Sitting of 21 March 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Israel
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet fixed a date for his proposed visit to Israel.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It has not yet been possible to find a mutually convenient date, but I am looking forward to a visit as soon as that proves practicable.
    Mr. Latham: When my right hon. and learned Friend, who personally has greatly improved Anglo-Israeli relationships recently, visits Israel, will he assure his Israeli hosts—whether before or after their general election—that Britain is totally committed to the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Lebanon and to the territorial integrity of all states in the region?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly in a position to do that.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that now that American policy in the Lebanon has failed the time may be appropriate for a separate European initiative on the middle east, perhaps on the lines of the original Venice declaration, to ensure secure boundaries for Israel and a homeland for the Palestinians?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The principles set out in the original Venice declaration remain valid, and it is important for the views of European countries and of the United Kingdom to be made clear along those lines. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is essentially for the parties in the region to find the means of conducting the necessary negotiations between themselves.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his proposed visit to Israel will be welcomed as an even-handed and friendly gesture? Will he also bear in mind that there is a widespread feeling that there have been enough initiatives on the middle east and that the Venice initiative, which dealt the death knell to the Camp David agreement, and the withdrawal of the agreement between Israel and Lebanon, have done little to inspire the Israelis with any confidence in the outcome of negotiated peace settlements?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that there are many circumstances in which the various parties involved may
    1032
    sometimes have little confidence in the prospects for peaceful negotiations, but the fact remains that means have to be found to bring together the two sides in an effort to arrive at agreements on terms that are acceptable to both.
    Mr. Janner: As a prelude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's visit, will he discuss with First Deputy Foreign Minister Kornienko next week the thoroughly destructive role that the Soviet Union has played in the middle east? Will he try to get Mr. Kornienko to agree that the Russians will use their considerable influence in Syria to induce that country to leave Lebanon so that all other foreign troops may leave also, as they have agreed to do?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not expect to have the opportunity to meet First Deputy Foreign Minister Kornienko next week. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) will be talking to him, and I have no doubt that he will take the opportunity to follow up the reference to middle eastern questions that I made in my talk with Mr. Gromyko at Stockholm in January. No doubt the role and part that can be played by Syria will be one of the questions that will arise there.
    Later—
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Perhaps I may make it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that I shall not myself be seeing Mr. Kornienko, because I have long-standing plans which will take me out of the country while he is here.

    Namibia
    Mr. Bowen Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the negotiations on Namibian independence.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We remain committed to Namibian independence on the basis of free and fair elections in accordance with Security Council resolution 435. We welcome recent developments in Southern Africa, which must improve prospects for a settlement, notably the signing of a pact between South Africa and Mozambique and the progress towards disengagement of South African troops from Southern Angola.
    Mr. Wells: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What role has Britain played in trying to bring about a settlement in that area, particularly with Namibia and Angola in mind? What is his reaction to the recent statement from Havana in which conditions were set for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have used numerous opportunities to impress upon all the parties the need to make the proposed disengagement of South African troops from Angola a success. That will undoubtedly increase the prospects for the independence of Namibia under Security Council resolution 435.
    The declaration by the Cuban and Angolan Governments is welcome in so far as it shows a willingness to begin the withdrawal of Cuban troops, albeit subject to certain conditions. Naturally, we believe that the removal of all foreign troops from Angola would be helpful in trying to solve problems of the region as a whole.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware of the continued detention of a British subject, Mr. Alan Roberts of

    1033
    Warwick university, by the security police of Namibia, under security regulation AG9, without charge, for more than three weeks? For how long will the Government tolerate that incarceration of a British citizen? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to convey the British people's abhorrence at the detention without charge of this British subject and to deal with the problems faced by his wife and family?
    Mr. Rifkind: The British consul travelled from Cape Town to Windhoek on 14 March specifically to see Mr. Roberts, and there have been a number of additional telephone conversations between our consular staff and Mr. Roberts. We have been in touch with the South African authorities, who have assured us that within a short period Mr. Roberts will either be released or charged with a specific offence. We have encouraged them to keep to that assurance.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Has my hon. Friend seen the interesting report by the all-party group that visited Namibia, particularly the conclusion that Namibia was not viable in practical terms as an independent state? Will he comment on that?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have read with great interest the report to which my hon. Friend refers. It is the case that the independence of Namibia under Security Council resolution 435 is an objective shared by most of the United Nations and one which the South African Government have said they are prepared to support. In those circumstances, we must seek independence of Namibia. It may be that there is a need for friendly countries to consider what help to give to an independent Namibian Government, but that should not in any way deter us from the objective of an independent Namibia which is agreed by all the parties.
    Mr. Johnston: Will the Minister define the expression "all-party", which is rather loosely used?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must address that question to the members of the group that has been referred to.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it the Government's assessment that South Africa is still persisting with its attempt to obtain a settlement outside the United Nations framework with Angola, the internal parties and SWAPO? Will he make it clear that for the Government the search for a peaceful settlement can come only on the basis of resolution 435?
    Mr. Rifkind: Concern has been expressed at the recent statement by the South African Foreign Minister envisaging a round table conference of a number of parties in South Africa. We have been encouraged by South Africa's assurance that that is in no way intended to circumvent Security Council resolution 435. We have emphasised that we continue to see that as the proper, and indeed the best, basis for achieving Namibian independence.

    Costa Rica
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Costa Rica.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): We enjoy very good relations with Costa Rica, whose democratic system is widely admired.
    Mr. Parry: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he tell the House whether he supports the United States arming those counter-revolutionaries based in Costa Rica who attack targets in Nicaragua?
    Mr. Whitney: The United States has no military or paramilitary forces in Costa Rica. We support every effort to put an end to violence in that region.
    Mr. Bottomley: I welcome my hon. Friend's indication of the democratic nature of Costa Rica. Is it the Government's policy to encourage elections in Nicaragua and El Salvador in which all serious opposition parties take part?
    Mr. Whitney: Certainly we encourage the promotion of democracy in those countries, and indeed in all the region. My hon. Friend will have noticed our decision to send observers in response to the invitation to examine the conduct of the various elections in El Salvador.
    Mr. Johnstone: Given that Costa Rica has a long, and in Central America one might say unique, record of liberal democracy, will the Minister review the Government's policy towards that country with a view to giving it any assistance that it may require, and will he say what assistance the Government now provide?
    Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have to look very carefully at the disbursement of our aid, and normally aid for that region would be considered through the agency of the European Community.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the level of our representation in Costa Rica? Is it the Government's policy to continue to represent themselves in neighbouring Nicaragua from the Costa Rican embassy, or are there any moves afoot towards the, some would think desirable, restoration of diplomatic relations between this country and El Salvador and Nicaragua on a direct basis?
    Mr. Whitney: I am pleased to advise the House, as, indeed, we advised the House a few days ago in a written answer, that we have decided to open missions at chargé d'affaires level in El Salvador and in Nicaragua.
    Mr. Anderson: The Government will know that we have long pressed for that change, and we welcome without reservation the upgrading of our diplomatic representation in Managua,—[HON. MEMBERS: "And in El Salvador."]—and, indeed, in El Salvador, but it so happens that Nicaragua is Costa Rica's neighbour and El Salvador is not. Do the Government now accept that the Sandanista regime in Nicaragua enjoys overwhelming popular support and that attempts by the CIA to destabilise that country, such as by mining the Soviet tanker bringing supplies to Puerto Sandino, are doomed and are a real threat to peace?
    Mr. Whitney: We are unable and unwilling to take the one-sided approach reflected in the hon. Gentleman's question. When a free and fair election has been held in Nicaragua, I suggest to the House that that would be the time to make a new judgment on whether that regime commands full support in that country.

    Middle East
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the middle east.
    Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a middle east peace settlement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There has been no recent progress in settling the various disputes in the region. We shall be keeping up our efforts to help bring about negotiated settlements to the Arab-Israel dispute, and the Iran-Iraq war. It is disappointing that the Lebanese reconciliation conference in Lausanne made so little progress, and it is to be hoped that Lebanon's leaders will make a further effort to reach a lasting settlement.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that at the core of the middle east problem is the need to resolve the problem of the Palestinians, and that there is no likelihood of that problem being resolved after the report that he issued on 8 February this year, drawn together by Assistant Attorney-General Judas Karp, outlining the repression of the Palestinian Arabs on the West Bank? If the Israeli Government are not prepared to tackle the repression of terrorism against the Palestinians in the occupied territories for which they are responsible, there is very little likelihood of the Palestinians and the Israelis sitting down together and discussing peace.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certain that the interests of the Palestinians on the West Bank have to be taken fully into account. We regard Palestinian self-determination as essential in any negotiated settlement. It has been our view for a long time—indeed, since the Venice declaration—that the PLO should be associated with any negotiations, provided that they themselves accept the Venice principles.
    Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that King Hussein's recent remarks reflected the understandable frustration felt by Arab moderates at United States policy in the Middle East? Does he propose to be more active in trying to bring about an international conference aimed at achieving a comprehensive peace settlement, before a major explosion takes place again in the area?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say about the reasons behind King Hussein's recent remarks. I shall not comment on what they imply about relations between his country and the United States of America, but plainly the voice of King Hussein and of Jordan has an important part to play in the search for a settlement in that area. Indeed, it has a leading part to play in bringing together the voices of the moderate Arabs, who have such a contribution to make. I am not sure that the proposal for a conference has any part to play at this stage, but we shall certainly continue to press all the parties concerned to come together to consider the future.
    Mr. Maclennan: What action has the Foreign Secretary taken to mobilise an international response to evidence of weapons being used in the Iran—Iraq war that are outlawed by the laws of war, in particular, chemical weapons?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We obviously view with great concern reports that chemical weapons have been used in that conflict. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a United Nations team is currently involved in assessing the evidence and I should not want to prejudge its findings. I have already made it clear that we would roundly condemn any violation of the 1925 Geneva protocol.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share the view of the Americans and others that the greatest present obstacle to peace in the Gulf is the attitude and policy of the Iranian Government? If so, wilt he make that clear to the House?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We deplore the continued conflict in the Gulf and have been urging both parties to take steps to bring it to an end as soon as possible. A whole series of attempts have been made to achieve mediation. Many people have tried to achieve that, both inside and outside the Security Council, including the United Nations Secretary-General. Every such effort should be sustained.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, now that King Hussein has delivered the coup de grace to recent American policy in the near east, the main danger to world peace and Western interests lies in interference with freedom of passage for oil supplies through the Gulf as a result of the war there?
    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the following extremely urgent questions? First, does he agree that unilateral Western military action to secure freedom of supplies would be most unwise, unless it was clear that there was a serious danger to the prosperity of Western countries as a result of any interference with oil supplies? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that no Western action is undertaken in the Gulf without securing the understanding of the Soviet Union, in whose back yard the Gulf happens to lie, and which has the same interest as the West in freedom of passage through inland waters? Finally, have any steps been taken to cover the insurance of tankers passing through the Gulf, in case commercial insurance rates rise to a level that oil companies cannot afford?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give a specific answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last point. As he will appreciate, the rates fluctuate according to the circumstances as they are seen at any particular time. However, I undertake to make some further inquiries about that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the potential dangers of the Iran-Iraq war and the importance of ensuring that before considering any question of military or other action to clear the straits if they became blocked all diplomatic channels should be exhausted. I also agree about the importance of ensuring that, if events move in that direction, the Soviet Union is advised of the nature of any action or initiatives in prospect, because it would be serious if there were any misunderstanding in that respect.

