembly Member for Londonderry was sought out on his way to Belfast and given a letter by hand.
I received two letters. One arrived at my home on 25 January, and I received the other here a day or so later. The letter was unlike the rest of the letters that I have received from the Minister's office in that it was signed not by him but by one of his officials. That is unusual in the case of the Minister, though not in that of his noble Friend. The letter was dated 23 January, but both of the envelopes were postmarked from the Stormont Parliament buildings on 24 January. I was surprised that the letters, although dated 23 January, had been posted only on the day when the announcement was made. I felt rather sore about that.
Mr. Chris Patten: I attempted to ensure that the hon. Gentleman, like Members of the Assembly and other people whom I had spoken to about the decision, was informed in advance. However, the hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the weather that week. That may explain to him both why the two letters that I sent in order to inform him in advance did not arrive in time and why the letter was signed not by me but by my private secretary.
We attempted to tell the hon. Gentleman in time. I apologise for our failure to do so. When I first went to the Northern Ireland Office I was advised that there was very little snow in Northern Ireland in winter. That week the weather was very bad by Northern Ireland's high standards.
Mr. Ross: I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology, but I feel sure that, next time, his office will remember that I have a telephone. I am worried not so much by the letter being late as the decision being made. I believe that it was the wrong one. What on earth did the Government hope to gain by making the change? Did they hope to get the SDLP into the Assembly? It was not enough for that and the Minister and his colleagues know it. Was it to help the SDLP and its fellow travellers in their political fight against Sinn Fein in the nationalist Roman Catholic community in
440
Londonderry city or the rest of Northern Ireland? If so it was a futile hope as it will have no effect whatever on that battle because the people who called loudest for the change were not the SDLP but rather more extreme elements.
What is the effect of the change on the community in Londonderry, which my right hon. Friend and I tried to warn the Minister about? It is far deeper, more dangerous and more far-reaching than Ministers yet understand. For a start, it will be manipulated. It will not be called Deny district council but Deny city council. It is beyond me how the name Deny city council will be separated from the concept of Londonderry city in the public mind. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the Republican elements in Londonderry city will ignore the name as they have always done. They now have a lever to put up Derry city right across the board. That is dangerous. The Under-Secretary of State might shake his head but if he denies what I am saying he is merely admitting that he does not understand the people who live in that city.
How will the new concept of Deny city council sit with the mayor? Should he not now become the chairman of that council rather than the mayor of Londonderry city? He will find himself in rather difficult constitutional circumstances in that respect. What have the Government gained by the change? I do not think that they have gained anything, as this is a political issue in the city and the rest of Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland see it as an anti-British move by the most extreme Republican movements in Londonderry and the rest of Northern Ireland. They are the people who have been calling for it, and they are the people who will now claim the precedent. In the minds of ordinary citizens it will be seen as a victory for the violent and their fellow travellers.
Although the change is anti-British in general sense, it is anti-British in the specific sense that it is Sinn Fein's doctrine to destroy all vestiges of the British presence in Northern Ireland, especially in the Londonderry area. The change will be seen as a surrender. It is a surrender. It is another surrender to Sinn Fein's approach, its violence and general attitude. It will be encouraged to seek further change. It has already begun to say that it is seeking a change in the name of the city. The Unionist Protestant population see the change as further evidence of the Government always being prepared to surrender to Republicanism whenever it makes its case. They regard it as part of a one-way street to appeasement. The Minister may laugh but in so doing he is denying the knowledge that we who represent Northern Ireland have. At least we can go there and get elected.
Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although people from this side of the water laugh at such circumstances, they can cost lives in our Province and lead to the blood of innocent people in our streets?
Mr. Ross: There is no doubt that attitudes on this matter raise tensions in Northern Ireland, lead to violence and cause severe problems for the security forces. That is putting it at its lowest. The Government have failed to understand what effect the change will have on people in Northern Ireland. Moreover, they have nothing to gain from it and a great deal to lose in regard to the Unionist population who see it as part of a policy of appeasement. The Unionist population regard it as part of an attempt to buy off the gunmen by suggesting that if they behave themselves it will be possible to make progress in the

441
direction of what the gunmen desire. The trouble is that by trying to buy such people off the Government only encourage them to try to achieve further change. That also means that the Unionist Loyalist Protestant population say to themselves, "It is a one-way street. They are trying to insult us. They will lie down to the Republicans. Why should we then believe anything that that Government or party says?" That has a bad effect on the government of and stability in the community in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the City of London will state its view. After all, it is the founder of the city of Londonderry. It built the city and still has a considerable interest in it and in the community at large. If the Minister had thought for a moment about the effect that the change would have throughout the Province, especially in the county of Londonderry, I believe that he would have accepted the advice that I and others tendered.
On making the decision the Government said that they were only abiding by a majority opinion in the county's area. If that is so they lay themselves open to the charge that they are prepared to accept majority opinion only when it is majority Republican opinion and that they will not accept Unionist majority opinion at provincial level. If the Minister is prepared to accept majority opinion in Londonderry I cannot see how in conscience or morally he can say that he is not prepared to accept normal majority opinion across the Province. That was a serious mistake that I believe the Government will live to regret.
Mr. Chris Patten: We accept majority opinion in district councils right across the Province. While the hon. Gentleman is talking about stability and law and order, I would very much welcome his observations on the behaviour of the DUP councillors in Londonderry the other day. I look forward to hearing his view of their using a hose on the police.
Rev. William McCrea: It was very irresponsible.
Mr. Ross: There are members of the DUP here who can answer for themselves. No doubt they will do so. I am merely pointing out that the Minister now seems to be saying that majority rule is all right at council level but that it is not all right at provincial level. At what level does majority rule become ineffective? At what point does he have to introduce his 70 per cent. majority rule? At what point does he have to introduce his cross-community support for majority rule? Is it only at those levels when the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland start to have effect? That is the only conclusion that any reasonable man can draw from the Government's stance. It is the only conclusion that I can draw.
6.49 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I am delighted to have the opportunity of speaking in the debate and of following the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The United Kingdom as a whole has suffered much because of the runaway inflation of past years and the sacrifices that have had to be made by the whole nation. Great credit must be given to the people for the courage and the spirit they have shown in the midst of hard and difficult years. The old spirit that brought the nation through years of war has risen again and there is a genuine determination to lift ourselves out of the valley of depression and despair to a solid foundation of responsible expenditure, leading back to prosperity.
442
No one who has a genuine interest in the nation wishes to waste the sacrifices that have been made. Having listened to statements since came to the House last June, I fear there is no sign on the Opposition Front Bench that its members could take the responsibility of running the nation. However, let me make it clear that, while it is good to keep a tight hold on the rein, I fear that the child is being choked to death and that instead of a reasonable hold upon expenditure there is a temptation to give no room to breathe. The economic fortunes of Ulster are at stake, as are the economic fortunes of the people of the whole of the United Kingdom.
The economic position of Northern Ireland is anything but rosy. We have felt the whirlwind and the sledgehammer impact of the recession. We have been the hardest hit, as Ministers genuinely accept. I appreciate that acceptance. The figure given in the Minister's statement of 122,527 unemployed, or 22 per cent., is deplorable. NO one could say that it is acceptable. My constituency suffers from one of the highest rates of unemployment in the United Kingdom. The figures given today show that unemployment in Ulster is half as bad again as in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Tribute must be paid to those in Ulster and throughout the United Kingdom who are working diligently. I appreciate that in society there are some who are unemployable, but there are also some in my constituency who do not seek work, who never have and who rely on society and lie on a feather bed while the rest of the community do the work. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is shaking his head. It is some of his close friends across the Irish sea that I am talking about, supporters of Sinn Fein who lie all day and roam all night doing damage in the Province. It does nothing to the stature of an hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench to shake his head and suggest that that is not so. We who live in Ulster know exactly those who are happy to depend upon the state and get all the benefits they can. Although they blow up Crown property, they are sure to stretch out their hand to catch the floating pound coming down. They will reach out for Her Majesty's head upon the £1, £5, £10 or £50 notes.
I shall not allow any hon. Member to tell me or any other Member for Ulster what is going on there. There are in Ulster people dedicated to relying upon the state and giving absolutely nothing back to the country in which they are happy to live. If they are not happy to stay, we would be better without them. If they want to take their place in the so-called paradise of the Irish Republic, let them go there. They will get their eyes opened and find how little of a paradise it is.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will not be speaking because every time he speaks in the House he looks to Dublin first and—
Mr. Soley: I shall be speaking.
Rev. William McCrea: Unfortunately, my hopes have been dashed. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman has given us misleading information because I thought that we would not hear the usual rhyme of unreasonableness from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. However, probably we will have to suffer that later.
What is galling to members of Unionist parties in Northern Ireland—I include all Unionists—is that many of those who parade behind banners about unemployment

443
are from the very same group that is destroying the economy by blowing and blasting jobs out of existence. Indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) has the audacity and the cheek to suggest that he and Sinn Fein are worried about jobs and unemployment when that organisation has kept employment down by blasting jobs out of existence. It has kept away investment that might have come from other countries. It is correct that they should not be received by any Minister of the Crown when they have done such a good job of destroying the basic fabric of employment. Even though many Benches are empty, the House needs to learn a lesson. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) is not here because she might get her facts right and might learn a little about the problems.
Mr. James Nicholson: In regard to what the hon. Member has said about the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), a recent example has been the blowing up of the factory in Armagh city with the result that 175 people have been put on the dole in a town where there is terrible unemployment. The group responsible for that will say that it is fighting for people's rights, but it has taken that employment away. It is a scourge to the people of Northern Ireland. The sooner the Government and the House wake up to that the better.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Member for those timely remarks. It is right to draw to the attention of the House the fact that many of those jobs were held by decent Roman Catholics who are now out of employment. The IRA, which suggests that it is the protector of the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland, is the very body that has blown to pieces the job prospects of those people. I intended to refer to Bairnswear because many hon. Members have felt the impact of the blowing up of that factory. I have been contacted by persons who were employed there; they wanted as many voices as possible to be raised about it because they were genuinely concerned about jobs. We must dispose of a lot of the waffle that we hear continuously about people who say that they are concerned about unemployment.
I suggest that if Her Majesty's Opposition are so concerned about jobs and unemployment in Northern Ireland, it is time that they got off the fence and started condemning the terrorists properly instead of giving a halfhearted condemnation or condoning them. It is time that they called some of their hon. Members into line instead of insulting the hard-working, honest, decent people of Northern Ireland, who desire to go about their jobs. It is time that they condemned those who are blasting jobs out of existence.
I have great sympathy with those young people who desire to set up homes but are without work. They need our concern and not simply that of the House. Her Majesty's Government will have to increase their effort to make sure that these young people are put back to work. There are people in Northern Ireland who desire to work and will give their best to society and to the nation of which they are proud, but are not being allowed to do so. Every young man and woman of talent and industry should be used in Ulster to ensure that our land returns to prosperity.
However, every Government since the beginning of the troubles must bear responsibility for the present problem
444
of 122,527 unemployed. The Minister said that the political instalibility, the adverse propaganda abroad and terrorism were hindering job prospects in Ulster. The Government are the people who have the power to stop the terrorists, the murderers and the bombers and to bring Ulster back to prosperity. In the name of sanity and law-abiding, decent people in Ulster, we beg the Government to turn our Province to peace and to allow it to get on to a solid jobs foundation for the future.
The Government cannot step aside from this issue. They have the authority and the reins of government with which to face the terrorist. Many hon. Members from Ulster would be delighted to have those reins and to bring the Province back to prosperity. It is not that we are willing to condemn someone but afraid to take the task ourselves. People in Ulster are willing and able to confront the enemies of society.
Political instabillity in the Province cannot be laid on the shoulders of the elected Members for Ulster. The nonsensical figure of 70 per cent. that has been forced on the people of Ulster before democracy will be restored to the Province is not democracy but terrorism. That is unacceptable to the House, and if it is unacceptable here it is unacceptable in the part of the United Kingdom from which I come—the Province.
The Minister said that part of the problem came from political in-fighting. That is rather amusing because something has intrigued me, even disgusted me, since I came to the House. I have become sick at the antics of disgruntled ex-Ministers who, once they get on to the Back Benches, want to cut the lining out of the Prime Minister. If there is political in-fighting, hon. Members should look at their own ranks to see what is happening. Recently an ex-Prime Minister has done some wonderful somersaults and has acted like a spoilt child. It is not good enough to cast aspersions on the representatives who have been continually supported by the Province.
Investment is not encouraged by the behaviour of those stupid Irish-Americans such as Sean McManus, who has gone out of his way to keep investment out of Northern Ireland. He has gone to the United States to ensure that jobs and factories will not be provided for the people in the Province.
Another problem in the Estimates is that of housing. I fear that through their policies the Government are holding the line so tight that they are strangling the child because he cannot breathe properly. Their policies will lead to some sad consequences. I speak as an ex-member of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Its repair policy for its properties is in a deplorable state. The piecemeal method by which the repairs are done is equally deplorable. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East suggested that they are done at a standard that would not be acceptable for any Government grant to an individual. They will be a sad legacy. For example, the wiring in some Housing Executive property is a danger, but is permitted to remain dangerous.
Housing for the elderly is one of the neglected aspects of housing policy. I congratulate those housing associations working in this sector. The Government have supported and encouraged them, and I must do them justice and pay tribute where tribute is due. Elderly people desire independence as long as it is humanly possible and some are able to do that rather than go into an old people's home through the development of the Fold and other housing associations, in which elderly people have their

445
independence, but with somebody there upon whom they can depend. This has been encouraged by the Government, but if the statistics given by Mr. Gorman are correct—and I have no reason to doubt them—this will be sadly lacking in the future, and we shall not be able to meet the demands. The vast number of applications on our list of elderly people looking for housing needs to be considered.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said about grants for housing and of the repairs that are being done to houses that should be pulled down. Rather than continually subsidising public housing, it would be much better to give decent grants to those who wish to buy their own houses and encourage them, because they will have a stake in the community. There used to be a grant of £185 for improving bungalows, but it was taken away. The Government should introduce a more substantial subsidy for those who desire to build houses because they will help by making a definite contribution to the future of society.
I had the privilege on being on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive when the housing sales policy was being introduced. We recommended it to the Government before they recommended it to us. We were delighted that the Government did so and that it is working so well. There have been a few hiccups and I wish that the transfers could have been made more quickly, although I believe that some of them are speeding up. Rather than have young people going into public housing, it would be better to encourage them, with a substantial grant, to build their own houses.
Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the housing subsidy scheme was introduced just after the war it was equivalent to 25 per cent. of the cost of building a dwelling at that time? Perhaps the Minister will explain why that percentage was allowed to fall to a point where it is of no importance.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I accept what he is saying on his own authority, as I must bow to his superiority in years. I was not born until after the war, so I do not know exactly what happened then, except from history books. I am delighted that the historian from East Londonderry has assisted my education. I should be very interested to hear the Minister's reply to the hon. Member.
With regard to the roads in Northern Ireland and the maintenance of the road network, when I spoke to senior officers of the road service department in my constituency they told me firmly that we were storing up trouble. The money allocated for roads in my constituency is far from sufficient to meet the demand. The recent snow and frost have left the roads in an even worse condition than before, according to a road divisional manager whom I visited. The Minister knows well that the Castle Dawson bypass is essential and urgently required for the use of future industry in the Magherafelt area. The town of Magherafelt is chock-a-block and should be bypassed. Some of the worst road networks in Northern Ireland are in my constituency, and there is urgent need to assist industry by providing better roads there.
With regard to health and social services, I shall mention some issues briefly to allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate, although I should love to be able to develop the issues tonight. The places from which
446
ambulancemen serve the community are in a deplorable state. The situation in our hospitals is nothing to write home about, to use a good country expression. The home help service in Ulster is in serious difficulties. The geriatric unit in the mid-Ulster hospital, the alcoholic unit in the Omagh hospital, and the geriatric unit in Fermanagh hospital are all urgently required.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The need for improvement grants, building grants for new houses, geriatric wards and more road building has been mentioned. However, the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned where the money will come from. The people of Northern Ireland may not welcome higher taxes to dish out all the subsidies to which people refer.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reply to his own question. Are we returning to conditions that were unacceptable in the past, when we had to bring up standards? Is the United Kingdom moving forward or is it going backwards? Will the roads and hospitals be in worse condition at the end of the 1980s than at the end of the 1970s? If so, that would be ridiculous. I do not believe that the United Kingdom people or Members of Parliament wish that to happen. However, if those policies continue, we shall be faced with that situation. It is my right as a constituency Member of Parliament to raise the matters which I feel are relevant to my constituency and which are burning issues there now.
Mr. Peter Robinson: One of the possible ways of finding the additional money is to use the money directed to Northern Ireland by the EEC, which has been clawed back by the Treasury.
Mr. Butler: Rubbish.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for his intervention. He is correct in believing that much of the money sent to Northern Ireland to be spent on the Province has been kept in the Treasury's purse. It was not passed on as additionality but was used instead to subsidise others. [Interruption.] It would be best if Ministers carried on their debate after I have finished my remarks. I shall carry on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, without interventions from them.
I turn to social security matters. I shall deal with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, concerning clawback. Massive social security fraud is a fact of life in Northern Ireland. I stress that the problem is massive. It is a national disgrace. Many business men come to me saying, "I cannot get anyone to work for me." That is because people are "doing the double". I do not know whether that expression is used in England, but to me doing the double is not funny or smart. It is illegal and anti-social and deserves to be utterly condemned, which I do on the Floor of the House tonight.
The rest of those who are working pay for it. If we ensure that the thousands of people doing the double in the Province pay proper taxes for every penny that they receive, I genuinely believe that many of my constituency's problems could be alleviated. I should like hon. Members from this side of the water to come to the Province to investigate social security fraud.
I shall not mention agriculture in Ulster, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is more able to deal with the matter than me.

447
A disgraceful situation has developed in education in Northern Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) drew attention to the pupil-teacher ratio. Although I told him that the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland is bottom of the league in the United Kingdom, he said that at least it was staying steady and not going up or down, and that therefore I should feel happy about it. I do not feel happy about it. Why are hundreds of teachers unemployed in Northern Ireland? Our children need the same education as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom and have the right, as British citizens, to the same standard of education. In my constituency, the pupil-teacher ratio is 19·2 to one, while in Scotland it is 16·9 to one and in England 17·9 to one. I believe that education is an investment in the future.
The report by the Department of Education inspectorate on the effects of expenditure policies on the education system in Northern Ireland was very critical of the education cuts. It says that 18 primary schools in Northern Ireland are in such poor condition that they require rebuilding, and that 27 per cent. of secondary schools are classified in various categories of need. In spite of that, the Department of Education has allocated only 1 million for capital works in 1984–85, which amounts to £200,000 per board. That sum would not be sufficient to build even a school extension, never mind a brand new school in one of the board areas.
That is what our children will face in the coming year. Those facts and figures come not from my research as a Member of Parliament, but from the Department which was criticised by its own officials. The inspectorate that reported on the effects of expenditure policy on the education system in Northern Ireland is part of the Department of Education in the Province. It was most critical, and condemned the activity. The report states:
"In all Boards there has been a marked decrease in expenditure on routine maintenance, repair and decoration. Of the 746 returns in this area 217 indicate a less than satisfactory situation, with the balance of unsatisfactory returns weighted to some extent towards the maintained sector. In general the provision of furniture remains satisfactory."
I recommend that report to the House to show that I am not exaggerating the deplorable situation in Northern Ireland education. The report points out that maintenance work is not carried out and that some schools have not been decorated for 25 years. That is not acceptable to my constituents.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to ventilate these matters of genuine concern to my constituents. If the Government put every possible effort into defeating terrorism, the money now devoted to dealing with terrorism and making good the damage caused by bombing and other terrorist activity could be directed to the benefit and betterment of all the people of Northern Ireland.
7.21 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Those who have survived the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will have no difficulty in agreeing with the Opposition spokesman who said that this was one of those occasions on which hon. Members ventilated grievance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will, if he catches your eye later, Mr.
448
Deputy Speaker, refer to the larger matter of the constitutional context of these orders and the debates upon them to which my hon. Friends and I take such strong objection that we have made our point before now by going into the Lobby to vote against the Question that the order be approved.
I wish to refer to a narrower issue relating to the context in which we consider these orders. I am glad that the House will be hearing from the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Horden) who may be said to represent the Committee of Public Accounts, as I believe that we are misusing an excellent and efficiently working machine in the way in which we hold these debates.
A cycle of financial scrutiny has been evolved by the House. The cycle begins with the report of the relevant Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts for a financial year. That is followed, as the second stage, by the report of the Committee of Public Accounts, based on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and on the interrogation of witnesses facilitated by the contents of that report. The third and last stage in the annual cycle is the Government reply. I would not describe that as the most substantial element in the cycle. Indeed, a certain quality of self-satisfaction more often than a serious openness to criticism breathes from the annual document in which the Government respond to the strictures of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
That is the working machinery of our annual cycle of financial scrutiny. But it seems almost as though these debates were organised so that we would invariably miss the bus. That was strikingly illustrated when this very morning we received the Northern Ireland Appropriation Accounts for the year 1982–83, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 24 February 1984, and prefaced by the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, bringing to the attention of the House those matters which in his opinion called for scrutiny and censure in the administration of the financial year 1982–83.
In form, of course, we are considering the Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account for the coming year; but we can perform that task with proper information and in a responsible way only if we can constantly refer to findings on the experience of past years. Yet here we are, on 1 March 1984, having just received the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the year 1982–83. Until now we have been living, so to speak, on the reports for the previous year, the report of the Committee of Public Accounts of April 1983 and the Government's response — flimsy though it was — of October 1983.
The opportunity is not to be missed, and I shall not be so churlish as to set it aside; but I observe that the Comptroller and Auditor General signed that report and certified the accounts as long ago as 31 October 1983. I wish to make a request to the Government; but as, in a sense, it is a matter more for the House than for the Government, I will make my request to the House. I suggest that we curtail the absurd delay in production of the certified accounts and of the all-important 'report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, so that more timely use can be made of it by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland and by the House generally as long as we have to go through this annual cycle of three Oppropriation Orders

449
for Northern Ireland, the first and third of which are all-embracing, the middle one, that which occurs in December, being far more limited in scope.
Mr. Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman said that the accounts were signed on 31 October by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Was the signature put to the accounts or to the report as a whole?
Mr. Powell: The signature appears at the foot of the report. I take it that with that report the Comptroller and Auditor General took leave of the accounts, so to speak, having discharged his duty to the House in respect of the Northern Ireland Appropriation Accounts for 1982–83. We must therefore take it that his work was done and he was submitting it to the House.
We have only ourselves to blame if we allow four months to elapse in such a way that our own cycle of Northern Ireland Appropriation Accounts debates is, as it were, deliberately out of gear with the financial scrutiny mechanism of the House. I hope that that can be put right either by the activity of our Select Committees or by Government pressure, for I am sure we can make more effective use of these debates if we can deal with more recent events and fresher criticisms by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I must observe with sorrow that it will be no great loss if we have to deal with his report while still awaiting the official comments of Government Departments thereon.
It will be appreciated that my hon. Friends and I have not had the opportunity to study the latest report in preparation for the debate. It has been at most a cursory study that we have been able to give to it.
I shall raise only one matter, although I think it is an important one, which was in the forefront of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. That was the arrears of public debt in Northern Ireland. He drew attention not only to the absolute increase in the past four years from £26 million to £46 million, but to a much more serious matter. In paragraph 1 he said:
"The debt expressed as a percentage of the total amount collectable has also increased over this period."
Thus, when we have made all allowance for the effect of inflation on the absolute figures, we are faced with the fact that over the past four years there has been a real increase, that is to say, a proportionate increase, in the amount of public debt which is collectable, but outstanding, in Northern Ireland.
In the course of his report the Comptroller and Auditor General recounts how he put this position to the responsible Departments. I should like to quote in particular what the Housing Executive said to him. It may at first be music in the ears of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but I will introduce another note after sounding this one. In paragraph 8 he said:
"The Executive also believed that it would be difficult to prevent arrears increasing because of the economic and employment situations."
I take issue with that reported opinion of the Housing Executive. If that is its analysis and its approach, I think it not entirely surprising that the Comptroller and Auditor General has confronted us with this report, for it is mischievous to attempt to establish that simple relationship of cause and effect between economic and employment situations on one hand, and the persistent proportionate increase of the public debt on the other.
However, before I come to that argument I should like enlightenment—perhaps this was the smile on the face
450
of the gods to which the Minister who opened the debate referred before he sat down—as to a feature in table 2.17.20 in the Government's expenditure plans, volume II, which in a sense are also before the House. The table shows the estimated average numbers receiving unemployment benefit at any one time. If we run along the columns of the years, we find, not to our surprise I am sorry to say, that that figure increased steadily from 1978–79, the earliest year shown, until the present year, 1983–84. But then, what is our gratification — I hope that it is not ill-founded gratification—when we notice that the figures fall after the present year from £58,000 to £54,400, and remain at that level or a somewhat lower one for the remaining years of the cycle covered by volume II. I hope that, when the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, he will be good enough to provide an explanation for this phenomenon. If this is, indeed, a sign that the Government are counting upon a real and substantial fall in unemployment in the Province, that will be very good hearing, and will be worth all the rest of the debate put together. I hope very much that there is not some statistical trick that may be involved in it.
Mr. Soley: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point, if he looks at paragraph 120 of the Northern Ireland report, he might find other reasons why the debts are increasing. I find those a little troublesome, and may refer to them later in the debate, if I have the opportunity. Will he keep in mind the fundamental point that I and other hon. Members have made from time to time—that people in Northern Ireland are being squeezed by high energy costs and high rents costs at a time when incomes are not rising? The debt on energy alone has gone up consequently from approximately £500,000 to well over £2 million on account for the people in Northern Ireland in the last four years.
Mr. Powell: I will return, after my query related to volume II of the expenditure plans, to the phenomenon of increasing public debt, and the attitude that we ought to take to it.
Not for the first time in these debates, there is a marked contrast between the theoretical approach of hon. Members who speak from the Front Benches — particularly those hon. Members who speak from the Opposition Front Bench — and the personal experience of hon. Members who are living day by day with the problems of their constituents. I do not think I am alone among hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in saying that I always refuse to countenance from a constituent a threat or an intimation that that person is in deliberate arrears. I invariably come back to the constituent and say that I am very sorry to learn that that is so, and the constituent will understand that, until some arrangement has been come to, it would be quite wrong for me to attempt to deal with his problem, and that I have no intention of doing so. Having pursued that policy for the last nine or ten years, I have very few failures to record, and that brings me to the human point which I wish to make.
Mr. William Ross rose—
Mr. Powell: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will develop this point. It is my experience that accrual of arrears in a family is a danger sign in respect of that family. It is not something that ought to be treated as just another

451
addition to a statistical aggregate. Still less is it something that ought to be written off as another of the inevitable manifestations of original sin. I have invariably found that, when arrears have been brought to my attention, the examination of those arrears by the proper agencies who are at the service of hon. Members has brought to light real problems and real weaknesses under which that family was suffering, usually remediable and nearly always capable of palliation. That is information straight from direct experience in representing, and dealing with, the people of the Province. Upon that basis, I say that it is a sign of evil omen if agencies such as the Housing Executive are allowing the ratio of public debt to increase; for it means that the social services are not being brought into operation, as they ought to be brought into operation when the danger signal of arrears is taken as seriously as it ought to be.
When, therefore, an hon. Member representing Northern Ireland refers—and refers as critically as did the Comptroller and Auditor General—to the growth of public debt in the Province as a bad sign, he is not manifesting a scrooge mentality; he is responding to his experience of what can be done if the signs are heeded, and dealt with, when they appear in the life of an individual or a family.
It has been customary in these debates for Ministers—we understand why—to issue a plea in advance to have warning of the subjects that might be sprung upon them by those taking part, though a clear relationship has not always been visible between the winding-up speech and the notices given prior to the debate. The Minister who is to wind up will understand how, with such recent availability of crucial material, it was not possible to give full notice of all matters that might be raised. However, I will deal next with the two matters I specifically did notify to the Government Front Bench.
The first relates to agricultural grants, non-payment of. When I was preparing for the debate, I invited my private secretary to go through my pending tray, and pull out the live cases where agricultural grants undoubtedly due for payment were long overdue. She produced six, but by remarkable coincidence I received a letter from—I was going to say, Heaven forgive me—the absentee lord. We are not unaccustomed in Ireland and Northern Ireland to absentee lords. Some of us wonder whether we do not have one in the Department of Agriculture. Anyhow, coincidence or not, I received a letter from him today dated 29 February, which cleared up one of the six cases—but only by informing me that the claimant had died in the meantime, while awaiting payment.
Of the remaining five cases I shall not trouble the House with more than two. I shall refer to the one because it is typical and because I think that the House should be aware of the consequences of the administrative failure in the Department of Agriculture as they actually affect people. I shall refer to the other case because it reveals the mentality in the Department which is the cause of the failure. I quote, but only briefly, a farmer who wrote to me:
"I have built a silage pit and slurry tank at a cost of £5,000 and you know you have to have all paid receipts for the Ministry before you can claim grant. I have borrowed money from the bank to obtain these receipts so as to claim the grant and sent them all off to the agricultural office in Belfast 15 months ago,
452
but still have got no payments. The rate of interest which I have paid is desperate which is going to leave my grant of little use, and still no sign of it coming."
Through the syntax of that letter the House will detect the genuine desperation of the farmer who wrote it. We have in all our minds what is likely to be the percentage rate of interest which he is paying on his bank loan. He was entitled to assume that the loan could be paid off long ago instead of having to offset the interest payments against the grant which he should have received.
What is the attitude of the Minister in charge of the Department to this situation? It is not a new situation. It is one which has been brought to the Government's attention repeatedly at Question Time and in these debates over the past nine months. The noble lord replied to me on 10 February. He wrote:
"You will already be aware"—
Yes, I am—
"that there is a considerable backlog of claims under this scheme and that it has become necessary to deploy additional staff to the preparation of payments."
It cannot be less than six months since I personally inquired after progress in the deployment of staff to deal with the backlog. The noble lord continued:
"I am hopeful that the measures taken will soon result in a return to a more acceptable situation."
I have not sent on the noble lord's concluding words of comfort to my constituent, because I sent a reply to the noble Lord instead; but he concluded:
"Mr. Murray's claim will be processed for payment as quickly as possible."
There has to be an end to this attitude of mind towards the payment of money which is due to those who have undertaken liabilities and incurred loans for the purpose of agricultural improvement. I express the hope that this is the last debate in which it will be necessary to bring the matter to the Government's attention.
Finally, there is a matter which is not entirely easy to bring wholly within the scope of the order but which I hope the Minister will allow me to deal with by inquiring whether he has been in touch with his UK colleague on the subject. After all, there is Northern Ireland responsibility for navigation to the harbours of Northern Ireland and round the coast of Northern Ireland.
The Commissioners of Irish Lights, who are responsible for the lighthouses round the coast of the entire island, receive £1 million of revenue from the Irish Republic to offset against £6·5 million of expenditure which they incur in lighting the coasts of that country. Attention has already been drawn to this matter and I see I have the assent of the hon. Member for Horsham to that proposition. It is a matter which should not be allowed to slide. It is unacceptable that another country is not paying its whack, or is being subsidised—subsidised by, among others, the people of Northern Ireland — for the provision of services in a completely separate and independent country. This is a matter, too, that I hope it will not be necessary once again to ventilate in these debates.
7.46 pm
Mr. Peter Hordern: I have been called by the occupant of the Chair immediately after the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in a number of debates in the past, generally on economic matters. I have never previously had the good fortune to be called to take up his remarks in a debate on Northern Ireland, because, unlike him, this is my first venture at speaking in a debate

453
on Northern Ireland. That being so, I crave the indulgence of all those present in the Chamber. My constituency is about as far removed from Northern Ireland as could be imagined. However, I do not think that that is any reason why those of us who take an interest in the Province should not from time to time seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially on matters as important as the Supplementary Estimates.
The right hon. Member for Down, South dealt with two reports from the Committee of Public Accounts, upon which I have the privilege to sit. When referring to one of them he mentioned the shortfall in collection of moneys due from the Housing Department and said, quite rightly, that the House would not do a service to itself if it passed by these debts and did not consider the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report upon them, and, if necessary, comment adversely upon them, as I believe we have done before.
It is tempting—I have felt this myself on the PAC—to think that as so many things are difficult in the Province we should perhaps not listen too carefully, too sedulously, to the difficulties which are so well known. However, we must resist that temptation if we are to do the duty which the House expects of us, and I hope and think that we acquit ourselves well of it.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred also to lighthouses, for which we pay, which illuminate the Republic of Ireland's coasts and for which that country does not pay. If this continues, to paraphrase something which Lord Grey, a famous Foreign Secretary said, the lights will go out all over Ireland. I hope that it will not be too long before the Republic comes up with the money.
As taxpayers we produce and provide a good deal of money for the population and people of Northern Ireland. I understand that in 1981–82 public expenditure amounted to £2,242 per head. That compares with £1,449 in England. Public expenditure in Northern Ireland is already considerable, yet I heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State say that the level of unemployment is half as bad again in the Province as it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, one of the greatest experts in the House on public expenditure, will agree that if there were any other similar part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland which could be isolated in the same way, it might well show a similar proportionate public expenditure per capita to that which is inevitably thrown up by the manner in which the affairs of Northern Ireland are dealt with.
Mr. Hordern: I have the figures but, alas, not among the papers on which I can immediately lay my hands. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in comparison with Scotland and Wales the expenditure per head is higher in Northern Ireland. I am not making a great point of this, but merely stating the facts about public expenditure.
Mr. Powell: I am more than grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. May I point out that to generalise for Scotland and Wales is not comparable with isolating Northern Ireland?
Mr. Nicholas Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) will make better than I would have made a point which I hoped to develop, but which I shall not have the opportunity to do as the
454
preceding speeches have gone on at considerable length. The figures I have are £2,256 for Northern Ireland, £1,882 for Scotland, £1,704 for Wales and £1,449 for England.
Mr. Hordern: I am deeply obliged to my hon. Friend for producing the figures for which I was searching. The point of the right hon. Member for Down, South was that no great import should be attached to those figures because one part of the country cannot be isolated from another. I doubt that, but I shall not make a strong point about it because it is not important to my argument. No one would deny that a great deal of public money is paid out in Northern Ireland. So long as money is properly spent, I have no objection to the principle of large sums of public money being spent in the Province.
I have the honour to be a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, and I have seen the papers relating to the De Lorean car investment. However, I shall not talk about that now, as there is much more information still to come; the Committee of Public Accounts has not yet completed its consideration of the matter and we shall no doubt debate it later.
What is clear from the De Lorean project is the desperate desire of the then Government to do something about Northern Ireland and to improve employment in west Belfast. It did not much matter what the nature of the project was. Therefore, the House will not be surprised that such a project involved large risks which could be, and were, foreseen. I wish to contrast that assessment of risk with other means that might be available to help the economy of Northern Ireland. I do not understand why a distinction is made between one form of special investment and another in Northern Ireland, and in the development areas in the country generally, whereas for taxation we have laid down the notion of fiscal equity, from which there must be no departure, especially on regional grounds. The result is that regional grants are many in number and character and, I regret to say, difficult to measure in their effectiveness and rather wasteful. It is difficult to defend a system in which there is absolute fiscal equity in, for example, corporation tax, yet in respect of income tax, no fewer than 56 reliefs are available. The presumption on which the Revenue works and on which, therefore, successive Governments have worked, is that the money belongs to the Revenue and not to the people, for taxation purposes. I cannot understand why this principle of fiscal equity should be considered so sacrosanct.
The Secretary of State said on 23 March 1983:
"The Government have decided to introduce a new grant that will reimburse new and expanding industries up to 80 per cent. of the corporation tax paid on profits generated by approved projects." — [Official Report, 23 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 865.]
It must have squeezed the Inland Revenue terribly to allow such a concession. Hon. Members should note that it applies only to new and expanding industries and, presumably, not to those that are already established in Northern Ireland. They should also note that the grants are to be allowed only for approved projects.
I wonder what damage would have been done had the Secretary of State been able to announce that, as from Budget day, the rate of corporation tax in Northern. Ireland would be nil. That is, nobody would pay tax on profits generated within Northern Ireland. I have wearied the House previously by saying that that would be a very good thing in any case for our entire tax regime. It is one of the

455
most unnecessary forms of taxation today. I shall leave that be, but we should experiment—we experimented with all sorts of regional devices for De Lorean and almost any activity can generate a grant. Why should we not then have complete relief on corporation tax within the Province, and encourage those industries that are already there and new industries to be built up? What is the objection to it? Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not accede to this view? What possible harm could come from creating such a distinction so that companies operating in the Province would not have to pay corporation tax? It would be a far more effective measure than all the grants, capital handouts and other forms of assistance that are at present provided. I am not arguing for one against the other, but for both. The House may think that that would be expensive, but the cost of complete relief on corporation tax within the Province would, at most, be £40 million. That sum could easily be found within the Budget, and I hope that the Minister will be good enough to pass on my suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
For many years I have read about the desire of the minority in Northern Ireland and the majority in the Republic of Ireland to form a union of Ireland. What is the economic basis upon which such a union is to be formed? As I said, the sum that this country gives, over and above what would otherwise be received, to Northern Ireland includes a subvention of £1,145 million. The total revenue of the Republic of Ireland is just over £4·1 billion. If there were to be a union of the North and the South—that is what Opposition Members actively support—it it could not expect a contribution to be made by citizens of this country. If that were to be the case, how would the people of Northern Ireland be supported by such a small country—the second poorest in the European Community—which has a total budget of £4 billion, when their subvention is now more than £1 billion?
Mr. Soley: I appreciate that this is the first time the hon. Gentleman has spoken in such a debate. If he examines some of my previous comments on the matter in the House and elsewhere, he will see that I have for some time argued the need for a bridging support loan. Everyone knows that. More important, the central part of the argument is that the border has distorted the economy of Ireland and, therefore, we must bridge that by the harmonisation processes that are necessary, especially in agriculture and industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I hope that when dealing with that intervention the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) will bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with the Appropriation Order.
Mr. Hordern: I am sorry that I have not heard the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) previously, because I should have wished to deal with his argument. However, since I am going a little wide of the Supplementary Estimates, I shall content myself by saying that I do not understand how discussions can take place on this matter without serious politicians in the Republic, and in the Province, saying how they expect to finance such a scheme.
However, having said that, I do not wish to leave the impression that I am against the amount of public
456
expenditure in Northern Ireland, although the House has heard me say more than once that the general level is too high. The accounts examined by the CPA demonstrate beyond preadventure that the money is not well directed, that it is inefficiently directed and that there is too much waste. Furthermore, we are proceeding on the basis that Britain must have a high tax regime. I reject that notion, especially for the poorest part of the United Kingdom.
8 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Although I cannot speak with the eloquence of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), I thank him for what he has evidently done for Northern Ireland in the Public Accounts Committee. It was an education to me to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that I have learnt something. I wish him all the best in the future when dealing with the affairs of the Province.
I represent one of the most deprived areas of the inner city of Belfast. I acknowledge the Government's efforts in financing activities in the Province, and I pay tribute to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. However, I believe that the doubling of portfolios imposes an undue strain on them, especially in the light of the extremely difficult circumstances in which they work. More administrative help should be given to them so that they can respond more readily to the pleas of our constituents.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman call as evidence of that strain the decision, which could not have been taken by a reasonable man, of the Minister who is responsible for two of the largest Departments in Northern Ireland to change the name of the city council of Londonderry?
Mr. Walker: I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. From my experience, Ministers are overloaded with work and they should have some assistance. However, I take the point of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
I agree with what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) said about senior citizens and housing. There are more than 180,000 senior citizens in Northern Ireland, a large proportion of whom live in the inner city. They flatly refuse to leave the city where they were born and bred. When the younger, more able, people moved to rural areas to escape what we know as planners' blight, the elderly were left to hold the fort in circumstances which they could not help.
I have great respect and admiration for our senior citizens, especially those who live in the inner city where I work, but we cannot regard them as a homogeneous population. Recently retired people in good health cannot be considered in the same terms as those aged more than 75. Some people need more help than others, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they get that help. Many elderly people receive supplementary benefit, which is aimed at supplementing whatever income they may have. However, many find it impossible to manage, and we must take into account the fact that food and fuel costs in Northern Ireland are much higher than they are in Great Britain, with the result that basic diet is sometimes ignored and poverty is experienced.
Mr. McCusker: Does my hon. Friend accept that those people do not contribute to the public debt either in terms