    Oman
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department have visited Oman since January 1981.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our middle east department records indicate that at least 187 civil servants from the

    1037
    Foreign and Commonwealth Office have visited Oman since January 1981. This figure includes 146 duty visits to the British eastern relay station at Masirah.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: With regard to two particular civil servants, Mr. Michael Alexander, the overseas secretary at Downing street to the Prime Minister, and Mr. Ivor Lucas, an ambassador in the middle east, is it true that either of those two gentlemen advised the Prime Minister not to raise at the palace in Salalah the question of the contract to build a hospital in Oman whilst it was known to the Omani authorities that Mark Thatcher, the Prime Minister's son, acting as a consultant, through Monteagle Marketing, to Messrs Cementation International Ltd. was in Salalah at the same time?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question would be relevant only if the Prime Minister had, in fact, raised any such question in the context that the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is not the case.

    Chile
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Chilean Government.
    Mr. Whitney: My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Foreign Secretary consider having an early meeting with the Chilean Government to press upon them the continuing violation of human rights in Chile and also to make clear to the dictatorship that the view of the British people is that if these violations continue we should sever all links between this Government and the dictatorship in Chile?
    Mr. Whitney: We regularly make clear our concern about the observance- of human rights and the continued violation of human rights in Chile. Only last week we voted in favour of the resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. This called on the Chilean authorities to respect human rights and to extend for a further year the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that if Opposition Members were to swallow their paranoia and go to Chile they would themselves be able to make those representations on human rights, and probably with more effect than they have done from their armchairs in the Tea Room? Does he agree that if they went to Chile they would be able to give some assistance to the Centre-Left party, which wants very much to come quickly to democracy?
    Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I add that if Opposition Members were to swallow their paranoia on everything, they would suffer from considerable indigestion.
    Mr. Winnick: We on this side do not intend to go to Chile on trips that are paid for by the authorities. Can the Minister tell the House what steps will be taken to try to persuade the Chilean authorities to expel Rauff, the notorious Nazi war criminal and mass murderer, so that he may stand trial in West Germany? Is it intended simply to accept "No" from the Chilean junta, or will the British Government press the United States in particular to exert pressure on the Chilean authorities?
    Mr. Whitney: We have supported the request by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States Government to the Chilean Government to permit the extradition and expulsion of Walter Rauff. The Chilean Government's reply rejecting that request has been received only recently, and is being studied.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister will know that we welcome the United Nations vote as a recognition by the Government of a further deterioration in the human rights record of the Pinochet regime. Moving from the human rights record to the Chilean naval contract and others, is it true that the Chilean navy has concluded negotiations for the purchase of HMS Hermes, HMS Antrim, two type 22 frigates and 24 Sea Harriers?
    Mr. Whitney: There has been no development on those potential arms sales negotiations since the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend on 7 December. Certain negotiations are in process, but none has been concluded.

    Papal Pro-nuncio
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when last he met the Papal Pro-nuncio; when next he expects to do so; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitney: There has not, as yet, been an opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend to meet the Papal Pro-nuncio, nor is any meeting currently planned. Archbishop Heim did, however, call on my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State on 23 February.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend seek an early opportunity to meet the Papal Pro-nuncio for general contact reasons and in particular to express the great concern felt by Christians of all denominations, in the House and outside, about the continuing persecution of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland by an atheist regime, as expressed most recently by forbidding schools to put crucifixes and other religious symbols on classroom walls?
    Mr. Whitney: It is open to His Excellency the Papal pro-nuncio to see either my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary or any other Foreign and Commonwealth Minister. We sympathise with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and attach the greatest importance to religious freedom in Poland and elsewhere.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Despite the threat to religious freedom in Poland, has not Cardinal Glemp, in obedience to the Pope, required his clergy to abstain from political activity? Might not His Excellency the Pro-nuncio have a word with the hierarchy here on this matter?
    Mr. Whitney: I must resist the temptation offered by my hon. Friend to intervene in Vatican politics and diplomacy.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Foreign Secretary or any of his junior Ministers meet the Pope, will they ask him how much the Vatican Bank lost as a result of the failure and bankruptcy of the Banco Ambrosiano?
    Mr. Whitney: The question referred to the Papal Pro-nuncio, not the Pope. We are encouraged by reports that progress has been made towards a settlement of claims by creditors. The part played by a number of British banks has been welcomed.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgent appeals coming out of Poland for the international community to intervene on behalf of the Solidarity leaders and members of the KOR who have been imprisoned for some years, some of whom are being grossly ill-treated, and none of whom are charged with offences that would appear in the calendar of any Western country? If arrangements are being made to see the Papal Pro-nuncio could that matter be discussed with him, with a view to raising the international community's ire on this subject?
    Mr. Whitney: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says. Our concern is for religious and other freedoms in Poland and elsewhere—for example, the freedoms that we thought we had secured under the Helsinki agreement.

    India
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to India.
    Mr. Whitney: My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Durant: I understand the Foreign Secretary's difficulty in visiting India at present. However, is my hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents with relations in India are worried about the recent disturbances in Kashmir and the Punjab? Will the Minister express those anxieties to the high commission in London?
    Mr. Whitney: Concern over what is happening in the Punjab is felt by all of us. It is a matter concerning internal political developments in India. We sympathise with the Indian Government over the level of violence. We believe that the differences between India and Pakistan about Kashmir should be settled by the two Governments. We hope that no worsening of the difficulties will occur and, certainly, that there will be no development of violence.
    Mr. James Lamond: Has the Minister read the final document issued after the non-aligned conference in New Delhi a year ago, which said that the non-aligned countries were gravely concerned about the deployment throughout the world of foreign nuclear missiles, including cruise missiles, and about the severe impact of the arms race on developing countries, since three-quarters of global expenditure is undertaken by the developed countries? If those matters were brought up during a meeting with Mrs. Gandhi, would the Foreign Secretary be uneasy during the discussion?
    Mr. Whitney: We also are concerned about continuing and increasing expenditure on arms, but our primary concern must be for the security of the United Kingdom and our allies. We therefore look to the Soviet Union to echo the concern that we have expressed and to respond to the numerous Western overtures.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) is a good illustration of the mistake made by the Government in allowing dual nationality under the British Nationality Act?
    Mr. Whitney: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The British Nationality Act made a positive contribution to race relations, but that matter is more properly one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: If the Foreign Secretary goes to India, will he make it abundantly clear to Mrs. Gandhi that the British Government have no intention of joining in any demands for self-determination for the Sikhs in the Punjab?
    Mr. Whitney: I certainly give that assurance.
    Mr. Janner: As the "Easter Eye" programme has caused consternation in India by giving publicity to the case of the Kashmiri terrorists, will the Minister take this opportunity to express the condemnation and horror of the Government, the House and the British people at the assassination of Indian diplomat Mhatre?
    Mr. Whitney: We have expressed to the Indian Government our condemnation of the extraordinary and alarming assassination and our great regret at the incident. With regard to the television programme "Eastern Eye", we understand the feelings of the Indian Government. The Indian high commission is in direct contact with the Independent Broadcasting Authority and with the television company concerned.
    Mr. Michael Brown: If my hon. Friend makes representations to the Indian high commissioner, will he draw his attention to the fact that India has curtailed exports of tea, which has distorted and increased the price of tea on the world market, especially in the United Kingdom? Will my hon. Friend find out from the high commissioner whether there is any opportunity for a further increase in the amount of tea exported from India, especially to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Whitney: I have not made or envisaged any representations to the high commissioner on that, but I will certainly look into the matter.

    Southern Africa
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Southern Africa.
    Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister accept that South Africa's deals with Mozambique and its proposed deals with other countries in that region have been described as the carrot and stick approach? The Minister may approve of the carrot in referring to the area's stability, but does he approve of the stick when tens of thousands of South African troops have invaded that region and brought the stability to which he refers with the deaths of thousands of citizens of Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the historic agreement between South Africa and Mozambique has been welcomed by the Governments of both countries, by the OAU and by other front-line states as a development that they can understand and support. I hope that all hon. Members welcome the agreement, which will significantly reduce tension and increase stability and further co-operation in southern Africa.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend welcome the recent speech of the President of Gabon urging SWAPO to lay down its arms and enter into the multi-party conference in Namibia with a view to helping

    1041
    that country towards independence and helping it to meet the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 435?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are happy to welcome all speeches that contribute to the ending or reduction of violence in southern Africa. We do not doubt that the best prospect for Namibia lies in free and fair elections, so that the people of Namibia may elect the Government of their choice.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister confirm that South Africa remains a racist state in spite of recent reforms? Is the Minister aware that there is a lobby of the House this afternoon, with meetings in the Grand Committee Room, organised by the anti-apartheid movement? Will a representative of his Department be speaking at any of the meetings?
    Mr. Rifkind: There will not be a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at any of the meetings, so far as I am aware, but I have told the anti-apartheid movement that I shall be happy to receive its representatives if they wish to see me, as I receive many people with different points of view on southern Africa. The hon. Gentleman is correct. The policy of separate development remains the basis of South African policy, despite the recent constitutional reforms.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now release all Public Record Office files on the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Whitney: The hon. Member has referred to Public Record Office files on the Falkland Islands. I assume that he has in mind records from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its predecessor Departments which have been transferred to the Public Record Office. All of these have entered the public domain, with the exception of those embargoed for a period longer than 30 years under instruments issued by successive Lord Chancellors. I have no reason to vary those arrangements.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why do we have to wait until 1991 to see the file of 1940 and of the Marquis of Willingdon's mission to Argentina entitled, "Proposals to reunite the Falklands Islands with Argentina"? People who talk about reunification cannot be very clear about our right to the islands.
    Mr. Whitney: As successive Governments have made clear, we have no doubt at all about our right to the islands. The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers was retained under procedures of which he is extremely well aware and which have been accepted by Governments of both persuasions.

    Mutual Balanced Force Reduction Talks
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's position on recent proposals in regard to the mutual balanced force reduction talks in Vienna.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Alliance recognises that the East's 1983 proposals contain some progress towards a mutually satisfactory verification regime and has suggested that the two sides should look more closely at their differences in
    1042
    this area with the aim of bringing their positions closer together. But the West has also pointed out that the East's unwillingness to co-operate in resolving the dispute over the present size of its forces, and hence of the reductions that it must take to reach the agreed goal of parity at 900,000 ground and air forces, remains a major stumbling block to an agreement.
    Mr. Lamond: With the resumption of the talks after a three-month recess, could not the NATO side have been expected to have some proposals to put before the conference? Does the Minister agree that Britain, of all the NATO members, is the stumbling block to a more conciliatory attitude and the hope of making progress after 10 years?
    Mr. Rifkind: I entirely reject the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The United Kingdom, with other Western countries, is now reviewing the present state of negotiations to see what further proposals should be made. I emphasise that the main stumbling block has been the Soviet delegates' refusal to produce satisfactory figures on the present level of conventional Warsaw pact forces in Europe.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Community Policies
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community colleagues for the development of Community policies.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have already put forward a number of proposals. In the absence of agreement at yesterday's European Council, no decisions could be taken.
    Mr. Knox: Would it not be better to concentrate more attention on developing the Community and less on discussing the petty cash account?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entitled to his own view of the significance of the amounts involved, but the need to secure fair and lasting arrangements for the budgetary balance of the Community was one of the crucial features with which yesterday's talks were concerned. I do not think that the Community is likely to have the secure future that I know that my hon. Friend would wish for it unless we can resolve that question.
    Mr. Bell: In setting aside the problems of the petty cash account, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that there are 14 million people unemployed in Europe today, and will he put forward constructive proposals to reduce that figure?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The number of unemployed in the European Community mirrors the situation prevailing in most parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that one of the most important objectives of policies for the Community must be to reduce the number of people out of work.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to re-affirm our commitment to the goal of a truly free European market?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am delighted to do that. Many measures need to be taken, some of which were discussed

    1043
    at the European Council meeting of the past two days, to ensure the removal of regulations and obstacles that interfere with the operation of a liberal market economy in the Community.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to congratulate the Conservative group in the European Parliament on its sensitive timing in choosing this week, of all weeks, to publish a video praising the EEC for enabling Europe to speak with one voice?
    So that we may judge the petty cash situation, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman share with the House details of the proposals that he apparently accepted yesterday to increase own resources? Had he forgotten that it was the Government's position that until there was settlement of the budget deficit and the agricultural expenditure question there could be no consideration of an increase in own resources? How did he hope to obtain concessions on the budget if he was willing to surrender in advance a 40 per cent. increase in our payment of own resources?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I had no such hope, because there was no question of my doing any such thing. Considerations of all the questions before the European Council were directly related to each other and it was quite plain to all those taking part in the discussions that, unless we were able to secure agreement on the conditions to which we attached importance, there could be no agreement on the question about which the hon. Member is understandably concerned.

    Community Problems
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he expects to meet his French counterpart to discuss official problems affecting the European Community.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I met my French counterpart at the European Council in Brussels this week. I next expect to meet him for discussions on European Community matters at the Foreign Affairs Council on 9 and 10 April.
    Mr. Dykes: How would my right hon. and learned Friend react if there was increasing development in Europe of the Nine, with us being left out?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The European Community is the community of Ten and it is important that it should be so maintained. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I worked so hard throughout the past two days to try to secure agreement on all the matters that were on the agenda.
    Mr. Rogers: Is it not true that during the negotiations the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister agreed to an increase of own resources to 1·4 per cent. from 1 January 1986 increasing to 1·6 per cent. in 1988? Was that not conceded until the point was reached where they could not settle the petty cash problem?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of any agreement or any matter under discussion before the European Council being conceded or accepted except upon the basis that the other conditions were also agreed. A number of questions were considered in a variety of orders at different stages of the proceedings. We acknowledged that a case could be made for an increase along the lines indicated by the hon. Gentleman, but we made it absolutely clear that
    1044
    it could be accepted only if our two conditions were satisfied. We made it equally clear that any such increase would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that the European Economic Community has agreed to reform the common agricultural policy in line with his demands.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Considerable progress was made in the European Council towards establishing a mechanism for the control of Community spending, and particularly agricultural spending. We shall press for inclusion of such a mechanism in the eventual agreement that must emerge from these negotiations.
    Mr. Maxton: Does not last week's agreement on dairy products make it quite clear that, with an increase of £500 million in the expenditure on the common agricultural policy and an increase in butter and milk prices, the Government are as far as ever from getting our EEC partners to agree to major reform of the CAP?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is quite clear that there is still a great deal to be done to achieve the reform of the CAP that will ultimately be necessary. The hon. Member must understand, however, that the operation of the CAP is also of interest and of benefit to the United Kingdom's agriculture industry and that the reforms on which agreement had been reached last week would themselves have involved very substantial changes, to the disadvantage of our community. It must, therefore, be a question of time before all these matters can be put in place.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. and learned Friend is a calm and sensible fellow. Will he exert his great authority in the Cabinet tomorrow to prevent the adoption of the ultimate folly, which would be for this country to break Community law by withholding our contribution?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is, in fact, a later question on today's Order Paper which raises that subject.
    Mr. Foulkes: Since the aim of the Government is, if not to reform fundamentally the CAP, at least to control its expenditure, when the European Community is approaching bankruptcy because of the spiralling costs of the CAP, is it not stretching our credulity as well as the English language to describe an increased expenditure of £0·5 billion as a success?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It depends by what standards the House is prepared to judge those matters. Of course, any increase is, in principle, to be deplored. That was one of the reasons why we were opposing so many other matters yesterday that would have involved a further increase. That remains our policy.

    Common Market Reform
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress being made in the current negotiations on Common Market reform.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No Sir, but the hard decisions that the Community must take cannot be avoided. We shall continue to press for the reforms that are in the interest of the Community as a whole.
    Mr. Taylor: Is it not ridiculous to talk about a net payment of £4,700 million to the Community in 10 years as "petty cash"? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he will have the support of the vast majority of the British people in pressing for a fair and permanent settlement of the budget arrangements, particularly when all our payments are allied to a daily trade deficit of £20 million in manufactured goods?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's description of the importance of the issues at stake in the budgetary negotiations. That was the very reason why my right hon. Friend and I worked as hard as we did to try to reach agreement on that matter.
    Ms. Gould: Did the proposals on the CAP meet the precondition of fundamental reform laid down by the Foreign Secretary?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The proposals on agricultural policy will be considered further at next week's Agriculture Council. They went a substantial way in the direction of reform, because to secure acceptance of a formidable reduction in total milk output was a very major step forward. One of the matters that concerned us yesterday was the extent to which that achievement was in danger of being eroded. Other steps—for example, in relation to cereals and other commodities—represented progress in the right direction.

    Own Resources
    Mr. Blairasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in the Government's position on the proposal to increase the European Economic Community's own resources following the recent visits of European Government leaders to London.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: None, Sir. There can be no increase in own resources without unanimous agreement between the member states, nor without the endorsement of Parliament. The two conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Stuttgart last year have clearly not yet been fulfilled.
    Mr. Blair: If that is the position, and if the Government are to be taken seriously when they say that they may withhold Britain's budget contributions, how does the Foreign Secretary expect the public to understand the proposal to introduce next week a Bill that would grant an extra £100 million to the Commission?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a matter to which the Government will be giving further consideration.
    Mr. Durant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it hardly behoves the Opposition to criticise Conservative MEPs and Members of Parliament for speaking with a united voice, when one can hardly describe the Labour Party as having a united voice on Europe?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree, as always, with my hon. Friend's judgment on the Labour party.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Foreign Secretary remember that, over the past 10 years, the net cost to Britain of our membership of the Common Market has been £1·5 million a day? Does he further recall that during the yes vote campaign in the referendum nine years ago there was a slogan entitled "Jobs for the boys"? With the possible
    1046
    exception of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who is never here for these debates anyway, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what boys have got jobs as a result of those 10 years of payments to the Common Market?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I recall that the Labour party attempted to complete negotiations for securing a reduction in the cost of the Community to this country and that it got an agreement that produced not a penny piece, whereas this Government undertook similar negotiations that secured a refund for Britain of £2,500 million.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although some of the agriculture proposals are welcome as a step in the right direction, they in no way reach his pre-condition of fundamental reform? Will he clarify his earlier answers by saying that the agriculture proposals themselves would not have justified an increase in own resources?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Before considering any increase in own resources, the whole range of decisions and their implications affecting a period of years ahead would have had to be considered and, indeed, it would have been necessary to secure agreement on the other two conditions about which I have already reminded the House.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I press the Foreign Secretary further on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he not recognise that it would be an offence to the House, after the stalemate this week, to invite it next week to consider a Bill to grant another £100 million to the EC to stave off bankruptcy? If £100 million is not an increase in own resources, what does constitute such an increase? Why does he not drop that Bill from next week's business and in its place introduce a Bill to deduct from our 1984 payments the rebate for 1983, which his failure at negotiations has now lost us?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept that last comment in any sense. Both those questions are receiving urgent consideration by the Government, and the Government will advise the House about them in due course.

    Portugal and Spain
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects Portugal and Spain to join the European Community.
    Mr. Rifkind: Spain and Portugal want to accede to the Community on 1 January 1986. As I made clear to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 22 February, we are working hard in the Community with a view to completing the negotiations this year so as to make this possible.
    Mr. Smith: How damaging does my hon. Friend think that failure to reach agreement at the EEC Council will be to the entry prospects of Portugal and Spain?
    Mr. Rifkind: I hope that it will not lead to any significant delay in the negotiations. The agricultural mandate has been agreed by the Community, and that is one of the main outstanding matters to be discussed with the Governments of Spain and Portugal. Naturally, the Community will not be able to give as much attention to this matter as it would have wished because of the outcome of the negotiations yesterday, but we still hope that the timetable can be adhered to.
    Mr. Park: When Spain joins the Community, will there be an end to the preferential tariffs which act against the export of vehicles to Spain from this country?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have made it clear to the Spanish Government that, in our view and that of many other Community countries, one consequence of Spain's accession should be a substantial reduction in the level of tariffs which that Government impose against imports from other countries. If the negotiations resulted in such a change, motor vehicles would benefit from it.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Are not the Spanish Government seeking a lengthy interim period during which the tariffs would effectively remain in force? Can the Minister give us any news about that matter and tell us whether our Government are pressing for that period to be as short as possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is likely that, as has been the case in similar negotiations with other new members, a transitional period will be agreed. We have, however, emphasised our view that that transitional period should not preclude a very sharp reduction from the outset in the level of tariffs against industrial imports.
    Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State said earlier, in answer to my question, that the Government would not support an increase in own resources. Will the Government still support the accession of Spain and Portugal without such an increase?
    Mr. Rifkind: The British Government have made it clear on several occasions that the accession of Spain and Portugal is highly desirable, for both political and other reasons. Very few who believe in the Community do not believe that the accession of Spain and Portugal is an essential requirement for its political development.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as the Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box, there can be no question of Spain entering the Common Market until its position over the Gibraltar border is satisfactorily regularised?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can give my hon. Friend a complete assurance in that respect. The Spanish Government are aware that it would be inconceivable for access between Spain and Gibraltar, after Spanish accession, to be different from access between Spain and other members of the European Community.
    Mr. Foulkes: How can the Minister state that he is still sure that Portugal wishes to join the Community on 1 January 1986, when the Brussels debacle will mean that Portugal—which will be one of the poorest countries in the Community—will be a net contributor to its funds?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the Portuguese Government will be able to speak for themselves with regard to their own interests. The hon. Gentleman is right. The existing budgetary arrangements produce arbitrary and artificial consequences. One of those would be that, unless special provisions are made for Portugal, Portugal would have the curious and unwanted privilege of joining the United Kingdom and West Germany as a net contributor. That effect emphasises the need for reform in the budgetary arrangements of the Community.