457
of rent arrears or heating costs, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred?
Mr. Walker: I understand and accept my hon. Friend's point.
Younger people are more aware of their rights and know how to go about acquiring them. It is essential that a campaign is launched to inform the elderly about taking up benefits so that we ensure that the most vulnerable group in society is well looked after. I realise that many voluntary bodies help, but it is imperative that they be backed by Government assistance. We owe it to senior citizens to care for them and to ensure that they get their slice of the bread with a little jam on it.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, the elderly have special housing needs. At present much of the housing occupied by senior citizens in the inner city of Belfast is completely inadequate. I have seen many elderly people living in accommodation that is almost falling down and that constitutes a serious health hazard. Several agencies build special housing for the elderly, but they do not build enough, especially since the population is aging faster than provision can be made for them.
There are many small pieces of vacant land in Belfast near shops and other amenities which would provide excellent sites for houses for the elderly. Perhaps the Minister could investigate this. Other hon. Members might have a similar experience in their constituency, but I can tell the House that in my constituency the Housing Executive is not anxious to contribute seriously to the welfare of the elderly.
I hope that the Minister can say that legislation will be introduced to provide for the repurchase by the Housing Executive of Orlit houses, which cannot be made fit for habitation for a further 30 years. That will relieve the anxieties of the majority of people who live in such houses. I also draw the Minister's attention to those who have purchased Orlit houses in the private sector, and who are naturally worried about possible weaknesses in them. It should be the Government's responsibility to protect the interests of that group which, although small, is nevertheless deserving of our sympathy and understanding.
I thank the Government for their commitment to the provision of new housing, and I am glad to note that they are now devoting energy and finance to rehabilitate and repair the existing stock much of which has fallen into serious disrepair. However, although such attention is necessary and is appreciated by long-suffering tenants, there is widespread anxiety that in some cases the rehabilitation process wastes resources.
There are reports of poor quality materials, bad workmanship and lack of supervision. Moreover, concern has been expressed about what are described in Belfast as cowboy builders. As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said, these builders are known to employ many people who are drawing unemployment benefit. When I reported some of these incidents to the Housing Executive, I am sorry to report that it was reluctant to become involved in any action that might discourage such practices. It told me that it awarded contracts primarily on price. I realise that price is important, but it should be related to many other factors which, together, make value for money. I am concerned about what I see as anomalies in the source of supply of
458
materials to the Housing Executive and also anomalies in the system of awarding contracts. These matters should be investigated.
While I am on the subject of housing, may I express my concern about the Government's intention to extend the period of time fixed for tenders, and point out that the Northern Ireland construction industry is vehemently opposed to such a proposal. Since December 1973, the Government's policy has been to invite firm price tenders only for projects where the contract period does not exceed one year, and taking into account the generally accepted rates of inflation. Now it is apparently the Government's intention to extend the period for contracts up to two years. I do not believe that anyone can forecast what will happen to inflation during the next two years, and it therefore seems unfair in the current climate to penalise the building industry in this way.
Mr. Chris Patten: As the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) is a reasonable man, I am sure he would concede that inflation has fallen considerably since the rules were drawn up. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to take account of that fact now in dealing with the construction industry.
Mr. Walker: I do not quite agree with that, and I shall say why.
If this proposal is implemented, contractors who adopt a realistic attitude to pricing are unlikely to get work. We talk at present of an inflation factor of 4 to 5 per cent., and that can lose builders contracts, particularly when big money is involved. Builders who include a smaller rate of inflation in their price will be faced with financial hardship, and that will not be in the interests of either the industry or the Government.
We could also have problems with two-year pay agreements, which themselves could be inflationary. Indeed, specialist materials and equipment with long delivery dates carry a high risk of price increases, and when such items are also imported prices can be less predictable. Tenders are already being priced at sub-economic prices, so there is no scope for further losses. I hope that the Government will realise that the building industry is going through a traumatic period, and that their proposals can only add to its many problems.
I want to say a word about the speech that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), made to the city council on 16 January. All of us on the city council thought that it was an excellent speech. It underlined the Government's commitment to our capital city. The Minister was right when he said that Belfast is the shop window and the commercial heart of Northern Ireland, and that what happens in Belfast gives the world outside the view of our country. It is noted and accepted that the way forward in the development of Belfast city centre should proceed under the co-ordinating committee with the Minister at its head. It is commendable that the Minister's committee has already looked seriously at some options, but I suggest that that committee and the groups working under it should consult the wider interests of the business community and the traders who are actively employed in supporting our beleaguered city.
I want to mention briefly a subject that was touched on by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—the rationalisation of schools. It is recognised that education cannot escape the effects of overall Government financial policy, and

459
that economies must be made that will inevitably mean closures and amalgamations. However, the Government also consider it important to maintain and, where possible, to improve education standards. So I plead with the Minister, in the transitional period running up to rationalisation, not to reduce teaching staff to the extent that the curriculum is adversely affected, because that would only be to the detriment of our children.
Mr. Beggs rose—
Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment, after I have made a further point. Schools are inevitably linked with communities, and when the Minister examines some of the proposed closures or amalgamations I hope that he will bear that in mind and consult the local elected opinion.
Mr. Beggs: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has just said, because I should like it to be clearly understood in the House that radical proposals for the rationalisation of schools in Northern Ireland can have a long-term damaging effect on communities. Special attention should be given to the proposals that are now being put forward by people who seem to be totally insensitive to the needs of Protestant communities, now isolated and about to be decimated.
Mr. Walker: What my hon. Friend says underlines my plea to the Minister to consult the local and elected opinion at the appeal stage on the possible closure of schools.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman will agree that, although we had an assurance about Protestant schools on the border, there are schools in the same type of environment within Northern Ireland where the same threat exists. Their situation is directly parallel, and the same consideration should be shown to schools in Belfast, North and in the constituencies of Antrim, North and elsewhere as was promised for the frontier schools.
Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Member for what he has said, because he has a great knowledge of the subject, and I particularly agree with what he said about Belfast, North. I raised the subject because I feel that we shall have to fight the battle of education again in Belfast, North. It is only the beginning. If the schools are removed, the communities in Belfast, North will be completely isolated. The communities will be completely taken over, and that will be to the detriment of the city. That can only lead to breaches of the peace and great problems.
In relation to Class II, Vote 3 of the order, I want to talk about Harland and Wolff shipyard, where many of my constituents are employed. As we all know, the shipyard is now a lean and keen operation, versatile and well placed to supply almost anything with a marine connection. Moreover, it can deliver at the right time and at the right price. The recent flexiport contract, in my opinion and I am sure in the opinion of all people in Northern Ireland, was a wonderful achievement of which we are justly proud. We are ready and waiting to demonstrate our skills again, and we trust that the Government will recognise that fact in the not-too-distant future.
On Class VI, Vote 2, may I say how successful the enterprise zone has been in the Belfast area. As well as being a means of attracting new investment, it has had a great psychological effect in renewing confidence in the
460
area, and particularly in the part of north Belfast that I represent. I ask the Minister to finish the job by providing environmental works in the way of footpaths, roads and fencing to create the impression necessary to attract would-be investors.
8.21 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: Like the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), I regret that I did not have to shoulder my way into the Chamber and elbow my way into a seat because of the crowd of hon. Members wanting to participate in and listen to the debate, although I suspect that if I were the representative of a party the size of his I might have had a little less cheek in drawing the attention of the House to the subject when there was not a single Member from my party sitting behind me at the time. Nor has there been as the debate has continued. Even the colleague sitting beside him has been spirited away as the debate has gone on—I trust to find some food as well as food for thought.
My intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McCrea) brought a completely uncharacteristic retort from the Minister. In colourful language he said that the remarks that I had made about aid being clawed back by the Treasury, aid that should have come from the EEC to Northern Ireland, were nonsense. It is right for the record to show that funds have been siphoned off to a considerable extent and that Northern Ireland is attributed a share of the United Kingdom contribution of about £300 million. The funds received by Her Majesty's Treasury for Northern Ireland from January 1973 to February 1983 totalled £246·75 million. Unfortunately, only £104·78 million actually came to Northern Ireland; £141·97 million was retained by the Treasury. That indicates quite clearly that my statement was accurate. Here we have one possible method of funding the various grants referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster. Since then the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has shown how a few million pounds more could be saved if, instead of subsidising the citizens of the Irish Republic, we kept money that is going to give those people who are in darkness light around their shoreline.
On Class II the Minister, in opening the debate, described in very helpful terms the task that had been undertaken by the Belfast shipyard of Harland and Wolff, which, I am proud to say, is in my constituency. He referred to its work for the Falklands as a first-class job. He went on to say that the yard had created a good impression with its customers, including the Ministry of Defence. I cannot tell the House how pleased I am to hear a Minister of the Crown make such a remark for I can remember, as will those Members who were present in the last Parliament, a Minister of the Crown with the same responsibility coming to the Despatch Box and likening the Belfast shipyard to a second-class restaurant whose customers would walk out because of the treatment they were receiving.
Such an approach represents a new air of confidence in the shipyard and I trust that this confidence will be demonstrated in a practical way, particularly by the Ministry of Defence. Not only has the shipyard been showing by example that it can do the work well, on time and at the right price, but it has been submitting tender after tender to the Ministry of Defence in an effort to obtain more work. I trust that when he replies the Minister

461
will be able to tell us that before very long there will be good news for Harland and Wolff and that it will be rewarded for the work that it has done, particularly under its new chairman who has done much to create the air of confidence and who has the trust not only of the management but of the men.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember an early-day motion condemning the Minister concerned, and the indignation of the Minister that his statement about Harland and Wolff was put on the record.
Mr. Robinson: I recall it very well. I was half a step away from bringing it to the House as a breach of privilege, because the Minister tried to pressurise me into taking it off the Order Paper. We do not have that situation today and I am glad to be singing the same song as the Minister who opened the debate.
I wonder also, in dealing with this class, whether the Minister, when replying, can give us any good news concerning the tender that was placed by Short Brothers for work in the United States. Over the past few months there have been many rumours of good news for the people of Northern Ireland. Can the Minister be more firm in his reply than the statements that we have seen in our newspapers?
It would be particularly pleasing to the people of Northern Ireland to know that the green, belligerent band of people in the United States who act as the voice in America of the provisional IRA and who have attempted to prevent jobs from staying in Belfast have been unsuccessful in their efforts to stop the United States placing the contract with a Northern Ireland firm.
I concur with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West about any proposal for the privatisation of Short Brothers. I agree with the workers in that firm who feel that it would be disastrous for the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland. They know that the profitable part of the industry—probably the missile section—would be grasped for privatisation immediately and that many of the less profitable parts would be dropped and would probably cease to exist along with the jobs of the present work force. There is no good reason why the Government should upset a system that has proved to work very well.
On Class III (1), dealing with the Northern Ireland gas industry, I wish to place before the Minister the concern of many people in Northern Ireland about the Northern Ireland gas company and its present antics. I will leave to one side the argument about Kinsale gas as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) has sought to do much to remove the word "Kinsale" and have it replaced by "natural" as he believes that to call it "Kinsale gas" is not a selling point. There are others using more expensive methods to sell Kinsale gas. Even though it is years away, they are spending money as if the Treasury coffers are open to them and advertising it in a fashion that has left most people bemused as to what they are advertising when there is nothing to see yet. Surely the money could be far better spent on advertising the present gas industry rather than on trying to sell a product which will not be in use for at least another two years. Can the Minister confirm that the advertising agency that has received the contract is a very new one? How many hundreds, thousands or millions of pounds has it spent or does it intend to spend on behalf of the British taxpayer over the next few years
462
before Northern Ireland has natural gas? I understand that it has been spending roughly £15,000 for every 45 seconds on television and a couple of thousand pounds for each page it takes in our local newspapers—all to little avail. Given the state of the Northern Ireland economy that money could be much better spent to the benefit of the Ulster people.
Public funds have also been wasted on consultancy fees for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. That matter is contained under Class V. The Committee of Public Accounts has considered that matter in relation to the Department of the Environment and has expressed concern, particularly about the bridge in Londonderry. It is causing considerable concern within the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Firms are receiving a rip-off of about 10 per cent. of the contract price for consultancy money that they have not earned. When consultancy work has been carried out in my constituency it is poorly supervised and many problems occur that require Housing Executive staff to step in as trouble-shooters to sort them out. There must be a mechanism to reduce considerably the money being paid to consultants, making it more commensurate with the work that is put in to the benefit of the contract.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred to homelessness. That matter has been pressed by Shelter in Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with the views expressed. Will the Minister say what advantage there would be if Northern Ireland were to have legislation similar to that in Great Britain to deal with homelessness? How might that differ from the priority system on the selection scheme in Northern Ireland? Would legislation similar to that in Great Britain be of any advantage unless the Government step up the number of houses that they are building? There is no advantage in having the right to be housed if there is nothing to house people in.
As a general principle I have some sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I shall go no further at this stage because I shall be chairing an inquiry in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I do not want to appear prejudiced or to have any predetermined view. The Minister will be coming before the Committee on another matter a week from today. I have no prejudiced view on that and I do not want him to think I have pre-empted the Committee's decision by expressing a view on this matter today.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the issue of the publication of the survey on housing conditions. He said that he would leave his comments on the unfitness of housing in Northern Ireland until the publication of that survey. When he does see that survey, will he treat it with some scepticism? The figures will indeed show that the unfitness rate has reduced considerably but I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think for one moment that that is because houses have been made fit to live in. Many houses have been demolished: that is how the Housing Executive has dealt with the unfitness problem, particularly in Belfast. It demolishes the houses to make the statistics look better. As a consequence, there is serious overcrowding in many dwellings and many people are forced on to the waiting list with little expectation of obtaining accommodation because of the 23,000 odd already on the waiting list. The Minister has already said that the Housing Executive has reduced the number of house starts in the forthcoming year.

463
There are 23,736 on the waiting list in Northern Ireland yet there are many empty houses. It has been revealed that 204 properties outside redevelopment areas in Belfast have lain idle for more than one year. In Northern Ireland as a whole 1.542 lay idle for more than one year. In Belfast 444 lay idle for just less than one year and in Northern Ireland as a whole 1,799 lay idle for just less than one year. We must ask why, when many people are in great need of accommodation, living in deplorable conditions, we have empty houses many of which are in perfect order. In some cases they have been purchased by the Housing Executive after improvement grants have been paid and work has been carried out. The houses are left idle after all that money has been spent until they can be knocked down as part of a redevelopment scheme in four or five years' time. That cannot be a good policy. Therefore, will the Minister persuade the Housing Executive that there should be a more flexible allocation system which would ensure that such properties are allocated more quickly?
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) dealt with rationalisation and education. As hon. Members are well aware, the Department of Education is adhering rigidly to the view that a viable primary school needs at least 222 pupils. The education and library boards are inflexible when the financial screw is applied. As a result, many schools, particularly in the Belfast area, are being forced to close despite the fact that special local considerations should be taken into account, allowing such schools to remain outside the rationalisation project.
The Robert Bell primary school in my constituency was built for the Clarawood estate to accommodate about 180 children — below the criterion set down by the Department of Education. That school had 147 pupils when it was put on the Government's hit list. Because it was on that list of schools that are likely to be closed under rationalisation, parents did not want to send their children there only to have them uprooted in one or two years' time. Therefore, they sent their children to the Orangefield primary school, which is perhaps the closest to the estate. As a result, the Robert Bell school now has only 99 pupils. The Belfast education and library board has now brought the axe down on the Robert Bell school. The kernel of the community has been ripped out because of the Department's inflexible rationalisation policy. The Clarawood estate has no churches, few local shops and no recreational provision. On top of that, parents will have to send their children across open playing fields on dark winter mornings, which is less than desirable. There will be much inconvenience for parents and children.
Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have strictly adhered to a numbers game policy and failed to consider the social and special needs of the communities? Does he accept that the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) contains many dangerous areas through which children will be sent at a danger to their lives if the schools on the hit list are closed?
Mr. Robinson: I fully accept that point. It carries on logically from what I was saying. We are especially disturbed when considering the dangers in which young children on the peace line in west and north Belfast are being placed. The Government's policy does not take into account the social needs of the community. That policy is
464
inflexible and is based solely on finance—not education and certainly not community needs. I hope that before long the education and library boards can reverse their decision. They may do so if the Minister were not making cuts in public expenditure over their heads and forcing them to take action they might otherwise not have taken.
I now tread the ground that no hon. Member has trodden in this debate—the expenditure for the Northern Ireland Assembly in Class XI, Vote 1. I am pleased that all the critics of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who in past months and years have strongly raised their voices in this House, have been silenced because of the clear answer from the Secretary of State. Last Thursday, he spoke of the significant successes of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Two out of every three recommendations made to him by the Northern Ireland Assembly were being accepted. The House would be proud of that success rate, if it could achieve it. It reflects the fact that the hard work of some, if not many, members of the Northern Ireland Assembly is being rewarded. The success rate answers all those who, even before the child was conceived, were saying that it would not be born.
Statements of varying strength came from a range of people—from the Sinn Fein, Cardinal Thomas O'Fiaich, the IRA, Charles Haughey, Garret FitzGerald, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Irish National Liberation Army, the Irish Republican Socialist party and the Official Unionist party. Some of the Back Benchers—or should I say, back stabbers—of the Secretary of State said that the child would never be born.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman, when drawing the attention of the House to such an extensive list, ensure that he does not commit the indiscretion of omitting the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly who, while debating the setting up of that body, said that it would be nothing but a useless talking shop? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that there is an old saying about "lies, damned lies and statistics"? The hon. Gentleman said that two thirds of the recommendations have been accepted. Does he agree with me that many of those acceptances were inevitable and that it would have been better to ask the Secretary of State how often the Assembly managed to change his mind? The hon. Gentleman would have received a significantly different answer.
Mr. Robinson: I am happy to act as mediator in the matter and leave the question to the Under-Secretary of State. I should not wish to be guilty of any indiscretion in the House. As a Christian, I am pleased to seek conversions. If the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly took the view expounded by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), I am pleased that the Northern Ireland Speaker, who is one of the healthiest and most vociferous proponents of the Northern Ireland Assembly, is convinced by its successes. As one who believes people can be converted, I have high hopes for the hon. Gentleman as well.
Rev. Ian Paisley: All the same, the hon. Member was a strong supporter.
Mr. Robinson: Before the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was converted from being a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly into a Member of the House of Commons, he too was a great

465
advocate of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Unfortunately, his membership of the House has changed his mind about the Assembly, although I am not sure in what fashion.
No one can take away the credit that is due for the fact that 138 of the Assembly's recommendations have been accepted, whereas 78 have not. That rate of achievement has been more significant than the achievement of the Official Unionist party in the past 12 years in the House.
I am pleased to have a Northern Ireland Assembly, because we can achieve more through it, because Northern Ireland public representatives have a concentrated force in that Assembly. In this House, we are a diluted force, as there are 650 Members of Parliament. Our voice, therefore, cannot come across as strongly as it can from that concentrated base in Northern Ireland. I challenge those hon. Members who say that the Northern Ireland Assembly is worthless and only a talking shop to bring to the House at any time all their achievements for Northern Ireland brought about by their efforts in the House in the past 12 years. I will come to the House with the achievements of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the past 12 months, and we shall see who has the largest stack in front of him and who has made the best case. I suggest that it will be clearly seen that the Northern Ireland Assembly will be the winner.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) concluded by dealing with local government in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I can persuade the Under-Secretary of State, who has responsibility for local government, to give a pat on the back to the one district council in Northern Ireland that has shown it can improve and extend the service to its ratepayers while reducing the local rate. For the second year in succession Castlereagh borough council has been able to reduce its rate while increasing its service. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State is about to pop up to reply to that comment.
Mr. Chris Patten: I am popping up to say how much I endorse the hon. Gentleman's statement. I welcome the amount of work that the council has done in improving the environment. It has made a splendid difference to the environment in Castlereagh and to the east of Belfast. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having the good fortune to represent a constituency which includes that borough council.
Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. The harmony with the Under-Secretary of State may not continue, because I doubt that he will jump up in support of my next comment on his proposal to change the name of the city council from Londonderry to Derry.
It is clear to everyone in Northern Ireland that there are people in that city council who are happy to receive London's money but who are not happy to take London's name. If the history books were well read, it would be clearly seen that the honourable Irish society, which was set up to civilise that part of Ireland, as it was then, spent significant sums building a vast number of houses—perhaps houses nearly as good as those built under the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's housebuilding programme—in the city of Londonderry. It built up the trade and agriculture of the county of Londonderry and, in appreciation of the London connection or link, the change in the name from Derry to Londonderry took place.
466
Until the 1960s there was a happy use of both Londonderry and Deny. I am a member of an organisation known as the Apprentice Boys of Deny, and it is proud to have that name. The Protestants, Unionists and Loyalists who come from that area are happy to call themselves Derrymen. It was a matter that did not provoke excitement and it certainly was not taken as being an offensive remark to say that one was from Derry. Then, in the 1960s, as part of a deliberate campaign by Republicans to loosen the London connection, they emphasised that they had dropped the name London from the name of the city. As a result, the Unionist community emphasised the London pan of the name.
In 1973, a review took place of local government under McCrory. Londonderry city council was set up and eventually the SDLP became the dominant force on that city council. It, together with the Irish Independence party, was responsible for ruling the city and since then, while the council has been ruled by the Republican element, there has been misrule.
It started with the attempt by the Republican council to use ratepayers' money to have a GAA pitch in the centre of a Protestant area. I remind the House that the GAA is an organisation which discriminates in its membership against the security forces and which flies the flag of a foreign country over its grounds, clearly an offence to the Protestant community in Londonderry. It then asked the security forces to remove check points and bases that were defending Protestant areas from IRA attack. It inserted an inscription in a foreign language on to the crest of the city, lowered the Union Jack, the flag of this nation, from the mast post on the council offices in Londonderry, and followed up with many other acts of discrimination, such as moving all the council offices into one building in the Bogside area, where no Protestant would go.
They were all acts of discrimination, but against that background — not one act taken on its own — the Minister smiled approvingly when, as a further act of discrimination against the Protestants in the city of Londonderry, the council decided to remove the London connection by dropping the name London. Indeed, it has made it clear that it intends to go a step further by asking for the name of the city to be changed.
The Minister should not be surprised at the deep resentment in the Loyalist, Unionist and Protestant community in Northern Ireland over his decision, and I ask him even at this late stage please to consider the matter again, remembering the history of the Province and of the island as a whole, of which Londonderry is a special part I ask him to look at the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which gives him power to act in Northern Ireland. Surely this clear act of discrimination — being discrimination against those of a political and religious view — is contrary to section 19 of that Act, which forbids him to act in a manner which discriminates against any section of the Northern Ireland community on religious or political grounds.
8.55 pm
Mr. Harold McCusker: In part II, Class III, of the order we see that almost £40 million is intended to be spent during the next year on energy. Reference has been made to the consequences of very high energy costs to the people of Northern Ireland. It is sad to note that of

467
that £40 million, £30 million will be spent on subsidies to keep electricity tariffs in line with the highest tariffs on the mainland.
Will the Minister say what prospect there is that one day we shall hear that some of his money will be spent on reducing the costs of generating electricity in the Province, as distinct from simply subsidising the expensive generation that we have today? Shall we soon know whether there will be a move on lignite—to convert or build a plant that can use lignite—and will there soon be news about the conversion of Ballylumford or one of the other power stations to use coal? It is a sad state of affairs that £30 million should be used simply to keep expensively generated electricity costs down. I would rather see that volume of money being used to change the situation.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) refer to the gas industry. Most hon. Members will be aware of my interest in that industry in Northern Ireland. I have no dealings, however, with the new Northern Ireland gas company that has been set up. However, all of the 13 gas concerns are closely involved with it—a liaison committee has been established—and I hope that in their dealings with the new company they are taking the opportunity to protect existing gas supplies and are giving the views of their gas departments, not only to that company but to the public relations and advertising campaign which is being developed to keep the gas industry alive.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East belongs to a party which, more than any other party in Northern Ireland, knows the value of good advertising. It has used some sophisticated advertising tehniques to develop and project the party. He knows that the industry is at present fighting for survival and to hold on to a diminishing consumer base. It is also trying to project an image which will attract people to buy natural gas.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East knows precisely why I do not want it identified as Kinsale gas. I hope that one day the natural gas burnt by the Northern Ireland gas industry will either be natural gas found or discovered in and around Northern Ireland or even our share of natural gas from the North sea. If the hon. Gentleman had been here in the five years between 1974 and 1979, as was his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), he would know of the strenuous efforts that he and I made to try to get our share of that natural gas. We did not get it. We are now relying on natural gas from the Irish Republic to keep our industry alive until such time as perhaps we do get it.
It is worth bearing in mind our intention to buy £500 million-worth of natural gas from the Irish Republic. That is a vast sum, and if we must spend relatively large amounts to keep the industry alive—until such time as we can use that other gas—so be it. If the hon. Member for Belfast, East is concerned about spending such a substantial sum in the Irish Republic for any of its products, he should ask his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) about the exchange that we had in Committee when we discussed this issue.
I now have the precise figures for agricultural products bought by firms in Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic. In the five years from 1978 to 1982, our farmers in Northern Ireland bought £334 million-worth of
468
agricultural products from the Irish Republic. If we assume that the average over that period was spent last year, then in the last six years our agriculture in Northern Ireland bought £400 million-worth of agricultural products from the Irish Republic. I make that point to overcome the perennial argument that we are making ourselves wholly dependent upon a hostile foreign country. The hon. Member for Antrim, North knows that the most important industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture. He is always telling us so. Our most vital industry has been dependent on the Irish Republic for agricultural products to the tune of £400 milllion in the past six years. We should be faced with a much greater threat from the Irish Republic if it wished to deprive us of those products than we shall be if we purchase a tiny proportion of our total energy resources from the Republic.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted my remarks. My argument was that the money was being spent by the Northern Ireland gas company on a product that it did not have instead of directing it at the Northern Ireland gas industry to encourage people to continue to use the gas that it has.
Mr. McCusker: The industry is probably now more concerned about the damage that has been done to its image in the past two years by a variety of people. It is trying to project an image which will encourage people to keep their existing gas appliances and, when the time comes, gladly to accept the new form of natural gas which is to be supplied. We cannot say that we are setting ourselves up to be held to ransom by the Irish Republic by buying £500 million-worthof gas over 21 years, when our farmers have bought products costing £400 million over the past six years.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us a progress report about natural gas from the Republic. What is the precise situation? Can the Minister assure us that the people of Northern Ireland are being given opportunities to participate in the contracts that are to be awarded in the scheme at every level, and not just in the field of construction or consultancy? Has any attempt been made to assess what employment prospects will be created in industries such as plumbing? Are special training courses and Government training centres being organised to bring people up to the level of skill that will be required when the massive changes and conversions have to be carried out in two years' time?
Classes IV, VII, II and III of part II of the order cover expenditure by the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and the Department of Economic Development. I draw the Minister's attention again to the problem of the dualling of Banbridge bypass. I am told that a letter arrived in my office this morning, but I am not consoled by the Minister's response. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is here. He, too, can testify that, on that stretch of road, a tremendous hazard has been created by the fact that although all the works for a dual carriageway are there—flyovers, embankments and cuttings—only one single carriageway has been completed. When one drives on to that section of the bypass from the dual carriageway, it takes one some time to realise that one is no longer on a dual carriageway. Seeing the bridges over the road, one tends to assume that one is going down one side of a dual carriageway. It will be only a matter of time before there is a serious accident on that stretch of road.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Living at one end of the dual carriageway, I have been accustomed to use the road. I have frequently used it at night. Even though I knew the road and knew that it was a single carriageway, I have frequently found myself driving on the assumption that it was dual.
Mr. McCusker: The Minister has told me that there are no plans to provide dual carriageway in the next five years. The road has been used for the past two or three years but it is now suggested that it will be another five years before the work is completed. I think that that is unlikely. I am tempted to ask the Department of the Environment why it makes plans so far into the future on such a scheme. In all probability another 10 or 12 years will elapse before more work is done there. It is possible that the volume of traffic will not increase in that time because of increases in the price of oil and development in road and other transport systems, but a growth in traffic on that road is expected. After all, it is one of the major roads in the Province. I hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider the matter.
I suggest that planting trees down what will be the central reservation will enhance the feeling that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South have described. If a row of trees is planted, people's belief that they are still on a dual carriageway will be confirmed as that is the type of environment to which we are accustomed on the motorway. Neither I nor Banbridge district council can see the value in planting trees and I therefore ask the Minister seriously to consider whether it is worth while planting them at all.
Right hon. and hon. Members have offered the Minister opportunities to save money. I draw the Minister's attention to Craigavon. There are two countries in Northern Ireland—Belfast and the rest of us. I do not dispute what the hon. Member for Belfast, East has said — I am sure that there is great housing need in his constituency. Perhaps that applies to the whole of the greater Belfast area but there is no great housing need in the rest of Northern Ireland. There are empty houses in almost every part of County Armagh. We must have almost 1,000 empty houses in Craigavon. I am told that there are more than 30 empty houses in the city of Armagh and more than 100 in Newry. They are the very places which, 10 or 12 years ago, were claiming one man, one house, one job. There are now nearly two houses for every man if he wants them.
Many of the houses in Craigavon are severely damaged and vandalised. They are creating a blight on the environment. There has been an experiment whereby some of them have been sold to a private developer. I do not think that there has been much progress with that scheme yet, but even if he succeeds I cannot envisage sufficient demand to absorb his 300 or 400 houses quickly. In the meantime we must look at the festering sore of 600 or 700 others. When one considers circumstances in Northern Ireland it is terrible to have to ask the Minister to put a bulldozer to them. However, I see no alternative. I hope that a decision will be made quickly so that blight in the centre of Craigavon can be removed. That might provide some hope for the developer who must try to sell off the others. If he can create an attractive environment around his estate, people might move into the area but they will not do so in present circumstances.
470
Moreover, about 3,000 acres of land in Craigavon are no longer needed. People there have a case for feeling that they have been treated unfairly by successive Governments. I almost think that there is something of a fraud here. In 1966 they had land taken from them at its agricultural value and they were told that it was required to build a new city of Craigavon. Almost 20 years later some of them are still sitting in their own houses on their own land and the dream of the new city of Craigavon is so far away that it will never be realised. I wonder whether the Government could stand with their hand on their heart and say that they took the land for that purpose and that they still intend to carry it out. I do not think that they can. The Minister is not divesting himself of enough of the excess land. Even in the central corridor there is land which will not be developed during the next 20 years. It should be returned as quickly as possible to the former owners if they want it. If they do not want it, it should be disposed of at current market value to others who are interested in it.
I am concerned specifically about a small group of six or seven families who are still living in their own houses on their own land almost 20 years after it was vested, and they have received nothing in compensation for it. They do not want compensation. Yet in 1984 some officials in the Department are probably arguing that those people should be offered compensation based on 1966 values. I presume that when they have settled on 1966 values the families will be told that they can have their property back if they are prepared to pay 1984 market values for it.
Even if account was taken of the interest that would have been earned during the 16-year period, I cannot see that that would be other than exploitation by the Government of a small number of people who had their hearts so firmly set in that part of County Armagh that they have not been prepared to compromise. I hope the Minister will do what is necessary to enable those people to continue living at no cost to themselves in their ancestral homes. The sooner that problem is sorted out, the better.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that it is important to point out that no money has been paid for many of these properties, so the Government have not been out of pocket. In fact, many people have been paying rent for remaining in houses that were vested.
Mr. McCusker: There are several categories. The hardest hit has been that to which I have referred, and only a few families are involved. There has been no exchange of money. Their circumstances today are precisely what they were in 1966 except that their farms and their homes have degenerated during that period. Consideration should be given to the other categories but that category should be dealt with urgently.
I met the Minister this morning at the exhibition on enterprise zones. Like other hon. Members who have referred to it, I congratulate those from Northern Ireland who were responsible for the displays from the Belfast and Londonderry enterprise zones. One of the things that struck me as I walked round was that in other areas some of the enterprise zones have been broken into little parcels thoughout the zone. In one area there were six or eight sites. If that can happen on the mainland instead of a big slab being taken to establish an enterprise zone, is there not a good case for using the same concept in Northern Ireland? In Belfast advantage could be taken of the

471
harbour estate and other places in east Belfast. Could Craigavon and some other small industrial towns not be given the opportunity of being in an enterprise zone?
Mr. Chris Patten: In practice, in both the enterprise zones in Northern Ireland one is talking in real terms of two sites. That is the case with the Londonderry enterprise zone and also with the Belfast enterprise zone. Whether or not one could extend the concept might be considered, but I should like to see the existing zones on two sites in practice in both cases becoming more successful before considering extending them.
Mr. McCusker: I welcome what the Minister has said. As it is possible for an enterprise zone to be established on a number of sites, I hope that eventually we may be able to do that in Northern Ireland.
Reference has been made to education. After constitutional and security matters, education has probably given most concern to the people of Northern Ireland in recent years. I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered. I shall refer specifically to the transfer procedure from primary to secondary schools being proposed for the coming year. There is great concern in the Province that that transfer procedure will rapidly lead to the destruction of a number of our small grammar schools. I welcome the fact that grammar schools have now accepted that there will not be a free market and are happy to settle for a 27–73 per cent. split. The grammar schools looked as if they would have accepted the concept of comprehensive education as long as it was based on the grammar schools, and were not fussed about that, but when the comprehensive system was threatening grammar schools they were all against it. With the numbers reducing, if it had been possible to develop comprehensive education in the grammar schools they would have been prepared to accept it. I am glad that the grammar school headmasters have now seen the error of their ways and again see our small grammar schools as centres of excellence and that they are prepared to accept that they can only expect to get a proportion of the total school population at 11 plus.
If that is the case, grammar schools have a strong argument for saying to the Department of Education that they do not want a system of transfer to be introduced that on the one hand will quickly strangle some of the smaller schools and on the other hand create problems for some of the expanding grammar schools, which will not be able to develop the proper resources to deal with the numbers that they may find themselves taking. The Association of Headmasters of Grammar Schools has put some reasonable proposals to the Department of Education, and I hope that the Ministry will soon respond promptly to them. Just as we do not want to see our small primary schools destroyed through bureaucratic administrative decisions, so I do not want freedom of choice used as an opportunity to destroy our smaller grammar schools.
Another problem which specifically affects the Province and Scotland is that of student travel expenses. In the three principal Northern Ireland further education institutions, the New Univeristy of Ulster, the polytechnic and Queen's university, many of the students travel from homes that are quite far away. If the proposal for reducing travel expenses to students to £60 is adopted in Northern
472
Ireland that will cause substantial hardship for a larger proportion of students than would be the case on the mainland.
Many of the students travel a long way to these institutions of further education. They receive assistance from the boards for the amount that they spend over and above the present statutory minimum, and I hope that when the Department of Education considers that it will remember the special needs of students in Northern Ireland. I also hope that it will consider the special needs of students from the mainland, who, thank goodness, still attend further education establishments in the Province.
Some information supplied to us this week shows that 389 English students and a number of Welsh students studying at the New University of Ulster account for 25 per cent. of all students. If those students are to enjoy three trips home a year, which is not excessive, their total travel costs will be over £400. Northern Ireland students attending colleges of further education and university on the mainland face roughly the same costs. The Minister will be aware of the brain drain about which we are concerned. Our best young people go to be educated on the mainland, find employment there, get married and leave the Province completely. If those students are also deprived of the opportunity to visit their homes in Northern Ireland to a reasonable extent during their time of study, that brain drain is likely to accelerate.
Many of my hon. Friends want to speak in the debate and, although I wanted to raise some other points, I shall not do so this evening. I hope that the Minister will answer my specific questions in winding up.
9.22 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: On Class I, Vote 2, I welcome the funding allocated to agriculture so far as it goes, but will the Minister assure us, now, that the long overdue decision to extend the less-favoured areas has been announced, that steps will be taken to ensure that adequate funding is available, which will avoid unnecessary delays in payments for work carried out?
It is likely that most of the extra 5,000 hill farmers in Northern Ireland eligible for a higher grant will wish to start new projects qualifying for it. That alone is good news for Northern Ireland. Extra cash will be put into agriculture, where it will be spent quickly, and quarry owners, building and land drainage contractors, machinery suppliers and other firms will benefit.
The feedstuff merchants will particulary welcome the announcement, as they can expect considerable reductions on overdue accounts. There will be few, if any, improvements in the beef, dairy and intensive sectors, unless the Government give assistance to ensure continuity of supplies of cheaper grain.
I believe that if our livestock sector had access to grain at world market prices, we could produce pig, poultry and other products competitively against any other group, and sell successfully at world market prices. It is necessary, however, to seek more investment in food processing and marketing in Northern Ireland agricultural in respect of and horticultural products.
It should be noted that meat processing companies based in the Irish Republic seem to be taking over that side of the industry in Northern Ireland. There was no criticism of Charlie Haughey when he came back after a mission to the middle east, where he successfully achieved new

473
business for the Irish Republic, but there was a furore in the House because the Prime Minister was successful in attracting new business for Britian.
On Class I, Vote 3, expenditure on drainage is important as land improvement because it leads to improved efficiency and productivity. I assure hon. Members that the land drainage division is very clinical in its approach to establishing cost-effectiveness and value for money.
It is significant that 1,800 people are employed in fisheries and fish processing. I regret that a fish processing company had to leave my constituency. One of the difficulties that it faced was in getting fish landed close to the processing base at Glenarm because of the derelict harbour. I hope that some of the money allocated to the Province will deal with that dereliction.
I hope that the Minister will say whether there is any likelihood of early expansion and development of flax growing as a result of the experiments in Northern Ireland in recent years. Perhaps he can also tell us whether it will be possible to introduce subsidy or some similar incentive to increase grain growing in Northern Ireland to compensate for the limited amount of intervention grain available to Northern Ireland farmers.
In Class II, Vote 1, £6,374,000 is allocated
"For expenditure by the Department of Economic Development on provision of land and buildings, industrial development promotion, certain grants and grants in aid."
It is clear even to a limited imagination that only a very small percentage of the overall allocation to that Department can be used for industrial development promotion. Even with the realistic targets and achievements in job creation by the Local Economic Development Unit and the DBI, that will not provide much hope for the large number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland. At the present rate of job creation some of them will get a pension before they get a job.
Money directed towards the retention of jobs has been vital to our economy in the past, but greater promotion of the enhanced package of incentives available in Northern Ireland may help to overcome the distorted image that results from half-hearted security policies and the irresponsibility of some reporters. I hope that the excellent suggestion about corporation tax madeby the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) will also be taken on board.
Members from Northern Ireland on both sides of the House are sometimes annoyed at the misplaced apportioning of responsibility for Northern Ireland's problems in the House. Those responsible for the security of the Province have had time to cut their teeth. They should now bare them and take on the terrorists with determination to rid Ulster of the remaining bombers, gunmen and gangsters — the small minority in the community who are responsible for the destruction of jobs, the lack of inward investment and our poor image abroad. Economic recovery in Northern Ireland depends largely on the success of the security forces, and they need new direction.
Tribute has already been paid to the excellent achievements of our aircraft and shipbuilding industries and they certainly deserve our continued support as they strive to achieve profitability. It is within the power and ability of the Minister and the Government to ensure that they have a fair opportunity to help us further to help
474
ourselves by directing Ministry of Defence contracts to Northern Ireland as we have clearly shown our dependability as well as our capability.
As Northern Ireland representatives in the House, we are anxious to be more self-sufficient and less dependent on public expenditure, but we can realise our potential only if we receive special assistance now. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) mentioned the high cost of energy. Cheaper energy for industry would contribute to job creation and competitiveness. When one considers the repetitive way in which £30 million is allocated to subsidise electricity tariffs at the level of the highest priced areas in England and Wales, surely it would be much wiser to allocate additional funds now to ensure cheaper electricity and dispense with the need for the annual subsidy. Conversion works at Kilroot, Ballylumford and other oil-fired stations would provide much needed engineering work for factories such as GEC.
I wholeheartedy support the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), on housing provision for the elderly. The policy that the Minister must get through to the housing executive in Northern Ireland is that there is a real need for increased provision for the elderly, the retired and single-person units. Such provision at an early date would release two, three and four-bedroomed accommodation for larger family units. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann referred to the existing derelict Housing Executive stock. The same comment would be applicable to almost every constituency. Before there is further new building, surely it would be prudent to allocate existing funding and moneys to refurbishing and improving the environment of many of these estates to make it more likely that people, including Housing Executive tenants and those who previously purchased their own homes, will remain in these areas.
I wish to mention briefly a matter of concern In my constituency, the Carrickfergus youth community work-shop, where staff redundancies are threatened. This work preparation unit has been so successful that most of the trainees find work, whereas if the unit had been a failure and a fiasco all the places would still be taken up, and there would be no need for redundancies. I believe that there is a case for additional experienced instructors and supervisors who can provide variety and experience for the young people on the courses.
I regret the limited allocation of funding to the road service. In my constituency, road maintenance is becoming a serious problem. At the weekend, I was advised by one of my constituents that, unless money is urgently spent on the Larne-Ballymena road between Kilwaughter and Shanes Hill, it could collapse completely. We have made representations from time to time to have additional lay-bys and car parking provision on the public housing estates. Our requests are not being met, and it is urgent that people should not be exposed to the hazard of incurring damage and expensive repairs to their motor cars when they are parked in narrow roadways while plenty of space exists on the estates for the provision of adequate off-street car parking facilities.
While this Government's policies have been effective nationally, there is justifiable reason for relaxation of the present policy in Northern Ireland where rigid public expenditure control is aggravating unemployment. A departure from present policy would be beneficial We want to get people back to work and yet we continue to

475
pay massive sums in social security payments. We are denying skilled people the right to use their experience and skills.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) talked about the many mobile classrooms throughout the Province. In the area that I represent there are nore than 300. They exist because the chief officer was committed to a roofs-over-heads policy. Together with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I recently approached the Minister to request specific assistance for only three projects. We could have presented 30 projects, but we restricted ourselves to Ballyclare high school, Ballymoney secondary school and Rostulla special school. We could have added Larne grammar school and Larne high school, where I know that there are between 20 and 30 mobile classrooms that have been on site for nearly as many years.
We have played our part in rationalisation. We did not seek to provide a second secondary school and we avoided wasting public funds. However, we were not granted the extensions that we needed, which would have led to a complete school unit. We are still left with temporary classrooms, which are beginning to fall apart.
I hope that there will be further consideration given to some of the suggestions that if, implemented, could get our people back to work. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether the benefits that are likely to follow freeport status being granted to Belfast airport are likely to spin off and bring benefit to other areas of Northern Ireland.
I wish to be associated with the congratulations that have been expressed to the Minister with environmental responsibilities on the exhibition in London that has involved Londonderry and Belfast enterprise groups.
9.38 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am delighted to have the opportunity of contributing to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has referred to Ballyclare high school. Members of my party have been fighting for years for improvements to be made at that school.
I shall share with the House some of the difficulties that I have experienced as a Member of this place in dealing with the problems of my constituents. First, under Class 9, I shall relate the difficulties that have been experienced with the Department of Health and Social Services. I discovered the difficulties that claimants encountered at the local offices and the problems that they face in getting their claims dealt with quickly and properly. This applies especially to the first interview with a local officer. Very many claimants are put off from trying to get that to which they are entitled. The answer may be the heavy case load that the officers are dealing with. At a conference which I attended yesterday, which was organised by the Northern Ireland Consumers Council, the following was said:
"Between 1972 and 1982 there was an increase in social security claims of 70 per cent. but an increase in unemployment between 1972 and 1982 of 500 per cent."
In 1972, 42 per cent. of those claims were for unemployment benefit and in 1982 the figure was 68 per cent. It also said that one third of all household incomes come from social security. When I intervene on behalf of
476
my constituents I make headway with the local office. Co-operation with the local office is easy for me, but I should not have to intervene on behalf of those who are entitled to benefits in the first place. Better information is required for claimants to let them know to what they are entitled and how to go about claiming it.
Deductions are made from claims to provide for arrears of heating—it used to be for rent and heating, but now it is for heating only—but it is not clear how much money is deducted. Not only are my constituents in arrears but the DHSS is in arrears because it only pays money in arrears. That should be considered by the Minister.
Dealing now with Class V, practically everyone regards housing benefits as incomprehensible. No one seems to understand the housing benefit system, and there is little sign that anyone knows how it operates. It seems that the Department plucks the figures out of the air, and when one tries to check them other confusions about how they were arrived at arise. The first claim forms for housing benefits were so badly framed that they said that if a claimant were receiving supplementary benefit he did not require to fill in a certain part of the form, yet, if the claimant did not fill in that part of the form, he was told that he must.
The people who suffer most are those who understand the form least and require the benefit most—old people. They are at a complete disadvantage and are completely confused by the system. Changes have been made and, all hon. Members would agree, the original changes were sound. However, the new system is considerably worse than the old. It is felt that it would be better to have a single entry point and a single benefit.
I shall take class VI(1) and class I together. One of my constituents suffered from road flooding, and floods from a water course took down a 40 ft wall. There was flooding, a sewerage leak from a septic tank, overflooding road drains and overflooding water courses. To remedy that problem we had to deal with the Agriculture Department, DOE roads, DOE services, building control and public health. Hon. Members can imagine how difficult it is to deal with Departments which at the slightest sign of trouble, put up an umbrella—that is an apt expression for flooding — to protect themselves. There are designated and undesignated rivers in Northern Ireland, so there is utter confusion. One would have thought that there was some way of sorting out those problems so that one Department, or at least one person, would be responsible and could come to a decision.
Everyone in the Department is very polite, but unfortunately politeness does not always mean action. Class VI (2) deals with the consultation that local councils are supposed to have on planning decisions. In a recent decision in my local council a snooker and billiards club was refused permission to use premises on several good grounds. However, when another club applied for similar permission 20 yards away round the corner, it was granted.
Class V deals with the Housing Executive, and many hon. Members have mentioned the lack of repairs. It would seem that the only repairs that can be done are emergencies, such as burst pipes and broken lights, although even they may not be done. The result is that the repairs which should be done, and which private landlords would be forced to carry out, are not being done and houses get into a continually worse state of repair. Tenants are becoming exasperated and have formed themselves into groups to try to force the Housing Executive to do

477
something. Hon. Members must also intervene on their behalf. We are delighted to do so, but it should not be necessary.
In some areas fences are regarded as being on the "never, never, never" system. If fences fall down, vandals can enter back gardens and break house windows. When the tenants complain to the local housing executive, they are told, "It is in your agreement that you should repair windows." The housing executive says that it can do nothing about broken fences because it does not have the money. Tenants are advised to get a note from the police saying that their windows were broken by vandals. However, the local police officer will say, "We have no evidence of who broke your window. We think that it was some of the local lads, but we cannot charge them because they are under age." The tenants then return to the housing executive, but are told, "We cannot repair your windows unless you get a letter from the police." So it goes on. Most of those people are on social security, but the DHSS will not provide money for repairs. The tenants have no money with which to repair the windows, so the result is that windows are filled with cloth or covered with wood.
When repairs are carried out, we discover that those employed to do them—at the lowest estimate—are not local people who live within a few miles of that house and who might take pride in their workmanship, and be recognised and welcomed by the local people. They come from miles away, and have no regard for the furniture, fittings or anything that belongs to the people who live in the house. The tenants are told, "If you want your house fixed you will have to put up with the trouble." In some parts of Northern Ireland, when house repairs are carried out, the tenants and their furniture are moved into portable dwellings until the repairs are finished. However, that does not happen in other parts of Northern Ireland, for some unknown reason.
Rev. Martin Smythe: Name them.
Mr. Forsythe: I can only say that it does not happen in my constituency. I have been in the construction industry, so I hesitate to criticise the workmen, but unfortunately the standard of workmanship leaves much to be desired. I speak from personal experience, having been in the business.
I understand that extra money has been allocated for old peoples' homes, cavity wall insulation and putting in heating—better fires, or whatever—for older people. Incidentally, those people deserve it. Is the money being spent, and is it being spent properly? I suspect that in some parts of Northern Ireland that money is not being spent. At a time when we have enormous numbers of unemployed people in Northern Ireland, we are told at the Housing Executive's offices that they cannot get enough workmen to do the work for the money that they have to spend.
Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for this shoddy workmanship is that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive claims that it cannot afford sufficient inspectors, and that because of the random methods by which work is examined, shoddy workmanship goes by? Accounts are even paid by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for work that has not been done.
Mr. Forsythe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He has put the matter well.
478
The Minister told us that the first priority in Northern Ireland is housing. If so, let us make sure that the work is being done and the houses being built are of the right type and in the right areas. The council of which I am a member has suggested to the Housing Executive areas where it should build. We have pointed out the areas where we think that the Housing Executive is building the wrong type of houses. However, we have been ignored. We are the local people, we know the area, we know what is required, and we know where the houses should be built, yet we are completely ignored. The Housing Executive tells us, "We know better. We will build houses to hold five, six or seven in a family," when we know that what is needed is flats or small houses for smaller families and old people. That would release larger houses for other people.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) spoke about the number of people on the waiting lists. I can assure him that most of those people are in houses awaiting transfer to other areas, either because the house is too big or because they do not like the area in which they are living, for various reasons. So the right hon. and learned Gentleman was slightly off the mark.
On Class IV, I cannot agree with the Minister of State when he said that roads in Northern Ireland are satisfactory. Some roads are satisfactory—indeed, some roads are in excellent order—but other roads are not in excellent order. The roads in the Antrim area of my constituency are reasonably good, with the exception of the road that runs from Antrim to Ballymena, but in the Newtownabbey part of my constituency, and in the adjoining constituency of Belfast, North, I know that some of the roads are in an awful state.
I draw the Under-Secretary's attention to what he said to me on 26 January in reply to a question that I put to him:
"I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, within an overall smaller roads budget for next year, we shall be spending more on minor works and maintenance, and I am sure that some of that will be spent in his constituency."—[Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1043.]
I do not think that what the Minister said to me here has filtered down to the Department which he controls, because at the last council meeting that I attended I was informed by the officer in charge that there would be no extra money spent on road maintenance in Newtownabbey in the coming year. I ask the Minister to see that this information reaches the Belfast manager.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I do not wish to go on and on about snow, about gritting, about major and minor roads, but I must mention the street lights. The Minister also said:
"I shall look as a matter of some urgency into the problem of street lighting."—[Official Report, 26 January, 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1043.]
I can tell the Minister now that there are still 140 street lights out in Newtownabbey. Will the Minister please look into this?
On Class IV, could the Minister give us some information about the visit that he made to the Republic for consultations with the Transport Minister of the Republic of Ireland? Could he tell us what was said on that occasion?
On Class VIII, which covers sport, I have had the honour of playing football professionally for both Linfield and Derry City. During that time the citizens of Londonderry were proud to support a team called Derry

479
City. Under the Unionist-controlled city council they were content that the team be called "Derry City" and did not expect its name to be "Londonderry City". The decision to change the name was a mean and vindictive one, taken by a group of small-minded, bigoted people.
9.57 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: On one occasion a Member of this House said that debates on Appropriation orders like this represented an opportunity for people to roam from Dan to Beersheba; and certainly there has been a wide debate today. I regret that I was unable to be present for the two opening speeches, through no fault of my own. The leader of the Official Unionist Party and I had a meeting with the Secretary of State, as it was impossible for us to meet him at any other time. I hope that the opening speakers will understand my absence. I have a fairly full note of what they said, and, if I misrepresent their words in any way, they will, no doubt, rise up and rebuke me for so doing.
I am sure that I speak on behalf of all Members from Northern Ireland when I express the hope that the noble Lord Mansfield will soon recover from his illness. I should like the Secretary of State, who I see on the Front Bench, to convey to him, his wife and his family our sympathy and best wishes for an early recovery.
I wish to deal first with the announcement today that the less favoured areas are to be extended. Of course, we welcome this. Those hon. Members who do not come from Northern Ireland will probably not know that 45 per cent. of Northern Ireland was listed as a less favoured area. But 30 per cent. that met the criteria and should have been so listed was, for some reason or other, discriminated against and left out. The farmers feel very sore about that. I see that some hon. Members smile. Of course, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) does not have many farmers in his constituency, but no doubt he has visited many parts of Ulster in his preaching campaigns and knows that the farmers feel badly done by.
When the matter was examined by the Assembly's agriculture committee the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, told us that the decision had been made in London to exclude 30 per cent. of Northern Ireland that met the criteria to become a less favoured area. We know that the application has been accepted and approved, but there are those who are still aggrieved. I have been around Northern Ireland with various elected representatives and how some parts could have been excluded and others included by looking at the land one will never know.
Has the Minister set up an appeals procedure so that those farmers who are aggrieved can have an opportunity to appeal against their exclusion from the less favoured areas? That is an important matter and I trust that we shall be given some answer on it tonight. All hon. Members will now be pushed as hard as possible when the announcement goes across the Province.
Mr. Butler: It might be helpful if I were to reply to the point straight away. A statement will shortly be made about the details of the way in which the extension of the LFA's will apply in Northern Ireland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman there will be an appeals procedure.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the Minster for that announcement. I trust that the procedure will have a strong
480
independent element and that it will not be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food making all the decisions and acting as judge and jury. I am not too sure whether we shall have such independence in this appeals tribunal.
I questioned the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today when he made a statement in the House. I did not receive much satisfaction, but I trust that when the Minister replies to the debate tonight we shall discover when the grants will be payable to the extended less favoured areas. From what I could gather, it will be a sort of two-tier system. Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office will know that that type of system was vigorously opposed by all the farming representatives. Will the capital grants to those areas be paid in full, or will there be a reduction? Can the Minister give us some idea of the other support grants that will come to the extended less favoured areas?
As has already been said by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), the farmers naturally want to plan for the future and to make the necessary provisions. They need to know exactly what will happen. After such a long time, the farming community in Northern Ireland was rightly aggrieved about the way in which it has been treated. I am glad that the battle has reached a successful conclusion, but I am not too happy about some of the things that I have heard in the House today about how those extended areas are to be treated. Nevertheless, we are glad that at last we have had a decision.
The appropriation order refers to the fishing industry. There may be serious complications for our fishermen with the extension of the territorial waters of the Isle of Man. Northern Ireland fishermen need to seek new fishing grounds. That will not be easy because the majority of boats coming from Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie are incapable of going far afield to fish. The fishing ground off the north coast of Northern Ireland has not been fully exploited. We are told by the fishing interests that an area could be exploited and that there is an opportunity for a prosperous future for the boats coming from Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie.
What plans does the Under-Secretary of State have to make grants available to the Northern Ireland fishing industry so that larger boats can be used? Smaller vessels can be replaced by larger boats so that the fishermen can investigate the fishing ground off the north coast of Northern Ireland and other fishing grounds. They can then carry on and even increase the size of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. There is a future in this vital industry. The people engaged in the fishing industry will not obtain any other jobs in their areas.
There is a need for a proper harbour on the north coast of Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary of State was coming to see me at a little harbour, Ballintoy, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) twisted his arm and he is to go to the Assembly instead. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not forget about the problems on the north coast. If we can exploit the fishing ground off the north coast of our Province, we shall need that new harbour.
Fishing interests are always worried about fuel prices. The cost of bringing their boats from south Down to the north coast of Antrim and returning after expoiting this fishing ground would be prohibitive. Will the Under-Secretary of State continue the project in Ballycastle? Will that be the new harbour for the north Antrim area? Is he

481
thinking of Portrush or even of Londonderry? I do not know what is in his mind. The fishing interests want to know if there is planning ahead on this issue by the Department. I trust that tonight we shall hear something that will help and encourage the fishing industry of Northern Ireland.
In coming to class II, I must deal with the Bairnswear factory that was blown up in Armagh. We are told that the Unionist representatives in Northern Ireland are not interested in bread and butter issues. It is said that they are interested only in the constitution. We are interested in the constitution, but it is interesting to note, when considering the question of representation, that the Republican Member of this House, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), is not present when we are battling for those matters which will help all sections of the community to retain their jobs and their place in Northern Ireland.
The Unionist representatives on both sides of this House are battling on these issues for the betterment of the whole community. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) wishes to intervene, he should come into the Chamber, not sit outside it, and then he might be heard. As a new boy, perhaps he does not appreciate that. When there was another leader of the SDLP in this House, although I had many arguments with him, at least he was present when matters such as this were being discussed. Let it be firmly on the record that we are interested in the wellbeing of all our people, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
In coming to the industrial development board and class II, I must say in relation to the Bairnswear factory that while we hear from the Republican elements in the Province and from the IRA that there is a terrible situation in Northern Ireland in relation to houses, jobs, discrimination and so on, here was a factory that was doing a good job, providing employment in the area. Suddenly it was destroyed. I believe that it was a deliberate and planned attack to keep other investors out of Northern Ireland, to say, "Look what will happen if you invest in Northern Ireland."
I congratulate the Minister on his promptness and energy in saying to the people concerned, "We will back you and encourage you all the way and see that you get a factory and every help." That was appreciated, and I believe that those jobs will be saved in Northern Ireland. That is what we must do—ensure that jobs are saved.
I could say much about the industrial development board. I should like to see more energy being expended in that direction, with clients who come to Northern Ireland being received with more enthusiasm and as welcome visitors. I know what is happening because I have a case in mind where, as a result of a visit with which I had something to do, a business man from the United States came to Northern Ireland. Only because of political pressure by the Leader of the Unionist party on the Benches opposite, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and myself, were we able to get a proper response in the initial stage.
I do not know all about that case and I am not arguing that matter tonight; perhaps on another occasion we can do that. I am simply saying that when a person comes with a concrete proposal, he should be encouraged. Indeed, the firm about which I have been speaking was greatly encouraged when it went to the south of Ireland. The red carpet was put out in Dublin. I do not want those jobs, if they are at stake, to be lost to Northern Ireland.
482
I am using this debate to put up a marker, not for the benefit of the Minister—it is not his fault—but for that of the industrial development board. The board needs to be more enthusiastic to people who consult it. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) mentioned De Lorean. De Lorean hangs like an albatross around all our necks. The IDB regards everyone as a possible De Lorean. That fact hinders our prospects of creating employment.
A word should be said about all the other boards set up in various council areas of Northern Ireland and the good work that they are doing in seeking to promote our Province and to further the work of creating jobs. Every encouragement should be given to everyone attempting to create employment in Northern Ireland.
I must say a word about the workshops, the Government training schemes and all those who are dedicated to training young people so that they will be in a fit state to take over jobs in Northern Ireland. Everyone engaged in that work should be encouraged and praised. Some of them are dedicated people with a real interest in encouraging young people to love their work and to use the talents that God has given them in order to be usefully employed and useful members of the community. My words will be echoed in the hearts of all the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to discuss the gas industry. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) said nothing about the two-way street in agriculture. If he studies the figures, he will see that the Republic pays a very large sum of money to the agricultural producers of Northern Ireland. It is not a one-way street.
Mr. McCusker rose—
Rev. Ian Paisley: I will give way in a moment. I do not want to see on our supply of energy the hand of a Government who are totally opposed to our constitution. There is no parallel between that situation and what happens in agriculture.
Mr. McCusker: What the hon. Gentleman says emphasises the importance of the interdependence, on the island of Ireland, of the agriculture industries of the Republic and of Northern Ireland. He has made my point even more forcefully.
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I do not think so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, South is laughing, but it is no joke. Are our energy supplies to be controlled by a man like Charles Haughey or a man like Garret Fitzgerald? Are we to be held to ransom by them? That is something to be taken seriously. My views on the subject are well known. If there was time, I would be happy to discuss them.
Agriculture is not a one-way street but, in the case of energy, the south of Ireland said "No" to our electricity. They could have had our electricity, but they encouraged the terrorists who blew up the inter-connector and they never wanted it put back. The hon. Gentleman knows that.
Sir Peter Mills: Speaking of agriculture, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest danger is that the South might have some special treatment in the new price review which would be highly damaging to the Northern part of Ireland?
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman has a great interest in Northern Ireland. When he was there, he had an interest in an island off my constituency as well as in

483
agriculture. I remember being taken out along with him to that island by helicopter and having to come back by boat. During my representations in Europe, I have pointed out to the commissioner that if there is to be any derogation in the South of Ireland in regard to 1981 and they change it to 1983 and there is to be 10 per cent. on top of that, we must get the same as we are entitled not to have an imbalance in agriculture in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann knows all about smuggling, although I am not saying that he has ever engaged in it. The farming community in Northern Ireland cannot be held to ransom by the farming community of the Republic. I hope that Ministers are fighting for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that they are pushing those who go to the Council of Ministers to look after the interests of the Northern Ireland people. I welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) as he made an important point.
In regard to energy, I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann about lignite. We need to know what is happening. I should also like to know about the change at Kilroot power station to firing by lignite. I know that there is a substantial grant from Europe for that as I served for two and half years on the energy committee in the EEC. I should like to know what the Government will do about that.
Road safety is extremely important. It might interest the House to learn that each year more people are killed on our roads than as result of terrorist incidents. I should like a breakdown of the figures in class IV as road safety is included with transport services. Will the Minister tell us how much money is being spent on road safety and how the road safety programme is getting on? What provision is made to teach road safety in schools in Northern Ireland?
I have already mentioned harbour services. I remind the Minister that, although he is going to the Assembly, he still has to come to Ballintoy. I hope that he remembers that. In regard to housing I am sorry that my constituency is not like that of the hon. Member for Upper Bann. We still need houses to be built in Antrim, North. We have quite a shortage of houses with the result that although people are married, the husband has to live in his own home and his wife has to live with her people because there are not enough houses in the Ballymoney area. That is a dreadful thing as it puts great strain on marriages. It is important that we have the necessary number of houses.
I entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) when he spoke about the Housing Executive's system of checking only one tenth of the work that is done. I know of no system that would encourage corruption more. A foreman on a site can have the inspector in and say, "Yes, we want to show you this house." The foreman takes the inspector into the chosen house and of course it is well constructed. The chit is signed and all of the other houses are paid for. It is a serious matter and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman highlighted it. He also mentioned improvements. I went to a house in the Ballymoney area where the cupboards were built in before the lintels and side posts were put on the doors. When one tried to pull out the drawer, it would come out only as far as the door cheek. Instead of taking off the door cheek and doing a proper repair, they took out the drawer and cut off the corner so that when one pulled
484
out the drawer it came out a little way. One then had to twist it round to get it out. That happened in a Housing Executive house and I took officials of the executive to see it. Such workmanship is disgraceful and something must be done about it. Other hon. Members would not tolerate that in their area.
Can the Minister tell me how many appeals were heard by the planning appeals commission last year? Was the number up or down on the previous year? I want to highlight the procedure of the commission. For some reason, it will not grant adjournments. When it has decided the date for an appeal, it says that there will be no adjournment. A prominent business man in my constituency had a big project which was the subject of a planning appeal. I attend a lot of planning appeals in my area, as the Minister may know, but this was such an important one that I advised the business man to get the best possible Queens Counsel to represent him. The man had to go away on a business trip and did not want the appeal to take place then, but the commission arranged the appeal when he was out of the country and his lawyer was not able to attend because he was involved in a High Court case that lasted longer than he had anticipated. The commission refused to grant an adjournment; it said that it would hear the case by the planning officer and that the business man could attend on another day to put his case. Anyone who knows anything about planning appeals knows that it is the cross-examination of the planning officer that is the most vital part.
I have pointed out to the planning appeals commission that it is entitled to grant adjournments. I remember an occasion when I did not come to the House because I wanted to attend a planning appeal, but the commissioner did not turn up. Of course, he apologised and I had to accept the apology. I always remind the commission that it should give some leeway when arranging appeals. I hope the Minister will use his good offices in this matter. We do not want appeals to be adjourned indefinitely but there must be some leeway on the part of the planning appeals commission.
Many things could be said about schools. I do not like to see schools being closed. The hon. Member for Belfast, South has an interest in Park Parade school and so have I, because for 38 years I have been a minister of the Gospel on the Ravenhill road and I know the area well. If that school is closed the area, which is primarily Protestant, will be decimated. I hope that a decision will be made to keep the school open. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) about border areas in north Belfast and other parts of the city where the Protestant population is being crushed. If their schools are closed, the Protestants will be pushed out of those areas.
Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time the elected representatives in Northern Ireland called upon the members of the various boards to stop doing the Government's dirty work by closing schools such as Park Parade and some in North Belfast which are really border schools?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have made appeals, but they have been in vain. I received a sharp letter from the education board more or less telling me to mind my own business and that it knew what it was doing. However, that is a matter for another day.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East spoke about temporary accommodation in schools. It is disgraceful that

485
a school such as that in Ballyclare should have to rely on so many mobile classrooms. When the children want to use the toilet facilities they have to leave the building. In one of the schools referred to by the hon. Gentleman, some of the children need special care and attention, so it is terrible that they have to do that. Their coats have to be put on and they have to be taken out to the toilets and brought back. One of the schools in the same board has, as the only accommodation for its library, a barn. That is a disgrace in the 20th century.
I have taken the time allowed to me. I see that you are getting fidgety in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that other, non-Northern Ireland Members want to go home to their beds. We cannot get home, so it does not matter to us. We can stay all night. I trust that when the Minister comes to reply, even if he is not able to answer all the points that we have raised, we shall receive the usual courteous letters from him.
10.30 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) made an important point, of which I hope that the Minister has taken note, about Orlit housing. He pin-pointed the small number, probably not more than 50, of such houses in Northern Ireland that were erected by private developers, not by a public authority, and subsequently purchased by the occupants. It is not clear to me or my hon. Friends whether the occupants stand to benefit under the scheme launched by the Housing Executive. I know that the Minister will look at this matter carefully to see whether this limited number of people are disadvantaged.
Nine months ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) welcomed the new Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). Some of us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North has said, thought that it was a mistake for the Secretary of State to allocate a double task, with two very onerous appointments, to one Minister. We have been proved wrong, because the new Under-Secretary has risen to and overcome the challenge. That does not nullify the criticisms that have been made of the Minister's action in re-naming the Londonderry district council.
I cannot understand how the Minister, presumably with the sanction of the Secretary of State, could take such a decision in defiance of the commissioner of local government boundaries, who said:
"We recommend that no change be made in the name of Londonderry District Council."
Once again, we have heard hon. Members analysing and highlighting the high level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), have defended the position, and others give it as a reason for breaking the Union itself. Do the latter not realise that this extra results from our observing in Northern Ireland principles of parity in social service benefit payments? Is it suggested that social security benefits should be lower in Northern Ireland? Is it suggested that the family allowance should be abolished there on the ground that the birth rate is higher in Northern Ireland, and therefore should not be subsidised? As the hon. Member for Horsham properly said these are questions to which honest answers must be given.
The existence of the separate Consolidated Fund in Northern Ireland makes it possible for Ulster's critics to
486
indulge in the luxury of complaining without telling us how we should remedy the situation, given that we are entitled to parity of services with citizens of the United Kingdom. Ever since we began to question the usefulness of debates on occasions such as tonight, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has expressed sympathy for hon. Members who represent constituencies in Great Britain but who are kept in the Chamber until a very late hour by the Under-Secretary. I have great sympathy for them, too, because it is all unnecessary. Hon. Members are detained for a period of an hour, or an hour and a half, on a given evening for a quite unnecessary purpose. These matters could be debated in the context of legislation affecting Great Britain and, therefore, incorporated into United Kingdom legislation. I do not venture into the argument of integration versus devolution or any of that nonsense. It is simply that, if Parliament has decreed that for the time being, we should be governed from Westminster, then, for the time being, we should be so governed.
I have often asked myself what would happen if the order were defeated. I and my right hon. Friends suspect that nothing much would happen, because the moneys would continue to be paid from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, regardless of whether the Under-Secretary had his sums wrong.
That leads me to the consideration of what purpose the separate Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund serves. Its purpose is not to ensure better or stricter control of public expenditure, or expenditure of any kind. Let me quote an unbiased source, last year's report of the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance):
"There may be reasons unconnected with the control of expenditure why the fictional Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund is still maintained in existence."
The Select Committee did not dig any deeper. It may well have considered that it had no duty to dig deeper. I can suggest one reason at least. The purpose is to keep Northern Ireland separate so that people like the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) can go on proclaiming that Northern Ireland is different, and so that Northern Ireland public expenditure can be kept in a separate and tidy parcel, ready to be handed over to the first taker.
It is all part of the hideous apparatus of direct rule that is maintained year after year as a so-called temporary measure, an undemocratic device that my party stands pledged to remove, without the effect of easing the burden on British Members of Parliament. This device could be removed before June if the Government were to dismantle some of the barriers with which they surrounded the rolling devolution Act, as it was called, of 1982 thus preventing it from having a chance to work.
We are approaching the time when the Government and Parliament must come clean. In one form or another, they must keep that promise—which they sometimes try to forget — made through the mouth of the Sovereign herself five long years ago, a simple promise to give to the people of Northern Ireland more control of their own affairs. That promise was made in 1979. We trust that it has not been set aside entirely. We trust that it will not go on being placed just out of our reach. For our part, we shall go on reminding the Government of that undertaking. That

487
means more than just verbal reminders. It means carrying our reminder, and our protest, into the Division Lobby, and that is exactly what we shall be doing tonight.
Mr. James Kilfedder: First, I must apologise to the Minister of State and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for. having been absent when they spoke. I understand however, that they made weighty and admirable speeches. When I was leaving the Palace of Westminster to attend to important constituency matters, I came across the people who were engaged in a lobby of the House, the pensioners who came to the House to speak to their Members of Parliament. [Interruption.] I hear noises to my right—
Rev. William McCrea: It is a groan.
Mr. Kilfedder: It is something that I would normally ignore, but, if it is repeated, I might need your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put that spirit out of its agony.
The pensioners who came to the House today were English, but their comments were similar to what pensioners in Northern Ireland would have said. When I first came to the House 20 years ago, my maiden speech was about our need to look after the elderly. I believed then that their need was great, and that the hardships they faced were too much of a burden; but in those 20 years times have changed and their position has become worse. With a higher cost of living in Northern Ireland and the high costs of food and of fuel, the plight of the pensioners is far worse, and many are suffering as a result of severe cuts in the home-help scheme. In some cases home helps have been removed altogether; in other cases, their hours have been cut to half an hour, or one hour, a few days a week. That is not enough time, because the pensioner
488
depends on the home help to make the home habitable, to light fire, to cook a meal and to wash a few items in the household.
The order refers to the sum of £10 million which will be allocated to the restructuring of the gas industry, and the £30 million subsidy for electricity tariffs. I appeal to the Government not to increase further the price of electricity in Northern Ireland, which anyway is higher than the price in most other parts of the United Kingdom. It is also unfair of the Government to ban the housing executive from carrying out conversions from gas heating to coal-fired heating.
East Ballybeen residents association in my constituency carried out a survey, whose results were typical of many other areas in my constituency and perhaps other parts of Northern Ireland. The survey sought the views of tenants about gas, electricity and solid fuel heating. Only 31 per cent. of electricity users were happy; but far fewer—a mere 15 per cent.—of gas users were content. They not only complained bitterly about the cost of gas but regarded it as less reliable than solid fuel heating. When the residents association protested that half the gas fires in the area had not been serviced, it was told by senior housing executive officials and gas board officials that it was not telling the truth. But, of course, an investigation discovered that the residents had told the truth, and two gas board officials were sacked because they pretended to be calling on houses and carrying out repairs to gas fires when they were not. Gas fires are a potential danger to the elderly, and they must be properly maintained.
The tenants of that estate and of other estates in north Down demand the freedom of choice. They are entitled to have their heating systems converted to coal if that is what they wish. According to the survey, 85 per cent. of gas users and 69 per cent. of electricity users wished to convert to solid fuel. I hope that the Government will allow the housing executive to carry out those conversions.
10.44 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: Although there are some similarities in these debates, there are also different themes from time to time. I made the accusation in an earlier intervention that the Minister's speech does not change very much. The Minister constantly comes to the House and tells us that there is a ray of sunshine, that things are looking up, that the Gods are smiling on us, and so on. I wish that were true, because no one gets any satisfaction from seeing people unemployed or seeing people on low incomes struggling to make ends meet. The harsh fact is that evidence of the recovery is slender. We know that unemployment on a year-to-year basis is up by about another 6,000 from one January to another, to January of last year. So the evidence of a great revival is limited.
The Minister of State, who opened our debate, is perhaps untypical of the rest of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Department, in that he actually hopes that the Prime Minister's policy is working. Most of his colleagues recognise that it is not working and would like to do in Northern Ireland what they would like to do in the rest of the United Kingdom, if the Prime Minister would let them get away with it—but she will not.
The Minister made some interesting assertions. He said that we must not increase public expenditure because it boosts inflation. It is a strange theory that argues that public expenditure necessarily increases inflation. There is no evidence of a direct causal link, and it depends a lot on the definition of public expenditure and the type of public expenditure. The Minister left out an important point: if that is correct, and given an inflation rate of about 5 per cent., the Government should explain how public expenditure under their government has increased as a percentage of the gross domestic product. We all know the reason: this Government have cut the country's wealth by lowering the gross domestic product and at the same time increasing public expenditure on items such as unemployment and defence. They should also explain why other countries which have a higher public expenditure do not necessarily have a bad record on inflation. It varies from place to place, and many other factors are involved.
The argument that somehow public expenditure leads to higher inflation and therefore cannot be used to regenerate the economy is nonsense. It does not stand up to analysis on a national or international comparison. The Government's record is abysmally bad. We have seen the Northern Ireland Office trying to get extra money for Northern Ireland from time to time. The Opposition have welcomed that when it happened, but we recognise that it is only a small part of what is needed.
The dramatic rise in unemployment in Northern Ireland between 1981 and 1983 is a damning indictment of this Government's economic policies. There is no justification for that rise, and there is no explanation, other than economic mismanagement. Sooner or later the Government will have to face the harsh fact, now that unemployment is so close to 22 per cent., that the problem is very severe.
The Minister of State made one or two other interesting comments in his speech. In response to an intervention, he came out with a somewhat enlightening reply, which I had not heard before. It was a slight
490
variation on the theme, and a very interesting one. He said that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom while a majority want it, and subject to the will of Parliament. The argument has slightly changed, and I appreciate that. It is desirable, and I hope that it will change further.
Mr. Butler: It stands to reason, if the ruling is enshrined in legislation, that if the legislation is to be changed it requires the consent of Parliament.
Mr. Soley: I could not agree more. The Minister has logic on his side. I have always argued that what matters pro p 51 is that Parliament governs for the whole of the United Kingdom, and while Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, we govern for that part. I have always said that the only reason for the part in the original Act about Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom for as long as the people there want it was the recognition of the insecurity of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and a recognition that it is open to debate that it is not a normal part of the United Kingdom. We have been over that debate before and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be right in ruling me out of order if I were to pursue it. I was responding simply to the point arising from the intervention on the Minister's speech.
I would like to turn to two of the issues that have troubled me in this debate. The first is the squabble, primarily among Unionist Members, about the name of a city and of a council. Although I understand, as do most who speak on or involve themselves in the affairs of Northern Ireland, that they are directing their remarks as much to their own constituents in Northern Ireland as to anyone, they are also being heard in Britain. That squabble over a name lends weight to the feeling that the people of Northern Ireland, both Unionist and Republican, cannot settle their differences. I ask those Members to bear in mind the audience on this side of the water as well as their own audience at home.
The other aspect of the debate that I found particularly unatractive was the tendency of a couple of Members to dismiss certain groups of people in Northern Ireland as scroungers. I say quite categorically that I do not regard the people of Northern Ireland as scroungers, and I consider it both offensive and gratuitously insulting to say that they are. It is also a particularly un-Christian remark, if I, as a non-Christian, may say that about someone who claims to be a Christian.
Let me deal with this question of debt, referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He did not say that these people were scroungers. If I understood him correctly—and no doubt he will correct me if I misinterpret his remarks — he said that if a person gets into debt it is an indication of something going wrong with his social management skills, that he is in some way becoming socially less competent, and that this is an indication that a social worker ought to become involved. If it is, we are going to need a lot more social workers in Northern Ireland, because the number of people who have got into debt in the last couple of years on rent, gas and electricity payments is immense. The reason for it is economic.
I say that as someone who knows full well the problems of people who have difficulty in managing from time to time. There are emotional reasons why people get into debt — when, for example, they