    Finance (Contingency Plans)
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans arc in hand if the European Economic Community runs out of money.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the Community is not to run out of money, the Commission must now propose, and the Council of Ministers must agree, the necessary measures to control expenditure.
    Mr. Gould: As there is now a real possibility that the EEC will run out of money this year, is it not irresponsible of the Government to have no contingency plans of their own?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The greater the possibility, the greater the need for the Community to take the measures that are necessary to prevent that happening.
    Mr. Budgen: If a fundamentally reformed common agricultural policy is to be cheaper, why was it necessary for the Government to agree provisionally to increase own resources by 40 per cent?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I emphasise again that own resources were considered in the context of the entire Stuttgart agenda. There was no question of the Government accepting an increase in own resources for recommendation to the House had there not been agreement on all o [the other matters of that agenda, including our own important conditions.

    Questions to Ministers
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Is it relevant to questions?
    Mr. Nellist: Yes. Now that the Prime Minister is back in the Chamber, and following your ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on the Attorney-General's statement on picketing on Friday, which, as I understand it, was a sub judice matter involving Kent miners wishing to travel within the south midlands area of the National Coal Board to visit pits outside my constituency in Coventry, can you give me guidance and, through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask two questions? First, how is it that Members of Parliament can ask questions on the interpretation of the legal definition of picketing when the Attorney-General's answers are put in written form on a Friday morning and are therefore not open to oral supplementary questions? Secondly, now that the matter is no longer sub judice, can you confirm that the Table Office will accept written questions on the Attorney-General's statement, as I understand that it was not prepared to do that yesterday because the Kent miners were still trying to defend their jobs from MacGregor's axe?
    Mr. Speaker: I really have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. If the matter is sub judice we cannot ask questions about it in the House. I made that plain yesterday and the whole House understands it. As to the written answer by the Attorney-General, which I have now seen but had not seen yesterday, I am not responsible for answers that are given in written or oral form. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down questions he should try to do so. I am sure that his ingenuity will enable him to do that.

European Council
3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I attended the European Council in Brussels on 19–20 March, accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. As the House will already know, the Council did not reach agreement on the reform of the Community's finances nor on any of the other matters before it.
I made it clear at the meeting in Stuttgart last year that the United Kingdom would be prepared to consider an increase in the Community's financial resources, but only on condition that there was effective control of agricultural and other spending and that there was a fair sharing of the budget burden. We made progress towards securing control of spending by, first, an annual limit on overall expenditure and, second, a strict financial guideline on agricultural expenditure.
The French Presidency also proposed a lasting system for a fair sharing of the budget burden. We would have been able to accept this system, but some other member states, despite the long discussions over the past nine months, were still unable to do so. Nor were we able to reach agreement on the level of the United Kingdom net contribution which would result from the application of the system.
The Council also had a long discussion on the agricultural problems which had been remitted from the Agriculture Council. Ireland sought exemption from the super-levy on a quantity of milk which would have been higher than its 1983 production. Its demands and those of other member states would have led to milk production well over 1 million tonnes in excess of the production level set earlier by Agriculture Ministers for the Community as a whole. Further discussion of the agricultural package will take place in the Agriculture Council next week.
We made a sustained attempt to reach a satisfactory compromise on all the matters at issue. At the end of the discussions, the proposition which the United Kingdom was invited to accept was: first, that instead of a lasting, equitable system for Community financing there should be a five-year ad hoc arrangement which would have left us receiving less than the average refund which we received in the years 1980 to 1983; second, that we should endorse the unsatisfactory and discriminatory arrangement for milk which I have already described; thirdly, that we should accept an increase in the Community's VAT resources to 1·4 per cent. in 1986 and have in prospect a possible further increase two years later to 1·6 per cent.
I made it plain that neither the Government nor the British Parliament could accept such a package. Therefore, I did not agree to any increase in the Community's resources. The 1 per cent. VAT ceiling remains.
Immediately following the European Council, the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs met in order to see whether the objections to the United Kingdom's 1983 refund of 750 million ecu could be removed, but France and Italy blocked those regulations. The Government are considering what action we should now take to safeguard our position.
1050
The Community is in a difficult situation. We shall, however, persevere in our efforts to achieve a reform of its finances and to make its internal and external policies more relevant to the needs of today's world. I want to see a more effective Community, developing its full potential. That is the Community in which I believe.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister's statement simply mean that in Brussels she failed to get payment of a £500 million rebate of our money by a target date which she herslf very deliberately set? Is it not the case that, nearly nine months after the Stuttgart summit, the Prime Minister is now even further away from securing agreements to end the injustice of the British budget deficit and that, in addition, she is isolated even from those who were prepared to help? If she had been going to Brussels as a supplicant, her lack of achievement might have been regrettable, but it would have been understandable. Can she explain to us and the country now how it was that, as the banker to the Community, with her client about to go bankrupt, she still failed to exert that unique power in order to achieve an agreement that would safeguard our interests and get our money?
The Prime Minister says that she wants
"a more effective Community, developing its full potential."
Will she not agree that it is nothing short of outrageous, at a time when there are 15 million unemployed in the Common Market, that the leaders of western Europe could meet for three successive summits and still not produce a single proposal for the economic expansion which our country of Britain and our continent of Europe so desperately need?
The right hon. Lady says in the statement that
"the Government are considering what action we should now take in order to safeguard our position."
Will she accept that in any consideration undertaken by the Government there can be absolutely no question whatsoever of subscribing to a Common Market whip-round in the form of Supplementary Estimates put before the House, and that any business anticipated for next week on that basis is hereby withdrawn?
Finally, will she now tell the House and the country, without any ifs, buts or delays, when she is going to introduce the necessary legislation to enable our country to withhold Common Market contributions?
The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman says that we failed to get payment of the 750 million ecu refund. I agree that that was not forthcoming. I believe that he should direct his criticisms to France and Italy, because it was France and Italy that deliberately blocked the regulations. That agreement came about at Stuttgart in June last year. It is reprehensible that the Community has not so far honoured its obligations.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we had help from a number of colleagues in the summit. As to getting a reasonable, equitable and permanent financial arrangement in the system, President Mitterrand in the chair was helpful, as were a number of colleagues. As I said in my statement, they were not all ready to have a system, and therefore proposed an ad hoc arrangement. Having been at this for some time, as have my predecessors before me, because we are all hampered by the system of own resources agreed in 1970, I believe that

1051
we need a permanent system. I note that that view is shared by the European Parliament. Others of our colleagues prefer the present system.
The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference between being a banker and being a net contributor. If he did, his other questions would not have followed.
As to the summit proposals for expansion—yes, we were concentrating this time as we did in Athens, on trying to get agreement on a package of measures that had been referred up to the European Council. It is correct that the Ten failed to agree.
Mr. George Foulkes: You failed. You are a failure.
The Prime Minister: Oh, so the hon. Gentleman wants me to agree to that package, which I rejected—how very interesting.
Mr. Foulkes indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister: He wants us to agree to the majority. He wants us to agree to 1·4 per cent. VAT. He wants us to agree to a totally inequitable milk package, which would have caused great trouble to our farmers; the essence of that milk package was that there should be no discrimination. The hon. Gentleman would have preferred me to go with the nine rather than to go on batting, as I did, for a fair agreement for Britain.
As to the Supplementary Estimate, which was due to come before the House some time in the near future, that is necessary because the Community is already above its 1 per cent. and is spending at 1·1 per cent. As to our action following the refusal to let us have our refund by 31 March, which is not a legal necessity but has been the habit and custom of the Community with past refunds, the Cabinet will be considering tomorrow morning what action it is best to take, and a statement will be made to the House tomorrow.
Mr. Francis PymSince a more determined attempt than ever before was made to reach agreement, since my right hon. Friend has lived to fight another day—she has told the House this afternoon that she will—and in view of the magnitude of the issues raised by the principle, practice and legality of withholding, does she agree that it would be wise to resist the temptation to withhold?
The Prime Minister: I think that it is wise first to discuss the matter in Cabinet tomorrow morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "That will make a change."] However, one cannot go on as if nothing had happened. These refunds should have come to Britain. They were agreed nine months ago and should have been here, and it is reprehensible of the Community that they have not arrived. It is almost intolerable that one should be expected to send a supplementary levy in the face of what has happened.
Mr. David Steel: Is it not a unique sign of the Prime Minister's failure of diplomacy that all the other nine member states seem out of step except her? Does she accept that, on the balance of budget payments point, her position would have been much stronger if the Government had not regularly refused resources from the regional and social funds of the Community because of the Government's objection to public expenditure within Britain? Does she accept that,
1052
as long as she continues with her obsession on purely budget matters, she ignores the wider issues being discussed in the Community by other member states, such as security and defence and the French proposals on banking and insurance, all of which would be in our longterm interests?
The Prime Minister: As to the right hon. Gentleman's observation about being out of step, I point out that, of the 10 members of the Community, two are substantial net contributors—Germany to the considerable extent of over 2,000 million ecu and Britain with our unadjusted net contribution of 2,000 million ecu. France is the only other net contributor, at some 19 million ecu, and all the others are net beneficiaries. The reason for the result yesterday is that they like being net beneficiaries and are not prepared to yield up their benefits to reduce our contributions. In my opinion, that is totally inequitable. We shall not get the Community in a stable state or able to field its full potential in the outside world until we feel that we have an equitable system for bearing the financial burdens of the Community. I would say that those who are against that are out of step.
May I make it perfectly clear, on the subject of the regional fund, that every penny spent by the Community in Britain is more than covered by expenditure by the British taxpayer or the consumer. It is when we have covered all of that that we are still a substantial net contributor across the exchanges to Brussels. The wider matters of security and defence are not within the remit of the Community.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Would the Prime Minister agree that to seek a permanent solution to the budget problem is to be both patriotic and a good European? How can there be a prosperous and ongoing Community if one of the leading members is continually rankling under a sense of injustice? In view of what my right hon. Friend says about the reservations of other member states on the system proposed by the French President, will she now initiate a constructive and vigorous bilateral series of talks through the Foreign Office, so that, by the time of the next summit, this problem can be permanently disposed of?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that we shall not get a stable or effective Community until the budgetary contributions are related to economic circumstances and ability to pay. That is what we shall strive to achieve, and I believe that that is what the Parliament believes in. It also wants a permanent system. It is not easy to achieve, because some of the other members are net beneficiaries and like it to be that way, but the objective of a stable and effective Community is worth striving to achieve, and that is what we are trying to do.
On the second question, of bilateral discussions, we have already had a number of bilateral discussions between meetings, and we shall continue to have more. The present situation is not sustainable, and I believe that we are entitled to fairness and equity—the same fairness and equity that we always accord to others.
Dr. David Owen: Could the Prime Minister agree that she said last- night that only a narrow divide separated the negotiations? Would she not agree that, in such a situation, with skill, that gap can be