491
become psychiatrically ill, when they lose a job, when they suffer a life crisis, when the family runs into a crisis—and there are reasons connected directly with illness. But there is also and predominantly a very direct economic reason.
Let me turn to the Appropriation Accounts. Looking at the district heating schemes, I see that in 1981 the debt was £475,000. In 1982 it was £1,435,000. In 1983, it was £2,151,000. If anyone here would like to pretend that those people need social workers he had better explain to the House how they suddenly became socially incompetent between the years 1981 and 1983 when they were not incompetent before.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) had better explain to his own constituents why he thinks that they are scroungers because they can no longer manage to make ends meet. I will say this to the Government, that there have been increasing—
Rev. William McCrea rose—
Mr. Soley: I will give way in a moment.
Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for an hon. Member incorrectly to state that words were uttered by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Every Member of the House is responsible for his own speech. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Soley: I was going to allow the hon. Member to intervene if he wanted to. I am still willing to do so. What he actually said was that there were people who were scroungers in Northern Ireland and he carried out quite an attack on them. Whether or not he used the word "scroungers" we can check in Hansard tomorrow, but no one can doubt the meaning of his words.
Rev. William McCrea: I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Member has allowed me to intervene. Could I say it again? There is a vast number of people in Northern Ireland who are "doing the double". That is to be condemned. It is theft. I never mentioned the word "scrounger" in the whole of my speech.
Mr. Soley: I am not sure whether it is better to be a scrounger or a thief. That is what the hon. Member has now said that they are. If he wants to tell his constituents or others that these people thieve, then he may by all means do so, but I have to tell him that I think that there are many reasons why people get into economic difficulties.
There are many reasons why people try to get more out of the system, whether by fiddling their income tax or anything else. There are many reasons why people often do not get anywhere near what they ought to get out of the system. As has been said, many people do not get the benefits that they should. The Minister knows that that is true, as do we all. To dismiss the people of Northern Ireland as being in some way more dishonest or haphazard than people anywhere else is wrong. That needs to be said clearly. I do not have such contempt for the people of Northern Ireland.
Nor do I believe, as the hon. Gentleman implied, that they go on marches. I should have thought that the hon.
492
Gentleman would have been the last to talk about that, because when the people of Britain think about the people of Northern Ireland on marches, they think of a date in July and that is not what the hon. Gentleman talks of. We should be clear about who it is that we are saying these things about.
It is disconcerting to read on page 39 that one of the reasons that the Department of the Environment gave for the lack of disconnections in Northern Ireland was that
"it was felt that each disconnection would encourage arrears amongst the remaining tenants, who would have been charged more."
That is an interesting statement. Next time the Northern Ireland Office sends me a bill I shall not pay it in case doing so encourages others not to pay theirs. That may be a way of dealing with the Government. It is nonsense. It really recognises that many people cannot pay their bills and that that increases the charge to the rest of the people on the district heating scheme so that they fall into arrears, too. The trouble is that it is a double-edged weapon. If people are in arrears and are known to be, it leads to great bitterness amongst those who do pay their bills and an attitude of "Why should I pay?" As I said in an intervention, that is a sign that energy costs and rents above all else have been forcing the people of Northern Ireland, Unionist and Republican, Catholic and Protestant, increasingly into debt. That is the harsh fact that people have to face.
It must be remembered that some years ago many Unionists used to complain that load limitation and things of that nature were necessary primarily because of the Republican community's unwillingness to pay. The same applied to rent arrears. That has recently been dropped because increasingly Unionists have been getting into debt in the same way as Republicans. That has nothing to do with the sectarian divide but everything to do with the Government's failed economic policies.
Mr. Beggs: I accept that what the hon. Gentleman said about not cutting off electricity is partially true, but will he accept from me that in my experience the main reason for not cutting off electricity supplies is that the electricians who carry out that work will not go into some of the areas to do so?
Mr. Soley: If that is the reason—I very much doubt it—it is not one of those given in the report. I would rather go by that. I know that there are problems in certain areas about rent and other debt collections, but I do not take the view that that is why the figures suddenly get as bad as they have done in the past couple of years.
There has been a massive increase in debts, above all because of increased rent and energy charges on the people of Northern Ireland. That has nothing to do with the sectarian troubles of the Province. It is because the increases have been so dramatic at a time when people on low incomes have not had significant increases in those incomes — whether they are wages, unemployment benefit or social security payments—that they literally cannot pay the bills. We are talking about genuine poverty, not about unwillingness to pay. They are not thieves, spongers or scroungers. They are not due to sectarian problems or intimidation, but simple economic poverty. Anybody who thinks that he can prove otherwise had better demonstrate why it is that those figures, whether for housing, district heating schemes or electricity bills,

493
have increased so dramatically in the past couple of years. Let us face up to that reason and stop blaming the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that, whenever electricity was cut off, Northern Ireland people had to pay more. Does he realise the importance of that statement? That has always been denied by not only the present Government but the Labour party when in power.
Mr. Soley: The Government report says that. It is important to recognise that the report was referring, as I was doing, to a district heating scheme. Northern Ireland is part of that scheme, and that makes a difference.
I understand the worry of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about grants to the agricultural community and his comments on housing in rural areas. I agree with many of his points. The same emphasis should be given to the needs of people, especially in the inner city areas, in terms of getting money for assistance such as housing benefit. We talk about them being in debt to the institutions of the state. We recognise—as one Member of the Official Unionist party, to his credit, pointed out — that in certain circumstances, especially with regard to housing benefit, the Department is in debt to the people. We should remember the pressure the Department puts on those trying to live on a low income. We would should keep that in perspective.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) made an interesting speech which I welcome from a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I regret that he is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that there is a good reason for that. He rightly pointed out that, to put jobs in west Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland, previous Governments were willing to take major risks—De Lorean was such a risk. The hon. Gentleman made no bones about that. He concluded that it was not sensible to give grants to organisations and subsidise industries. It would be better to abolish corporation tax. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, according to his figures, only £40 million would be released. Anyone who knows anything about corporation tax knows that it has been virtually a voluntary tax since the Finance Act 1980. The Government know that.
What difference will the release of £40 million into Northern Ireland make in terms of withdrawing grant, and so on? Why did the hon. Gentleman think that the money would go into west Belfast, Strabane or any of the other areas that the Government especially wanted to help? A great deal more planning is needed, rather than fiddling with the tax system or some figure that the Government believe will produce greater investment. There is no evidence that abolishing corporation tax — I am not dealing with whether that is good or bad—will mean greater investment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman's figure is grossly and abysmally inadequate, if he is talking about replacing the existing grant system.
I should be the first to concede that the grant system used in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is not as relevant to the new technology as we would like. We must recognise that the system needs to be changed. That is one of the reasons why we favour the approach adopted by the local enterprise development unit and similar organisations. They are encouraging, and they should be given more help. The Government could have used some more public money effectively in this area.
494
The hon. Member for Horsham raised the issue of the cost of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom—I shall not dwell on that point because it would mean to some extent going over old ground. He cited a cost of £1·1 billion. He argued that therefore it would not be economic to incorporate Northern Ireland into the South. The South's economy could not cope with that. He should read just one decent report on the economy, for example, forum—I might make a point of sending him a copy so that he can take advantage of it—to see that the economy of both the North and the South has been seriously bled by the events in the North. That has been the result of the economic and political structures that exist in those two parts of the island of Ireland, and it is nonsense to ignore that. [interruption.] Members of the Official Unionist party go into one of their giggling fits when I tell them that the border distorts the economy of Ireland. I assure them that there is great evidence of that, and a giggling fit is no alternative to an argument, so they had better come up with some arguments that contain the alternative.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am giggling. I am just wondering whether he has swallowed the blarney of the forum, the members of which were asked to provide the figures that would be involved economically in a united Ireland and, rather than dealing with that, they did it the other way round to show the economic costs of the border to Ireland, not addressing themselves to the question.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman must know that there are a number of assessments in books and reports of the effect of the Northern Ireland economy of the recent troubles, with similar reports and assessments for the south, and on the interdependence and links between the two economies. Those matters can be followed through in a number of ways.
I quoted the forum report as an indication of what I think is a stronger point, which to some extent plays into the hands of the hon. Member for Horsham in relation to the argument that the figure would probably be higher. That is why we on the Labour Benches have never suggested—indeed, we have said the opposite—that a policy of a united Ireland would be a cheap one. It would not be. But the last argument that I would wish to adduce would be that we should simply pull out the plug because it is expensive. Yet Members of the Unionist parties in this House must understand, particularly in the light of their arguments today, that the feeling exists among many British people.
Having listened to arguments about Londonderry versus Derry or about the scroungers in Northern Ireland., or whatever, they say, "Why do we bother with these religious bigots? Why should we worry about them?" I talk to British people as I go about the country and I tell them, "The Northern Ireland people, Catholic or Protestant, Unionist or Republican, are no better and no worse than any other people. They have major problems. We must understand those problems and respond to them sympathetically." What reply do I receive? If there has been a bombing in London, I hear an attack on the Provisional IRA and about "those killers from the Provos." If there has been a statement from a Unionist official which suggests some degree of religious bigotry, I hear a reply about them being religious bigots.
It must be understood that the image that the British have of the Northern Irish people is that they cannot get

495
their act together. That is unfair, and I spend a lot of time telling people in Britain that it is unfair. The people of Northern Ireland will lose their arguments on that score unless they take that situation into account. The image that they give is one of the worst possible if they are trying to convince people that they want—as I understand the two Unionist parties do want—to convince people here that they are British and want to remain part of the United Kingdom.
I should like to have heard more said in the debate about agriculture and particularly about the new industries related to agriculture. I have said this on a number of occasions, and I am still not convinced, from looking at the figures, that we are giving the degree of emphasis that is necessary to food processing, food packaging, biotechnology and so on, vital aspects of the agricultural base of Northern Ireland. That line should also be expanded to the universities.
The figures contain some evidence that money is being spent in those directions, but the amounts are petty. If one is in trouble—and we recognise the difficulties involved in getting investment into Northern Ireland—one could do a great deal worse than use the best base one has, which is the agricultural base, to expand and develop into other areas, as well as supporting the small home-grown industries which are developing in Northern Ireland and which are important to the Province.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said—I was out of the Chamber at the time—that the DUP had strong opposition to the privatisation of Shorts. I welcome that, because we take the view that the privatisation of Shorts would be undesirable, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Could we please hear the reply of the Minister?
Mr. Soley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of hearing the Minister's reply in a few minutes from now. If the right hon. Gentleman had prevailed on some of his hon. Friends not to intervene, he might have heard the Minister's speech earlier than now. That is his problem, not mine.
Sadly, the debate has been characterised by a number of attacks on the people of Northern Ireland by some of those who claim to represent them. However, the economy of Northern Ireland has been debated — although the debate has not been as detailed, deep or wide-ranging as it might have been — and the message to the Government must be that their own figures, particularly in the first part of the report, show that their economic policy in Northern Ireland has been a disastrous failure for those on low incomes.
11.11 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): It is conceivable that the attention of some hon. Members may occasionally have strayed elsewhere this evening. However, most of those who have sat through our lively and invigorating debate have not been speculating about the result of the Chesterfield by-election. We have been concentrating on the tables in the spring Supplementary Estimates and the statement of sums on account for 1984–85.
496
Once again, we have had a useful day. Whatever the doubts on some Opposition Benches about the constitutional propriety of these procedures — those doubts were eloquently voiced by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—I am sure that this opportunity for a wide debate about the problems of Northern Ireland has been generally welcomed. I am only sorry that I shall not have time to deal with all the points that have been made. As usual, I and my hon. Friends will write to hon. Members as quickly as possible about the matters that I am not able to deal with now.
The debate has been especially wide today, just as the sums that we are discussing are particularly large. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordem) in his interesting speech. He pointed out that public expenditure per head in Northern Ireland is about 30 or 40 per cent. higher than it is in Great Britain. Between 1984–85 and 1986–87, public expenditure in Northern Ireland is planned to grow by almost 9 per cent. in cash terms. Expenditure in Great Britain on comparable programmes will grow, over the same period by about 6·5 per cent. I do not suggest for a moment that Northern Ireland is in receipt of a gratuitous handout, but I argue strongly that Northern Ireland has special needs and that the high level of spending in Northern Ireland by the Government is a recognition by the Government of those needs.
It would be helpful if, occasionally, the scale of the Government's commitment in expenditure on Northern Ireland was recognised by hon. Members. Sometimes, listening to speeches in the House and reading reports of speeches in constituencies, one might think that the balance in public expenditure was the other way round and that spending in Northern Ireland was 30 or 40 per cent. per head less than it was in Great Britaim. That is far from being the case.
I am pleased about the balance between capital and current expenditure in Northern Ireland. Fifteen per cent. of expenditure in Northern Ireland is capital expenditure, as opposed to 9 per cent. in Great Britain. We should be reasonably satisfied with those figures.
The debate has naturally and properly concentrated to some degree on the difficult economic situation in Northern Ireland. There have been many references to the appalling level of unemployment. As I have said on many other occasions, I do not believe that the crudest critic of the Government's economic policy could argue that we should attribute Northern Ireland's economic problems to the level of public expenditure in the Province. Hon. Members are familiar with the principal causes. They are the decline in traditional industries such as shipbuilding and textiles, the international recession and the security situation.
As one or two hon. Members pointed out, it hardly helps us to rebuild the economy in Northern Ireland when firms that succeed and prosper are bombed and burnt. We all know that those who are responsible for those criminal acts are not remotely interested in tackling unemployment and poverty; they are interested in increasing unemployment and poverty to promote insecurity and polarisation in the community. That point was put strongly by the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs).
Despite today's rather depressing unemployment figures, there has recently been some relatively good news about the economy in Northern Ireland, whatever the hon.

497
Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) says. His speeches frequently remind me of that remark of P. G. Wodehouse that it is not difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine. He referred to some of those signs of improvement and to several of the Government's policies that are designed to build up the Northern Ireland economy. I was pleased that he referred to one of them — the Local Enterprise Development Unit. It is one that I see especially clearly through my work with the enterprise zones in Londonderry and Belfast.
I was pleased to see so many hon. Members at the enterprise zone exhibition today. I note what they said about the standard of the displays put on by the Londonderry enterprise zone committee and by the Belfast enterprise zone. Those stands gave everyone who went to the exhibition a lot of very good reasons for investing in Northern Ireland. I take to heart what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said about the importance of environment to the enterprise zones. That point is visited on me whenever I receive a deputation about the north foreshore smell. I hope that before the height of the next summer we shall have been able to tackle that. The hon. Gentleman knows the efforts that we are putting into that matter and my personal commitment to that environmental cause.
Several other points on the industrial front were discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham suggested that we abolish corporation tax in Northern Ireland. Alas, the taxation policies of the Government are not matters that I can influence much, but I shall pass his suggestions on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Members for Belfast, North and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke of Harland and Wolff and the possibility of more work from the Ministry of Defence. I strongly endorse what they said and what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said about the record of the chairman of that company. I hope that the Ministry of Defence listened to those speeches. I am sure that what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said will have been taken into account. He also asked about Shorts. I am afraid that I cannot add to what is already public knowledge. Shorts' bid for a substantial United States Air Force order is still under consideration and a decision by the United States authorities is expected shortly.
As to gas advertising, I do not have the details for which I was asked so I shall write to him on that as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), who knows much about energy matters, asked several detailed questions. Perhaps in the interests of expedition I may be allowed to answer one of those questions now and leave the others to my hon. Friend to answer rapidly by letter. The hon. Gentleman asked about the conversion of power stations to lignite rather than coal. Conversion to lignite is one of the options that is being considered as part of a major review of the future generation strategy for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. The mining company and the electricity service are in close consultation about the technical aspects of using lignite for electricity generation. We are all fully aware of the importance of the lignite deposits to the economy as well as to the energy needs of the Province.
I turn, with trepidation, to the subject of agriculture. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred, as he has done on other occasions, to the backlog
498
of payments in agricultural grants. I recognise, as do my hon. Friends, the continuing concern of hon. Gentlemen on this front. When the Department of Agriculture became aware of the large number of claims being submitted, I am advised that action was taken to increase the number of staff available to work on the schemes. However, because of their complexity the number of processed claims being dealt with fell while the additional staff were being trained. Training has now been completed and the backlog of outstanding claims has begun to fall.
Further measures to increase our capacity to process claims have been implemented, and where it is appropriate people are working overtime. Since overtime working was introduced in November 1983, over 9,000 claims for grant under the agricultural development programme and the agriculture and horticulture grant schemes have been passed for payment with a total grant value in excess of £14 million. In February, some 3,000 claims were passed for payment totalling over £5 million. That represents a considerable improvement over the position at its worst in this financial year when we were able to process only 1,000 claims worth £1.7 million. While there is still a backlog to be dealt with, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen that all efforts are being made to eliminate unnecessary delay.
I recall from my experience in the Department of the Environment last summer the difficulties that we got into over the payment of improvement grants. We did what we could to improve the situation with, I think, a measure of success. I very much hope that similar success will be enjoyed on the agricultural grant front as rapidly as possible.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a number of points about agriculture and fishing in his mellow speech on the less-favoured areas. I do not think I can say more than my hon. Friend did in his intervention in the hon. Gentleman's speech—that the statement by my hon. Friend in due course should make all clear to him.
I am looking forward to visiting Ballintoy with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible. I am sorry that I have had to postpone my visit next week because I shall be visiting what I am sure will be a cordial session of the Assembly's environment committee. I look back on my last visit with the hon. Gentleman to Ballyrnena with a good deal of nostalgia and I am looking forward to coming to see him again.
Other points were made on agriculture, particularly by the hon. Member for Antrim, East, in an interesting arid important speech. I shall see that my noble Friend Lord Mansfield, who will, we hope, recover rapidly from his illness, replies to them. Failing that, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) will fill the breach.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think the matter that he raised really lies between the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Committee of Public Accounts, but I have noted what he said and shall certainly pass on the important point he made.
The hon. Gentleman made an extremely interesting series of remarks about arrears of public debt. I think he mentioned that the Public Accounts Committee has indicated its intention to take evidence on this issue. When the Public Accounts Committee makes its report, the House will have an opportunity to debate it and the Government's formal response to it. I should just say at

499
this stage that the point he made about individual cases of hardship and the relationship between housing costs and social service provision needs to be looked into. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley remarked, I have responsibility for both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Services and I shall take up the extremely important point that he made.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has referred to the Department of the Environment and the DHSS. In the context of the new tower block at the City hospital, will he consider again the possibility of providing a rail halt to ease some of the parking problems and for the convenience of some visitors to the hospital?
Mr. Patten: Yes, I will ensure that that point is considered by the transport holding company and the board of Northern Ireland Railways.
Another point was made about the arrears of public debt—I assure the right hon. Member for Down, South that we feel strongly about them — and it concerned the district heating charges to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred. I am sure that he will be extremely pleased by the announcement that I was able to make in December, that if after it has consulted its tenants the board of the Housing Executive comes to the conclusion that the district heating schemes should be withdrawn from estates, I shall be happy to give my approval to that. I recognise the point made by the hon. Gentleman about arrears with district heating schemes. It is one of the many considerations we have had in mind in reaching that decision.
The right hon. Member for Down, South made a point about the unemployment figures and I can perhaps best reply by letter to him. I could reply now, but it would mean that I cannot refer to the points raised by another hon. Member. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that that will be in order.
I should point out to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster that we are intending to increase expenditure on the Health Service by 1·2 per cent. next year—0·7 per cent. to take account of demographic factors with another 0·5 per cent. from increased efficiency. It will ensure that per capita expenditure on the Health Service in Northern Ireland remains higher than it is in Great Britain. Although resources are constrained, it will enable us to achieve our priorities in the Province for the next few years.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to home helps. I know how much interest there is in this issue. We have consistently increased expenditure on the home help service. The figures for the home help service in Northern Ireland are by far the best in the United Kingdom. In view of the anxiety hon. Members have expressed on a number of occasions, I have undertaken to review the provision of home helps in the Province, and that we are doing at the moment. I hope that it will not be too long before our report is available.
A number of points were raised about housing. Since my right hon. Friend made housing the Government's number one social priority, we have increased gross expenditure on housing by 50 per cent. The capital element of the housing programme has increased by over 100 per cent. We have increased expenditure in the voluntary housing movement substantially. I saw
500
representatives of the voluntary housing movement this week and I was able to tell them that next year we would fund every one of the programmes they had put to us. They seemed reasonably satisfied by that information.
In our last housing statement I was able to announce that we proposed to spend £2 million more on sheltered accommodation, increasing the programme in Northern Ireland by 25 per cent. Most important of all, for the first few months that I had responsibility for the Department of the Environment, hon. Gentlemen urged me again and again to review the balance in our housing programme between new build, and maintenance and improvement. That we have done.
We will see an increase in the resources available, for example, for the improvement of existing Housing Executive estates from £22 million a couple of years ago to £73 million next year. We will see an increase in expenditure on maintenance from £35 million to nearly £50 million next year. We will be spending £51 million on renovation grants.
I am determined to ensure that the Housing Executive makes the most effective use of the funds that we vote it. It is vital that the Housing Executive should deliver the programme that the House expects it to deliver. I believe that it is far more balanced and flexible than it was. We have properly put the emphasis on improving the housing stock in Northern Ireland. That will continue to be our priority.
With regard to homelessness, I remind the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East that I have set up a committee involving the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of the Environment, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the area health boards, which, I hope, will report soon.
Other points were made on housing, education and the take-up of benefits. I shall reply to them in correspondence and will be obliged to do the same when replying on the Castledawson and Banbridge bypasses.
I am grateful to hon. Members who gave us notice of questions that they asked today. The Appropriation order is a clear sign of the Government's commitment to help to tackle the problems faced by Northern Ireland, in so far as they can be tackled by the taxpayer and the Treasury. In that spirit, I commend the order to the House I am only sorry that, as I understand, that some hon. Members will vote against it. I am surprised, but I suppose that, with no great conviction, they know what they are doing.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):
The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 9.

Division No. 179]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Bright, Graham

Ancram, Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Aspinwall, Jack

Bruinvels, Peter

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Burt, Alistair

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Butler, Hon Adam

Batiste, Spencer

Carttiss, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Chope, Christopher

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Body, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Coombs, Simon

Bottomley, Peter

Cope, John

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Couchman, James

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Currie, Mrs Edwina

501

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Nicholls, Patrick

Dover, Denshore

Norris, Steven

Dunn, Robert

Oppenheim, Philip

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Fallon, Michael

Paisley, Rev Ian

Favell, Anthony

Parris, Matthew

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Forth, Eric

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Freeman, Roger

Roe, Mrs Marion

Galley, Roy

Ryder, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Qoodlad, Alastair

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Gregory, Conal

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Ground, Patrick

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Speed, Keith

Hanley, Jeremy

Speller, Tony

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Spencer, D.

Harris, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Harvey, Robert

Stern, Michael

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Hayes, J.

Sumberg, David

Hayward, Robert

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Hickmet, Richard

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Hind, Kenneth

Tracey, Richard

Hirst, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hooson, Tom

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

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

Viggers, Peter

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Hunter, Andrew

Walden, George

Key, Robert

Waller, Gary

Kilfedder, James A.

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Wheeler, John

Knowles, Michael

Whitney, Raymond

Lang, Ian

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Lawler, Geoffrey

Winterton, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Wolfson, Mark

Lilley, Peter

Wood, Timothy

McCrea, Rev William

Woodcock, Michael

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Yeo, Tim

Macfarlane, Neil

Young, Sir George (Acton)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Major, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Neubert, Michael

Mr. Donald Thompson and

Newton, Tony

Mr. David Hunt.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

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

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

Mr. Clifford Forsythe.

Smyth, RevW. M. (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 21 February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

  LIAISON
  Ordered,
  That Sir Philip Holland be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Marcus Fox be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Major.]

Compulsory Purchase Orders (Wirral)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
11.41 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House, and of the Minister, the shabby treatment by Wirral council of past and present residents of two streets in my constituency, Dacre street and Marion street. Before I present to the Minister the grievance to which I wish him to reply, it is necessary for me to supply him with two important pieces of background information. I hope that the Minister realises that I have not sought the Adjournment debate without trying to exhaust the normal channels that are open to Members of Parliament where a local grievance occurs. I wish to tell the Minister of the steps we have taken to secure justice for these groups of residents.
The area is served effectively by a community association, appropriately, the Jubilee association, and its full-time worker, David Davies. He has been actively involved in the area, as has the parish priest, Canon Byrne, who, as on so many issues, gives a courageous lead. I have been working with the three local councillors who represent the area, Councillors Bill Longley, Arthur Smith and Bill Craig. Despite the various pressures that we have brought to bear on Wirral council, we have failed to win a satisfactory settlement for the residents.
Secondly, it is important that the Minister understands something about Birkenhead, and, knowing the Minister, I am sure that he has asked his Department to brief him on the matter. Birkenhead, like other areas of the country, has an ever rising tide of unemployment. To illustrate the unemployment facts, in the first couple of years of the Government's life the number of redundancies was only—and I emphasise only, because it is relative—in the region of 1,500. In the following three years, the number of redundancies totalled almost 20,000. The Minister will not be surprised to know, therefore, that the official unemployment figure, including the travel-to-work area, which extends way beyond my constituency, is approximately 20 per cent. A survey recently conducted by a local newspaper in a street not far from the ones that we are discussing tonight found only one person in work, but that person was soon to lose his job.
Much of the centre of Birkenhead has been flattened. If at any time the Minister wishes to take people to, or point people in the direction of, an area that has had all the disadvantages of planning thrust upon it, Birkenhead is the one to visit. The centre of the town was torn out, and most of the residents expelled to surrounding areas. The land adjoining Dacre street and Marion street is known as the Oak and Eldon garden site, which became notorious because it was occupied by the first tower blocks to be pulled down by way of explosion. In many ways, that illustrates the lack of imagination of officials in the council, in that attempts were not made to try to find new ways of interesting and housing people in the area. The solution was to blow it up and leave the area desolate. More recently, the council signed a contract with Leech Homes to build in that area, and Leech Homes gave a public undertaking to build 90 homes by last summer.

503
However, it was far short of meeting that target last weekend, when I walked—as I always do on Sunday mornings—round the area.
The two streets that we are discussing are in a peculiar area, not because the residents are peculiar but because it was one of the first areas in the country, first, to be declared an improvement area, and then a slum clearance area. I shall relate a few of the facts that the residents have given to me so that the Minister can think about them before he replies. All the residents are adamant that the problems bagan in the two streets, not when there was a survey of the condition of the soil, but when a housing association sent in workers to "repair" two of the houses in one street. The centres of the houses were torn out—the workers believing that they were preparing for demolition rather than repairing them—and, with the domino theory, the street began to move towards the centre and houses began to show problems.
After that the area ceased to be an improvement area and the local authority asked for slum clearance powers. As in all such areas, as residents were persuaded to leave, houses were boarded up.
To the council's credit, when the policy was changed, several public meetings were held, and senior officials of the council promised publicly that the compulsory purchase orders would be used in such a way that each resident would get a fair price for his property—"fair" not only in terms of the value of his house but in the sense that the money could buy him an equivalent house elsewhere in the borough.
Tenants became worried when, after that promise was given, their campaign leader was awarded a settlement of £7,900, which was the largest sum paid. I am not saying that that person was a party to improper action; had I been him, I should have accepted the deal. However, it removed from the area the person who was putting the greatest pressure on the council for a fair deal. On the documents that I have seen, prepared by the council, that person's home was described inaccurately. They said that a kitchen extension had been added, that it had a new roof and that extensive re-wiring had been done. Photographs of the house, and the statements of Canon Byrne, show that to be untrue. However, the owners of other houses in the area, which the tenants maintain are in better condition — with, for instance, new roofs — have been offered only about £2,400.
In conclusion, may I put three things to the Minister. First, I come back to the houses that have been boarded up. The tenants and residents claim that the council—largely because of measures that they have taken—says that many of the properties are unsafe. As a result, the boarding-up policy has ceased and demolition has started. How would the Minister or I feel if the houses around us were demolished? The residents there feel that it is another way of roughing them up, trying to get their agreement to a settlement which they believe is unfair. So I ask the Minister to use his good offices to stop the council's policy, which is little short of pushing some of my constituents into making decisions which they are not yet willing to make.
Secondly, I want the Minister to take a personal interest in the offers that are being made by the council. It is important for the Minister to do that, particularly after the debate that we have just had on Northern Ireland.
504
Certainly, there are advantages in direct rule, at least in the way that Ministers can be made accountable for almost anything that goes on in the Province. I should like to see similar treatment extended to my constituents, particularly after the clear public declaration that the settlements would be fair — so fair that they would be able to buy equivalent houses elsewhere in my constituency.
Thirdly — here I think that the Minister needs no encouragement to take an interest—there is a national aspect to the problem. If my constituents are being treated unfairly—as I believe they are—the chances are that other citizens elsewhere in the country will receive similar unfair treatment when they get compulsory purchase orders. I hope that the Minister will look at the settlements that have been offered by the Wirral council to my constituents in Birkenhead, and see whether they are fair. If they are fair, they surely raise an important question about the amount of compensation that we in central Government are prepared to offer people who lose their homes under compulsory purchase orders.
I end with a statement that all the residents wish me to put to the Minister. They said—and I agree—that they have behaved in a way of which the Prime Minister would approve. They have saved hard to buy their homes, and many of them are now heading towards retirement, or have already retired. Because of the inadequate compensation, the people who are near retirement age cannot get mortgages because of the level of compensation, and they have had to move back into rented accommodation. They thought that they had provided for their old age, only to find that they had been robbed.
I do not believe that the treatment that has been handed out by the Wirral council is treatment that I or the Minister would find acceptable. If it is not satisfactory for me or the Minister, I do not believe that it is satisfactory for my constituents.
11.53 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has raised important points on behalf of his residents, in particular on behalf of the residents in the Dacre street and Marion street area of his constituency, who have good cause to be grateful to him.
The hon. Gentleman raised one or two matters that I shall want to consider closely. If I cannot answer them in great detail this evening, he will understand and that I may need to check certain things and let him have answers in the fullness of time.
At the outset of his comments, the hon. Gentleman touched on the background and the historical problems facing his constituents, involving the disadvantages of planning—to use his phrase. I should like to know some more details of that and to have the hon. Member's interpretation and definition of the disadvantages of planning because I have responsibilities for those important issues in the Department of the Environment. We all have much to learn about some of the problems that occurred 15 or 20 years ago and the legacy that they have left for the current generation. I hope that the hon. Member will let me have some of those details. I have taken note of the three points that he has raised and I shall come to those in due course, if I may.
Before coming to the compensation questions, which were the main ones raised by the hon. Member, I should rehearse, for the benefit of the House, the history of the

505
Dacre street compulsory purchase order. This order—there is just one order in point — has had an ususual history. The area of Birkenhead to which it relates was originally intended for slum clearance by the former Birkenhead county borough council some 10 or 12 years ago.
After local government reorganisation in 1974, however, the new Wirral borough council resolved on a policy of improvement and in 1979 confirmed the Dacre street general improvement area covering the 80 houses in the present order. This new policy was widely supported, but the rate of improvement was slow and the Maritime Housing Association became involved in a programme of acquiring houses for improvement.
A number of houses were improved, and others were acquired, but then the association uncovered problems of structural instability which it felt were serious, and a structural and soil survey was commissioned. The survey, in the local authority's opinion, showed that the extent and nature of the structural problems made improvement the wrong policy, and the council therefore rescinded the general improvement area declaration in July 1981. It reverted to a policy of clearance and the Dacre street order, including properties in Marion street and Conway street, was made on 17 December 1981 by the council under its powers in part III of the 1957 Housing Act.
The order comprised 60 houses the council considered unfit, in three clearance areas, and 33 other properies, mostly houses with one or two vacant plots. The purpose of the order was the clearance of the area as a whole and the council intended that it then be made available for private residential developmet. All this is known to the hon. Gentleman. A large adjoining area had already been made available for the same purpose. All residents displaced by clearance and requiring rehousing were to be rehoused on various estates throughout the borough.
The order provoked objections in respect of 22 houses in the clearance areas and seven of the other properties. A public local inquiry was held on 20 and 21 July 1982. This is the all-important historical background to the problem that we now face and that so affects the hon. Gentleman's constituents. A number of technical problems prevented the issue of a decision until the following March when the Secretary of State confirmed the order with modifications, the more important of which excluded a terrace of properties in Conway street: This terrace contained a number of active businesses, and it was considered that clearance was undesirable in their case.
Wirral borough council published its notice of confirmation of the order on 15 April 1983 and the order became operative towards the end of May on expiry of the statutory period for challenge. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, once the Secretary of State has taken his decision on an order he has no further jurisdiction in relation to it. In the circumstances it would, therefore be improper for me to comment on the merits or demerits of this particular order, the implementation of which and any consequential matters fall to the local council. That is the important aspect of the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate this evening. His speech and comments will be read outside the House and will have an impact on the people who have jurisdiction in this matter locally.
I understand, however, that the council has now brought into force a general vesting declaration, thus speeding the procedure following confirmation of the order. At the risk of boring the House I must make it clear
506
that the general vesting declaration is an alternative to serving notice to treat and has three principal advantages over the normal conveyancing procedure. First, the authority can obtain title to the land with the minimum of delay. Secondly, all interests in the land, except for minor and expiring tenancies, are vested in the authority by one instrument alone. Thirdly, it is simpler than conveyancing and therefore saves time and expense.
Those points are of particular importance when land has been acquired with a view to its disposal, for example, as in this instance, and subsequent sale for private residential development. If the normal conveyancing procedure were followed, the authority could not sell until it had finally obtained title, and that may often only be after completion of long and complicated procedures. However, it is important to bear in mind that use of the general vesting declaration procedure does not in any way affect the rights of the individual owners and occupiers to compensation.
I understand that some of the site has now been cleared. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that there are a number of disputes with residents over the amount of compensation payable. Compensation is entirely a matter to be settled between the parties concerned—between residents, owners and the local council. It is not a matter in which the Secretary of State can intervene, and in particular it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases. Owners and owner-occupiers will generally employ professional help in making claims for compensation. Indeed, they are often advised to seek such help.
The general rule for non-house owners is that they will qualify for home loss or some other disturbance payment. The position for owners is more complicated. Under the compensation code, laid down by statute, it is a fundamental principle of the compensation code that in all cases except one the owner should receive the full market value of the property. The single exception is that compensation for an unfit house is basically restricted to site value only, the structure itself being regarded as worthless. That is the problem upon which the hon. Gentleman has touched.
However, subject to certain conditions being satisfied, the owner of an unfit house compulsorily acquired may be entitled to a supplementary payment to bring his compensation up to full market value. The main condition is that the house must have been occupied by the owner, or a member of his or her family, for a qualifying period of two years ending on the date of declaration of the clearance area. Alternatively, where there is no entitlement to an owner-occupier's supplement, a payment additional to site value may still be made if an unfit house, notwithstanding its inherent defects, has been well maintained in whole or in part.
The system of supplementary payments was introduced because of the considerable hardship that might otherwise be caused to those who have sunk their savings in providing a house for themselves and their families. We recognise that there are cases where the site value rule proves harsh and has caused considerable concern. We have undertaken to look at the operation of that rule when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
The hon. Gentleman has explained that those of his constituents who are concerned about compensation are all, in fact, owner-occupiers. Provided that they meet the conditions, in particular the two-year occupancy rule, they would appear to be entitled to full market value.

507
Therefore, if they are complaining that what they are offered is insufficient, I cannot comment on that because they have the right to take that issue to the Lands Tribunal.
It would also be wrong for me to comment on the differences between what people have been offered for their properties. That can only be for a detailed investigation of the individual circumstances of each case —the size of house, cubic capacity, location and so on. Again, it would be a matter which could be considered by the Lands Tribunal. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate my position. However, I hope that he will feel he has had the chance to put his constituents' concerns
508
fairly before the House, and that he has had a fair reply so far. He has raised several points that I shall want to explore further and I shall contact him in due course. The real sadness of this case is that the policy of improvement, which seemed to have so much to offer to the residents of the area, should so late in the day have foundered, and that I regret. However, I can take further many points that he has raised. Whether I can satisfy him and his constituents only time will tell, but I believe that we have provided a fair hearing in response to his constituents' case that he has put fairly before the House this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve o' clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Boyndie
  Boyndie
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Scottish Parliament
  Scottish Parliament
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Finance)
  Universities (Finance)
  Students (Travel Allowances)
  Students (Travel Allowances)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Foreign Languages
  Foreign Languages
  Teaching Diploma (South Australia)
  Teaching Diploma (South Australia)
  School Standards
  School Standards
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Criminal Proceedings (Time Limit)
  Criminal Proceedings (Time Limit)
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
ENERGY
  Domestic Energy Supplies
  Domestic Energy Supplies
  River Mersey (Tidal Power Barrage)
  River Mersey (Tidal Power Barrage)
  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  District Heating
  District Heating
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EC (Information and Publicity)
  EC (Information and Publicity)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Gratuities (Taxation)
  Gratuities (Taxation)
  Building Societies (Capital Gains Taxation)
  Building Societies (Capital Gains Taxation)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Community Budget
  Community Budget
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Taxation)
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Taxation)
ENVIRONMENT
  Beaches (Contamination)
  Beaches (Contamination)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. John Preece
  Mr. John Preece
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Murder and Manslaughter (Statistics)
  Murder and Manslaughter (Statistics)
  Police Authorities (Detection Rates)
  Police Authorities (Detection Rates)
  Strip Searches (Prisons)
  Strip Searches (Prisons)
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Youth Recidivism
  Youth Recidivism
  Youth Custody
  Youth Custody
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Prisoners (Costs)
  Street Offences Act 1959 (Fines)
  Street Offences Act 1959 (Fines)
  Police Pay
  Police Pay
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Foreign Visitors
  Foreign Visitors
  Mentally Disordered Persons
  Mentally Disordered Persons
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Import Tariffs
  Import Tariffs
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Figures
  Trade Figures
  Iran and Iraq
  Iran and Iraq
WALES
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Foreign-owned Plants
  Foreign-owned Plants
  Plant Closures
  Plant Closures
  Manufacturing Units and Employment
  Manufacturing Units and Employment
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Plant Closures
  Plant Closures
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  European Community (Unemployment Problems)
  European Community (Unemployment Problems)
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
SCOTLAND
  Foreign-owned Plants
  Foreign-owned Plants
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Civilians (Injuries)
  Civilians (Injuries)
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Housing
  Housing
NORTHERN IRELAND
  House Maintenance (Expenditure)
  House Maintenance (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Rates
  Rates
  Imported Milk
  Imported Milk
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Kincora Inquiry
  Kincora Inquiry
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Assembly Recommendations
  Assembly Recommendations
  Agriculture and Forestry
  Agriculture and Forestry
  Private Insurance (Deductions)
  Private Insurance (Deductions)
  Plant Closures
  Plant Closures
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Letcombe Research Station and Weed Research Organisation
  Letcombe Research Station and Weed Research Organisation
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Hill Land
  Hill Land
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Flower Trade (Publicity)
  Flower Trade (Publicity)
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Cereal Growing
  Cereal Growing
  France (Lamb Trade)
  France (Lamb Trade)
  Poultry Slaughtering
  Poultry Slaughtering
  Sea Fisheries Training Council
  Sea Fisheries Training Council
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Beef Producers (Payments)
  Beef Producers (Payments)
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Dog Licence
  Dog Licence
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Pig Farms (France)
  Pig Farms (France)
  Agricultural Holdings (Tenency Succession)
  Agricultural Holdings (Tenency Succession)
  Salmon Tagging Scheme
  Salmon Tagging Scheme
  Pig Breeding Herd
  Pig Breeding Herd
  Milk Production (Quotas)
  Milk Production (Quotas)
  Cereal Stocks
  Cereal Stocks
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Ministers (Meeting)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Crown Agent (Statement)
  Crown Agent (Statement)
  Battered Wives (Research Project)
  Battered Wives (Research Project)
  Interdicts
  Interdicts
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Charitable and Voluntary Agencies
  Charitable and Voluntary Agencies
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Rates
  Rates
  Local Government Employees (Cost)
  Local Government Employees (Cost)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Lancashire (Investment)
  Lancashire (Investment)
  Isle of Wight
  Isle of Wight
  Housing (Homeless Persons)
  Housing (Homeless Persons)
  Crawley
  Crawley
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Tenants (Mobility)
  Tenants (Mobility)
TRANSPORT
  Greater London (Signposting)
  Greater London (Signposting)
  A40 (Road Improvements)
  A40 (Road Improvements)
  Noise Levels (Heathrow)
  Noise Levels (Heathrow)
  Settle-Carlisle Railway (Ministerial Use)
  Settle-Carlisle Railway (Ministerial Use)
  Capital Projects
  Capital Projects
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Food Hygiene
  Food Hygiene
  Registered Care Homes (Code of Practice)
  Registered Care Homes (Code of Practice)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Mrs. G. L. Stevenson
  Mrs. G. L. Stevenson
  Human Organs
  Human Organs
  Robbery with Violence
  Robbery with Violence
  Chiropody (Southampton)
  Chiropody (Southampton)
  Ancillary Staff Scheme
  Ancillary Staff Scheme
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Private Patients (Warrington)
  Private Patients (Warrington)
  Blood Transfusion Service
  Blood Transfusion Service
  Health Authority Employees (Wirral)
  Health Authority Employees (Wirral)
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
DEFENCE
  Massawa and Assab
  Massawa and Assab
  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Nutrition: The James Report
Lady Saltoun: 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 steps they propose to take to implement the recommendations of the James Report on nutrition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the report to which the noble Lady refers is not a Government report. It is an independent discussion paper which has been passed to the expert panel set up by the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The panel is expected to report later this year.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, when the panel has reported would the DHSS consider publishing a brief pamphlet setting out its recommendations for circulation to general practitioners and to health and education authorities with a view to improving meals in schools, hospitals and other such places?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government welcome the paper to which the noble Lady has referred as a contribution towards the discussion about diet and health. The James advice regarding the direction in which people should change their diet is very similar to the department's advice given in a pamphlet called Eating for Health. The definitive body is the body to which I have referred in the original Answer. We shall have to await that before we can decide whether or not to publish any pamphlet such as she suggests.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in his further consideration of these matters will the noble Lord bear in mind that, if he were to heed the advice of all my medical colleagues about what not to eat, he would come to the conclusion that the only way to stay absolutely healthy would be to starve to death? In that connection, would the noble Lord the Minister bear in mind that the positive advice in the James Report regarding what to eat is of much greater importance than the view that if we all ate a great deal more fibre we would all be a great deal fitter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly share with the noble Lord the feeling that if we paid attention to every single comment that is made on health we probably would all end up in the way he described. As far as fibre is concerned, the Government entirely share his view.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one encouraging thing revealed in the James Report is that, whereas we have had for a very long time great disagreement in the medical profession about what is a balanced diet and what is dangerous and what is not, we now seem to have agreement with the medical profession, with dieticians and the rest? I wondered why the Government do not themselves feel that they themselves should publish this report; and, secondly, whether it would not now be wise, since there are so many dangers, for the Government to launch a campaign so that the public have a better understanding of what are the recommendations in relation to a balanced and wise diet.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have said, the James Report was an ad hoc piece of advice to another committee. We are concerned about the degree to which people should change their dietary habits, but I have to say that we think that in some respects—and this, I think, was borne out by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—there is a great deal of discussion among the experts as to what is right. We think that James perhaps goes further than can be justified in the present state of scientific knowledge. But it is up to the committee to which I referred to produce the definitive answer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree at this time that the addition of leek to the diet would be beneficial to the nation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on a day like this how could I possibly say otherwise?
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that nutritional standards could be advanced considerably if the Government were to campaign to encourage people to grow their own fresh vegetables?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is entirely right and I know of his particular interest in this matter.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Government make this report available to all Members of the House since quite obviously many of us on these Benches are under-nourished?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord looks very well to me, but if he has any complaints I am sure that somebody will be able to look after him.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, do the Government realise that an improvement in the nation's health would result in a reduction of disease so that the DHSS would save a great deal of money?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I daresay that the noble Lady is right, but I would still ask her to await the definitive result of the report to which I referred.

"Short Sharp Shock": Evaluation
3.5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: 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 when they propose to publish the results of research on the short sharp shock régime in detention centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, as quickly as possible after the evaluation report has been completed. Our intention is that it should not be later than when the House rises for the Summer Recess.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware how tantalising the Government have been to those of us who told them in the first place that this measure was wrong-headed and who cannot wait to be told that we were right? Is the noble Lord aware that we were first promised a date by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Brittan in 1950; we were, secondly, promised a date in 1951 when the promise was made by the right honourable gentleman then Mr. Mayhew, and thirdly, the noble Lord himself at the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill promised us a date in 1982. Lastly, the honourable gentleman Mr. Hurd gave us the final date, we thought, which was early in the new year of 1984. Would the noble Lord agree that February 29th is the latest time which can be described as "early in the new year"?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the basis that all the noble Lords' references were to the present decade, I freely admit that we have been over-optimistic—and I impute this to myself in the statement that I made in this House. The work to be done has proved much more intricate and more extensive than I had supposed but, in view of the exchanges on the last Question, your Lordships may think that a few of a Minister's words are a good part of his diet.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister seen the report, certainly from one of the centres, that the short, sharp shocks introduced at detention centres have been more shocking for the prison officers than for the boys they are supposed to reform?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord is probably referring to the West Yorkshire Probation Service Study, in which case I can say that we are aware of that study. I understand that the report on it is not yet complete. Whatever its conclusions may be, of course, they will be a good deal narrower than what is clearly becoming the very extensive work that we are engaged on ourselves.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can we be assured that the report, which we await with great interest, will be published before the events in the second week of October in Brighton this year?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not get the reference or the implication of the date in the noble Lord's supplementary question.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I was asking whether we could have an assurance that the report will be ready before the conference in Brighton in October.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I presume the noble Lord means his conference rather than ours. I have already said when we expect the report to be. It is not in our control and it would be quite wrong for us to force statisticians to publish figures before they were content with them. The analysis is now being written up; the whole of the results will be published; the report will include an account of the techniques used to arrive at its conclusions, and it will be supported by all the necessary statistics. The whole of this is being overseen by a committee which includes two eminent and independent professors.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill 1982 concern was expressed by a number of people at the number of boys being sent to these centres undergoing this experimental regime who were subsequently found to be unfit and had to be returned whence they came? Is it not a fact that, as at September 1982, more than 100 boys were found to be medically unfit on grounds of mental or physical handicaps and had to be sent away? Could he assure the House that something has been done since, and ahead of the publication of this report, to rectify that very unsatisfactory state of affairs? May I put another question? Would he not agree that this form of treatment, if appropriate, would be appropriate for acts of vandalism, hooliganism, muggings and other forms of violence by young people? Would he accept that my information is that the great majority of boys being sent to these centres are found guilty of taking and driving away vehicles, and of theft?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, the step which has been taken to ensure that nobody is sent to these centres for whom such a régime is not medically suitable is that they shall be medically examined on arrival and before they are committed to the régime. Therefore the numbers mentioned by the noble Lord refer I think to those who have not actually embarked upon the régime at all; but I will of course look into that. As to the second of his questions, as a layman I have a view of course as to which of the offenders is the most suitable for this treatment. However, it is not for me, as a member of the Government, to instruct the court what sentence to give in any case.

Public Transport: Smoking
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: 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 will encourage transport authorities to ban smoking on buses.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, regulations enable bus operators to enforce a ban on smoking in any part of a public service vehicle. But it is a matter for the bus operators, taking full account of public opinion, to decide whether they will implement such a ban. The Government welcome the trend towards further restrictions on smoking in buses.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that helpful answer, may I ask whether he is aware that whereas it is St. David's day today, yesterday was a national no-smoking day? Is he aware that certain unnamed Members of this House seemed blissfully ignorant of that fact? Also, in the case of London's double-decker buses where people are allowed to smoke on the upper deck, the travellers face serious hazards. First, there is the danger of being asphyxiated in the rush hour; secondly, there is the problem of ash all over the place because there are no ash trays; and thirdly, in the crush to leave the bus there is the danger of holes being burnt in one's clothes.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, regarding yesterday's day for no-smoking, I certainly congratulate the organisers; but it is too early of course to say whether it has been a success. So far as Members of your Lordships' House who smoke are concerned, I certainly would not like to be the person who turns, for example, to my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip and says that he has just smoked his last cigar.
As to buses, as my noble friend says, London Transport completely, prohibits smoking on single-decker buses and on the lower decks of double-decker buses. In the latter case, smokers are asked to sit at the rear on the upper deck. It is a matter, as I have said, for the bus companies to decide on these arrangements and I am sure that they will take note of his remarks. My noble friend also made a specific reference to the passive smoking factor, in that others in the same environment pick up smoke. He used the word "asphyxiate". On present evidence, this situation is not likely to cause any great harm to healthy adults, but of course the Government are keeping the matter under review.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I should be the last person in your Lordships' House to prevent any Member asking questions—that is the very last thing I would think of—but really I am becoming a bit aggravated by questions which aim at interfering with a civilised existence.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Shinwell: Only the other week they tried to prevent members of the police force having a drink occasionally, and now they want to stop smoking on buses. I have never travelled on a bus—I have the opportunity of using a car—but really this is going a bit too far. Are we going to stop everything? Some people want to stop this place going on—and that is another example of aggravation. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who often asks very sensible questions, I am sorry but on this occasion I think it is completely uncivilised.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would it be out of order, since the Minister did not immediately leap up to reply, to ask this question. Is not the principle concerned involving not those who smoke pipes and cigars but those who smoke cigarettes? Is not the evidence that was quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, quite correct—that there is increasing medical evidence of the effect on non-smokers of those who are smoking? This is a new factor, which is better understood now as the result of the third report of the Royal College of Physicians. Is it not right that the Government should seek to use their influence, as was suggested by the noble Lord?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; the Government will do their best to discourage people from smoking, for the reasons which I think I have made quite clear and which were also made clear when a similar Question was asked two or three weeks ago. So far as bus passengers are concerned, surveys seem to suggest that comparatively few people consider smoking on buses to be a serious problem or a serious deterrent to travelling by bus. I dare say that if long-distance bus operators were to ban smoking on their buses then they probably would not get all the customers they want.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are considering increasing taxation by putting up health service charges in order to make up for the loss of revenue on tobacco duty?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, that question would be better directed to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I certainly do not propose to be drawn into answering it now.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would not the House and the Minister agree that the concluding question on this subject might well be to follow a recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee—of which I was proud to be a member—namely, that smoking should only be allowed between consenting adults in private?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had been involved in that committee; but I take the point that he makes.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would agree that the "upstairs, downstairs" system on the buses has now been running for a very long time and has worked extremely well. Is it not really an excellent example of freedom of choice which I understand this Government are very keen on?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, of course the Government are keen on freedom of choice. However, it is a matter for the bus companies to decide for themselves whether it is appropriate to ban or discourage smoking in any particular part of a bus because there are those among the public who do not like smoking as much as others.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Mishcon is not contained in the Labour Manifesto? Is it not improper that a member of our Front Bench should raise an issue which is in violation of decisions taken by our annual conference year by year?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I would hesitate before getting into the middle of a discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and his noble friend Lord Mishcon; but I can tell him that this is not in our manifesto either.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has incurred the formidable censure of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by his suggestion of banning smoking in buses, is not the practice followed in London a reasonable compromise between safeguarding health and individual liberty? Would my noble friend consider commending this example to other companies throughout the country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if it is successful, as my noble friend suggests it is, then I have no doubt that other bus companies will follow. There are other examples which I could give but I do not think it would be appropriate necessarily to compare those bus companies outside London with those bus companies within it. The message is much the same.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in places like the Underground one does not have the choice of going upstairs or downstairs to smoke? Would not the advice of the Government in such a case as that to the London Transport Board perhaps be advisable?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it, on the Underground one has the choice of going into a smoking or a non-smoking compartment.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am a little shocked at his suggestion that just because a man owns a bus he should thereby he entitled to correct another man's faults?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, he can do that only if he owns a public bus and uses it for public transport.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister not think that people should be left free to smoke or not to smoke as they please? I ask this question as one who gave up smoking 40 years ago.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course individuals are entitled to do what they please, but the fact is that, as I said in answer to a Question a couple of weeks ago, a great deal of money and a great many working days are lost as a result of smoking, and I do not think one can escape those facts.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords would the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Public Transport Users' Groups: Submission
3.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill: 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 have considered the submission on Streamlining the Cities (Cmnd. 9063) by the Public Transport Users' Groups in Greater London and the Metropolitan Counties.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the submission from the Public Transport Users' Groups is currently being considered along with other submissions received.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a submission from some 20 or more official Passenger Transport Users' Groups in Greater London and the metropolitan counties? Will he also recognise that the submission is highly critical of the proposals in the Government's White paper; that it is concerned that there may be an erosion of the progress made in passenger transport development since the metropolitan counties were established; and that it is concerned that the question of passenger transport will be divorced from other important subjects—not least, strategic planning? As almost every report dealing with Streamlining the Cities is critical, is the consultation really genuine and will the Government consider revising their proposals?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can confirm that the submission is from a number of transport users' groups. I have to refute nearly all the first set of points which the noble Lord embraced, in that we do not see the submission as particularly underlining a need for a reversal of public transport policy, nor do we see it as underlining a departure from the consideration of social and other needs and so on. So I cannot agree with what the noble Lord is suggesting. So far as consultation is concerned, this is a submission and I said in my original Answer that that submission is being considered.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I must ask whether the Minister has really read the submission. I have a copy here and my two extracts are only two of seven submissions, all of which are in line with what I said.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Yes, my Lords. I have read the submission. I, too, have a copy here and I also have a summary in front of me and I cannot accept what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how many of the voluntary organisations—those for the disabled, the elderly and so on—have put in submissions in this field?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I regret, not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are not only concerned with

1367
transport, and that every public organisation concerned with practically every aspect of public policy, and of whatever political party and none, has made submissions to the Government opposing their proposals?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper deals with the submission from the transport users' groups and I certainly do not have at my fingertips any information about any other submissions.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor 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 behaviour of English soccer fans in France. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Aerospace Industry. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Belstead who will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 27th and 28th February.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Third Reading of the Orkney Islands Council Order Confirmation Bill, consideration on Report of the Western Isles Islands Council (Kallin Pier, Harbour Jurisdiction) Order Confirmation Bill and the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984 will be taken.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the privilege amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that if we are to have a debate it should be on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Will that be suitable to the noble Lord?
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My, Lords, the Motion that I heard was that the privilege amendment be agreed to. Does the noble Lord rise to speak on that?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I wish to speak on the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think there will be an opportunity. I have only the privilege amendment in front of me at the moment.
On Question, an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, this is a very useful Bill, and it brings up to date the legislation necessary to keep up with the present situation in agriculture, where we have developments in animal breeding, in the keeping of animals and, of course, in the rights of veterinary people to collect material that may be required in the control of diseases. I know that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby may have liked to go a little further than the Bill has gone, but, so far as we are concerned, it fills a useful gap because of the developments that have taken place in the keeping of animals, in the slaughtering of animals and in the control of diseases, and we give it our blessing. I am glad that the Minister was able to say that he would make exceptions in the slaughtering provisions so as to allow housewives to kill their Christmas turkeys without a licence.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, having taken rather longer on the Committee and Report stages of this Bill than is customary for a Bill of this kind, I ask leave to make a few comments before the Bill finally passes through your Lordships' House. This is a useful Bill, and we have improved it slightly in the course of its passing through the House. It is not a criticism, but it is a disappointment that I have that the Bill does not contain a great deal more along the line of reform of the conditions under which animals go to slaughter. Clauses 4 to 7 are a distinct advance on present conditions, and we look forward to the regulations and the codes of practice which will be issued under the provisions of those clauses.
But the main problem here is that we are never going to catch up. At the present rate of progress, old problems will take too long to remedy and new ones will be looming up while we are still dealing with past practices. The Government should make up their minds to make speedier progress with the changes which they must know are overdue, and which I thought were implicit in the undertakings given by the Conservative Party as long ago as the election of 1979. I fear that Ministers express hopes about doing things during coming Sessions and during the lifetime of a Parliament, but find that the processes of administration, consideration and consultation all drag down the hopes of the Government, month after month and year after year. Even though we are dealing with a Bill which relates principally to poultry going to slaughter, there is still the problem of the battery hen in the background to be dealt with, a problem of probably 25 years' standing which is giving rise to increasing concern among members of the public about the conditions under which poultry are kept.
I have stressed more than once that new problems need to be identified very early before they rapidly change into considerable enterprises and industries, with very large amounts of capital invested in them. In this connection it is very important that when the Farm Animal Welfare Council undertakes an investigation and a report there should be the least possible delay in implementing the recommendations which

1369
the Government feel able to adopt, otherwise the Farm Animal Welfare Council goes through the whole process of consultation and the department then goes over it all again and gives more time to express views to people whose views have been expressed much earlier to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. This happened in relation to the recommendations which are embodied in Clauses 4 to 7 of the Bill.
One problem which is looming ahead and which I hope will be dealt with speedily is that of the slaughter of deer. A new farm animal, the red deer, is now the subject of intensive husbandry and a new element in the meat market. There is no doubt that there is considerable concern about it. I noticed that on our menu the other evening there was venison. Where did it come from? How was it slaughtered? Was it shot in the open by high velocity bullets, or was it slaughtered in an abattoir with a captive bullet? The deer is not yet a farm animal which is protected under the slaughterhouses Acts. It is very desirable that we should deal with a problem which is far different from that of the domesticated cow, bullock, sheep or pig. These are wild animals—much nearer the wild than the domesticated farm animal. It is important that we should look at this problem before it becomes a matter of serious public concern.
There are other aspects of the problem which it would not be suitable for me to go into at length on the Third Reading of the Bill. In the case of a Bill of this kind one must stay within reasonable boundaries of discussion. However, I should like to make one point before I sit down. It relates to the role of the consumer. Throughout the different stages of the Bill we have been dealing with the slaughter of millions and millions of birds for the table: poultry, geese, ducks, turkeys. And at the end of the Report stage we added quails.
When I read the evidence that was given some years ago to the Select Committee in another place, consideration of which was the forerunner of certain parts of the Bill, I kept on reading about "consumer demand", as though consumers were making imperative demands upon producers which somehow had to be met, on pain of public anger. The consumer may have preferences and choices but I do not believe that it can be called "consumer demand". There is a tendency to regard the consumer as a kind of automatic shopping basket. But the consumer is a human being and a whole person, with feelings and intelligence about the factors and conditions which lie behind what is being bought in the shops. When, therefore, we consider animal welfare, since we are told that birds and animals must come first, I hope that we shall not raise the status of consumer demand to a kind of religious text. It is nothing of the kind. I hope that the divide between producers and consumers in this context can be narrowed.
It is distressing to read of the venom expressed by some spokesmen in the context of the production of food animals and livestock in relation to those who are agitating on behalf of welfare societies. But so-called "welfarists" are just members of the consuming public, like everybody else. I wonder whether or not some of the animal welfare societies would do well to convert themselves into a kind of consumer
1370
association in order to express their views as consumers rather than as those who care for animals, without full regard to their own involvement in the treatment of animals about which we now complain. There is need for a closer relationship between consumers and producers so that the interests of both can be looked at with a greater degree of harmony and understanding than is the case at present.
Another aspect of this matter is the use of the boycott. I hope noble Lords have not overlooked the fact that Tesco have said that the protests they have received from their own customers about the culling of seals in Canada have been so strong that they have decided, as a matter of company policy, to ban the future purchase of fish products from Canada, so long as the culling of seals continues. That is a very courageous and very unusual decision. We might devise something of that kind as between consumers and producers in other branches of production if the gap of misunderstanding and hostility which exists between them is widened still further. That is why it is very important that we should not regard the producer as our enemy. Nor should the producer regard the consumer as his enemy. The consumer is acknowledged by the producer to be in command in the shops. Therefore producers should try to come to terms with the consumers, who have views about the way in which animals and birds are produced and slaughtered.
I shall not detain the House any longer. However, this is an opportunity which rarely occurs. I am glad to see that animal welfare, which is usually the last business of the day, today happens to be the first. I am grateful for that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have responded to the Motion, That this Bill do now pass and who have contributed to the debates we have had on the Bill. When the Bill was introduced it was a good Bill, but due to the very hard work which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and other noble Lords have done on it, we have made it even better. I am always full of admiration for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is able to talk about enormously interesting subjects which do not necessarily always fall within the scope of the legislation which is being discussed.
It has been a great delight in the last few minutes that on a Bill which deals with farm animal disease, poultry slaughter, veterinary drugs and the artificial breeding of livestock, the noble Lord has taken us to Canada to have a look at seals and has referred to the very acrimonious debates which took place in this House a few years ago on the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which is a matter for the Home Office and a different kind of legislation. However, the noble Lord made various points to me. I am not saying that the points to which I have referred are not serious—of course they are—but the noble Lord made other points to me about the Bill.
Briefly, on the subject of deer, we in the Ministry of Agriculture are awaiting a report from the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the slaughter of deer. So far as getting on with things is concerned, we are aiming to introduce very soon proposals for

1371
regulations under Clause 6, which is the clause dealing with codes of practice, with a view to making regulations as soon as possible after the Bill enters upon the statute book.
The question of battery cages, as the noble Lord will know, is currently under very active discussion in Brussels and here in Britain. This Bill covers a wide range of measures in the veterinary field, and our debates have concentrated on those clauses dealing with the welfare of poultry and slaughter, and with other important and useful provisions, too. Perhaps I may add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. With great respect to the noble Lord, perhaps he went a little further than I did on Report. We are certainly going to provide for exceptions in relation to the licensing of commercial slaughterers, but I did not actually say what those exceptions were going to be. With that small word of difference between myself and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, may I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Bill, and particularly the two noble Lords who have spoken on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Soccer Hooliganism: English Fans in France
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with permission, I will repeat the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the behaviour of English soccer fans in France. I believe that my honourable friend Mr. Macfarlane gave the Answer, which was as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, no-one in the House can feel anything but a sense of shame, disgrace and revulsion at what occurred in France before, during and after the international soccer match in Paris yesterday.
"I am currently awaiting further details from my and other officials in Paris, but early reports show that 30 English fans were arrested following violence in the stadium: 26 have been released and four are still being held. My officials will be holding further discussions to assess the extent of the damage caused by the disturbances.
"It was in the light of previous incidents caused by English football supporters abroad (notably in Luxembourg in November) that pre-match planning for this game, on the part of Government, the football authorities and the French football and law and order authorities, was particularly extensive.
"Considerable efforts were made to implement the measures agreed by European Ministers with responsibility for sport at our meeting in Rotterdam in November. The initiative for European agreement on these measures to combat football-related hooliganism was taken by me in January 1983 when I met European Ministers in Paris. The paper agreed by European Ministers for sport contains a number of recommendations for action by Governments and by football authorities. Two in particular—control of ticket sales and crowd
1372
segregation—would enable a considerable reduction in the opportunities for crowd disturbances.
"In addition to my visit to Paris in January 1983, I met the French Minister with responsibility for sport again in Paris in September 1983 and discussed football hooliganism and the great importance of co-operation between European Governments. I also wrote to the French Minister on 10th February 1984 stressing the need for adequate policing within and without the stadium and the need to deter offenders by resolute action by the police and the courts.
"Representatives of the English Football Association (including their overseas liaison officer—a retired senior Metropolitan Police officer) visited Paris on 9th, 10th and 11th January 1984 and met with representatives of the French football authorities, the French police and our embassy in Paris. Arrangements were made regarding control of ticket sales, crowd segregation, sale of alcohol, supporter travel routes and policing.
"The European agreement is a major and constructive document reflecting the positive action and intention of government to do all within its power to combat hooliganism. We are confident that proper and effective implementation of the measures contained in the agreement would greatly reduce the problems.
"I am in touch with the French Minister for Sport requesting a full report of the incidents, and will also be meeting the chairman and secretary of the Football Association tomorrow afternoon for discussions.
"Mr. Speaker, I shall be conducting a full appraisal of the incidents with the parties concerned. I shall need to establish whether the measures agreed by European Ministers were fully implemented on the day. I fully intend to continue to urge all concerned to do everything possible to rid the game of these mindless louts and to urge European countries to use stringent penalties against convicted offenders to act as a deterrent".
My Lords, that concludes the Answer to the Private Notice Question.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the Answer he has just read to us. We on these Benches echo what his honourable friend feels about the assault on the reputation of this country as well as on that of football when events such as this take place. Unfortunately, it does not come as such a surprise as one would have hoped, because this has happened in the past two years, not only in Luxembourg but also in Denmark, Holland, Italy and Switzerland.
We feel that it is no longer a question for the Department of the Environment, who have done their best to wrestle with this problem both in the last Government and in this one. It is no longer a matter of sport, because the football authorities have done what they can. They have sold tickets only to registered fans and through reputable travel authorities. We believe that it is a law and order problem. It is well known that drunken fans were fighting on the train. They boarded the ferry drunk, and were fighting. May I ask the noble

1373
and learned Lord these questions? What were the special arrangements for the role of the county police in Kent this time? What part did British Rail police play? What part did the harbour authority police take in this? And what happened in respect of the passport authorities at Dover when fans got off the train, as I understand it, already drunk but able to obtain duty free alcohol on the ferry across?
Is it true, as we have been led to understand, that the National Front was behind much of the ugly violence and organised its members to attend the match? As the noble and learned Lord has told us, 30 fans were arrested and 26 have been released. Is it not true, and also understandable, that other countries want to get rid of these people, and that they do not want to keep them in their prisons, at their expense, in their countries?
It must surely be apparent that new government initiatives are wanted in respect of this whole question, because all the old initiatives have now failed, with the increase in intensity of the violence. We must find a way of exercising some form of passport control. There must be tougher controls to protect both other passengers who are travelling and the people of the countries abroad which such fans visit. Is it not now an urgent matter for the Home Secretary and for the forces of law and order?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I also thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Answer which covers that shameful event and which I think everyone in the House will have blushed to hear. Having not had the chance to read and consider the Answer, I can only say that it sounds as though a great deal was done to try to prevent this sort of thing happening and it was entirely unsuccessful. Therefore, as a whole, we must think again. I have only one suggestion to make and that came out of the Statement. I understand that over 30 fans were arrested, and I believe 24 were then released and sent back. I should like to have a bilateral arrangement when these matches take place that the fans are sent back under arrest and not released. At least we could then deal with them here. I withhold any further comment from these Benches until we have had time to discuss the matter; but we deeply deplore anything so shameful to our nation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the way in which they have treated this Statement. There is no difference in the House either about our feelings on this subject or about the seriousness with which we treat outbreaks of violence of this kind. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that there is what I might call a law and order dimension in this—and I apologise for the English of that—but it is at the moment a matter of international agreement between Ministers for sport. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will agree that in this country his responsibilities are closely involved, as indeed are the responsibilities of his appropriate counterparts in France and other countries where these matches take place.
I am informed and believe that alcohol was not available on the train in Kent. I believe the train was
1374
escorted by the British Rail police and that the bar on the ship, which was a French ship called the "St. Eloi", was not open. Therefore that has been dealt with. British transport police were on the ship at the request of the French owners.
The movement of citizens is of course a legal right and a legal right guaranteed within the Common Market. I think it would require rather stringent changes in our legal system to restrict the free movement of individuals in that respect. I note the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, about persons being sent back here under arrest. I think I should refer that to my right honourable friend because it would probably require some kind of primary legislation and agreement between the authorities involved in both countries. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord further on the subject. I think I had better leave it there for the moment.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is not time that on these occasions we stopped referring to these people as football fans since it is perfectly obvious that their interest in football matches is minimal? They are simply looking for an excuse for a violent foray against persons and property.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend's suggestion. I did not read the word "fan" with any great enthusiasm when I repeated the Statement. I noticed other expressions such as "hooligans" and "mindless louts" were also used. I rather deprecate the use of jolly expressions about people who misbehave in this way. They are offending against the criminal law of any country in which they perform. Some of the offences are undoubtedly punishable by imprisonment and would be covered by the extradition Acts. I take the same view as my noble friend. He is quite right in expressing our feeling that to describe them as just friendly supporters of the side playing away is not quite enough.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not a particularly disturbing and deplorable feature of this grave matter that unfortunately the British hooligans are the worst, so far as one can see from the reports of what has been going on? They bring a shame upon this country and do great damage to us. One is glad to detect that a fresh look is being applied to the scene. The recital of the international conferences and discussions has apparently produced nothing—at least nothing to stop events like those which took place yesterday. I ask one factual question. One gathers that a great deal of criminal misconduct happened from this howling mob before it ever got to France; apparently on the train, ashore, and on the boat. What prosecutions are to be brought and what arrests have been made for offences committed within our own jurisdiction? If we started there it would give some example. It is a grave situation which is doing our country grave harm.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble and learned Lord. I have no idea whether our miscreants are the worst. Whether they are the worst or not, they bring grave discredit upon

1375
Great Britain. I gather that these were English and I notice that the noble and learned Lord is wearing a daffodil today.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if I may interrupt, it never happens at Welsh rugby football matches.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it did not happen yesterday, at any rate. However, the miscreants bring great discredit on the sport and on our nation. I cannot give the noble and learned Lord any information with regard to arrests within our jurisdiction; but I note what he says. There was a certain amount of damage on the train and I think that the other damage was either on the French boat or in France.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can cast his mind back to 1921 when we attended the Eton and Harrow match at Lords, after which, wearing our top hats and wielding our sticks, we descended upon the pitch in order to wreak vengeance on the Harrovians. The police, with the utmost good humour, intervened and suppressed it. They suppressed it not only for 1921 but, in spite of a 60-year presence, they suppressed it altogether and it never occurred again. Can we look at that remarkable example of deterrence and see what was the deterrent used, how it worked and try to repeat it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I remember 1921; but I think the noble Lord should have used the first person singular rather than the first person plural about what took place. I was a perfectly innocent witness on that occasion. So as far as I remember, the worst that happened was that top hats were smashed and jumped up and down upon. I do not think there were many casualties. My own view about what did happen then—which I think he was right in saying was the last, or almost the last, of such occasions which had hitherto become almost a tradition—was that the force of public opinion made people realise that there was no justification for such behaviour and that it brought great discredit on those who participated and those who were associated with them. The parents of those concerned and the school authorities conveyed that message quite sharply to those who could be identified.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I be permitted to correct one thing in my observations? If I referred to British hooliganism, on this occasion it would appear to have been an English excrescence.
Lord Somers: My Lords, so many attempts have been made to eliminate this pestilential nuisance without a great deal of success. Does the noble and learned Lord think that something really drastic could be done in the way of threatening, should there be another outbreak, to ban all professional football matches for the space of one year?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that would depend, of course, upon Parliament, but I fancy that some Members of Parliament might think that this was rather drastic action to take. I must say that it is a very serious matter, but curiously enough it reminds me tremendously of what took place in ancient Rome between the Blues and the Greens.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, while I share the general revulsion at this behaviour, I was a little uneasy about the last few words of the original Answer, if I heard them aright. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord this question. Whatever else may happen in the rest of Europe, it would be wrong, would it not, for the Government in this country to urge the courts to impose more severe penalties for a particular type of offence?
The Lord Chancellor: Curiously enough, my Lords, the last words of the Answer read as follows:
"I fully intend to continue to urge all concerned to do everything possible to rid the game of these mindless louts and to urge European countries to use stringent penalties against convicted offenders to act as a deterrent".
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I had always thought that we were European.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rather gathered from the original Answer that my honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport was contemplating urging European countries to impose stringent penalties upon British hooligans if they misbehaved abroad. The courts in this country do not have jurisdiction to impose penalties of any kind on foreign offences, except murder.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that sending the football hooligans out of the country where the offence has occurred, except where there have been very serious assaults, makes it extremely difficult after they get home to bring charges, and that for the most wanton damage and vandalism people get off scot-free? Would it not be possible, by mutual agreement with the host country, to hold and charge these people where the offence has occurred? Would not a period in a foreign gaol be far more effective than all our cries of woe?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no doubt that the French authorities will take careful note of what my noble friend has suggested. I do not think that we could compel them so to act if they did not want to.
Lord Plant: My Lords. I rise to say how much this incident has upset me. When I saw on the television these disgraceful scenes I was greatly upset. I was even more upset to read in the newspapers this morning what a good thing it is that Britain was not successful in the European Cup, and therefore will not be playing in France this summer. That, I think, is a condemnation of the sporting instincts of certain of the British football supporters. No solutions have been posed by your Lordships, and I have none. There could be more stringent penalties; but I think that we have to take into account what my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale has said, and must be careful not to have more severe penalties in this connection than in others. I think that the law has to take its course. I believe that a great responsibility rests on the police. They are doing a good job, and I think that we have to support them. The Government must try to find some way out of this, and I am sure that in their discussions they will have the full support of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know quite how to comment on that. I do not think that the noble Lord could have complained about the tone of the press this morning, which was universally condemnatory of what took place. As regards the British Government dealing with such disorders in this country, it is of course our responsibility, but it is not our responsibility to punish offenders abroad. Speaking generally and from the point of view of the general jurisprudence of Europe, of course the offences themselves are not classed as hooliganism, or football hooliganism: they are classed as assaults, criminal damage, offences against Sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and so on, and the equivalent offences abroad. The offenders must be punished for the offences which they commit, which are that class of offence. The penalty must suit the crime and the record of the offender.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may one take it, by virtue of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is dealing with this PNQ and Answer, that he together with the Law Officers will be consulting on this matter and the very serious situation in regard to it? May I also ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would agree that the one positive contribution that could be made here is by the youth clubs of this land, which at the present moment are getting very little support indeed and which very much need encouragement?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that I was asked to repeat the Answer of the Minister with responsibilities for sport in my capacity as Lord Chancellor. I think it was probably because I had once been a Minister for Sport myself. I should probably not be consulted about law and order problems. My function as Lord Chancellor is to administer the courts and to deal with the judicial side of matters of this kind. I studiously avoid saying anything about prosecutions. Whether the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should be called in I think would be a matter for my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, who is principally responsible in this country for law and order. I suppose that in France, although the distribution of offices is somewhat different, it would be the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 13 [Restrictions on inclusion of certain events]:
Lord Elton: My Lords, it may help if I remind your Lordships that before I was so politely interrupted last Monday I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 43.
Your Lordships will now have had the very considerable advantage of having had 48 hours in which to consider what I said and to decide what was wrong with it, or, as I hope, what was right. In the interval I, too, have had time to reflect on the
1378
difficulties of handling under the rules of procedure for Report stage—which do not permit noble Lords to speak more than once, except when moving an amendment—groups of amendments addressing the same problem. May I suggest that after I have briefly summarised my wares, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, might speak to his Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, so that your Lordships can see the alternative shapes in which the Government amendments might reach the statute book? Thereafter, if my noble friend Lord De La Warr wants to comment on them and advance the claims of his solution he might do so; the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, can do likewise with his; and your Lordships will then have the full range of proposals before you. After any further discussion, it would then be open to me, by leave and by convention, to reply to the whole debate. If your Lordships are broadly content with that, perhaps I should very briefly recapitulate the points that I sought to put before your Lordships on Monday night.
In summary, the effect of Amendments Nos. 36, 39 and 43, taken together, is as follows. First, the amendments re-label the events covered by Clause 31 which are to be kept on a list maintained by the Secretary of State. They become "listed events". Secondly, we are proposing for the first time a label for the events covered by the restrictions in Clause 13(2) on pay-per-view and restricted services. These events will become "protected events". Thirdly, the amendments provide that the term "national interest", which is referred to in connection with listed events, includes interests within the four parts of the United Kingdom.
Fourthly, the amendments provide a new definition of the events covered by the restrictions on pay-per-view showing—that is, those events we are now to term "protected events"—rather than referring to events of a class of description which your Lordships thought in Committee might go too wide. The new definition talks in terms of an event which,
"is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".
We believe that this effectively narrows the scope of the restriction and makes it clear that to qualify for protection an event must in some way be a continuation of something which the broadcasters have previously shown.
Finally, the amendments provide a definition of "listed event" to tie in with the re-labelling of these two categories and provide a technical revision of the expression "pay-per-view". We believe that these changes will considerably improve the operation of Clause 13.
I shall be replying to points your Lordships will make in my wind up—which, I am afraid, will be longer than this because I shall be replying to four groups of amendments—but I believe, as I say, that what your Lordships have before you now is an improvement on what was before your Lordships at Committee stage and I commend these amendments to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am very grateful for having been invited to take this opportunity not to move but to speak to my two amendments, Nos. 44 and 45, which are amendments to the Government's

1379
amendment No. 43. These are amendments which relate back to subsection (2). Subsection (2) is the one whose message is that events which really belong or have belonged to the BBC or to the ITA shall not become available to Cable. I think that is a sort of shorthand description of subsection (2).
May I take this opportunity to say that for myself I am very grateful to the Government for the amendments to subsection (2) that they have put down to narrow it, because I think it is conceded by all of us that subsection (2) as it stands is far too widely drawn and is much too big a net and would be hopelessly unfair to cable if it went through unamended.
Subsection (2) refers to protected events. To see what that means we have to look at the Government's Amendment No. 43, which says:
"'protected event' means … one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".
I think, if I may say so, that that definition is quite satisfactory if what you have in mind is what I believe the Government had in mind when they drafted their definition; that is to say, a series of single events which come round probably year after year. But there is another situation which can be described by the expression,
"one of a series of similar events".
To give an example of this, let me take a series of qualifying horse races which take place throughout a single season. The heats are run on different race courses at different times during the season and they lead up to a final at the end of the season between the horses that have qualified by winning the heats. Some of these heats, or qualifying races, will have taken place on Saturdays on race courses with which either the BBC or the ITA have long-standing arrangements. But other heats are likely to be held either in midweek or upon other race courses with whom neither the BBC nor the ITV have arrangements. I do not see why those other events should not be broadcast by cable if cable would like to broadcast them, and I do not believe that the definition of "protected events" is satisfactory to deal with the events that I am describing because I do not believe that the Government had those events in mind when they drafted their definition.
But my two amendments to the definition "protected events" seek to make it clear that in the kind of situation that I am describing the events which the BBC and ITV do not regularly broadcast shall be open to cable to broadcast if that is what they would like to do. That is the purpose of my two amendments.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, before I speak I must once again declare my interest as being a member of a cable consortium. It was brought to my attention that I failed to do this last time and in retrospect I would like to apologise to your Lordships for what I regard as having been a serious omission. I am very grateful, as I was before in Committee stage, to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for the things he has said, because he has in a very large measure covered my arguments.
I have taken the view, after the very careful consideration which we have been allowed during the 48 hours that have elapsed, that the amendments that the Government have made are helpful. I am very
1380
sensible of the trouble that my noble friend has taken. So it is with a certain amount of grief that I have to say that, though they are helpful, I do not believe that they go nearly far enough.
In order to explain to your Lordships why not, I think that it might be helpful if I went back, not for the first time, to the White Paper. I am going to quote a few lines from paragraph 115 which is to be found on page 49. That is from the chapter that deals with pay-per-view, where it says as follows:
"The Cable Authority will therefore have a duty to ensure, by means of the conditions attached to the operators' franchises, that no programme shall be offered on a pay per view basis if an event customarily shown on one of the existing public service channels would, as a result, no longer be available on such a channel".
Although that sentence contains double negatives it is in fact a very positive sentence and it accords exactly with what I am after and with what I believe the cable operators would find to be very satisfactory, because they are in no circumstances looking for any exclusivity for themselves. Under no circumstances are they looking to show anything or to do anything which denies the broadcasters the right to do what they have done in the past; and by definition this means that there can be no question that they would have the opportunity in any way to outbid.
It was because of that situation—and at the Committee stage I made a suggestion which was not found satisfactory, and I can well understand why—that we objected to Clause 13(2), and in particular to the phrase,
"is of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority".
We objected because, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, the phrase was so wide and so indefinite that it would by definition almost entirely exclude the showing of important sporting events on a pay-per-view basis.
The Government were good enough to say that they would have a look at the point and it is as a result of that that these amendments come from my noble friend. Having just read out the important words in Clause 13(2), like my noble friend I now want to read out the words which it is proposed should appear. Instead of the words,
"is of a class or description which has been regularly broadcast by a broadcasting authority",
we are invited to accept,
"is one of a series of similar events which it is the practice of a broadcasting authority to broadcast".
I think that we are getting dangerously into the realm of semantics because it would be possible to take the view that there was very little difference between these two sets of words. Certain it is that neither of them satisfies what I understand was the Government's intention which was so clearly set out in the White Paper in the terms which I have just read out to your Lordships.
To me the phrase is still highly restrictive. It denies the objective that we have, which in many cases, because of the multiplicity of channels, is the opportunity to put out the whole of an event, whereas the BBC or the contractors, due to the limitation on their time, can put out only part of it. I submit that the phrase falls far short of the White Paper, and I hope that, if he agrees that it does fall short, my noble friend