1053
closed, but that the way to close the gap is not for Britain to take an illegal act? Does the Prime Minister recall the words that she used in September last year, that Britain sticks to its treaties, and her warning that countries that break their treaties on one occasion do so on other occasions? If that was acceptable as a lecture to the Chinese Government, surely it is something that the Prime Minister should stick by. Is she entitled to go to the Community and talk about the will of Parliament before she has tested the will of Parliament? May I make it quite clear that some of us will resist any legislation to withhold payment in this situation?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Send back Jenkins's pension.
The Prime Minister: Yes, it is quite right. There was a comparatively narrow gap between us towards the end, and I use that as evidence of the strenuous efforts that we have made to compromise because we genuinely wanted a settlement. The gap that that offered us was, of course, not of a permanent system. That was a big gap. We need a permanent system, and that is an enormous gap. We must go back to that.
On amounts, the difference was between 1,000 million ecu ad hoc for five years, and a system giving about 1,250 millon ecu under a formula. The two are not totally comparable, but in so far as the gap was small for one contributor, it was smaller still for the other nine who rejected it, because it would have been allocated in ninths among them.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Dr. Owen: What about the treaty?
The Prime Minister; I forgot to answer the question about the treaty.
I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, although there is no exact precedent for the present situation where two member states have blocked refund regulations implementing payments already agreed by the European Council, there have been previous occasions when small amounts of money have been withheld. For example, in 1979, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom refused to pay full VAT contributions as they considered the 1979 budget to have been improperly adopted. In 1981, the French, German and Belgians similarly refused to pay in full in respect of the 1980 supplementary budget No. 2. So there have been occasions on which some money has been withheld before.
Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend will recognise the disappointment, and indeed the anguish, which many of my hon. Friends will feel at this turn of events. In view of the provocative action by the French and Italian Governments in blocking the 1983 rebate payment, will my right hon. Friend recognise that she will have strong support on the Conservative Benches for a patient and cautious response? If the Government find it necessary to take steps to safeguard our position they should be most careful to minimise the inevitable reactions and repercussions.
The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's disappointment. We did try to get a settlement. We did try to get a permanent system. We did try to get equitable figures attached to that system. Equally, I agree that we
1054
simply must take steps to safeguard Britain's financial position. It is not our fault that we are put in a position where we have to do that, but we must do it.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Prime Minister, ignoring the loud protestations of those who have run away from their election pledges, recognise that her stance at Brussels corresponded, as it often does, with the instincts and wishes of the British people, and that she will have the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people to her insistence that Britain shall have its rightful needs?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We are entitled to a fair and reasonable deal and to go on fighting for just that.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has, by her conduct of these negotiations, demonstrated her deep understanding of the wishes of the British people? Is she further aware that it is her responsibility to safeguard the interests of the British people and that the two things do not necessarily coincide?
The Prime Minister: I believe that the interests of the British people are that we should pursue a fair and reasonable budgetary system for British contributions, and indeed, for the contributions of other member states. I believe that those contributions to the European budget must take account of economic circumstances if we are to have a stable Community that is able to survive and play an effective role in the wider world.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: What advice will the Prime Minister give the Cabinet tomorrow when it meets under these most unusual circumstances as to what we should do if these European Johnnies do not give in to her demands?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait 30 years for the records—unless he is lucky enough to have an earlier leak.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her correct and courageous stand at Brussels yesterday will be greeted on the Conservative Benches and throughout the country not merely with warm support but with positive jubilation? Is she further aware that there will be plenty more of that support if she decides with the Cabinet tomorrow to introduce the necessary withholding legislation next week?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We did strive very hard to reach a settlement. We were prepared to compromise where it was reasonable to do so, but I believe that the package that I have described to the House in my statement was unacceptable, and I believe that the decision we therefore took was the correct one.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Has the Prime Minister ruled out as part of any temporary or permanent financial settlement any system based on refunds, in view of what has happened to our 1983 refund?
The Prime Minister: The problem is this. We always speak of an equitable settlement in terms of net contributions. For that, we make a calculation which is based on money, sent to the Community by way of levies, and 1 per cent. of VAT, which are own resources, and the gap between what we send to them and what we get out in expenditure. That we call the net contribution. That is not a system which the Community itself accepts.

1055
Therefore, it talks about refunds. The fact is, therefore, that we get into a whole lot of what I can only call Community jargon, which makes it very difficult for us all. I still believe that we are right to adopt the net contribution or the net benefits as the right criterion for getting an equitable financial settlement.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: While fully accepting that it is impossible to ask Parliament or the British people to accept a solution which they regard as basically unfair, is my right hon. Friend nevertheless satisfied that, amid all the welter of figures and Community jargon, we may lose sight of the main purpose of the Community, which is to ensure peace and democracy in Europe?
The Prime Minister: It is precisely because I want to get away from the annual or bi-annual welter of figures and Community jargon that we want a lasting system. We were very near to getting a lasting system, and the Presidency was most helpful. I think that, if we continue to persevere, we shall be able to get a system, but then of course we have to put in place the figures which would ensure that our net contribution was a reasonable one.
Mr. Roy Jenkins rose——
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.
Mr. Jenkins: Since the Prime Minister, as I understand it, has made it clear that agreement was very near late yesterday afternoon or early yesterday evening, will she make it explicit that because Anglo-French disputes——
Mr. Dave Nellist: What?
Mr. Jenkins: Anglo-French disputes!
Because Anglo-French disputes can be particularly disruptive, will the Prime Minister make it explicit that President Mitterrand played a very constructive role in trying to seek a solution? Will she, in considering whether to withhold payment, consider the dangers of following the example of Liverpool city council, and of responding to a budgetary position that she does not like by illegality?
The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said. This is not a British-French problem; it is much wider than that. The President of the European Council, President Mitterrand, was very helpful in securing the negotiation of a system, and the text put before the Council for decision was a Presidency text. France, I believe, and a number of other member states, would have accepted that system, but there are some who would not have done so. He was also helpful in trying to reach agreement on a compromise on figures, but we were just not able to close the final gap.
Mr. George Gardiner: Is the Prime Minister aware of the general anger which will be felt over the provocative action by France and Italy in blocking our 1983 refund and that, although no one wishes to see this dispute escalate, her Government would be amply justified in withholding an equivalent amount from our budgetary contribution, at least pending the next European Council meeting?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that blocking was unwise, and will sour relations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who did it?"] France and Italy. Those refunds in fact were agreed in Stuttgart last June.
1056
We have had difficulty in securing the right procedure for them to come to Britain. It was almost all cleared through the Parliament, and then came the blocking in the European Council. I hope that it will soon unblock those funds. In the meantime, we must consider what action to take to safeguard our position, which must be safeguarded.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is not the Prime Minister breaking the law? Has not she gone on strike against the Common Market? What is the difference between her position and that of the NUM, or that of the Labour councillors who refuse to carry on with an arrangement? Has the right hon. Lady brought her rose-coloured glasses with her today to distinguish herself from Arthur Scargill?
The Prime Minister: No law has been broken. I believe that the Common Market is in default with us in not letting us have those refunds by 31 March. That is different.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one in this House or outside is likely to feel much anguish unless it was thought that the Government were not doing their utmost to defend what President Mitterrand called "Britain's reasonable interest"? Is she also aware that in the attitude that she has taken she has our full support, and that she can take as much time as she likes to maintain that interest?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. We shall persevere, as I have already said. We need a permanent system and reasonable refunds. We have always played a very constructive part in the Community and shall continue to do so. However, we could not go any further, particularly over farming and agricultural matters, because that would not have been fair to our own farmers.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise that this statement is very important but there is an important Opposition Day ahead of us and a ten-minute Bill. I propose to allow questions to continue until 4.10 pm.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Prime Minister is right to press for a permanent solution to that long-standing problem. However, if it is true that there was a small gap to be closed and that she had the support of the French President, may not her abrasive style of negotiating have prevented it from being closed? Will the right hon. Lady therefore be careful in future and seek allies from the other countries instead of dissuading them from supporting us?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept that. Of course one fights fiercely for Britain's interests, just as the others fought fiercely for theirs. If voices were raised, they were not mine.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Will my right hon. Friend accept that her position over the increase in own resources is very strong, and that she has the warm support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, indeed, of the country? However, would it not weaken rather than strengthen her position if we took a step with regard to our payments to the Community that many of our friends would hold to be petty and illegal?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will have heard me from this Dispatch Box constantly being absolutely