1381
will explain why the Government have decided to make the change.
That deals with the failing, in my view, of the amendment to give cable the total freedom that it wants, subject only to the condition that it can never stop the broadcasters putting out what they want and can never therefore affect the price that they have to pay for doing so. Let us go on, if we may, to deal with the question of the meaning of the word "series", because we have really got down to the meaning of a single word. What does the word "series" mean when it is applied to sporting events?
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, dealt with this question, too, and he used racing as an example. Perhaps I may use the example of football. Most of the major club matches are either part of the lead-up to the League Cup or heats in the lead-up to the Cup Final. Are they then series? Let me take an example. Let us suppose that in the fourth round of the Cup competition Liverpool are playing some other club and the cable system that is to be set up in Liverpool (which is called Merseyside Cable) wants to show the match. Will it be denied showing it because it is regarded as part of a series?
The same would apply, I suggest, to Wimbledon. A cable channel could be devoted to Wimbledon for a whole day, showing all the important events that are taking place on the subsidiary courts. Would that be part of a series leading up to the great Friday and Saturday when matters are decided? The same could apply to the snooker championships, the darts championships, or, if I may for a moment go perhaps a little up market, the three days of the Badminton horse trials.
This is quite a different exercise from the request to justify the restriction at all, which I maintain is away from the White Paper's intentions. Can my noble friend help us by giving us an interpretation, which will be very important in that it will appear in Hansard and people will take account of it in days to come? Can my noble friend give us an interpretation in specific terms of what he means by the "series" which cable would be prevented from showing?
I fear that I have laid rather a heavy burden upon my noble friend, but he will appreciate that this matter is an absolute cornerstone in terms of the prospects for the new cable operators—possibly even their chances of surviving—in the early years. On my own admission I am a cable operator, speaking for cable operators, and I ask my noble friend very urgently whether he can help us in this matter. At the same time, I am sorry to say, I must tell him that in any case I find his solution, at which he has worked so hard, to be generally unsatisfactory.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, looked around the House to see whether I was in my usual place to move my amendment. Bearing in mind where I am at present standing, I would say that I am not intending to try to dominate him by height on this occasion. It so happens that the Bench on which I usually sit was rather full. We are discussing a rather complicated, interlocked series of amendments, and if by mischance I move slightly astray from what is strictly germane to
1382
what we are supposed to be discussing together, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me.
The situation is complicated further still by the fact that we have redefinitions of what are "events"; redefinitions which are intended, quite properly, to secure a more accurate definition of what is protected, what is listed, and so on. On the whole, I think that we should congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forth amendments which make these matters clearer. In particular, I would like to thank him for accepting a point that I raised in relation to England, Scotland and Wales and for neatly incorporating it into his own amendment and for having the courtesy to write to me to the effect that he was doing so.
I shall go straight to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The amendments go to the heart of the matter. The Government, in the Bill originally and in their amendments, have striven as hard as they can to strike a fair balance between the broadcasters' interests and the cable operators' interests. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, so far as I can make out, appear to narrow down that definition quite considerably in that they qualify the event. The amendments would seem to exclude—if I am wrong, I shall no doubt be told—any event even if it was of a kind that a broadcaster would normally broadcast. The event would be broadcast against pay-per-view only if it itself has been broadcast before.
Similarly, in Amendment No. 40 there is a narrowing down. A prohibition of pay-per-view would not apply if the broadcaster was able to secure nonexclusive rights in the event or any part of the event, in a wider category. Here we come to the crux of the matter. This may seem to be nitpicking. If, however, I am right, the principal weakness of the amendment would appear to be the possibility of abuse through the organiser—I stress the word "organiser"—offering to the broadcaster broadcasting rights not in the event but in "any part thereof". What is a part? Presumably, a sequence, however short, however unimportant, could be a part. Such protection as the amendment affords could therefore readily be frustrated by making available unnecessary and very boring bits of the event that would be of no use at all to broadcasters.
I have tried to deal briefly with the amendments because we discussed these matters at great length in Committee. I am not anxious to delay your Lordships any longer than necessary. I shall therefore proceed to speaking briefly to my own amendment in which I propose that the Secretary of State should have reserve powers, not necessarily ever to be exercised, to prevent the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting or cable transmission of sporting or other national events which are on the Secretary of State's list. There was a weakness, I am conscious, in the amendment that I moved at Committee stage. It was a weakness that I freely acknowledge.
The purpose of the powers now proposed, which I hope I have got right this time, is to encourage the various interested parties, that is to say, the organisers of the event, the cable authorities and the broadcasters, to work out satisfactory arrangements on an informal basis. I am sure that this is the key to success in the endeavour that all of us are making. We should have informal discussions and work out

1383
satisfactory answers without having to bring into play the powers of the Secretary of State. But it is unlikely that those informal arrangements will always be satisfactory unless there are reserve powers to back them up. This has been found in other fields. I must not refer to other Bills before your Lordships' House. But the very existence of reserve powers concentrates the mind wonderfully—like the prospect of being hanged the next day.
The purpose of my amendment is strengthened by news that appeared, I believe, in today's newspapers of the surprise coming together of two different sorts of cable-providing consortia. There is the coming together of Home Box Office and other people who propose to provide films. There is also the report that, again, I read rather hastily in the newspapers this morning, of the coming together of two companies that have been set up to provide sporting events to cable companies.
To return to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I think that he chose a particularly unfortunate example in order to illustrate his question about a series of events. Wimbledon is one of the few events covered virtually from beginning to end, very often on two channels—not on 24 channels which could happen on cable—by the BBC. ITV has chosen not to do so, although it occasionally shows excerpts of matches. There are other series events that might have provided better examples. I agree that it is essential that we have some kind of definition at least of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill believes to be a series of events.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this is getting more and more complex as we go along. It is a very difficult subject. The Hunt Committee took one view of it, and the White Paper took a more generous view. From this side on Second Reading, there was cautious endorsement of pay-per-view on the ground that it would raise the level of cable television. I do not think that anyone really believes this is another licence to print money. I was lunching today with a Commonwealth citizen interested in pay-per-view who says that, in his part of the country, it has been a complete flop and that people who are presented with new films would rather see excellent not-so-new films "for free" on the ordinary broadcasting service. So pay-per-view is running into grave difficulties.
When we suggested that there was something to be said for pay-per-view, the proviso was that there should be no deprivation of the person who lives in an uncabled area or of the person who lives in a cabled area who cannot afford to subscribe and, even if he can afford to subscribe, says that the broadcasting services that he has long enjoyed are good enough for him provided that they endure. We have sympathy for such prudent, perhaps parsimonious, citizens. We feel, in short, that the people of this country should enjoy all those events that they would have enjoyed on television if cable had never existed. We insist that those people should not have the programmes that they are accustomed to receiving sold over their heads to wealthier or more free-spending citizens.
We are grateful to the Government for getting the events in question into orderly categories. First, there
1384
is the protected event. The events which the authority believes to be a series of similar events seem to be absolute sacred cows. I must say that, although the category looks to be useful, it does require further and better definition. One assumes it includes the Cup Final, the main contests at Wimbledon, the Rugby Union internationals, the highlights of Test cricket; and I suppose the non-sporting events such as Trooping the Colour or the Royal Opening of Parliament.
The proposal is that in no circumstances should any part of these be sold on pay-per-view cable. One agrees with that, but perhaps before the Bill is completed the Government could issue the protected list—it exists; it belongs to the past—in the interests of clarity, and to provide us with the necessary reassurance.
We come to the listed events. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is not content with the great concessions that have been made on listed events. He also wants a bite at the cherry of the protected category. He wants permission to include on pay-per-view protected events if the authority believe it will not adversely affect the terms on which the broadcasting authority is able to acquire a non-exclusive right to the event. I can see a certain logic in this. It would obviously make sense on an all-sports channel to make a bid for the whole of Wimbledon, including the bigger matches which the BBC would continue to broadcast on the usual terms. I can see the logic of this, but what I should like to know is this: the cable operator under the must-carry rule is already carrying those important Wimbledon matches—this is an obligation; does he also have freedom to carry those matches on another channel as well? Because if he has, then the problem which the noble Earl suggested is solved. I am a little worried about the—
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would give way for a minute? He did say: "then the problem is solved". Indeed it is not, because under the must-carry rules all the cable operator can put out is such (I use the word) snippets—where they are snippets—as the broadcaster has time to do. It is not solved for him if what he wants to do is to use one of these channels to give the whole thing.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, what I am suggesting is that he can perhaps have all the events leading up to the protected events; a "protected snippet" as it were.
I ask: as he has an obligation to give that protected snippet on one channel, on his BBC or ITV channel—he has an obligation to do that—has he got the freedom to present that snippet to conclude the matches which he has given on his pay-per-view channel? He is not charging for that. People get them free. Can he sell preliminary matches and still complete his programme and make it sensible by adding these snippets which his viewers could see anyway if they were to switch over to the must-carry channel?
I am a bit worried about these restricted national events. I should really like to know what they are. We can understand that the protected events relate to the past; these are historic. But the restricted events are current events and they are future events. I can see that some of those events will be so highly saleable or so

1385
highly box office that pay-per-view could exact quite a good fee from their viewers and pay a very high fee to the promoter of them.
What are the broadcasting companies to do? If cable had not existed, the broadcasting companies might well have made a modest bid for one of these events—which are now classed as restricted—and they would have given it freely to the viewers. But suppose they are faced with the competition of cable which is in a position to pay a much higher fee. The noble Lord suggests that cable does not want anything exclusive; they will be quite willing to share with the BBC or ITV; but the question is: at what price? Do they all get together and agree a price? I think the promoters will be very upset if they get together and agree to pay a minimum price. Or is the leading bidder going to get the exclusive rights? Or is the one who gets the exclusive rights going to be able to sell it on at a reasonable price, or just want the exclusivity?
All these questions are very difficult and very detailed. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to answer them all, but quite obviously during the course of this Bill very profound thought will have to be given to the question of pay-per-view and fairness to the average viewer.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I might briefly support my noble friend Lord De La Warr on one point only. In reading what my noble friend the Minister said last time—and it has been very helpful—I came up with two points. The first point was that it seemed to me that his amendments—which he has already spoken to—were helpful in that they clarified the situation, but I was left with the thought that Amendment No. 39 in particular did not really relax the severity of subsection (2). I think, from what other noble Lords have said, that probably he will be addressing himself to that when he comes to reply, but it really does seem to me—I believe this is what my noble friend was saying, and giving good reasons for it—that subsection (2) newly amended by Amendment No. 39 is still very severe.
It was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, had to say about his discussions at lunchtime because I get the feeling that there is not going to be an enormous amount of money in this cable operation business. There might be one day, but I do not know that the financial competition is going to be as fierce as people fear. Obviously there has got to be a degree of control, and that is where I think the sort of things that are said in our Amendment No. 40—which give authority to a Cable Authority to use its discretion, if you like, rather than the great severity which is forced upon us even in the amended subsection (2)—are perhaps a better way through.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in following the scheme of handling on which I think we are all agreed with these amendments, I turn first to those numbered 44 and 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and will try thereafter to follow a labyrinthine path through my notes on the amendments. The question of what constitutes an event in Clause 13 is going to be difficult however we define it. Under the scheme of Clause 13(2), whatever descriptive terms or definitions
1386
we do use, it will be for the Cable Authority to take a view as to what is a protected event and what is not. In so doing they will, of course, also have to decide what constitutes "an event", and that will involve using their collective common sense.
The noble Lord's intention is quite probably to try to make it clearer both to us and to them what that decision should embrace. That is a task in which he has my sympathetic interest and evidently that of my noble friends and all noble Lords. There do, unfortunately, appear to be two weaknesses in what he proposes and one of them, I fear, is fatal.
The first difficulty is that in narrowing the criteria the noble Lord may have made it a matter of no difficulty to evade the effects of the clause. The test we propose is only that the event shall be one of a series of similar events that have habitually been broadcast, and to this the noble Lord's amendment would add the test that the event itself should have been habitually broadcast.
If we apply this new definition to the example which the noble Lord gave in Committee, then if last year's "Baked Beans Handicap" goes under the illustrious title this year of the "Golden Cigar Handicap", and even if all other aspects of it remain the same, it would be open to anyone to argue under the noble Lord's amendment that this year's race is a different event which it had not been the practice to broadcast and which could therefore be offered on pay-per-view terms. That is contrary to common sense, I readily agree, but it would not be contrary to the law as it would stand if this amendment were accepted. This could be a real difficulty. For example, when the sponsorship for the one day cricket championships changes, as happens from time to time, it would—would it not?—be most unfortunate if the broadcasters, and thus the viewing public, were deprived of all protection.
So it would seem that the noble Lord's amendments open the way both to deliberate evasion of the intended effect of the clause and also to its effects automatically lapsing under circumstances which could not be avoided and which, I should add, common sense suggests did not amount to discontinuity at all. So at least it could be argued in court, and that would be a weakness.
But there is another argument which could be made which would be far more worrying and which, I believe, does contain a fatal weakness. We are, after all, dealing with strict definitions on the basis of which decisions of the authority could be challenged in court, and it could perfectly well be argued that any event and every event is a unique occurrence which occurs at a single point of time and can never be repeated. The England/Wales Rugby International of 1982 was not the same event as the England/Wales Rugby International of 1983; it was played on a different ground, by different players, on a different day, in a different year and with a different result—a result, I may add, that I hope, even on seeing the daffodil on the Bench in front of me, may be different again in a fortnight's time!
Although we tend to think of the England/Wales match and the Cup Final as "an" event, they are really a series of events, one of which happens every year.

1387
That is why the Government have plumped, after some agonising, for the wider formulation of,
"one of a series of similar events".
It is less susceptible to this kind of perverse but nonetheless powerful argument.
I cannot, of course, draw for your Lordships a precise dividing line between an event which is similar and one which is the same, but this is not a distinction that has to be made under the Government's definition. Under the noble Lord's amendment this difficult distinction has to be addressed and could lead at best to litigation and uncertainty, and at worst to rendering the whole clause completely ineffective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will let us have our amendment without his amendment.
But I cannot leave the subject without giving to my noble friend Lord De La Warr the clarification for which he asked, of what exactly a series of events might be. My noble friend, among others, was concerned about an event which might change its name. However, my noble friend was more particularly concerned with the different rounds of the FA Cup or of a snooker competition and so on. His question—if I can paraphrase it—was whether the fact that the broadcasters always showed the finals and some matches from the earlier rounds meant that cable would be precluded from offering anything from that particular competition on pay-per-view. I can see the close attention which my noble friend is paying to my reply. I have to tell him that I fear that there is no cut and dried answer to this, and nor do I think we can hope to resolve these matters with absolute precision on the face of the Bill. It will be for the authority to determine whether any particular event which cable might wish to put on pay-per-view, is similar to a series of events which it has been the broadcasters' practice to show.
The important thing is whether on the facts it is clear that the broadcasters have actually covered that series of events. Let us take the example of the FA Cup. The broadcasters have always covered the final, and so that would clearly be protected, in addition, no doubt, to being a listed event under Clause 13(1). Equally, the broadcasters have never covered the qualifying rounds, when the more romantically named teams like the Corinthian Casuals and Marine are locked in combat, nor even the first two rounds proper—if I can say that without giving offence—when the third and fourth division teams come in; but not their senior colleagues from the first two. So the broadcasters could not reasonably seek protection for those matches. Where there would obviously be more scope for argument is in the subsequent stages up to the semifinals where the broadcasters do show some games, but not others.
We shall certainly reflect further on what has been said by my noble friend, because I would not claim to have got a perfect definition—in fact, I doubt if there is one. But if it is possible to get closer to it, then of course we shall continue the attempt. I would not offer too much hope, therefore, that the definition will be perfect. It is now narrower than it was (it may not be quite as narrow as my noble friend would like) but for the reasons I have given, I think that it may well prove to be the best that we can do.
1388
My noble friend suggested that Clause 13(2) and paragraph 115 of the White Paper are at variance. That is certainly not our intention nor, indeed, our understanding of the effect of the clause. The White Paper talked of "customarily", and in statutory language that has come out as what is the practice of broadcasters. So far as a series of events is concerned, the White Paper was able to talk as if the Cup Final or the Grand National was a single event, whereas in strict statutory terms each event, each year, is a separate one. It is not possible to get an exact coincidence of statutory and colloquial language. We have attempted to get as close as is feasible. I will obviously look at his strictures before I put my hand on my heart and say that they are exactly the same in the result.
I should like now to turn to Amendment No. 40 which stands in the name of my noble friend. I apologise for the length of my reply, but I must answer all of your Lordships. This amendment is similar in form to the one moved by my noble friend at the Committee stage. Clause 13(2) as it stands provides a protection for the viewer of regularly broadcast events by seeking to prevent the coverage of those events by the cable operator on a pay-per-view basis. The subsection is designed to prevent the cable operator from using the special purchasing power of pay-per-view effectively to exclude the broadcasting authorities from the market. My noble friend's amendment would waive that protection afforded by subsection (2) where the Cable Authority was satisfied that the terms upon which the broadcasting authorities were competing for the rights were not adversely affected.
The Government accept that cable companies should not be subject to unnecessary restrictions and we have already proposed a reformulation of Clause 13(2) which meets a number of the concerns expressed at the Committee stage. The further modification of the subsection which this amendment proposes assumes that there will be circumstances where the coverage of these events on pay-per-view will not adversely affect the competitive position of the broadcasters in the market place. But I think it is in the nature of pay-per-view that the broadcasters' position will be adversely affected. That at least is the conclusion that was reached by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, in the report of his inquiry into cable when he suggested that there should be no pay-per-view on cable. The restriction in Clause 13(2) is far less restrictive than that, but it is founded on the same presupposition that pay-per-view will inevitably put the broadcasters at a disadvantage when they are interested in covering the event. It would be unrealistic to impose upon the Cable Authority, as this amendment would do, a duty to weigh up the effect of every proposal to put an event on pay-per-view upon the competitive position of the broadcasting authorities, when the working assumption must be that their competitive position would be adversely affected.
The second assumption made in the amendment is that there will be circumstances where a cable operator is prepared to cover an event on a pay-per-view basis at the same time as it is covered by the broadcasting authorities. I may, perhaps, be less puzzled by this than I was, because it seemed to me, on the face of it,

1389
odd that somebody should wish to provide for money a service which was already available to the same audience free. But the noble Lord has now, I think, made clear that he is suggesting that it might happen that the broadcaster would wish to produce coverage of prime time and prime events, and that the cable might want to go wider. That is a very difficult issue.
I do not want to create confusion between pay-per-view and other forms of cable, but this is a proper moment to say a few words about Wimbledon because my noble friend has used it as an example and I know that there is some anxiety about this. In clarification of that issue I should say, first, that this clause applies only to the inclusion of listed and protected events in cable services in this country. I understand that Wimbledon is sold for showing on cable in the United States, and there is, of course, nothing here which bears on that.
Secondly, when it comes to offering the rights to broadcasters and cable companies, it is for the rights holders to decide how to package them up. To take a lengthy event such as Wimbledon, the organisers might decide to set a price for a number of separate packages. There is nothing in Clause 13 to prevent that. As regards listed events, Clause 13(1) ensures that the broadcaster has the opportunity to buy each of the packages. The third thing to elucidate is that the 24-hour rule means that none of the Clause 13 restrictions applies for more than 24 hours immediately after the recording has been made. So, to change the example, in the case of a Test Match there would be no restriction on cable showing on the second day highlights from the first day's play.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I suggest a better example to him? Suppose the Seven-a-Sides are being held at Twickenham, which start at about one o'clock and continue until six o'clock at night, and that an all-sports channel decides to broadcast all those rounds right to the final, which will be broadcast on BBC. The question I ask is: could they include that final in their package—they are not selling it—instead of saying to their viewers, "We have now reached the final, switch over to the BBC channel in order to watch it"? Can they broadcast it on the same cable channel?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am loath to be drawn into too specific detail, but the Bill as drafted imposes a delay of 24 hours on the transmission of what is on the tape. I think that that is sufficient elucidation to the noble Lord, although what the announcer would say under the circumstances I do not think would be exactly what the noble Lord has said.
My noble friend was intending the coverage of part of an event on pay-per-view terms, but I have reservations about that, and I had just given one of the reasons in answer to the noble Lord when he interrupted me. The truth is that with many of the larger sporting events, such as the Test Matches and Open Golf Championships, the broadcasters already give a very comprehensive coverage and I doubt whether in those cases there are large extracts which they do not include and, judging by the length of the extracts that I have seen, which therefore could be offered by cable on pay-per-view.
1390
Even with very large events, such as the Wimbledon championship or the Olympic Games, where the broadcasters cannot cover every minute of every day, they make it their job to give the viewers access to the main matches and competitions. That could well leave room in the periphery, as it were, for conventional cable; but however modest their declared ambitions, to make pay-per-view attractive the cable companies would inevitably want to acquire an even larger slice of the best action for themselves. Your Lordships can see the conflict of interests involved in that.
I well appreciate the desire of the cable interest to gain more of the action in this field, and for that reason in the Government amendments tabled on Clause 13 we have attempted to make the definitions less restrictive. I should add—and this may perhaps reassure my noble friend—that we are talking here only about pay-per-view and not about other forms of pay television. I understand that in the United States pay-per-view is still an extremely limited phenomenon compared with pay-per-month, and although the use of switched star technology may increase the attractiveness of pay-per-view over here, it still remains to be seen how popular it will be.
There is nothing in Clause 13(2) to stop cable operators bidding to show these events on a subscription or an advertising-financed channel, and I am talking only about pay-per-view. I do not pretend that what I propose is perfect I think that it is nearer to perfection than it was. I hope that your Lorships will prefer it to what has been offered in the alternative.
I have said that my notes are labyrinthine and I must speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and then I can promise my patient friends that their ordeal is nearly over. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, is an extension of that which he moved in Committee. It provides a reserve power for the Home Secretary to make regulations preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting or showing on cable of a major national event; that is, what we now propose to call listed events. This follows from the existing provision in Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act 1981.
When preparing the Bill, the Government gave careful thought to the possibility of taking a regulation-making power in this context, but we came to the conclusion that this was not a promising approach. Regulations have never, in fact, been made under Section 30 of the Broadcasting Act, and I noted that the noble Lord said that his amendment might never actually come into service, but that it would hang behind the door like the headmaster's cane. It is far from clear how a comparable power might operate in the case of cable, particularly if it were directed, as it would be under the noble Lord's amendment, against the rights holders. However effective or otherwise Section 30 might be as between the BBC and independent television, we ought not to read it across into the very different situation which cable will create unless we are confident both that it is an appropriate power and that it would work.
The Government have doubts on both counts. We have to remember here that we are dealing with the freedom of sports organizations, such as the Football Association, and the Test and County Cricket Board,

1391
to decide who they want to let in to televise their events and at what price. We have to be very careful before attempting to place any restrictions on their ability to take the normal commercial decisions which they judge to be in the best interests of their sports. Television must not become a burden on sport; Her Majesty's Government must ensure that it does not. The Government also have a responsibility to the ordinary viewer, as do the broadcasters. That is why we have built two specific safeguards into Clause 13. Under Clause 13(1) we have ensured that the broadcasters must always be given the opportunity to acquire the rights to major national events on comparable terms, and under Clause 13(2) we have ruled out pay-per-view for those and, indeed, a wider range of events.
I shall read very carefully the observations that your Lordships have made about the piecemeal protection within those categories to which my noble friend and others have drawn attention, but what we have not felt able to say, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, does, is that if these events are to appear on television at all, they must be covered by the broadcasters. In our view, that would give the broadcasters an unreasonably strong position in the negotiations over price.
So far as practicality is concerned, I would only say that powers without proper sanctions are never particularly effective, and it is far from clear to me at the moment what sanctions could be operated appropriately in this area. For those reasons, therefore, we think that Clause 13 offers the most sensible approach and that the noble Lord's amendment is not as helpful as he would like us to think.
During my necessarily lengthy speech I hope that your Lordships have been able to weigh up the merits of the different approaches here proposed. I believe that what Her Majesty's Government propose represents the best solution, both to the tricky question of definition and to the equally tricky problem of access. I shall, of course, look with great care before the next stage at any new ideas that have been put before me, and there have been some this afternoon. I shall not recapitulate what I have said—your Lordships could not possibly take it. Your Lordships have been most patient and I hope that you will allow these amendments to be incorporated in the Bill at this stage.
5.9 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, as I do not intend to move my amendment, with the leave of the House, I should like to make three brief remarks. First, in spite of all the help that we have had from my noble friend, I want to leave it on record that his amendment falls far short of what the White Paper suggested and of what is suggested in my amendment; that we believe that my amendment, but more importantly the White Paper's suggestion, is absolutely fair and totally protective of broadcasters. Secondly, I take great comfort from the offer that my noble friend has made to have a look at everything that has been said with a view to further consideration at the next stage or even with a view to this matter being dealt with in another place.
1392
Finally, with respect, I think it became apparent that the meaning of the word "series" had not been fully thought out, and perhaps that is what my noble friend meant when he said that he would have another look at it. The interpretation of the word "series" as it will be, I expect, in the Bill, will be crucial. Whether my noble friend wants to see it still in the Bill or whether he is content, as he suggested, to leave it to the Cable Authority to sort out—and I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, suggested that this could largely be settled by discussion—in the terms that they think are most sensible, I do not know. As it stands, "series" is a word that lacks definition, and if it is to stay there it must have it. Having said that, I am obliged to my noble friend for all the trouble he has taken on this matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I will just say that of course the definition is something we will look at. Whatever we come to in the end, the interpretation is going to rest with the authority, and we are not producing something which is totally watertight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 37, 38, and 39:
Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("that") to ("been") in line 23 and insert ("both broadcasting authorities have")
Page 12, line 25, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of this subsection an opportunity given to the Welsh Authority, the IBA's subsidiary or a programme contractor to acquire broadcasting rights in respect of a listed event shall be treated as given to the IBA")
[Amendment No. 39 printed earlier.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Aerospace Industry
5.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which has already been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the Government's policy towards the aerospace industry. The Statement is as follows:
"Last November the Government announced launch aid of £ 70 million to assist with the development of the E.4 version of the Rolls-Royce RB.211–535 now powering all Boeing 757s in airline service. Earlier this month I informed the House that approval had been given for Rolls-Royce to participate in the V.2500 project, and to collaborate with General Electric of the USA on larger civil engines. These programmes represent the core of a civil engine strategy based on international collaboration and dedicated to commercial success. The House will be informed when launch aid arrangements for the V.2500 are finalised but as with the E.4 scheme the Government will expect a real return on the taxpayers' investment.
"In September 1982 launch aid of £ 41 million to assist Westland was agreed for their W.30 civil helicopter, and last month the Government

1393
announced £ 60 million in launch aid towards Westland's civil costs in the anglo-Italian EH.101 project for a helicopter for civil and naval use in the 1990s and beyond. These investments will help to bring Westland into the expanding civil market and will be repayable with a return in real terms by a levy on sales.
"British Aerospace have now decided to participate in the A.320 and to launch the ATP. The Government have reached agreement with British Aerospace on the terms of launch aid for the A.320. Launch aid of up to £ 250 million repayable on terms designed to yield a return in real terms on the Government's investment has now been agreed. As a result of our agreement I understand that the company will now join its partners in formally launching the A.320 programme. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry will be meeting his French, German and Spanish colleagues shortly to endorse this. British Aerospace will also proceed, without Government assistance, with the ATP aircraft. I am sure the House will join me in wishing these projects every success.
"Taken together these decisions express a clear commitment by the Government to support the efforts of the aerospace sector to maintain its position as an internationally competitive industry for the future. I believe the House will welcome our determination to see this sector of British industry, management and production workforce alike, given the chance to succeed".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. In general from these Benches we welcome the various decisions as set out in the Statement and join in wishing success to all the projects. I shall deal with only two of them. When your Lordships debated the question of the A.320 Airbus on 25th January there was general support throughout the House for British participation. Therefore, we welcome the support that is proposed for this project. But the launch aid of £ 250 million falls well short of the £ 437 million which I understand Aerospace had requested. Are the Government satisfied that the company will be able to raise the difference and meet any costs that may be involved?
Also important is the approval, previously announced, for Rolls-Royce to participate in the V.2500 engine project. There appears to be general agreement that this development will enable Airbus Industrie to offer its customers for the A.320 an alternative engine, which is obviously in Britain's interests. Is the Minister able to say what figure of launch aid is in mind for this Rolls-Royce engine project?
Although, as I have said, from these Benches we give general support to these various projects and the assistance being given, it is obvious that particularly in the case of Rolls-Royce and Aerospace some of these projects can only be embarked upon with public financial help. It therefore appears rather tragic that we are not leaving the aerospace industry where it should be, in public hands.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, may I come to the last part first. We on these Benches have been waiting anxiously for a Government decision on the A.320 Airbus. It has always seemed to us an excellent proposition from many points of view: for the workforce it will keep together; for the cooperation with our European partners; and, above all, for the excellence of the Airbus family.
While wishing that the launch aid could have been more than £ 250 million—I gather from the Statement that agreement has been reached with British Aerospace about this—we are glad that the company will now join its partners in formally launching the A.320 programme. We wish it well and we hope that this very fine aeroplane will fulfil all expectations.
In addition, may I say that in so far as Rolls-Royce is concerned everyone will welcome the approval given for the company to participate in the V.2500 project and to collaborate with General Electric of the United States of America on larger civil engines. We look forward to a further announcement on these points when launch aid arrangements are finalised. On these Benches—and I am sure throughout the House—we hope that the new Rolls-Royce engine may be ready in 1988 at the same time as the launch of the A.320 Airbus. In noting all the decisions contained in the Statement, we believe that the Government have indicated a clear commitment to the aerospace industry, and we appreciate the action taken.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for their response to this Statement. In reply to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, may I say that it is indeed the case that the amount that has been agreed with British Aerospace is rather less than that company originally sought by way of launch aid for this particular aircraft project. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the negotiations have been conducted in the best of spirit. There has been give and take on both sides, and the Government too have given way in some particular aspects of the discussions, particularly with regard to the rate of dispersement of the funds which we were able to agree to more in line with British Aerospace's requirements. Thus it was that we were able to reach agreement on the sum of money referred to in the Statement.
The noble Lord asked whether I could give him a figure for the launch aid for the V.2500 engine. Negotiations are still in progress on this matter. I cannot therefore give him the figure that he asks for, but an announcement will be made in due course when agreement has been reached. Those, I think, were the principal points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. I hope I have covered them adequately, but if there are any that I have omitted I shall be happy to rectify the position.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister, first, to give us a little more information as to why it took so long for the Government to come to a decision, and, secondly, why the figures are so much below that which, as I understood it, British Aerospace thought essential? Is he not aware that all

1395
these hesitations and reservations put us in a very bad position with our partners in Europe and raise doubts as to whether this country really wants to sustain and continue a viable civil aircraft industry? If we do not do this, I think he is well aware that, in terms of major civil aviation, we shall no longer have a stake. Would it not be more feasible to give a more generous and more rapid response, and to do as we did when I had some responsibility in the matter; that is, to have arrangements whereby, when the project was a success, we received a payback according to the profits that were earned? Would not that kind of partnership be more satisfactory than what seems to be a very lengthy and not at all satisfactory approach to the problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the reason why it sometimes takes rather a long time to reach a conclusion in these matters is that the Government have to be very clear indeed that the project that they are backing is a project that will in due course come to a profitable conclusion, because (as was not, I think, referred to in the Statement, but which I am happy to say now) in fact the money is by way of launch-aid. A certain proportion of the money will be repaid on a fixed schedule, but the remainder of the money will be repaid by means of a levy on sales in due course. It is necessary for the Government to take a very careful approach to these matters to make sure that the forecasts of the company, particularly with regard to sales of the aircraft and the likely size of the market, are proper estimates. The Government have done that and have reached these conclusions.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can tell us a little more about the raising of the balance of the money that British Aerospace were seeking. Are we to understand that there will be no question of a Government guarantee for raising these funds? If it is possible for British Aerospace to raise £ 180 million-odd for the Airbus project in the City without Government guarantees—and presumably the Government are themselves satisfied as to the prospects of a return on the project—why cannot the whole of the sum which British Airways have sought be raised in the same manner? Finally, could my noble friend tell us whether it is the case that British Aerospace have effectively written off £ 240 million in the last two years on its civil aviation projects? And is my noble friend satisfied that British Aerospace can finance that part of the cost of the Airbus project that it is expected to produce from its own return in profits without undue strain?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that these matters were very much in the Government's mind when we conducted these negotiations with British Aerospace, but I must tell him that the answer as to where the rest of the money will come from must be provided by British Aerospace and not by the Government. British Aerospace are now a private-sector company. They have the responsibility for these matters, and the Government are satisfied that they are in a position to do that. We would not have proceeded in the way that we have if we had not been so satisfied. I might add that the sort
1396
of proportion of the launch funds required which we are providing in this particular instance is very much in line with the proportions that we have provided in the past, save for one particular case, and that was Concorde, where the Government provided a much larger proportion—virtually all, in fact—of the money that was required. This, however, is a wholly different project, essentially within the range of existing technology, whereas Concorde was pushing the frontiers of technology considerably further back. I think that the Government are right to proceed along these lines, providing about half of the launch money required by British Aerospace. I believe it will be a successful project.

Council of Agriculture Ministers: February Meeting
5.26 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers which took place in Brussels on 27th and 28th February. I represented the United Kingdom Government with my honourable friend the Minister of State.
"Most of the time of the Council was taken up in detailed discussion of the Commission's price proposals and adaptations to the common agricultural policy. No decisions were taken. But there was further clarification of individual national positions on the various commodity sectors and other issues. These negotiations will be resumed at a further Council meeting next week.
"The Council agreed that the existing structures directives should be extended with effect from the beginning of the year until the end of June. Under this agreement, FEOGA will contribute in the normal way to payments made since 1st January under the Community schemes for capital grants and hill livestock compensatory payments. Aids to dairy investment are not included in the roll-forward. This means that no application for development plans under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme which include dairy investments will be accepted from today onwards. Nor will claims be accepted under the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme on dairy expenditure incurred from today onwards.
"I am pleased to tell the House that the Council agreed to the extension of the less-favoured areas in the United Kingdom. This is an important decision for farmers in our marginal areas. As foreshadowed in my Answer to my right honourable friend the Member for West Devon and Torridge on 30th November, it enables the Government to make arrangements for paying enhanced rates of capital grant in the marginal areas and to consider in the autumn review appropriate intermediate rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances to be applied in 1985.

1397
"The Council also agreed that the present import arrangements for New Zealand butter should be extended for a further month so that 20,750 tonnes can be imported during the first three months of 1984 pending a decision on the proposal which the Commission have made for a five-year agreement".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. I may say that it is like the curate's egg—good in parts. I note, under the first section of it, that the next meeting is next week. We have been promised year after year that a decision will be taken by the end of March, by the beginning of the farming year. Farming is a long-term business, and I should like to ask the Minister whether, this year, there is any chance of this decision being taken in time. We know there will have to be considerable cuts and changes in agricultural production, and we should have adequate warning about what is to be done. The Minister mentioned in the Statement the individual national positions. What are those individual positions? Are some of the countries not agreeing? Does he know that? As we all know, the Council of Ministers put forward the question of phasing out MCAs, which is an important thing for the British farmer. I wonder what the position is there?
Giving, from today, no notice at all to the dairy industry—although I think they had been warned; I have to admit that—about the question of no further aids to improve dairy buildings and to improve anything in the dairy sector, seems a little hard. I wonder whether it would not have been possible to detail this a bit better and to keep the grants for something which improves efficiency but does not improve production; in other words, no extension to a yard to bull more cows but something to help the efficiency, probably transferring cows from a yard to slats or cubicles, or something which does not increase the farmer's herd but increases his efficiency. I should like to ask what the Government's ideas are here: whether they are in favour of a price freeze or a price reduction, for that matter, or a sugar levy or quotas. If the dairy farmer is faced with all that, I think it is a little hard not to allow him something to improve his efficiency.
It is good to see that New Zealand is to be considered. In earlier stages of negotiations, in 1972–73—and I believe agreement was reached in 1975—we gave New Zealand a long period when the reduction of the butter supplies was agreed on. I hope that agreement will not be broken.
As regards the less favoured areas, there are difficulties. I have looked at some of them recently, notably in Ireland, I also saw some in Scotland during the last harvest that I looked at when I was a member of an AEC during the war, when they were given hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. I was amazed to see that land growing wheat today. If that is the case, what is to hinder these less favoured areas improving their pastures to such an extent that they can grow wheat or keep dairy heifers for dairy farmers?
It is a very real problem deciding about these things. I am sorry to ask so much of the Minister but this is a
1398
very important Statement, and I would reiterate once again the importance of getting decisions in time for farmers to alter their plans for next year, when they can do it, and not a year later.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in the temporary absence of our own most respected farmer, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, it falls to me to make a few observations, and I can only hope that they will be considered moderately relevant. First, it must surely be obvious that on what I might call the overshadowing question of the reform of the common agricultural policy very little progress has been made. Final agreement, if it is ever reached, will have to be reached at the next European Council meeting (not at the next agriculture Ministers' meeting) at the end of March—perhaps as a result of some bargain which none of the agriculture Ministers will find acceptable or even agreeable.
For the rest, unless I have misunderstood the Statement it looks as though, for the time being at any rate, our hill farmers and farmers in marginal areas, to say nothing of the New Zealanders, have reason to be moderately happy and our dairy farmers rather less happy—although not so unhappy as they probably will be when there is general agreement, as there will be, substantially to limit the production of dairy goods in the EEC as a whole. I imagine that we must, while being thankful for small mercies, go on hoping that general agreement on the future of the CAP will be forthcoming before the money runs out and members of the committee have to take measures which might not be consonant with the continuance in being of the EEC itself.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their response to my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, expressed the very strong hope that it would be possible to get agreement on the price fixing, from the point of view of farmers knowing where they stand for the forthcoming year. The Government most certainly agree with the noble Lord in that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, the final decision on this by the agriculture Ministers will have to take account of the next full council meeting, which falls later this month. Her Majesty's Government will certainly be working hard to achieve the objective which I know the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wishes us to be able to achieve.
The noble Lord asked me about the different national positions on these matters, and although I have expressed the wish of Her Majesty's Government to see these matters of the price fixing and, indeed, the future of the budget resolved, there are presumably different national positions. I do not think that either noble Lord would feel it appropriate for me to go into details now; but as your Lordships will know, Her Majesty's Government are looking for action to contain the cost of surplus production and to reduce the actual surpluses which exist. We shall certainly continue to stick to that line through these lengthy negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me specifically about the MCAs. I should like to make it

1399
perfectly clear to your Lordships that my right honourable friend considers that there is no justification whatsoever for the Commission's proposals to revalue the green pound. We believe that these proposals do not take account of the United Kingdom's position in having a freely floating currency, and hence a variable MCA.
The noble Lord also asked why it was that the dairy farmers appeared to have suffered as a result of the meeting of the agriculture Ministers whereas other sectors—for instance, cereals—had not. I would only say that it has been generally recognised—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, recognised it in his remarks—that the key surplus area at the moment is milk. The agreement in the council is an important element in the Community's aim to reduce that particular surplus.
Having said that, I of course recognise, along with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that cereals are also very much in surplus. Her Majesty's Government have been pressing for several years for price restraint—and not without success, because the price of cereals, having regard to average price increases, has increased by a lower amount. Perhaps I may just add that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will remember that only last year the Government significantly reduced the grants for cereal drying and storage.
The noble Lord also asked what our policy was so far as the milk surplus is concerned. Our view remains that a substantial cut in support prices in order to bring the milk market into better balance is the way forward. We are prepared to discuss proposals for a supplementary levy, but we have made it quite clear that any measures concerning a levy that are taken would have to be fair as between producers in the member states and without exemptions or exceptions which would allow some producers to keep on increasing milk production while others did not. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also put to me the apparent contradiction of trying to reduce surpluses while giving help to the marginal areas. I am sure that the noble Lord, who is characteristically generous as well as wise, would he the first to say that there must be a balance in agricultural matters, and we must try to keep a healthy agricultural industry in the hills.
Our application to the European Community for an extension of the less favoured areas and the marginal areas was in recognition of the special difficulties of farming in these areas. I believe that the success of our application will give great confidence to those areas, and I am very glad that the application has succeeded. These are complicated matters, and I should like to end by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for having given me notice of the questions he was going to ask.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, would my noble friend please do the very best he can to give farmers an assurance that the Government are sensible of the agonising uncertainty through which the industry is going at the moment? Perhaps, as he has mentioned milk, it is all right for me, as a dairy farmer, to talk specifically about milk.
Will he tell us that he realises that there are many
1400
farmers—most of them small farmers—who just do not know at this moment whether they will have a livelihood within the next year? Does he fully realise that the suffering at the moment is the suffering of real anxiety for their way of life and for the livelihoods of them and their families? Does he realise that they are not squealing about any burdens with which they may be hit, but they are squealing about the length of the uncertainty? Finally, will he take on board that the publicity which has recently been given to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's working party, which is to have a look at the benefits that are alleged to be given to the farming industry, has caused a further shiver to go down the spine? It is really much more than a shiver; it has struck terror into the hearts of many who feel, perhaps unjustly, that this is another blow aimed at their livelihood.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord De La Warr has underlined the enormous importance of the agricultural industry to this country. In the last decade, it has saved this country literally millions of pounds in foreign exchange and it will be a bad day when this country ceases to recognise the importance of British agriculture. I say that because my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was very ready to recognise the importance of the agricultural industry in this country.
As I think my noble friend is aware, on 23rd February this year, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recorded that we are determined to reduce farm surpluses, which is likely to be painful, and that the Government are very well aware of the difficulties which face certain sectors of the farming industry. But, at the same time, my right honourable friend said that people in Britain realise that there is a need to support our agriculture, and that support is offered by every Western industrialised country to its agricultural services. My right honourable friend ended that passage of her reply by saying that we need a healthy agricultural industry. It is, therefore, in this difficult context of surpluses, which we have in the Community at the moment, that those words which my right honourable friend spoke stand.

Cable and Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
5.43 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
(" ( ) Appeal shall lie to the Secretary of State from a decision of the Authority under subsection (2) of this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41, I have one piece of good news for your Lordships and one piece of bad news. The good news is that at least we are now discussing only one amendment, which must help. It is a simple and a short one—at least, it is simple in concept. It simply states that:
"Appeal shall lie to the Secretary of State from a decision of the Authority under subsection (2)".
The piece of bad news is that we are still on the protected event and its definition, and whether a series of events are similar.
An interesting point is that, as I listened to the Minister's speech opposing my Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, I was thinking to myself that he could not have been making a better speech in favour of this one. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will stop me. I thought at one moment that he was envisaging a case going before the court from a decision of the authority under subsection (2), but I do not think that that is a practical proposition.
I say that for this reason. Subsection (2) contains the words "in the opinion of the Authority" and whenever you try to litigate in a matter where those words are used you always get the same answer from the court, which is "Whatever the private opinions of the members of the court may be, it is not for the court to substitute its opinion for the opinion come to by the authority, the Minister or whoever it was. Unless we think that the authority were acting perversely, we are not going to substitute our opinion for theirs"—and one can hardly envisage this Cable Authority acting perversely. Therefore, taking a case before the court is not a practical proposition. But I hope to show that taking it on appeal to the Secretary of State is a very much better proposition.
It is extremely difficult—this must be present in all our minds from what has gone on in our discussions on this Bill so far—to decide whether a particular event is one of a series or, being one of a series, is similar to some other event. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, dealt in great detail with the difficulties of the series and I do not want to bore your Lordships by going on about them. But I should like to say a few words about the difficulties of similarity between two events.
It is perfectly easy to find some resemblance between a sporting event which occurred last year and one which is taking place this year. The difficulty is that the terms and conditions tend to change, to a larger or a smaller extent, probably according to whether last year's events attracted too many entries or too few entries or, no doubt, for other reasons too. The Minister reminded me that on this subject in Committee I chose, again, a horse racing example to describe what I meant and, if I may, I shall briefly rehearse this argument in case the Members of the House who are present in the Chamber are not identical with the Members of the Committee on the last occasion.
I should like to take a sponsored horse race which is not of the first importance. The first thing which frequently happens is that the sponsor may change from one year to the next, which means that the title of the race changes. Then the new sponsor probably produces different prize money from the last sponsor, so there is that change. What difference does that make? Does that make this year's event dissimilar to last year's or is it similar? Let us suppose that everything is the same as last year, except that the race course is changed. The event is transferred to a different race course over the same distance, but over a different conformation. Does that make it a similar event to last year's or not? If it stays on the same racecourse, but is transferred from the spring meeting
1402
to the summer meeting, what difference does that make? Let us suppose that last year's race was over 10 furlongs and this year's is over nine furlongs, or that perhaps last year's race was for three year-olds and four year-olds, but there were not enough entries so this year's race is for three year-olds and upwards. I do not want to go on like this, but I hope I have said enough to indicate that it is not an easy question to answer.
Even if it were, I do not believe that the Cable Authority are the right persons to be the final arbiter in this matter as under the clause, as at present drafted, they are. For one thing, wise people—and no doubt they will be wise in the Cable Authority—will not feel particularly qualified to make nice distinctions between one sporting event and another. The second and more important reason is that they will be much too closely concerned and much too close to the action. Surely, from time to time, there will be disagreements between cable companies on the one hand, and the other broadcasters on the other, as to whether or not a particular event is available to cable.
The authority are going to be in an embarrassing position. They will say, "People will suspect us of giving the benefit of the doubt to our cable companies all too readily or, on the other hand, of leaning over backwards to achieve the opposite result." Therefore I do not believe that the Cable Authority are the right final arbiter of this quite difficult question. For the reasons I have given, I have ruled out the court, if I may use that phrase loosely. Therefore we come to the Secretary of State. In my opinion, the Secretary of State is the satisfactory final arbiter. He already has to go into these kinds of questions because he has to maintain the list of sporting events under the previous subsections, events which are sacrosanct because they are of great national importance. This therefore is an area which the Secretary of State has to investigate. I hope your Lordships will say that it is right that this difficult question should not be finally decided by the Cable Authority but that there should be an appeal from him to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, all our discussions have borne out the assertion that most of us have made, that the definition of the events which, under Clause 13(2), would be excluded from a pay-per-view cable service in order to safeguard the interests of the viewing public is very difficult to draft. Nor is the interpretation of a clause drafted to achieve this result of its nature easy, either. It is to that that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has addressed his careful attention, though I do hope that Amendment No. 43, to which I have already spoken and which I hope I have persuaded your Lordships to agree, will go some way towards clarifying it. Therefore I appreciate why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, which provides for a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of the Cable Authority that any particular event is or is not one which should be protected under Clause 13(2) and therefore should be excluded from showing on pay-per-view.
But the involvement of the Secretary of State in decisions of this nature runs counter to the general philosophy of the Bill, which is to let the Cable

1403
Authority regulate the new cable services without undue interference from the Government. Moreover, I find it a little difficult to see, on this particular issue, how the Secretary of State, who is not running the cable administration from day to day, is going to be any better placed than the Cable Authority which will be running it from day to day. The Cable Authority will be concerned with these and similar matters on a regular basis. They will have the chance to develop an expertise that my right honourable and learned friend will inevitably lack.
So my first reaction to the noble Lord is that he is suggesting that for the opinion of the Cable Authority, when it does not suit somebody to whom it is applied, there should be substituted the opinion of the Secretary of State, who will not necessarily be any better placed to have a sound opinion than the Cable Authority. The Bill sets out a test for the authority to apply. We believe that the best course is to let them get on and apply it. I do not believe that issues to be decided under Clause 13(2) require an elaborate system of appeal. In other parts of the Bill we are trusting the Cable Authority to take equally important decisions. In the case of Clause 13 we should also trust the Cable Authority to exercise their powers both completely and fairly.
The noble Lord suggested that the Cable Authority might be too closely involved, but these are not questions which the authority will have an unfettered discretion to determine at will. This is very different from the kind of determination procedure under Clause 12(3) which concerns the financial arrangements for the relay of DBS services. There, in our view, it would have been wrong to leave the authority with the last word because there is no clear objective test which can be applied. Here the authority will have to apply the terms of the statute which set out a particular test to be followed in each case. Certainly the authority's judgment will enter into the equation, and certainly the equation will be a difficult one, but it will enter into it only to the extent that it involves a reasonable assessment of the broadcaster's actual practice.
I am advised (here I come back full circle to the noble Lord's first point) that although the opinion of the authority is involved in the Bill—though not now, if your Lordships accept our amendment, in the way that it was before the amendment—nonetheless the authority has to exercise its opinion, whether or not it is written into the Bill. The question as to whether or not it has exercised it reasonably will, I am advised, be justiciable, so there will be an escape to the courts.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the Home Secretary would be any better qualified than the authority to answer these difficult questions. What appealed to me was that he would he seen to be completely impartial and that, however impartial the Cable Authority tried to appear to be, inevitably, in a dispute between the BBC and a cable company, there would be people who would question the impartiality of the Cable Authority. I can only say that if I were a member of the Cable Authority I should be thankful not to have to be the final arbiter of a matter in which my authority was so closely concerned. I should be
1404
thankful that the impartial Home Secretary would be the final arbiter. However, I have not had resounding support for this amendment and the Minister does not like it very much, either, so I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, does the noble Lord. Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, wish to move Amendment No. 42?
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, yes.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
("(2A) With a view to preventing the making of exclusive arrangements for the broadcasting of protected events or their inclusion in a licensed diffusion service, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the grant to any person to whom this subsection applies of the rights or facilities required for the broadcasting of such events or their inclusion in such a service.
(2B) Subsection (2A) above applies to the BBC. to the IBA and programme contractors, to the IBA's subsidiary, to the Welsh Authority and to any person to whom a licence to operate a diffusion service has been granted pursuant to section 4 above respectively.
(2C) Regulations made under this section shall not apply to the broadcasting of a record of any events specified in the regulations or to its inclusion in a licensed diffusion service where the transmission is made more than seven days after that event.
(2D) Any regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42 very briefly and formally, simply because I want to remind the House once more of the increasing power of the cable programme providers. They will provide the programmes which the multiplicity of people will put down their cables. I have already reminded the House that they are coming together in very powerful consortia—consortia which bid fair to rule cable in a way which has very considerable dangers indeed. The American experience alone teaches us how powerful, especially if they dispose of important sporting and other events, some of these are. It was for that reason that I wished to provide the Home Secretary with a fall-back power, in case he became worried by what was happening. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at an earlier stage I spoke at some length to this amendment—length which your Lordships were good to put up with. But the House will not wish me to repeat the arguments against the amendment. I trust that the noble Lord, having begged to move the amendment, was only seeking an opportunity to withdraw it. If not, I shall lobby your Lordships very powerfully against what the noble Lord proposes.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, indeed I was merely seeking an opportunity to say a word or two legitimately about this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 43:
[Printed earlier: col. 1140.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, before we agree to this amendment, there are two amendments to it standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, these amendments are not moved.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I take it that this is Amendment No. 43 as not amended.
The Deputy Chairman: That is correct, my Lords.
Lord Elton: In that case, my Lords, I am happy to beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Complaints of unjust or unfair treatment etc]:
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("Authority") and insert ("Broadcasting Complaints Commission")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 83.
Amendment No. 47: Page 13, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
("(2) Schedule (Application of Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1981) shall have effect with respect to the Commission and to complaints of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) above.")
Amendment No. 83: Insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE

  APPLICATION OF PART III OF THE BROADCASTING ACT 1981
  1.—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 53 of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (in this Schedule referred to as "the 1981 Act") after the words "the IBA" there shall be inserted the words "or of the Cable Authority".
  (2) At the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the words "or for inclusion in a cable programme service".
  2.—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 54 of the 1981 Act there shall be inserted after "1981" the words "actually included in licensed services".
  (2) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that section there shall be inserted at the end of that paragraph the words "or included".
  (3) In subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted before the definition of "complaint" the following words:—
  "cable programme service" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984.
  (4) After the definition of "complaint" in that subsection there shall be inserted the following words—
  "licence service" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984.
  3.—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection(4) of section 55 of the 1981 Act after the words "the broadcasting" there shall be inserted the words "or the inclusion in a licensed service".
  (2) At the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the words "or included in a licensed service".
  (3) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or included in a cable programme service".
  4.—(1) In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 56 of the 1981 Act after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or, where the complaint relates to a programme included in a licensed service, the Cable Authority and the person who included it in the service".
  (2) At the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the Cable Authority and the person who included it in the licensed service".
  (3) In subsection (4) of that section after "broadcasting body" there shall be inserted the words "or a person who has included a programme in a licensed service and after the words "that body" wherever it occurs in that subsection there shall be inserted the words "or person".
  (4) In subsection (5) after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person who included it in a licensed service" and after the words "that body" in that subsection there shall be inserted the words "or person or, where that person is an individual, that individual".
  (5) In subsection (6) after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the person who included it in a licensed service" and after the words "broadcasting body" on the last occasion when it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, that person".
  (6) In subsection (7) after the words "any such person" there shall be inserted the words "responsible for the making or provision of the relevant programme".
  5.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 57 of the 1981 Act after the words "was broadcast" there shall be inserted the words "or to the Cable Authority".
  (2) In subsection (2) of that section after the words "a broadcasting body" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the Cable Authority".
  (3) At the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the words "or the Cable Authority or a person providing a licensed service".
  6. In section 58 of the 1981 Act after the words "each broadcasting body" there shall be inserted the words "the Cable Authority and persons providing a licensed service".
  7. At the end of subsection (3) of section 59 of the 1981 Act there shall be inserted the words "and to the Cable Authority and every person providing a licensed service".")
  These are precisely the same amendments that I moved in Committee and which I withdrew at a rather late hour because it would not have been appropriate to divide the Committee at that time. The Committee was very sparsely attended, although I do not know how many noble Lords were lingering outside, waiting to quash me had I forced the amendments to a Division. In any case it did not seem appropriate to do so, because there were not many people here to listen to the arguments.
  In replying to my contentions on that occasion, the noble Lord made various suggestions. He suggested that the Cable Authority was very different from the BBC and the IBA and therefore should not be subjected to any form of Broadcasting Complaints Commission, because the authority was not involved in either the production or the transmission of programmes. It was argued therefore that the authority would be able to exercise some entirely independent judgment. I do not believe that is so.
  The authority will clearly have a duty under Clause 4 to promote cable services. In other words, it will have a duty to encourage as well as to regulate cable services. It is there to serve not just as a regulatory body. It is there to encourage cable services as well. That duty to encourage cable services may at times conflict with the authority's duty to be seen at any rate as an entirely impartial body when adjudicating upon complaints.
  The second of the noble Lord's arguments carried more force, but I hope to demonstrate in a moment that it was a slightly illusory force. That argument was

  1407
  that it will be easier for the consumer to deal with one body about all cable matters—whether about programme quality, privacy, unfair treatment or whatever. Again, there may be some force in that argument if no conflict of interest should arise. The noble Lord's third argument was that the authority would be able to consult with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission with a view to adopting a common approach to standards. I am not quite sure how this could be expected to work but it anyway seems an extremely cumbersome way of proceeding.
  The IBA is a regulatory authority. It happens also to transmit programmes, but that is merely a detail because it is not directly responsible for the programmes. The Cable Authority is also a regulatory body. Admittedly the rules by which it regulates the industry are a good deal looser, on the Government's terms, than those which restrain the IBA. Nevertheless, it is a regulatory authority. If we can have the kind of proposal I am putting forward, so that we may refer all these matters to the complaints commission, we are more likely to have a satisfactory state of affairs.
  The Broadcasting Complaints Commission exists to provide redress as a statutory independent body to individuals or groups of individuals who believe that they have been traduced or unfairly treated in one way or another in a programme. That is a source of complaint which is not as frequent as some people think, but it is nevertheless a fairly frequent source of complaint. Some people invariably think they have been unfairly treated in a television programme—especially certain Members of the Lower House, and perhaps potential Members of the Lower House in particular. The fact remains that there is an independent body to whom such people can have recourse. But they do not usually approach the independent body in the first instance. They have been known to do so, but frequently they complain first to the BBC or to the IBA, or to ITCA or to a programme company. They frequently complain to the BBC about IBA programmes.
  They are then informed that if it is not a general but a specific complaint, their proper recourse is to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. If it is a general complaint about sex, violence or bad language, then it is something which the BBC or the IBA can be expected to deal with and to reply, for it is part of the statutory duties of the authority and of the charter agreements of the corporation that they should do so.
  Why on earth the same procedure should not apply to the Cable Authority I cannot think. I do not believe that the reasons we have been given for not doing it that way are at all valid. Let me return to the argument that it would be simpler if the consumer had only one body to approach. This happens at the moment with the BBC and the IBA, but if it is a singular rather than a general complaint, the complainant is told of the remedies which are available. It seems very curious that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs who produced the statutory Broadcasting Complaints Commission in response to a number of years' of pressure should now in a Bill for which he is equally responsible say. "In this case, there is absolutely no need for the commission to perform that function. It
  1408
  can all be perfectly well dealt with by the Cable Authority".
  If one has been traduced in a cable programme, it does not matter tuppence whether that programme has come down a wire or has come over the air because one has still been traduced. The slander or whatever is just the same if it appears on your screen in precisely the same way. Because this new technology is to be supervised with a loose rein, that does not mean that it should be treated differently in this particular respect from broadcasting generally. I beg to move.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment as strongly as I possibly can. The House will know that we are dealing now with people who see upon a screen—and it is one screen—matters which they feel treat then unjustly or unfairly, or which invade their privacy. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, said, it was very late at night when we last discussed this matter. The Chief Whip was hovering in the background, waiting to ask that the Committee, at that late hour, should adjourn. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, responded most courteously to the presence of the Chief Whip and said that this was a matter that he would prefer to deal with at a later stage.
  I have said that it is the same screen. The same question is involved: the invasion of privacy and unfair or unjust treatment. An authority is already in existence—the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—which has, over a period of several years, built up on its experience a whole host of precedents so that it is able very easily, and one may think very properly, to adjudicate on these matters. When, in a short intervention. I made that point in Committee, the noble Lord the Minister replied by saying that he had no doubt there would be consultation between the two authorities. III may say so, that in itself was an admission that they were dealing with precisely the same thing, or the same principles. Why therefore there should be this need to consult when the body is already there, I do not understand.
  The next point made by the Minister was, "Well, people are used to dealing with one authority on cable". The person who would be complaining and would want to put his complaints before some quasi-judicial body, as it were, is not an applicant for a licence. He is not a person who is quarrelling about terms and conditions of a licence. Most likely he will have never been in touch with the Cable Authority, and, if I may say so with all deference to that body which we are to create, most likely he will not even have heard of it; but he will most certainly have heard of the complaints commission. Therefore, that argument drops by the wayside.
  As his third argument the noble Lord the Minister says that for some reason he feels that the BBC and the independent authority were in a different position from the Cable Authority in the sense that the Cable Authority is not responsible for the production of the programmes. We do not even know at this stage who the personnel of the Cable Authority will be. From these Benches—but your Lordships felt it was wrong and the noble Lord the Minister thought it was wrong—I tried to see that certain interests and

  1409
  expertise were in the statute and were set down as the sort of expertise and representation that one ought to have on the Cable Authority. The Minister replied that one ought to have faith in the Secretary of State—and I certainly have a lot of faith in the present Secretary of State—and one should leave this representation to him; that he would have the general mix of expertise that should be on such an authority and that one ought not to write this into an Act. But we do not know what sort of expertise will in fact be on that body. We do know what sort of expertise is sitting on the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
  All that adds up to this. If this amendment were made to the Bill and we were to find that for some reason or other there was a conflict of interests, or some way in which this was not a convenient procedure, there would not be the slightest difficulty in amending this provision. It would be the shortest possible amendment anyone would ever have to make. If the Minister says, "Please, I do not want to consider amending the Bill at this stage", I answer him by saying that if we happen to have personnel on the Cable Authority who do not satisfy the members of the public who complain he will then, as a result of experience, have to amend the Bill and give this power to the complaints commission.
  This is a most sensible amendment, and I believe that we have a very real duty, in safeguarding the interests of those who will be depicted on cable programmes, to see that we give them the protection of being able to complain to a commission which, I repeat, has had a wealth of experience and has, by and large, carried out is duties to the satisfaction of the general public. Therefore, from these Benches we most earnestly support the amendment and hope that the Minister, on a matter which, though not of the greatest principle, is very important, will find that at long last he can yield to sensible arguments which are addressed to him.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support in principle the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. It seems to me logical that in the areas which are common to what the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is currently doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said, the same body should continue to do the same things. I suggest to my noble friend that this is the aspect of it to which he might like to give some thought with a view to perhaps tabling an amendment of his own incorporating the principles embodied in the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe.
  We are debating the terms of Clause 14, which is entitled:
  "Complaints of unjust or unfair treatment etc.".
  It is the "etc." which worries me slightly, because I think there may be matters which are peculiar to cable in the areas which are not common to broadcasting or the sort of entertainment and information type of programmes, where one may want a different level of expertise for which the Cable Authority might be more suited. I am not sure whether there is a provision elsewhere in the Bill for bodies such as advertisers with a solely advertising programme being able to complain on a technical basis. I am not talking about people
  1410
  complaining about the advertising, I am referring to advertising companies who want to complain that their programmes have not been put on properly as contracted, or something of that nature.
  It may be that there is something in the Bill which gives the Cable Authority an overall responsibility for receiving complaints about the programme providers. If that is so, nothing further needs to be done. But we do need, as it were, to narrow down the amendment that is under discussion to make sure that it relates strictly to those areas which are common to what this particular body is currently doing. Apart from that, I am right behind the amendment. I will not, I hope, be asked to go into the Division Lobby. That is the last thing I want to do on this issue because I agree with it in principle rather than in fact.
  Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the noble Lord and the House may recall that prior to the setting up of the commission to consider complaints the BBC and the IBA themselves considered any complaint of unfair or unjust treatment, the infringement of an individual's rights, or whatever it might be, One of the main arguments for setting up the commission, the noble Lord may recall, was that the BBC and the IBA were both judge and defendant in their own cases. Therefore, it was essential to set up a new body to do precisely that.
  It seems to me that in the Bill the Government have completely gone back to the position where they are allowing the Cable Authority to make the decisions on complaints against programmes which it may not itself have produced but which it is transmitting. In that respect, may I remind the noble Lord that the IBA does not produce programmes either? It transmits programmes made by the programme companies.
  6.20 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. There is no need to repeat the very cogent arguments which he and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Mottistone, also put forward. When we were debating these matters in December I ventured to say that I hoped that the Government would look again at the possibility of the Broadcasting Commission having responsibility for these matters. Everything I have heard this afternoon persuades me that there is a strong case for this. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister might think again and meet the wishes which are so widely expressed from all Benches in this Chamber.
  One factor which concerns me in addition to all the arguments that have been put forward is the interest of the general public. Because the existing broadcasting authorities are public service institutions they not only have accountability in their annual reports to Parliament but also are surrounded by a network of advisory committees, and so on. This means that there is a considerable public involvement in what is being done, considerable discussion of programme standards and advice being given to the programme broadcasters. That will not be the case with the Cable Authority. Indeed, by a whisker, the Motion that there should be a code of minimum standards and some

  1411
  kind of public accountability was rejected. An earlier proposal that there should be local councils in different areas in consultation with the programme providers has also been rejected.
  While I very much welcome the proposal which the noble Lord will later put forward under Clause 21 that in the annual report the authority might give to Parliament an account of the complaints and how they have been handled, nevertheless, I still think that public interest would be better and more widely served by entrusting these matters to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. This would bring in expertise, objectivity and across-the-board experience which would undoubtedly be very welcome.
  One just has to repeat again that for the ordinary viewer, whether he is receiving a BBC, ITV or cable programme, it is coming through the same set in his living room. He will not make the kind of distinctions which are very easy for us to make. For all those reasons, in addition to those so cogently put forward by other noble Lords, I very much hope that the Government will think again on this matter.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, so many of your Lordships have with no great admiration summarised the arguments that I advanced at the Committee stage that I feel it is only a matter of ritual to repeat them, and I shall therefore do so very briefly. But I think that I ought to pull the debate together by saying that there is nothing dividing the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and myself on the essential point, which is the belief that it is proper for people considering themselves unfairly treated in cable programmes to have the right to have their complaints considered by a body exercising an impartial and independent judgment. Where we differ is over the question of the suitability of the Cable Authority to act as the complaints body.
  With great respect, I begin by putting straight what I believe to be one misconception. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, was I think followed by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, in substance in saying that, although the IBA transmits ITV and Channel 4 programmes, it has no responsibility for the programmes. It appears that I might have misunderstood the noble Lord. If he did not make that imputation, there is no need for me to rebut it.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I said that it did not make programmes; I said that it had a regulatory function.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, then I think I do need just to say this. The IBA has a regulatory function and a responsibility for the programmes.
  The noble Lord argued that the Cable Authority and the IBA were in all material respects in a comparable position and that it would be anomalous if the Cable Authority could consider complaints when the IBA does not have the last word because of the existence of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. That is not exactly so. The IBA is statutorily responsible for independent television and radio services. In law they are the I BA's services and it is the IBA which is subject to the statutory duties in respect of the programme
  1412
  content. The analogy between the IBA and the Cable Authority, therefore, does not seem to me to be a good one. But I shall not make a meal of that.
  The role of the Cable Authority in relation to programmes included in its service is wholly supervisory. This will enable it to exercise, and to be seen to exercise, an independent judgment on cable programmes in a way that the BBC and IBA cannot in relation to broadcast programmes. That was the first point that I made. The second was the fact that dealing with the whole range of complaints about cable programmes would help the authority to maintain a check on its licensees' performance. I attach some importance to that.
  Thirdly, I said that we thought that it was in the interests of simplicity and of positive benefit to cable customers—that is, to those members of the public who receive cable programmes—to be able to put all their complaints about the programmes, whether related to general standards or to alleged unfairness, to a single body. I said that the application of common standards would arise from consultation. At that point of the argument today my noble friend Lord Mottistone and others pointed out that of course there are pictures from more than one body coming on to the screen. But there will be only one screen, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, and only one question, but two authorities to whom the viewer would have to address himself. My noble friend pointed out also that the body which we now have is the body which everybody knows, and it would be easier to address it. The right reverend Prelate chimed in with the one screen theme, if I may say so, and pointed to the interests of the public at large. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, put his weight on the same side of the balance.
  In his elegant speech the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether at long last—I am not sure whether I like that phrase—I might yield to sensible arguments used against me. In face of the weight of your Lordships' opinion, I will undertake to take this to my right honourable and honourable friends to see whether they might not be persuaded by what your Lordships have said. If the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, is prepared to stay his hand until the Third Reading—I cannot give an undertaking to have an amendment ready, he will understand, because that has to be a matter decided by others, but I undertake to take your Lordships' clearly united concern to my right honourable and learned and my honourable friends. I would hope therefore that it might be possible for me to come back with something on the lines that the noble Lord is proposing. If he finds that what I come with is not agreeable to him, or that I have been unable to do this—of which I should advise him in advance—he would still be in a position to put down his amendment again. There would be nothing improper in him deciding to do it then. I must say that I find what your Lordships have said somewhat persuasive.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for what he has said and for his (shall I say?) rather unexpected conclusion after repeating the arguments which he had used in Committee.

  1413
  May I just clarify one point for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone? I believe the word "etc." in,
  "Complaints of unjust or unfair treatment etc.",
  relates to Clause 14(1)(b), which is:
  "unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in connection with",
  rather than the rest. I just wanted to clarify that particular point.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I say that I have caused understandable confusion by suggesting that we could have an amendment perfected by the Third Reading. This suggests a slight difficulty, because I cannot give a cast-iron undertaking to your Lordships, therefore, that what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, wants will be available in precisely those terms. I think I have made it as clear as I can what I believe our position will be. If I may presume to advise the noble Lord, if he felt that the issue was insufficiently decided to let it go entirely, I should have thought the place to pursue it would be in another place, where I do not doubt he has powerful allies, but I expect to be able, as I say, to give a very clear impression to my right honourable and honourable friends of what your Lordships' feelings are and I think that will weigh with them.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and, of course, with the permission of the House as I have already spoken—I have said this before, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is the duty of this House, if at all possible, to see that legislation goes to the other place with the imprimatur of your Lordships' House upon it and the recommendations of your Lordships' House, as accepted by the Government, finding their way into the Bill before it reaches the other place, especially when the Bill originates in your Lordships' House? In those circumstances, I know the noble Lord the Minister well enough, as do all his colleagues in this House, to know that he will strain every effort to see that an amendment will in fact be before us before the Third Reading.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I accept that it is alway desirable to send a Bill from this House as near to perfection as possible, though we are—are we not?—in the initiatory rather than the revisory mode as it were—a very clumsy phrase but your Lordships will know what I mean—and there will be revision elsewhere? But I do not think it is a point of honour and principle that we should have everything finalised; and I would rather get it right in another place than wrong in this place to be revised when the other place can say that we did not get it right.
  It occurs to me that by the Third Reading I shall be in a position either to give an undertaking or not to give an undertaking, and to give it in fairly precise terms. I will be in touch with the noble Lord in whose name this amendment stands before then, so that if what I am going to say is not going to appear satisfactory to him he will still be in a position to put something down without incurring too much official wrath at putting it down too late.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I shall unfortunately not personally be in a position to put anything down if the date of the Third Reading is when I think it is, because I shall be enjoying a few days' sun in a sunnier clime than this. Nevertheless, I am sure there are other noble Lords present in this House who will listen carefully to the noble Lord the Minister's remarks and would be willing to assist by doing so in their own name. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Speaker: The next amendment is Amendment No. 47. I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 48 and 49.
  [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
  Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 13, line 33, leave out ("or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the undertaking that the Minister has given us results in what I hope it will result in, then my amendment will be quite unnecessary. But if the Bill remains as it is at the moment, with the Cable Authority considering complaints made on cable, then I think my amendment would be essential.
  May I point out precisely what I think might happen? A programme which could upset an individual because it is unfair or unjust could come to him in more than one way. It could come to him terrestrially from the BBC or the IBA or could come to him, if he pays the requisite amount of money, from cable, or it could come to him from DBS—direct broadcasting by satellite. Having seen something on the box from the BBC which he does not like and which he feels is harmful to him and unjust, he protests. He protests to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, whose duty it is to look at it, and they may take a little time in doing this. These things cannot be done overnight. Within a day or two, lo and behold, he sees exactly the same programme with exactly the same objections—objections to him, anyway—appearing on cable. He has already complained to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. What does he do now? Does he complain also to the Cable Authority? All my amendment suggests is that if there is already one complaint either way—either before the Cable Authority or before the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—in fact that complaint should be the one considered and should apply to both of them. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope, in view of the possible developments of the next stage, the noble Lord will not wish to press this. At the same time, I think I ought to put on record the response which is appropriate, in my view, to what he has proposed should be done if the position were to remain as it now is. He has drawn attention to the risk that, by having separate bodies to consider complaints of unfair and unjust treatments in broadcasting cable programmes, a form of double jeopardy might arise where a programme is carried by both services.
  There is a specific safeguard against that possibility in the case of a simultaneously relayed broadcast

  1415
  programme included in the cable service in Clause 14(2)(a), which provides that the Cable Authority must not entertain or consider a complaint about such a programme. The effect is not simply to prevent the complaint from being considered by both parties but to direct a complainant to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission if he wishes to pursue a complaint against a broadcast programme which orginated as a broadcast and has been simultaneously transmitted by cable.
  The present amendment is designed to deal with complaints about programmes contained in broadcasts and in cable services on different occasions, and it would prevent the Cable Authority from considering any complaint which is under consideration or has already been considered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
  We agree with the object behind it, so far as it is concerned to prevent a complaint about a programme from being considered by both Cable Authority and the Commission, but the noble Lord's amendment does not address the question of which body is most appropriate to consider any particular complaint. It would not, for instance, stop the Cable Authority from considering a complaint about a programme which has been included in the cable service after having been broadcast which might yet, and more appropriately, be considered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission
  We have considered whether to propose an alternative group of amendments which would specifically prevent a complaint about a single programme from being considered by both the Cable Authority and Broadcasting Complaints Commission and which would at the same time ensure that it is considered by the body best fitted to deal with it: that is, the Cable Authority in the case of a programme originating on cable and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission in the case of a programme orginating over the air. We have found that the amendments would be complex and, moreover, they would be required not only to Clause 14 but also to the corresponding provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1981 which deal with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's functions, in order to deal with complaints relating to cable programmes which are later broadcast.
  On reflection, we have come to the conclusion that specific provision on the point is not necessary. The Cable Authority has a discretion under Clause 14 to refuse to entertain or to consider a complaint if, for any reason, it appears to be inappropriate to do so. The relevant words appear in lines 35 to 37. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission has a matching discretion under the 1981 Act. Both the commission and the authority will be responsible bodies, and it seems to us that these provisions will in practice be used sensibly to avoid both the difficulty foreseen by the noble Lord and the reciprocal difficulty which his amendment does not bear upon, of double jeopardy for programmes complained of in the first instance, not to the commission but to the authority. All that I insert, as I think the Americans would say, on the record, in case it should later become relevant.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend not think that his remarks have underpinned the
  1416
  debate we had on those earlier amendments? When he cares to consider, as he has so kindly said he will, Lord Howard's earlier amendment and our various statements on it, if he reads the speech he has just made at the same time he will find that he strengthens the case for doing what we hope he will do.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, my right honourable friend has many abilities, but that of reading two speeches at once evades even him. However, I know what my noble friend means and I shall take it on board.
  Lord Aylestone: My Lords, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  Clause 15 [Power to give directions]:
  6.41 p.m.
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 14, line 40, at end insert—
  ("(2) References in this section and section 16 below to programmes or advertisements do not include programmes or advertisements which are included in a licensed service by the reception and immediate re-transmission of broadcasts made by a broadcasting authority.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move this amendment. I hope that it will meet points made during the Committee stage by both the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and my noble friend Lord Glanusk. The amendment exempts from the provisions of both Clauses 15 and 16 BBC and IBA services when they are included in cable programme services as simultaneous relays of broadcasts. So far as Clause 15 is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, pointed out when we were in Committee, it would clearly be inappropriate for the Cable Authority to have any jurisdiction over the content of broadcast programmes and advertisements when they are relayed over cable.
  As to Clause 16, my noble friend has already made it quite clear to my noble friend Lord Glanusk that we are prepared to reduce the potential burden on cable companies in respect of keeping recordings of programmes by excepting from the provisions of Clause 16 the broadcast services. There is no reason why the authority should ever need to see recordings of these, either in advance of transmission or afterwards, given that the broadcast services are subject to control by the broadcasters. My noble friend will have seen that there are on the Marshalled List further amendments to do with recordings of programmes, in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton and he will speak to them later. I beg to move.
  Lord Glanusk: My Lords. I am most grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. As he says, this is a matter which I raised at the Committee stage, and this amendment will now mean that I shall not have to move my Amendment No. 56, which is almost identical to this one.
  Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind assistance.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Power to require visual and sound records etc.]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 14, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) Where the Authority have served on a person authorised by a licence to provide a diffusion service a written notice applying this subsection to programmes specified or of a description specified in the notice, they may, within such period as—

  (a) begins with the inclusion in that service of any programme to which the notice relates; and

  (b) is of a length (not exceeding two months) specified in the notice,

  direct that person to produce to them for examination or reproduction a visual or sound record of any matter included in that programme.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may assist your Lordships if I speak to all the Government amendments to Clause 16 together. Therefore with your Lordships' leave, in addition to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55.
  Amendment No. 53: Page 15, line 21, leave out ("(including advertisements)" and insert ("to be included in the diffusion service").
  Amendment No. 54: Page 15, line 23, leave out from second ("of') to end of line 27 and insert ("those programmes as will consist of or include recorded matter, to produce to the Authority in advance for examination or reproduction such visual or sound records of that matter as may be so specified:").
  Amendment No. 55: Page 15, line 31, after ("a") insert ("notice or").
  When we discussed this clause in Committee I said that the Government would be bringing forward a number of amendments dealing with the keeping of records. One—the exemption from Clause 16 of the broadcast services when they are relayed by cable—we have already dealt with by means of Amendment No. 50 (relating to Clause 15). moved by my noble friend. Another—a requirement for recordings to be available in all cases for 14 days after transmission, to assist enforcement of some of the Bill's criminal provisions—is dealt with by the amendments that we have tabled to Clause 32 and by an amendment proposing a new clause, to which I shall speak separately.
  The present amendments (Nos. 51, 53, 54 and 55) have two main objectives. The first is to reduce the maximum period during which the Cable Authority may require recordings of programmes after transmission from three months to two, and the second is to re-cast Clause 16 in terms of licensees ensuring that recordings are available rather than having in all cases to make the recordings themselves. This applies to Clause 16(3), which deals with the pre-vetting of programmes, as well as to Clause 16(1). The point is that many programmes will be provided nationally to cable operators, and we accept that it would be an unnecessary burden on the operators if they had in all cases to make their own records of programmes when records might be held centrally by the programme provider. In order to be able to comply with any directions the authority may make in relation to recordings, cable operators will no doubt wish to include appropriate conditions in their contracts with the programme providers.
  The first amendment in this group constitutes a complete redraft of Clause 16(1), and sets up a new procedure. It may be helpful if I explain how it will work. If the authority decides that it wants to be able to see programmes after they have been transmitted, it must serve a notice on the licensee. The notice must specify programmes or descriptions of programme, and a period of time lasting not more than two months. During that period after a programme has been transmitted, it may then direct that a recording is produced to it for examination or reproduction. The amendments should mean that the potential burden on cable operators in respect of keeping recordings is considerably reduced while still enabling the authority to do its work effectively. I beg to move.
  Lord Glanusk: My Lords, this matter, too, relates to one of my Committee stage amendments. I am not quite clear as to when the authority intends to serve such a notice. Will the operator have to keep the recordings at all times in case a notice is issued, or need he not keep the recordings until he is notified?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, my attention flickered minimally right at the end of what my noble friend was saying. I am not quite sure what were the two alternatives he was presenting.
  Lord Glanusk: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 states:
  "Where the Authority have served on a person …"
  What I am trying to find out is when will the authority serve such a notice, and does the operator have to keep his recordings whether or not the notice is served?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the notice will be served when the authority feels that it will wish to see the recordings by reason of its belief that in some way or another the person who has put out the programme has infringed the provisions of the statute or the code of conduct.
  Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does that therefore mean that all cable companies must keep records of all their transmissions for two months, apart from those in regard to which they are excused?
  Lord Elton: No, my Lords. That requirement results from the notice being served.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, the word "Where" in the amendment, at the bottom of page 3 of the Marshalled List, could be the same as "when". It is just a semantic question. "Where" makes it look as though there is a place where it is done, whereas "when" refers to the moment when it might happen. But I think that all recordings are kept for 14 days, are they not? After that they are kept only "Where the Authority" has served a notice. The amendment says "Where"; I should have thought that it should be "When".
  Lord Elton: My Lords, that is I think a semantic question, which could be better argued by a lawyer rather than by me. This is a use of the word "where" which I have frequently seen used in both legislation and litigation. I think that I have already made it clear

  1419
  that the operator must start keeping the recordings once a notice is issued. The operator does not have to produce the recordings to the authority until the authority directs their production. The length of time that various recordings must be kept relates to the reason for which they are required.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 53:
  [Printed above.]
  The noble Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 with Amendment No. 51. With your Lordships' leave, I will move them en bloc.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, it is customary to move the first amendment separately, I think, followed by the other two.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
  [Printed above.]
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
  Clause 17 [Power to revoke licences]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 16, line 5, at end insert ("or
  (c) where that person is a body corporate, if any change affecting the nature or characteristics of the body corporate, or any change in the persons having control over or interests in the body corporate, takes place after the granting of the licence which, if it had occurred before the granting of the licence, would have induced the Authority to refrain from granting the licence").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords who were present when we discussed Clause 17 in Committee will recall that the Government's withdrawal of the final one of a series of three amendments left the clause in a somewhat less than satisfactory state. The amendment now before us in my name is the third amendment of that group, with which we hope to set the position right.
  It may be helpful if I set out again briefly what my noble friend Lady Trumpington said on moving the amendments in Committee. Following a point which the right reverend Prelate—not the right reverend Prelate who is present today, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield—had put to us on Second Reading, we came to the conclusion that it would be advantageous to give the Cable Authority a specific power in respect of changes of ownership or characteristics of a company after a licence has been issued. The amendment accordingly seeks to add to Clause 17 a third set of circumstances where the authority may revoke a licence. That is where the constitution of a licensed company changes with results that, had they occurred before the licence was granted, would have led the authority not to grant the licence in the first place. A formal breach of the
  1420
  restrictions in Clause 7 would not necessarily have to have occurred: a particular example of a case where the authority might need to use this power might be where, after the full licensing process, an unsuccessful applicant tried to buy out the successful company. The authority might well consider this undesirable in view of the procedures they have gone through and the things they have learnt in granting the licence.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised one particular point about the amendment when we were in Committee, and we have since been in correspondence with him. It may be of some assistance to other noble Lords if I summarise what was said in the letter to the noble Lord. The noble Lord's concern was whether the Cable Authority had the power to require licensees to give advance notice of proposed changes in shareholdings. The answer is that Clause 4(6)(a), which gives the authority a general discretion to include in licences conditions reflecting their duties, enables it to include a requirement to give advance notice of proposed changes in shareholdings. In addition, under Clause 4(7)(b) the authority may take power in its licences to require that specific actions—for example, changes in shareholdings—are not carried out without its approval.
  The noble Lord also raised in Committee a more general question about revocation of licences; namely, what would be the position of the customers where a company has its licence revoked. The answer—and we touched on this in Committee—is that revocation is very much a final sanction, and the authority will have sanctions short of revocation. The authority has a general duty to promote cable under Clause 4(8), and there is no question of it deciding to revoke a licence arbitrarily. I have no doubt that before ever it considers revoking a licence it will wish to consider very carefully the position of the cable subscribers.
  Finally, I should like to come back to a point made by the noble Lord. Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, when we discussed this matter in Committee. The noble Lord suggested that Section 20(5) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, on which this amendment is closely modelled, had proved difficult for the IBA to operate. We have been in touch with the IBA since that exchange, and we understand from them that not only has Section 20(5) given rise to no particular difficulties or interpretation but it has proved extremely useful to them in dealing with the sort of circumstances I have outlined. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I am here.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I see now that the noble Lord is present. I did not wish to traduce him in his absence. In fact, I am not traducing him, but simply putting a gloss on what he said. I beg to move.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister with the courtesy to which we have become accustomed so far as he is concerned, did communicate with me, did deal with the points I raised in Committee, and did so to my complete satisfaction. I am most grateful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Annual reports]:
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 17, line 42, leave out ("also include—(a)") and insert ("include")
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we discussed in Committee an amendment to Clause 21, moved by my noble friend, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to require the Cable Authority to include in its annual report an account of complaints received regarding programme standards and the action taken on them. My noble friend, Lord Elton, accepted the proposal in principle and, as the formulation of the amendment was not quite right, he undertook to bring forward an amendment having the effect which my noble friend intended. This amendment is designed to that end. It imposes on the Cable Authority a specific requirement to include in its annual report an account of complaints received about the discharge of its duties under Clauses 9 and 10 to do with the maintenance of programme standards, and of the action it takes in relation to them.
  The authority's account will have to cover all the complaints about programme standards which it receives, whether levelled directly against it or at cable operators distributing the offending programmes. This is because the authority has the general duty to ensure so far as possible that the requirements of Clauses 9 and 10 are met, with the consequence that any complaint about programme standards in effect constitutes a complaint against it for failing to ensure that proper standards are maintained. I beg to move.
  Lord Ardwick: My Lords, this was a problem that concerned us. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for the action that he has taken.
  Lady Saltoun: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and myself, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very much for this fine, healthy and lusty amendment that has replaced the poor, weak, puny little thing that we put down at Committee stage. We are very happy with it, and most grateful.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, may I interpose to say that we think that the amendment is a distinct improvement to the Bill. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for providing the basis of it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 59.
  Page 17, line 45, leave out ("and (b)") and insert ("(3) the report shall also include").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 18, line 2, at end insert ("and a general account of—

  (a) any complaints received by the Authority about the discharge of their duties under sections 9 and 10 above; and

  (b) the action taken by the Authority in relation to those complaints.").