1057
correct in putting forward advance payments to the Community and in refusing to countenance withholding them. I was absolutely correct in that respect until the Community went into default with us. When the Community goes into default with us, we have to consider safeguarding our position.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is not the truth of the matter that in her negotiations as Prime Minister the right hon. Lady has lost at every turn of the coin, and has failed in all her negotiations? For example, Scunthorpe, in my area, has no real steel industry left because of the number of jobs that she has discarded. Hull and Grimsby are also in my area, and she has sold the whole fishing industry down the river because of her interest in trying to obtain this sort of agreement. The record of her negotiations is one of failure, failure, failure, while claiming to have such a strident interest——
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What was the hon. Gentleman's policy in the general election?
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I say to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who is barracking from my left, that I stood up for Britain and did not support the right hon. Gentleman, just as I do not support him now. We have lost job after job. How many jobs are we going to lose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Such lengthy questions are very unfair to other hon. Members.
The Prime Minister: I shall take up three of the hon. Gentleman's points. First, we had the courage to face the problems of the steel industry which the Labour Government ran away from. Secondly, we negotiated the first common fisheries policy where others for many years had failed. Thirdly, although our entry into Europe was negotiated and then renegotiated by the hon. Gentleman's Government, my Government negotiated refunds of 1,100 million ecu a year on average for four years.
Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast with the long-winded carping of the Leader of the Opposition, her stance will command the overwhelming support of the British people? Is she further aware that, in particular, those of us who have long held, and continue to believe in, the ideal of European unity are whole-hearted in our support for her determination to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become the milch cow of Europe?
The Prime Minister: In all its dealings, the United Kingdom has been very generous to the Community, and I think that we are entitled to a fair deal in return.
Mr. Ron Leighton: How much longer is the Prime Minister willing to continue with this exercise in Euro-futility? Is it not clear that Dublin, Stuttgart, Athens and Brussels were entirely predictable fiascos? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the British people are fed up to the back teeth with such constant haggling and wrangling, and realise now that membership was a ghastly mistake? Will she tell the French President that, if the continental countries want to develop their own CAP, we wish them well? However, if we extricate ourselves from the EEC, we shall have much better relations with our neighbours.
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I believe that it is in the best interests of this country to continue to belong to the Community. However, the Community will not be effective unless we obtain a fair and equitable agreement. It took three summits to obtain a fair, although temporary, refund. It took from Strasbourg, to Dublin, to Luxembourg—three European Councils—to obtain that. This time, we have so far done two. Perhaps it will be third time lucky.
Mr. Robert Hicks: In view of the very serious and sad situation that has been caused, and, not least, the further creation of anxieties and certainties for those most involved with European policy, such as the agriculture sector, does not my right hon. Friend agree that as the gap is relatively narrow, there is a very strong case for sending the Foreign Secretary to meet his and her European counterparts so that there can be an effective sweeping up to obtain a satisfactory solution as was achieved by one of my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessors?
The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary has been very active, both up to and during this European Council. He was, of course, negotiating along with me, and will continue to negotiate in Foreign Affairs Councils in future. I know that my hon. Friend also has considerable interests in agriculture, and I should point out that some most contentious agricultural issues came up at the European Council. Some countries did not wish to have cuts in their milk production, although the rest of us were all having cuts. They wished to have no cuts, and some even had increases in production. That would have led to an extra quota-over and above what the agriculture Ministers agreed—of 1 million tonnes, which would have been most unfair to our farmers.
Mr. Dick Douglas: As other nations in the Community like being net beneficiaries and wish to put no limit on that, and as we do not like being net contributors, will the Prime Minister reverse the process and put a time limit on that?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we have had refunds for four years which have averaged 1,100 million ecu a year. That has meant that the refunds—in Community jargon—have been about two thirds of our net contribution, leaving us with only one third to pay. That was a reasonable deal, but it was only an ad hoc arrangement. The Community will not extend it. Since, if we obtain agreement, we are going into a period of increases in own resources, it is vital that we should obtain a fair distribution of the burden. It seems totally unreasonable to say that those who are net contributors and who bear an unreasonably large share of the burden should pass over bigger resources. Really, the one depends on the other.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that there is no danger that we may eventually have to pull out of the Community? To solve the crisis, will she take note of the suggestion that there should be an early emergency summit before June?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is much point in having another summit, let alone an emergency summit, until a number of private contacts have ensured that we are likely to be more successful next time. We had a number of high-level contacts before. There was a good

1059
deal of support on the system but not quite enough on the amount, although the gap is small. I think it is best that we try behind-the-scenes contacts before we have another summit.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Russell Johnston.
Mr. Skinner: Another Liberal? We have had two from the SDP.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the Prime Minister will agree that the whole object of this is to win the argument in negotiation——
Mr. Skinner: Every one a Common Marketeer.
Mr. Johnston:—to win the argument in negotiation and to win friends? Does she not feel that the fact that she has been described as intransigent by representatives of all other countries in the Community represents a failure in her own approach? In particular, was not her contentious treatment of Dr. Garret FitzGerald of Ireland—a poorer country than ours, faced with genuine problems on the agricultural package—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Johnston:—symptomatic of that approach? Is it not the case——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman just before ten past four and he should now bring his question to an end.
Mr. Johnston: Is it not the case that, if one does not give and does not admit, one is not likely to get very much?
The Prime Minister: With regard to the Irish point, our own farmers are having to take a cut of 7 per cent. on last year's production. A number of other countries are taking a cut of 7 per cent.; others are taking less. The cut that Ireland was asked to take was larger. We were obviously prepared to say that Ireland should have a goodly share of the 600,000 tonnes extra quota that the Agriculture Council had put aside so that her cut was the same as that which would have to be endured in Northern Ireland, which would have been a 7 per cent. cut. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that Ireland should have had exactly what she wanted, which was no cut at all but rather an increase in production of 260,000 tonnes. That is the inevitable consequence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. That would have been devastating to Northern Ireland, to Scotland, to Wales and to British farmers. Also, he might be interested to know that the attack on that was led by other people in the Community.
Mr. Kinnock: In the informal bilateral exchanges in which the right hon. Lady will be engaged, will she be conveying the impression which she appeared to convey in Brussels, that this country would be willing to subscribe a 40 per cent. increase in Community VAT resources? If she anticipates such a subscription, will she come to the House before any such suggestion is made, even informally? Finally, the right hon. Lady—I am sure inadvertently—did not give me a direct answer to the last question that I raised. Can she now tell us when the Government will introduce the legislation to enable us to withhold our contributions to the Common Market?
The Prime Minister: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I did answer that. I said the matter would be
1060
considered tomorrow morning and that a statement would be made shortly. It is advisable to consider the matters and also to consider the legal consequences before one makes such a statement. We must take steps to safeguard our position.
On the other matter, we want strict financial restraints on the total European budget and in particular on the agricultural budget; those should be embodied in the budgetary procedure so that they can bite. Therefore, we made it clear that if there were strict financial constraints plus a fairer sharing of the burden, we would consider an increase in own resources. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, such an increase in own resources has to be ratified by each and every parliament in the Community.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Edward Heath rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did say that we would bring questions to an end on this very important matter at ten past four, but I think the House would wish to hear the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Heath: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to have reached broad agreement on three out of the main factors in the discussion at the summit is a remarkable achievement? To have reached agreement on a system of financial discipline, for which we have rightly been pressing, although it may not be everything to which we are accustomed in the House, is a major step forward. For the Ministers of Agriculture to have reached broad agreement on a package with the exception of the Republic of Ireland, where it ought to be possible to make adjustments, in view of its political situation and its importance to us in the political sphere, and to have reached broad agreement on our own resources in the Community being increased to 1·4 per cent., is a major achievement and means that this summit was unlike any other which preceded it. When one considers the financial arrangements for this country, then I understand——
Mr. Skinner: Question.
Mr. Heath: I am asking my right hon. Friend whether she is aware of these facts—that the difference between the offer made by President Mitterrand and ourselves was reduced to 15 per cent.; 85 per cent. of what was being asked for by the Prime Minister was agreed. This is a very narrow gap.
In regard to the time limit, five years for budgets is a considerable time, although if it is possible to get acceptance for a permanent system, we would support it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] That is a remarkable achievement, for which my right hon. Friend should take credit. Is it not right in regard to the rebates that President Mitterrand has always made it clear that his agreement: was connected with the agreement on own resources? Therefore, there is a difference of view between. France and Britain.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is longer than the Leader of the Opposition.
An Hon. Member: "This is the leader of the opposition."
Mr. Heath: Therefore, in these circumstances, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us could not accept illegality in withholding funds from the Community?
Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend says does not wholly accurately reflect what took place. The agreement on strict financial guidelines was a very hard-fought agreement. It was not finally put to the summit, so we are not quite certain whether the text which embodied the word "guarantee" would have been accepted, but all the way it was a very hard-fought agreement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself. I hoped that would have been accepted.
With regard to agriculture, with all due respect to my right hon. Friend, there were some very difficult matters upon which a reserve was put by the Agriculture Council, to be referred to the European Council. It was not only the Irish position that caused difficulty but also the Italian and Luxembourg positions. They wished, too, to have special quotas so that they would not have to reduce the amounts of milk produced. Those too were caught in a great contest and those matters are still referred to the Council. There is still no decision on the variable beef premium, which is extremely important to our own farmers.
Therefore, there were a number of things upon which a reserve was put by the Agriculture Council and upon which the European Council did not agree. Then came the Irish position, under which they did not want merely a portion of the 600,000 tonnes extra quota that had been agreed by the Agriculture Council but a complete arrangement. That was hotly contested, and indeed, refused by the Common Market summit.
With regard to own resources, there is no agreement on that unless there is agreement on other matters. The own resources provisional decision went further than most of us wished, in that the proposal was for 1·4 per cent. in 1986 and envisaged the prospect of 1·6 per cent. in 1988. That also was hotly contested, for reasons that my right hon. Friend will know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I am answering questions that have been put to me, and my right hon. Friend is entitled to answers.
My right hon. Friend referred to what he called the gap in the British contribution. It is much wider than it seems because one cannot compare 1,000 million ecu ad hoc for five years with a sum of 1,250 million which is given under a system and which means that we put a limit on our net contributions even through increased expenditure. The gap involves both the system and the amount. Nevertheless, we went a long way to try to reach agreement. We were all prepared to compromise and I am sorry that we did not achieve an agreement which was satisfactory to Britain.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order. Mr. Maxton.
Mr. Maxton: I wish to raise a point of order, Sir, about the number and party membership of hon. Members who were called to ask supplementary questions on the Prime Minister's statement. It is, to say the least, disturbing that six members of minority parties and four members of the alliance were called.
I have raised this matter with you before, Mr. Speaker. It is time that we had an answer. The Liberal party and the SDP act here as two parties, but everywhere else as one. It is an abuse of the House if they are treated here as two parties, when they fight the European and district elections as one party. Members of the Labour party represent the largest minority in the House and they have a right to your protection as much as members of other parties.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on the same point?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I realise the difficulties in which you are placed on such occasions, because within both main parties some members are still strongly pro-Market—I do not know why—and the majority of the Opposition still believe that Britain should be out of the Common Market and will fight for that. [Interruption.] Dr. Death is on behind me. In my 14 years in the House I have never witnessed such a curious tete-a-tete between the Prime Minister and an ex-leader of the Tory party. What puzzles me even more is that, while I can understand you, Mr. Speaker, having to call the leader of the Social Democrats and the leader of the Liberal party—although I might not agree with it—I take exception to another Liberal Member being called who has a direct interest since he is fighting a European seat in the Highlands. On top of that, the man who receives a big fat pension from Europe was also called on behalf of the Social Democrats. I think that it is taking things a bit too far when real strong anti-Marketeers cannot have a bite at the cherry.
Sir Anthony Kershaw): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The same point?
Sir Anthony Kershaw: The same point. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) got in as many words as anyone else, albeit from a sitting position?
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with the last point first. I am not aware of that, since I cannot hear everything from here.
May I say to the House with the greatest sincerity that I seek to balance opinions in the House? In a matter such as this, which covers both sides of the House, it is difficult to achieve perfect balance, but I seek to call those who are for a case and those who are against. I also took into account those whom I called at Question Time on a broadly similar matter. I shall also take all this into account when I draw up my list of those who will take part in the subsequent CAP debates. Those hon. Members who were unfortunate enough not to be called at Question Time or for the statement will be given precedence later in the CAP debate.
Mr. Bernard Conlan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House clearly understood that you said that questions on the statement would

1063
terminate at ten past four. We understand why the House might want to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Would Back Benchers get the same treatment, or is this an extension of the Privy Council rule, which takes precedence over the normal rules for Back Benchers?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will agree—I think that it does—that ex-Prime Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order.—that ex-Prime Ministers, from whichever side of the House, have a very special position in this place. [Interruption.] It is perfectly true.
Mr. Nellist: He was sitting down all the time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am making a statement. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman did not rise earlier during supplementary questions. I am sorry that he did not, but when eventually he did rise I felt that the House would wish to hear his views.

Marking of Gravity (Beer and Lager)
4.25 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the marking of the original gravity of all beers and lagers on dispensing taps, bottles, cans and other containers.
In view of the extended and important statement that we have just heard, I shall be brief.
My first reason for introducing the Bill is that I believe that people should know what they are drinking. The report on beer of the Food Standards Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received representations from consumer interests which
"favoured declarations of the alcohol content of the beer or the original gravity of the wort from which it was made".
The report continues:
"A declaration of alcohol content would tell him"—
the consumer—
"about one aspect only, the alcoholic strength, whereas a declaration of original gravity would tell him more about the indefinable concept of overall strength, as measured by the amount of fermentable raw materials used and by the excise duty paid. The consumer would … be in a somewhat better position to compare products."
That is why I have chosen the orginal gravity rather than the brewed out gravity on which to base my Bill.
My second reason concerns health. It is unreasonable to expect people to take general advice about the health aspects of alcohol unless they know what they are drinking. The British Medical Journal, volume 283, states:
Epidemiological comparisons of alcoholism are bedevilled by lack of uniformity in designating quantities. Statements such as `five drinks a day' are meaningless, if, for example, quantity and type of alcohol are to be related to physical damage … One pint of beer may vary in alcohol content from 12–40g according strength".
The health problem caused by that is severe. The report states:
"An arbitrary level for the development of cirrhosis has been given as six pints of beer, a third of a bottle of spirits, or half a bottle sherry daily (60–80g alcohol), but this may be too high in some individuals."
If individuals do not know the strength of what they are drinking, they could be in serious trouble and find it difficult to judge what to do.
My third reason involves safety. Many of us travel round the country. I had that experience before I came to the House. To northern tastes, southern beer is relatively weak. Only the following morning does one discover that it is not weak. Unless the individual knows the gravity, he must wait until the following morning to discover the disastrous effects of the mistake that he made the night before. My Bill would enable individuals who made that mistake to recognise at once that what they were drinking was not so weak as they had thought.
Finally, I pay tribute to those brewers who are already voluntarily marking original gravity on cans, bottles and other containers. Their public-spirited attitude is an example to the rest of the industry. I would not wish my Bill to be so narrowly drawn as to make it impossible for brewers to comply with the Bill's general objectives—namely, that people should know what they are drinking and that the strength of the drink should be clearly stated for health and safety reasons.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Harry Cowans, Mr. Stan

1065
Crowther, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Ian Grist, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Terry Patchett and Mr. Barry Porter.

MARKING OF GRAVITY (BEER AND LAGER)
Mr. John McWilliam accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the marking of the original gravity of all beers and lagers on dispensing taps, bottles, cans and other containers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 April and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
Opposition Day
[IITH ALLOTTED DAY] [SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  Fuel Costs
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government for increasing gas and electricity prices merely to raise revenue for the Treasury and for ignoring the increased hardship this will create for millions of pensioners, one-parent families, low-income households, disabled people and the unemployed; and calls upon the Government to introduce both a home insulation programme and a comprehensive system of heating allowances to protect all vulnerable groups from high fuel costs and the risk of fuel disconnection.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  There is a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in this important debate and I appeal for short contributions, in view of our late start.
  Mr. Orme: The Government amendment does not show the name of the Minister of State. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, but I note that the Secretary of State will not be opening the debate for the Government. We are debating an important issue and I feel sure that the House will take note of that absence.
  The Opposition believe that fuel supply is a major issue affecting millions of people. It is one of the basic commodities to which all of us have a right, together with food and housing. Bad housing, poor nutrition and lack of heating are direct causes of ill health and, in extremes, death, yet the right of people to fuel is regarded as a novel idea by many and its importance has not been recognised.
  The latest Government statistics for England and Wales show that 466 people over 65 years of age died of hypothermia in the winter months of 1982. Other statistics put that figure at 646. Whatever the real figure, increasing numbers of elderly people and very young children are clearly at risk each winter because they or their families cannot afford the necessary fuel to keep warm.
  Evidence shows that elderly people spend less on heating their homes in winter than many families spend on heating in the summer. Unfortunately, Government policies will increase that tendency. The recently introduced limits on standing charges, which were designed to prevent charges on small users becoming too high, are of more benefit to the owner of a country cottage than to an old-age pensioner, who may be encouraged to keep his or her electricity or gas consumption as low as possible. At the same time, fuel prices have risen at a rate that has made a critical difference to consumer ability to pay.
  When the gas and electricity price increases were announced last November we called them a hidden tax. It is no longer hidden. The Chancellor has promised that next year, or the year after, the money received thereby will be used to reduce the standard rate of income tax at the expense of fuel consumers who can ill afford it.
  The report of the Select Committee on Energy is a damning indictment of the Government's energy policy, and it sums up its view in paragraph 53, where it says:
  "We would summarise our conclusions on the proposed electricity price increase as follows. It is not justified on the

  1067
  grounds either of the industry's Financial Target or the Government's economic pricing policy. The only plausible reason for it is the Government's desire to raise additional revenue for macro-economic purposes. This being the case, the Treasury should have the honesty to say so, rather than retreating behind a smokescreen of economic pricing."
  That is not a quotation from the Labour party manifesto. It is from the unanimous report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the proposed gas and, especially, electricity price increases. It noted the veiled criticism of the tax and levy extracted from the British Gas Corporation. In 1982–83 that levy amounted to £732 million.
  Once again the consumer is paying an indirect tax to ease the Government's expenditure commitments, yet in the same year the BGC's annual report admitted:
  "For many people 1982/83 was a tough year. The continuing recession affected customers' ability to pay their accounts … Those regions with high unemployment were particularly hard hit … A total of 162,000 cases were discussed with the welfare authorities … compared with 113,000 in 1981/82…67,000 prepayment meters were installed specifically to help those customers who were having problems in paying quarterly accounts."
  In the Budget the Chancellor removed the tax on domestic paraffin, but because of that hidden tax on gas and electricity it was a cosmetic exercise and will be of no benefit. In 1984 it is an insult to tell people who require proper heating to use paraffin lamps in the home, because they are especially dangerous for old people and children who should be provided with proper heating by gas or electricity. That is an implication of the Government's policy and I am sure that the electorate will see it as much.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that, apart from the dangers to which he has referred, outpourings of moisture from paraffin lamps cause condensation and further difficulties for low-income families?
  Mr. Orme: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that condensation is a major problem with paraffin lamps. Many hon. Members must have visited constituents who use paraffin lamps. They use these lamps day in and day out and do not realise how much condensation is caused by them. Consequently, it is a negative approach for the Government to remove the tax on domestic paraffin. It is ridiculous to put that in the Budget as though the Government were giving something away.
  In recent months we have urged the Government to adopt the proposals in the report on electricity prices by accountants Coopers and Lybrand, which would cut prices and immediately freeze them for several years. That would go some way towards reducing the appallingly high number of disconnections. Every year about 120,000 households lose their electricity supply and 35,000 households lose their gas supply. More than one fifth remain without a supply for a month or more and many gas customers are never reconnected. It is estimated that 12 per cent. of disconnections affect households with a child under 1 year old, so about 10,000 babies were in homes without electricity at some time in 1983. Of the thousands of households whose supply is disconnected, 50 per cent. have no earned income, so their chance of paying off the debt is extremely slight. The code of practice agreed between the fuel boards and the Government has not limited disconnections to non-hardship cases. Nine out of 10 have a hardship problem as defined by the code.
  1068
  The Select Committee report takes the Government to task on the electricity price increase. We know that the Secretary of State opposed the increase and that there was an argument in the Cabinet, but the Chancellor won the argument at the expense of millions of people who need help, not hindrance, in this regard.
  Mr. Rob Hayward: The right hon. Gentleman cites the Select Committee report. If it is such a great justification for the Opposition's case, why is no Opposition Member of the Select Committee present?
  Mr. Orme: Before the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) arrived, I commented on the absence of the Secretary of State. If we are to have that kind of argument, we should start at the top. A number of my hon. Friends will come in later.
  Concrete proposals relating to the code of practice could sensibly be adopted to limit the number of disconnections. First, the code must be overhauled so that there is no doubt about its intentions. Some parts of it need amplification and clarification and phrases such as, "a reasonable period" need to be more explicit. Secondly, it should be a statutory code so as to equalise regional disparities which are all too clear when one compares the situation in London with that in areas such as the northwest. Thirdly, the code should incorporate an independent appeal mechanism so that consumers can appeal against proposed disconnections or undue charges.
  In addition, a comprehensive energy advice system must be developed to ensure that households are not unnecessarily disconnected and to secure their maximum entitlement to heating allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will have more to say about.
  Fuel poverty is caused by bad housing, expensive and inefficient heating systems and poor insulation, as well as by fuel prices themselves, and inadequate pensions and benefits.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the Right to Fuel campaign's interesting publication. "The Cost of Warmth", which highlights the fact that fuel poverty is due not so much to a 2 per cent. increase in electricity prices after a two-year freeze as to the fact that the needs of the poorest members of the community are not being met? As the variation in needs is much greater among the poorest, because of the homes in which they live and the type of heating that they have, the assistance available does not go to those most in need.
  Mr. Orme: I believe that the cause is a combination of both factors, but I shall refer to the proposals in that excellent pamphlet later.
  In November 1983 the supplementary benefit fuel allowance covered just 19 units of electricity or three therms of gas per day. The weekly heating addition, which is paid at two rates, is sufficient to run a two-bar electric fire for either two hours or six and a half hours per day. People forced to remain at home because of unemployment, retirement or the need to care for the elderly spend far more of their income on fuel than the average family, but they purchase only 50 per cent. of the amount of fuel consumed by the wealthier members of society. Benefit levels rise according to the general price index, so beneficiaries are not compensated for the faster increase in fuel prices.