  The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Copyright in cable programmes]:
  Viscount Long Viscount Long moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 18, line 19, leave out from ("or") to end of line 21 and insert ("a sound broadcast").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before dealing with the substance of the amendment my noble friend would like to take the opportunity to assure your Lordships that although it has not been possible to bring forward Government amendments in time for Report on certain of the other copyright issues which were raised at Committee stage, we have not forgotten our commitment to look closely at them. My noble friend is thinking of the question of whether the word "programme" is wide enough to cover certain types of material that might be put out on a cable service and of whether it might be possible to provide copyright protection for satellite transmissions other than DBS. We are still looking at the difficult problems raised by these questions, but we shall bring forward appropriate amendments in another place if these prove necessary to meet your Lordships' concerns.
  The purpose of the present amendment is to make a minor adjustment to the scope of the copyright which is to be given to cable operators by Clause 22 of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that the intention of Clause 22 is to provide cable operators with a copyright in the programmes which they themselves originate, broadly comparable in extent to the copyrights which broadcasters receive in their broadcasts by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the copyright Act 1956.
  It was, however, never intended that the cable operator should receive a copyright of his own where his transmissions are no more than simultaneous relays of broadcasts which the public can also obtain directly off-air, and to which the cable operator has made no creative contribution. For this reason subsection (2) of the new Section 14A of the 1956 Act, to be enacted by Clause 22, provides that the cable operator's own copyright only comes into being where the programme transmitted is something other than an immediate retransmission of a broadcast made from the United Kingdom by the BBC or the IBA. The reasons for relating this exception to retransmissions of BBC and IBA broadcasts made from the United Kingdom were that it is BBC and IBA domestic broadcasts which are most likely to be subject to simultaneous relay and that it is only in respect of those services that the cable operator is exempt from any responsibility as to programme content.
  It has, however, been put to us that in copyright terms this is a somewhat inconsistent position, and on reflection the Government agrees. It cannot really be said that the cable operator makes any greater creative contribution if he relays a broadcast by Radio Luxembourg or a station in the Republic of Ireland, should he choose to do so, than if he relays a domestic broadcast by the BBC or the IBA. Nor would the foreign broadcaster himself lack copyright protection for broadcasts receivable in the United Kingdom, provided he was located (as in practice seems likely) in

  1423
  one of the countries to which the relevant provisions of the 1956 Act have been applied by the Copyright (International Conventions) Order, 1979. Moreover, the position of authors and others who may have contributed to a foreign broadcast is generally protected separately against unauthorised cable diffusion under the present law.
  The Government therefore considers that it would be more appropriate if the exception to cable operators copyright in the new section 14A(2) of the 1956 Act were to apply to all simultaneous retransmissions of broadcasts, from whatever source, and this is the effect of the present amendment. I hope your Lordships understand what I have been saying! I beg to move.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may the House congratulate the noble Viscount on his very learned comments relating to a most abstruse subject. I think he would expect that we should study them rather carefully; it is a little difficult to take them in after he enunciated them a moment or two ago.
  The noble Viscount also made a general observation—which was a most helpful one—that the various points on copyright (and they are very weighty ones which were raised at Committee stage) were being carefully considered by the Government, and that it might not be possible for the actual amendments to be available—if there were going to be amendments—in your Lordships' House, but they would be available very possibly in another place. It would be helpful to those of your Lordships who are very interested in this matter of copyright—and I can only put this forward as a request—if at Third Reading or in the speech which I have no doubt the noble Lord the Minister will make when he asks that the Bill should be passed by your Lordships' House, some general indication of the line that those amendments will take could be given. That will mean that at least in your Lordships' House there is a record, as there should be, of the Government's attitude on this most important subject.
  Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful for the generosity and kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because when it comes to copyright we are really on a very sensitive area.
  As to the latter part of his speech, the answer is: yes, we will carry out what he wants and we will try our best to get over the very sensitive areas of copyright.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Other amendments of 1956 Act]:
  7.5 p.m.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 21, line 3, at end insert ("unless the broadcast is made in the course of providing a pay service.
  ( ) In this section "pay service" means a broadcasting service for general reception by virtue of which the Corporation or (as the case may be) the Authority receives money or other valuable consideration in respect of the provision of the service from those to whom it is provided.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment printed on the Marshalled List. I will try to get on as fast as I can in view of the evident desire of the rest of your Lordships' House to finish as soon
  1424
  as possible. This, however, is another of these slightly complicated copyright matters.
  Sub-clause (3) of Clause 23 gives in effect the cable operator a free copyright licence to transmit broadcast programmes which are subject to the must-carry rule. My amendment is designed to withdraw that licence in relation to the relay of pay services so as to give the broadcaster a means which he would not otherwise have of controlling them. It is, of course, vital to the broadcaster that he should be able to do this if services are offered on a paying basis. It is to be hoped that the abuse of pay services will be dealt with by the provisions relating to theft which I appreciate are highly complex and which my earlier amendments did not fully meet. I am not quite sure when the Government will be able to bring forward those provisions.
  This is a straightforward means of enabling the broadcaster to attack a particular form of abuse. I did move a similar amendment in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who was answering for the Government said the Government would take the matter back and have another look at it, she did see some difficulties, one of which was a cross-reference which no longer applies. The other difficulty she saw was that since a free copyright licence is also given to the cable operator under subsection (4) in relation to copyright works included in a broadcast programme, that licence by the same token shall be withdrawn in relation to those works.
  In my view, that is slightly misconceived. The amendment is designed to provide a mechanism whereby through the operation of copyright law the broadcaster could attack the abuse of a pay service. It is not really to protect his copyright as such—although indirectly it is part of the mechanism—still less to protect the copyright of other rights owners; it is designed to protect the subscription income by enabling them to bring a copyright action against the cable operator if his pay service is appropriated without his authority. I beg to move.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has once again stressed an important point. As we said in Committee when he tabled a rather different version of this amendment, the Government agrees that it would be inappropriate for cable operators to enjoy the right to diffuse broadcasts within their intended reception area free of copyright royalties where the broadcasts are subscription broadcasts and the operator, because of his exemption from the need for a cable authority licence by an order under Clause 3, is not subject to the operation of Clause 12. Since there could be a number of small relay operators in this position, it is obviously important that the point is dealt with.
  We have not forgotten the commitment to look into the matter but there are several questions still to be decided: in particular, whether if licence-exempt operators relaying pay services are to be made liable to the broadcaster for copyright, they should also be made liable in respect of DBS services financed by advertising. I do not think the noble Lord's amendment would in any case do as it stands because in this version it is so drafted as to apply to all cable operators relaying what he calls "pay services"; not

  1425
  just the smaller operators who may be exempt from the need for a licence from the authority.
  This is an outcome which we have sought to avoid since it does seem to us to result in an unnecessary overlap which could lead to complications between copyright and the arrangements provided for by Clause 12(3). In the case of the licensed cable operator, the Clause 12(3) arrangements should be sufficient to produce a satisfactory return to the broadcaster in respect of the relay of DBS subscription services by cable. We touched on this on Monday when the noble Lord moved Amendment No. 33A which would have enabled the broadcaster to pull out of the Clause 12 procedures if he did not like the arbitrator's decision, and I explained then why I thought that that approach would not do.
  I hope however, in the light of my repeated assurances that the Government do accept the need to do something about the more limited proposition which the noble Lord advanced at the Committee stage, and my noble friend's undertaking that there will be a progress report at the last stage in this House, that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I hope that what the Government are able to produce in the way of anti-theft provisions will do the trick. I agree that it is extremely complicated to try to do it by what are almost back-door means relating to copyright. If the ingenuity of those who have assisted me in the drafting has been somewhat overstrained, I can only apologise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 [Amendment etc. of law relating to obscene publications]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 63:
  Leave out Clause 24.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63 and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67, 74 and 81:
  Amendment No. 64: Page 24, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 5 and insert—

  "(a) a programme included in a cable programme service involves the publication of an obscene article; or

  (b) a programme included in such a service is such that, if any matter included in it were recorded matter, the inclusion of the programme would involve the publication of such an article,

  the person providing that service shall be guilty of an offence.
  (1A) A person guilty of an offence under this section")
  Amendment No. 65: Page 24, line 27, leave out ("live").
  Amendment No. 66: Page 24, line 33, leave out ("live").
  Amendment No. 67: Page 25, line 10, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
  ("(9) In this section expressions used in the Obscene Publications Act 1959 have the same meanings as in that Act.
  (10) This section does not extend to Scotland.").
  Amendment No. 74: Leave our Schedule 2.
  Amendment No. 81: Page 45, line 12, at end insert—
  ("The Obscene Publications Act 1959.
  7A.—(1) At the end of the proviso to subsection (3) of section 1 (test of obscenity) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 there shall be added the words "or of including a programme in a cable programme service within the meaning of Part l of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984".
  (2) It is hereby declared that a person who has an obscene article in his ownership, possession or control with a view to its being shown, played or projected in the course of a cable programme service shall be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 2 of that Act (prohibition of publication of obscene matter etc.) to have that article for publication for gain.").
  These amendments all deal with the Bill's provisions on obscenity in cable programmes. Noble Lords will have seen that there are further amendments on the Marshalled List in my name dealing with the enforcement of these provisions, but it will avoid unnecessary complication if they can be dealt with separately, and I will speak to them when we reach them. At this stage I will restrict myself to the offences, not the punishment.
  The present amendments may look like radical surgery to the provisions of the Bill dealing with obscene cable programmes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In fact, the surgery is to the drafting and not to the substance. The main change of substance is that the power in Clause 32 to require the production of records and scripts will now be extended to apply to the offence of publishing an obscene prerecorded cable programme. We think that this is desirable given that the powers in Clause 32 already extend to obscene live cable programmes. This change is achieved by amending Clause 25 to deal with both pre-recorded and live programmes. As a consequence, Clause 24 and Schedule 2, which applies the Obscene Publications Act to Northern Ireland for cable, are no longer necessary. Unlike the Obscene Publications Acts in general, Clause 25 applies in Northern Ireland, and so there will continue to be an offence of putting out obscene material on cable, whether recorded or live, throughout the United Kingdom.
  The final amendment in this series contains two amendments to the Obscene Publications Act itself. The first is to make it clear that the main offence in that Act, that of publishing an obscene article, does not apply to anything done in a cable programme service. That is not a deed of liberalisation; it is simply to avoid duplication. The offence is already contained in Clause 25. The second is to make it clear that the second offence in the 1959 Act, that of having an obscene article for publication for gain, does apply to any article being held with a view to its inclusion in a cable programme. This is currently achieved by Clause 24(2) which is about to disappear.
  These amendments, as well as applying Clause 32 to recorded cable programmes, represent—I think your Lordships will agree—a very considerable simplification to the Bill's provisions on obscene cable programmes, and I hope that on those grounds your Lordships will welcome them. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Obscene live progammes]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 64:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would tell us a little more about Amendment No. 64, because I noted that he said that it looks like radical surgery, but it is not. The noble Lord is speaking at some speed and the whole of pages

  1427
  24 and 25 which deal with obscenity cover very wide matters and I wanted to assure myself, and indeed those of us who sit on these Benches, that in fact it is as watertight as the noble Lord can make it. Clearly the noble Lord wants to make sure that obscene matter does not come on cable television. However, with the whole of Clause 24 now out, Amendment No. 64, which stands in the Government's name, does call to be spelt out a little more clearly to assure us that the question of obscenity is being taken care of with usual watchfulness by the Government.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I would have some difficulty in doing that without repeating myself. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would be kind enough to look at the print of the Bill that will result from the amendments. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I have given that this is as watertight as it can be. But when he reads it, he will find it a great deal easier to follow than what is in the present print. If he still feels doubt, he may like either to write to me or to raise the matter on Third Reading. I would be very happy to deal with the matter in that way when we can actually see the print in front of us. But I think he will be reassured when he sees it.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am most grateful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Incitement to racial hatred]:
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Clause 32 [Power to make copies of scripts and records]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 30, line 1, after ("be") insert ("so")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to insert a word that inadvertently was missed out of the text of the Bill and without which the meaning of Clause 32(1)(b) would be obscure. I believe it was erroneously included in the list of groupings, but it stands in fact on its own. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 30, line 13, leave out ("(a)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 are paving amendments for Amendment No. 73. With your Lordships' permission, I will move Amendment No. 70 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 71 and 73.
  Amendment No. 71: Page 30, line 14, leave out from ("exists") to ("if") in line 18 and insert—

  ("(a) an actual script on which the programme was or, as the case may be, will be based; or

  (b) a visual or sound record of any matter which was or, as the case may be, will be included in the programme, and")

  Amendment No. 73: After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
  (" Availability of visual and sound records.
  .—(1) The Authority shall do all that they can to secure that, if an order is made under section 32 above in relation to a person providing a licensed service and a programme included in that service, that person will be able to comply with a requirement under subsection (3)(b) of that section made within 14 days of the inclusion of that programme.
  (2) Nothing done under or in pursuance of a condition included in a licence by virtue of this section shall—

  (a) constitute an infringement of the copyright in any work, sound recording, cinematograph film or television or sound broadcast; or

  (b) constitute an offence under any of the provisions of the Performers' Protection Acts 1958 to 1972.

  (3) In this section "cinematograph film" and "sound recording" have the same meanings as in the 1956 Act.")
  When we discussed Clause 16 in Committee I made it clear that, in addition to the various amendments we have already brought forward to Clause 16, we would be bringing forward amendments to assist the enforcement of Clauses 25 and 27. We have already dealt with a group of amendments to make sure that Clause 32 applies to obscentiy in recorded as well as live cable programmes. The purpose of the new clause under consideration, together with the consequential amendments to Clause 32, is to make sure that, once an order under Clause 32 has been made, the Cable Authority's licensees will be able to provide recordings of their programmes to the police within 14 days of transmission.
  As I said in Committee, we came to the conclusion that, while the existing enforcement provisions in Clause 31 and 32 were necessary, they were not of themselves fully adequate for the enforcement of the Bill's provisions on obscenity and incitement to racial hatred. This was because, under the Bill as it stands, there would be no guarantee that a record of what actually happened in a cable programme would be available at all.
  The new provision will operate by the Cable Authority inserting appropriate conditions in its licences. Licensees will not necessarily have to keep recordings themselves. They will merely have to make sure—through their contracts with the programme providers if necessary—that records will be available. This is consistent with our amendments to Clause 16 and should mean that the potential burden on cable operators in keeping recordings is considerably less than if in all cases they were themselves required to keep recordings of their output. Having made cable programmes subject to the criminal law on obscenity and incitement to racial hatred, it is only sensible that we should make adequate provision for the enforcement of those offences, and I therefore beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 71:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1427.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  7.22 p.m.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe moved Amendment No. 72:
  Leave out Clause 32.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise in some difficulty to myself and very considerable apologies to

  1429
  the Government Front Bench. In place of moving that Clause 32 be omitted from the Bill, I had produced a series of much shorter amendments which I had sent down to the House last week and which, for some reason never reached the Printed Paper Office. I am not blaming any official of this House because they work extremely hard and very efficiently; it is probably entirely my fault that something went wrong on the way. I believe that, in fact, officials at the Home Office saw the sense of my amendments, but obviously it would be quite unfair to move manuscript amendments which your Lordships have not had a chance to consider in detail.
  Perhaps therefore I may be allowed to say a few words on my amendment to leave out Clause 32. I shall not repeat the speech that I made in Committee on the question whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill; but it seems to me that if obscenity and race relations laws are to apply to cable there should be some means of guaranteeing that evidence of the matter transmitted should be preserved, although there is no overwhelming precedent for this. In particular, there are no enforcement provisions whatever (other than those fixing the penalties) in the Public Order Act 1936 which, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, contains the principal criminal provisions relating to the offence of incitement to racial hatred.
  In the race relations field the only precedent is the Theatres Act 1968. On the assumption however that powers to preserve evidence should be conceded, my amendments (if I had been able to move them) would have accepted the 14 day and two month periods and the powers to require production of scripts and recordings after transmission.
  What is less clear to me is the need for the police to have any powers before transmission, either to require the production of scripts and recordings, or to enter premises and to seize articles which they have reason to believe to be obscene. Obviously it would make the law even easier to enforce, but at the cost of setting what I believe would be a most dangerous precedent in the broadcasting field.
  I submit that the ability of the authorities to enforce the law is adequately protected by enforcement powers which are exercisable after the event. Powers which are exercisable before the event are virtually unprecedented for the following reasons. The powers of search and seizure in Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 permit a constable, if he obtains a magistrate's warrant, to enter and search "any premises, stall or vehicle" and to seize and remove articles which he has reason to believe to be obscene and kept for publication for gain. The reference to "premises, stall or vehicle" quite clearly indicates the kind of mischief that this is presumably aimed at; we can all envisage the sort of stall or vehicle from which these particular obscene video films, or whatever it might be, are being sold. It is hardly an appropriate weapon to apply against the cable operators, who supposedly are respectable people, or an appropriate precedent for this Bill.
  The only precedent for the power to require the production of scripts before the event is in the Theatres Act 1968, a measure which was designed to bring to an end the pre-censorship of plays by the Lord Chamber
  1430
  lain, which had existed for many years. For example, there is no power to require a speaker to produce a script of his speech before he delivers it, however obscene or—much more likely—racially offensive a policeman suspects it may be. In fact, the person who is to deliver it may almost give a policeman an automatic assumption that it will be racially offensive. But nevertheless he has no power to make him produce any form of script or preview of what he will say. Perhaps it was accepted in the Theatres Act because pre-censorship had been a feature of the theatre for so many years—indeed, for so many centuries—and nobody thought to deny the police a somewhat similar power in the legislation that abolished the office of the Lord Chamberlain.
  Any power which would, in the case of search and seizure or which might in the case of requiring production of scripts and recordings, amount to a form of pre-censorship of cable services would, in my view—and I hope in the view of many noble Lords—be a most dangerous precedent for broadcasters and possibly others. I beg to move.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest care to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe. It seems to me that the amendment to leave out the whole of Clause 32 calls into question the assurances which the Minister has so clearly and helpfully given on the whole obscenity situation. I happened to prick up my ears when I heard the noble Lord mention obscene video films, because your Lordships will know that next Wednesday we shall be holding a press conference when we shall bring some very assured and some very strong recommendations concerning this whole area of what are colloquially called video nasties. A number of Members of your Lordships' House are concerned with that. Therefore, I hope—
  Lord Elton: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate forgive me, but could he tell me in the context of the word "we", who are giving the press conference? I am sure that that would be useful to know, and I think I missed it.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I used the word "we" rather lightly. I could name two or three Members of your Lordships' House who are part of a small group concerned with producing a report about video films, and a press conference is to be held next Wednesday. I pricked up my ears when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Howard, speak of this because I believe it is easier for us now to restrain all possible dangers in the obscenity world before they take place rather than, as in this particular case with video work, having to find out how that restraint can take place after they have been released to the world. It is the old business of once you shake a feather pillow up into the air it is very hard to catch the individual feathers and put them back into the pillow. With that rather homely illustration, I hope that the Government will resist this amendment.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, might I start by sympathising with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, for the loss of his batch of amendments, and admire the restrained and courteous way in which he has

  1431
  reconciled himself to it. I cannot address myself to them because they are not on the Marshalled List. I can venture a faint note of surprise that he should think that their sense had been seen by officials in the department. My impression was that they had not thought them altogether necessary, but we are talking about something which technically does not exist, so may I simply repeat the assurance that I gave when we discussed Clause 32 in Committee that the clause is not intended as the thin end of the wedge. It is necessary, as the right reverend Prelate has rightly said, as a provision to enable the proper enforcement of serious offences which we are creating in this Bill for cable.
  While we all hope that prosecutions under Clauses 25 and 27 will be rare, we have thought it necessary—and your Lordships agreed with us—to make it clear that the offences of obscenity and incitement to racial hatred which apply in other areas apply also to cable programmes. Since we have done this it is only sensible to make adequate provision for the enforcement of those offences. I cannot therefore accept the noble Lord's view that this is a dangerous or unnecessary thing to do.
  May I briefly make things clear. First, this is not a draconian power. There is no power of entry. There is no power of search. There is no power of detention. There is no power of arrest. It is a power simply to demand a script or recording and the opportunity to make a copy of it. Nor is that rather limited power a power at large. A police officer, not any police officer but one of superintendent rank or above, must first have reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of these offences has been, or is likely to be, committed. If he acted unreasonably his action would be vulnerable to challenge in the courts.
  Having his suspicions reasonably aroused because the power is not a power at large, he must then name the person he suspects and write his name on the order. He cannot go fishing for a suspect. Not only that, he must describe the actual programme in terms by which it can be recognised, so he cannot go fishing for programmes, either. Only if the person named does have such a programme available and refuses the policeman at the door—and the policeman, please note, cannot put a foot inside it without his permission—will he be guilty of an offence. The noble Lord's speech had the rattle of breaking doors and wailing of sirens about it. I assure him that his fears are perfectly groundless.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I hope that they are groundless. I am certain that if the noble Lord has anything to do with it I need have no fears at all. I am, and remain, afraid of precedents which may be carried over into other fields. It was for that reason that I hoped to be able to improve this particular clause. Having given this an airing which will be reproduced in print, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 73:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1427.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment 69. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Application of the 1959 and 1964 Acts to Northern Ireland]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 74:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment 63. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  7.33 p.m.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 79:
  Page 43, line 31, after ("words") insert (" "works to be")
  Page 43, line 32, after ("words") insert (""works or sound recordings to be")
  Page 43, line 35, after ("service"") insert ("after the word "works", in second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or recordings"")
  Page 43, line 38, after ("section") insert ("after the word "works", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words"or recordings"")
  Page 43, line 42, at end insert—
  ("(14A) In subsection (4) of that section after the word "works", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or sound recordings"")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79. The custom I understand is, having moved 75, to move the remainder en bloc, with your Lordships' permission.
  Clause 23(1) introduces for the first time a right for the makers of sound recordings to control the inclusion of their recordings in cable programme services. Section 28 of the 1956 Act, which contains special provisions relating to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Performing Right Tribunal in relation to the cable relay of foreign broadcasts, is also amended in Schedule 3 to take account of the terminology of the Bill. However, those amendments, as they stand, do not take account of the new rights of makers of sound recordings.
  These amendment are designed to set the position right so as to avoid the situation where the Performing Right Tribunal might make an award resulting in double payment to makers of sound recordings. The problem is a relatively limited one in that it concerns only sound recordings which are included in foreign broadcasts relayed to a United Kingdom cable audience and for which the foreign broadcaster had already made the necessary rights payments. But we ought to get the matter right and these amendments, which take account of representation made to us by the British Copyright Council, should do the trick. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 44, line 29, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 81:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1425.]
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment also I spoke to with 63. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 82:
  Page 48, line 39, at end insert—
  ("The Education and Libraries(Northern Ireland) Order 1972
  .In Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (interpretation) at the end of the definition of "newspaper" there shall be added the words "or programmes to be included in a cable programme service which is, or does not require to be, licensed under Part I of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment designed to bring a particular Northern Ireland provision into line with other analagous provisions which have already been attended to in Schedule 3. This is the last amendment on which I shall have an opportunity to speak, and I should like to take the opportunity to thank your Lordships for notable patience during some difficult passages where it must have been evident that my own understanding—and I should have seen more of this Bill than your Lordships—was straining at its limits. I think between us we have got safely through difficult ground. The number of disagreements between us has markedly diminished. We have a little more way to go which I hope we shall be able to achieve on Third Reading. I should like to thank your Lordships for your patience and considerate handling of the Minister who could otherwise have been in great difficulty. May I return to the matter in hand, and beg to move Amendment 82.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of the House on whichever side they may sit would want to thank the noble Lord the Minister in turn for his patience and courtesy, and his tolerance of some long debates that have taken place on some of the matters in this Bill. If he thinks that his understanding was in any way lacking, he is so astute that we did not notice it.
  The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Amen.
  Earl De La Warr: My Lords, may I add my thanks from these Benches from some of my colleagues who have been helping me on a number of amendments. We have enormously appreciated the courtesy we have had from the Minister and the help that has come from him and his department. We are extremely grateful, and we want to say thank you.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Howard of Henderskelfe Lord Howard of Henderskelfe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 83:
  [Printed earlier: col. 1405.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am strictly in order in saying that I am not moving this amendment but thanking the Minister for his courtesy and the help which he has given us throughout this Bill. I have thrown him some really nasty ones, particularly over copyright. He has
  1434
  accepted them always with willing grace, but sometimes with a complaint that they have arrived a little late. That complaint is fully justified.
  The work which is put on Ministers' shoulders and on their officials at weekends by proceedings in this House—and by the kind of amendments which we put down on highly technical Bills like this—is not always appreciated by ordinary Members of this House, particularly those who have the backing of others, and I should like my personal thanks also to be recorded among those of others. I do not move this last amendment.

  Orkney Islands Council Order Confirmation Bill
  Read a third time, and passed.
  Western Isles Islands Council (Kallin Pier, Harbour Jurisdiction) Order Confirmation Bill
  Considered on Report.

  Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1984
  7.42 p.m.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order, the third of its type, will replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1979. It carries forward the provisions of the previous order and, inter alia, widens the scope of aircraft noise certification by including for the first time requirements for supersonic aeroplanes and standards for microlight aeroplanes. As in 1979, it is considered preferable to have a new comprehensive order than to prepare an amending order.
  The order is unavoidably complex. There are a multiplicity of categories and related standards which vary with the type and weight of the aeroplane, with the date of the certificate of airworthiness, either for the type or the individual aeroplane and, in the case of jets, with the number and type of engines fitted. Further, to comprehend fully its effect, it is necessary to study three related Civil Aviation Authority documents—two of which are highly technical. Copies of these—British Civil Airworthiness Requirements, Section N Noise; the amending Blue Paper No. N810 dated 12th January 1984 and Civil Aviation Authority Official Record Series 4—have been provided in the Library.
  This draft order, which is to be made under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, will give effect in the United Kingdom to the new and revised noise emission standards which have already been agreed by member states of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, following the 6th meeting of the Committee on Aircraft Noise in 1979,

  1435
  known as CAN/6. The order together with the accompanying document, the CAA Official Record Series 4, will also give effect to EC Directives 80–51 and 83–206. These directives were issued following a long period of consultation with our colleagues in the Community, and have already been approved by Parliament. They are in line with ICAO Recommendations.
  Broadly speaking the order will: require new production of older types of heavy propeller-driven aeroplanes to meet the earliest standards for subsonic jets; allow aeroplanes up to a maximum weight of 6,500 kg to be noise certified to the light propeller-driven aeroplane standards where the prototype was certificated to those standards; require derived versions of low by-pass ratio engined subsonic jets (mainly the older types) to meet the slightly more stringent standards for derived versions of high by-pass ratio engined jets; and, require further production and derived versions of existing types of supersonic aeroplanes to be no noiser than the parent aeroplane.
  The draft order also introduces standards for microlight aeroplanes, which the Government undertook to bring into effect in time for the coming flying season. I refer to the Commons Hansard of 29th March 1983, column 117, in which the response was given in answer to a Written Question. While perhaps not a major problem, this relatively new activity is undoubtedly a source of annoyance to people living near the airfields from which these small machines operate. The British Microlight Aircraft Association, the sport's controlling body, recognising the need to minimise the disturbance caused by their activities has co-operated helpfully with my department in drawing up the proposed standards. The Government believe these will give worthwhile environmental protection without imposing unreasonable penalties on microlight owners and manufacturers. The remainder of the order carries forward the provisions of the 1979 Order.
  Standards for helicopters are not being introduced. Although noise certification standards were agreed at CAN/6, further work demonstrated that the proposed noise limits did not allow sufficient margin for growth for future derived versions of existing types. Since they could have been harmful to the helicopter industry, new standards were subsequently discussed and agreed by member states at CAN/7 in May 1983. They will be given urgent consideration as soon as they have been promulgated by ICAO.
  The standards which ICAO develops set levels which have been shown to be technologically feasible and economically reasonable for the category of aeroplane to which they apply. That this is so is confirmed by our own aviation industry, which has known for some time of these latest ICAO standards and of the United Kingdom's commitment to introduce them, and the industry is content.
  Of all causes of noise disturbance—heavy lorries, motor bikes, lawn mowers, or others—aircraft noise in some ways is the most intractable. While, unfortunately, aircraft noise is likely to be a source of considerable annoyance for years to come, the Government will continue to do what they can to minimise the problem, particularly for those people
  1436
  whose quality of life may be affected because they live in the vicinity of an airport. Many noble Lords will know of the various operational measures that are taken to this end; for example, the special noise reducing take-off procedures: requiring aircraft to keep to carefully selected departure routes designed to overfly as few people as possible: establishing maximum permitted noise levels on take-off and limiting the number of night movements. But it has to be admitted that at best they are only palliatives. The real answer lies in quieter aeroplanes and it is the introduction of these that this order will help to encourage. Your Lordships will, however, recognise that it is essential to strike a balance between the environmental benefits of a new and technically feasible standard and the costs it imposes on manufacturers, operators and eventually users. My Lords, I commend the draft order to you.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the order which is before us tonight. As he rightly says, it is of a very complex nature and very technical. I would not ask the Minister to explain to me the actual noise standards which are set out in the seven parts of Schedule 1 and Schedule 3 but, as these are matters of international agreement, I am sure that noble Lords like myself will accept them as they are presented to us. It is an important order. The development of aviation makes the question of noise control important and, while we all wish to see the further development of air travel, as with heavy lorries the development must be what is environmentally acceptable. I was very pleased to note the sympathetic approach of the noble Lord the Minister to that point.
  The Minister has explained that the order does not cover helicopters. This is of increasing importance and, while I appreciate that there must be international agreement on this, I hope that there will be no delay because there is increasing nuisance around many of the airports. There is also increasing use by the police. I can assure your Lordships that in the area where I live, just near Epping Forest, there have been a number of letters in the local press, talking about the noise nuisance created by helicopters used by the police authorities. Therefore I do appreciate that there will be international agreement and I trust there will be no delay. I am also pleased to note the inclusion of microlights. I understand that the Microlight Aircraft Association gave the fullest cooperation on the inclusion of microlights in this order.
  When the matter was discussed in the other place, the question of the level of fines was raised and also the question as to whether £400 was adequate. In reply to my honourable friend the Opposition spokesman the Minister said that the level of fines had been reviewed two years ago but if the honourable Member considered that they were not sufficient the Minister would examine the matter further. I hope that the level of fines will be examined further because a maximum of £400 for this type of offence seems woefully inadequate.

  1437
  The issue is not one solely of the control of the noise of individual aircraft but also of nuisance which, even with noise control envisaged in this order, can be increased by having over-frequent aircraft movements. Naturally, the major problem here is Heathrow, and in reading the Hansard report of the debate in another place I noticed that a number of honourable Members sought clarification about the control of movements at Heathrow. It brought up the strange situation that at present there is no limitation of movements, but that when Terminal 4 is opened as expected in late 1985, there will then be a limitation of 275,000 movements. However, if in the meantime the number should exceed 275,000 when Terminal 4 opens, there will have to be a cutting back to 275,000. This will mean that some operators in those circumstances may have to move elsewhere; and the question of more domestic flights being allowed into Heathrow is a matter of great importance. It may not he covered by this order but it is associated with the whole question of aircraft noise.
  I trust that there will be no question of increasing total movements at Heathrow beyond 275,000 without reference to Parliament. It would appear that the question of noise control, at least so far as London is concerned, is tied up with talk of possible deregulation of domestic flights. I hope that the Civil Aviation Authority will keep this question in mind during the present review that is being undertaken, and that when the report is available it will be considered by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. We welcome this order, and we will support it.
  Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining this order. I simply want to ask him one question about Article 7 concerning the noise certificate to be carried. Article 7(1) says:
  "An aeroplane shall not land or take-off…unless it carries any noise certificate which it is required to carry under the law of the country in which it is registered".
  Does that mean that there are some countries which do not require noise certificates? One would imagine that all major carriers would subscribe to the international bodies to which the noble Lord referred: but what about minor carriers? What I am really asking the noble Lord is whether the harmonisation of laws is well developed.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his welcome to this order. I hope to deal quite quickly with the points that have been raised because I do not think your Lordships would wish to be delayed unnecessarily this evening. With regard to helicopter noise certification, as I said in my introductory remarks this will be a matter of some urgency when the CAN/7 standards have been finally accepted by the association. Frankly, we do not expect that until about 12 months hence.
  The noble Lord asked me particularly about the £400 fine. I think I should say here that, of course, if there is real evidence that a fine of this amount is inadequate there will certainly be a review, but if one is thinking particularly in terms of the microlight aircraft, a fine of £400 is an enormous amount of
  1438
  money. You can almost put a man's summer sport out of court for some two or three years. On the other hand, I think that noble Lords should remember that the fine itself is not always the end of the disadvantage—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will appreciate this—because, of course, coupled with a fine would be a refusal for the aeroplane to fly. For an aeroplane to stand idle on a runway, in shipping terms, would be called demurrage. I am not quite sure what it would be called in aircraft terms, but it would involve the loss of use of the aeroplane, and, of course, additional charges would be a further penalty. Happily there have been very few instances where that has been necessary.
  The noble Lord asked me about Heathrow. While I appreciate that there is real concern over the level of air traffic movements and the changed situation arising with the opening of the new terminal, I think that perhaps Heathrow and ATMs are a little special. Perhaps we might have a conversation, if he is agreeable, because I do not think at this stage, in relation to the order before us, I can add anything. Perhaps we might review this in the usual way. However, I take note of the point he raised.
  I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for his remarks. He raised a particular question as to the certificate of registration. In the main, I can tell him that the vast majority of operating countries, and certainly all those engaged in the manufacture of aircraft, are subscribers to the international convention. I do not have a long list of countries, and perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to write and set out that particular piece of detail. But in terms of actual practice, I do not think he need have any undue worries. I do not think I can add anything further at the moment to assist your Lordships.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  London Docklands Railway Bill
  Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; a Special Report made and ordered to be printed.
  House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  AFGHAN REFUGEES IN PAKISTAN: UK ASSISTANCE
  AFGHAN REFUGEES IN PAKISTAN: UK ASSISTANCE
  SALMON FISHING
  SALMON FISHING
  GLC AND METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCILS: ACTION PREJUDICIAL TO SUCCESSORS
  GLC AND METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCILS: ACTION PREJUDICIAL TO SUCCESSORS
  GLC AND METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCILS: STAFF
  GLC AND METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCILS: STAFF