  1069
  The most lasting benefits will accrue from a vastly increased programme of energy conservation. We urgently need a policy for warmth, beginning with a massive conservation programme, led by insulation for council housing, the expansion of grants for private sector housing and incentives to industry to save energy. As yet the Government have not made a direct link between energy conservation and fuel poverty, although it is profoundly obvious that the efficient use of fuel will, in the long term, lead to lower fuel bills. It has been proved that 60 per cent. of fuel can be saved through energy conservation, and slightly more in newly built properties. Yet energy conservation has always been a low priority, especially in the present Government's energy policy.
  In 1979 it was reported that 37 per cent. of households on supplementary benefit depended on electric heating and were least likely to benefit from insulation grants. In 1983, 23 per cent. of homes with accessible lofts had no insulation at all and 80 per cent. had less than that laid down in current building standards. Meanwhile—I have checked this figure many times—in 1981 only £15,000 was paid out for draught-proofing materials to 4 million supplementary benefit claimants.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is plenty of insulation in here—and at Buckingham palace, no doubt.
  Mr. Orme: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will appreciate, those who most need insulation cannot afford it.
  Many local authority and housing association properties are in very bad repair due to dampness, condensation and mould resulting from a lack of energy conservation in both rehabilitated and newly built properties. I represent an inner city area. The multi-storey blocks of flats pushed on us by planners in the 1960s and the 1970s are insufficiently insulated, difficult to heat and costly to live in. The people who designed them, of course, do not live in them.
  Grants to individual households for home insulation are currently about £27 million, with special priority for lower income pensioners and disabled people, but the provisions apply only to those with no loft insulation at all, so those who followed previous Government advice cannot top up to today's higher standards.
  Mr. Max Madden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to combat fuel poverty effectively the often conflicting policies of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Energy and the Department of Health and Social Security, not to mention the Welsh Office and various other Departments, must be co-ordinated to produce a coherent, comprehensive and truly national effort? Does he also agree that reducing the amounts available for home improvement and introducing a new tax on home improvement is no way in which to help combat fuel poverty?
  Mr. Orme: The co-ordination of the Departments concerned is, in my view, a matter of urgency and I shall have something to say about that shortly.
  Dealing with conservation, last year's Select Committee on Energy stated:
  "We were dismayed to find that, seven years after the first major oil price increases, the Department of Energy has no clear
  1070
  idea of whether investing around £1,300 million in a single nuclear power plant is as cost-effective as spending a similar sum to promote energy conservation."
  That goes right to the heart of what my hon. Friends and I are saying.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Astronomer Royal has recently produced figures to show that if a similar amount of money as would be spent on a nuclear power station were to be spent on insulation, up to one third more energy would be saved than a nuclear power station would generate?
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is underlining the point that I have made, and I appreciate it.
  The Select Committee went on to recommend a shift from investment in supply to investment in conservation. We welcomed the establishment of the energy efficiency office. Unfortunately, the publicity distributed by the office has had no back-up. Grants for insulation and local authority initiatives have been undermined by the Government's public expenditure cuts. During the office's pilot programme in Wales, the Welsh Office quite independently told local authorities that the annual sum for grants had been spent and that no more could be sanctioned.
  Local authorities must, therefore, play a leading role in this with their own housing, in grants to the private sector and by identifying those who would most benefit from the insulation of their homes. To do so they need the wholehearted support of the Government, and increased finance. At the moment there is no established indicator of fuel poverty. Support has been based on income maintenance alone.
  Coming to the point raised by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost), the national Right to Fuel campaign has drawn up a seven-point index, a cost of warmth index, which, if applied to individual households, could determine the amount of fuel needed, its cost and the improvements in insulation and heating efficiency required. This work is a valuable contribution to discussions of possible solutions of fuel poverty.
  We call on the Government, therefore, to sponsor a pilot scheme on the basis of the cost of warmth index so that we can more clearly assess the needs of both the community and individual households. Included in such sponsorship should be the Department of Health and Social Services, the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and, of course, the Department of Energy. The efforts of all these Departments should be pooled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) suggested.
  Furthermore, there are countless jobs to be created from the manufacture and installation of insulation in all its forms. Thousands of people could be given a new trade. If nothing else, surely the reduction of unemployment is a compelling incentive for the Government to act. It has been estimated that 150,000 jobs could be created in work that would be invaluable at the present time.
  At the moment we waste a great deal of our energy resources. That is why the use of combined heat and power systems in the context of district heating schemes should be considered as an essential part of conservation policy. We are still waiting for the Government to pronounce on the lead city scheme. I urge the Secretary of State to bring

  1071
  the proposals to the House without further delay. Perhaps the Minister of State will have something to say about this today.
  Rather than taxing everyone with fuel price increases, we need the positive investment of resources in energy efficiency measures for low-income households. Will the Secretary of State ensure, therefore, that his officials complete and publish their review of new policies of energy conservation which we understand they are carrying out at the present time?
  Many of the issues raised in this debate form part of the People's Right to Fuel Bill, a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), which deals with disconnections, extending the fuel direct scheme, the installation of prepayment meters, the improvement and extension of fuel allowances and a freeze on fuel prices. We cannot realistically expect the Government to support such a Bill, which will come up for a Second Reading in a few weeks' time, but their lack of support will only indicate what is already obvious, namely, that, as with all other policies, the primary intention of the Government is to improve the lot of those who are wealthy at the expense of those who are poorer.
  The Budget is a classic indication of that. If one is white, middle-class and working, one is doing very well under the Government, but other people are not doing half as well and are, in fact, being penalised. We are talking in this debate about the very people who have been overlooked by the Government. The Budget reinforced this view. Time and again the policies of the Government make the well-off better off. As we saw in The Sunday Times of 18 March, an unemployed family can have lost to the extent of £13·44 a week, while the company director is nearly £160 better off.
  Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend know that there is a better example than that? Is he aware that, as a result of the changes in the Budget relating to taxation, capital transfer tax, capital gains tax and the rest of it, the Duke of Westminster and his family will benefit to the tune of £300 million? What could my right hon. Friend do with that £300 million if he were sitting on the Government Front Bench? He could distribute it to those poor and needy who will otherwise die of hypothermia. He could do a lot with that kind of money. This is a stark example of what the Tory Government are up to—looking after their friends.
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Such a sum would be a very good start to the kitty that we need.
  We have introduced this debate today because we think that the time is opportune. Although we are at the end of the winter, fuel bills are still coming in. We have 4 million people unemployed. They are experiencing difficulties and problems. We consider that an overall approach is needed, and that is the reason for our motion. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it. What is more, we must carry the argument not only in the House, but outside, and convince the prople that there is a real alternative.
  4.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes that increases in the prices of the nationalised energy industries are now below the rate of inflation and that the Government has maintained and improved the real value of social security benefits, particularly for the neediest members of the community.".
  May I say straight away that we feel every bit as much the concern that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) about the problems of the less-well-off members of the community in relation to fuel costs and other such causes of hardship. However, I would have more respect for the motion that he has proposed if it had been more accurate in its terms. This is why I ask the House to reject it. It calls for the introduction of a home insulation programme. We already have a home insulation programme. In 1978–79 it had an expenditure of £9·36 million; in the financial year 1982–83 the expenditure had risen to £32·7 million. Thus, we begin with an inaccuracy in the motion.
  At the heart of the motion is a call for a system of heating allowances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will bear in mind that, for example, in the last year for which he was responsible for these matters at the Department of Health and Social Security expenditure on heating allowances amounted to £124 million. This year, expenditure on heating allowances under a Conservative Government amounts to £380 million—three times as much as when the right hon. Gentleman had responsibility for these matters.
  Mr. David Winnick rose——
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have only just started, and this is a short debate.
  Therefore, the motion should be rejected, if only on those grounds.
  The Government are doing a great deal, and will continue to do so, to help those with particular difficulties with the costs of energy. The supplementary benefits system is designed to meet the costs of the person receiving benefit, and that includes heating and other costs. Those rates are increased annually in line with the retail price index.
  As I have said, under the social security system, this Government are spending far more on heating allowances than did the previous Government. In fact, in real terms the level of that assistance is now higher than it has ever been. The rates were increased last November by 8 per cent.—well beyond the actual increase in heating and energy costs.
  In the period from November 1978, the rates of assistance have gone up by 140 per cent., whereas fuel prices have risen by 100 per cent. In other words, the help provided by the Government is 40 per cent. more than the amount by which fuel prices have risen.
  Mr. Winnick: Why does the right hon. Gentleman ignore the fact that many people must claim benefit because of mass unemployment and what has happened in the last four or five years? One problem, which is causing great anxiety to those affected, is that some people are not eligible for supplementary benefit, perhaps because they have savings of just over £3,000 or their income or small

  1073
  private pension prevent them from doing so. They receive not a penny of assistance with their fuel bills. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that to be right and just?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall shortly come to fuel prices and the best way of giving help. I am merely pointing out, contrary to what the motion says, that over the past five years this Government have operated the system effectively and have increased the amount of assistance. In addition, we have increased the rates of help available beyond the amount by which energy prices have risen.
  Quite fairly, the right hon. Member for Salford, East mentioned the problems facing old age pensioners. If they are on supplementary benefit, as well as receiving the old age pension they automatically receive heating allowance and the heating addition. I have met representatives of that group on a number of occasions in recent months. The amount now being spent on that group is more than £200 million a year. Here again, the Government are spending a considerable amount of money.
  Heating additions are automatically given to members of households over the age of 70 who are on supplementary benefit or who have dependants over the age of 70. As a result, 2·5 million households in the United Kingdom now benefit, compared with only 1·5 million in 1978.
  As well as help under the social security system, specific help is also given under other schemes. I have already mentioned the home insulation scheme and the amount that is spent on that. Under that scheme, help is specifically directed. For old age pensioners and the disabled, 90 per cent. of the cost of basic insulation is paid under that scheme. Special one-off payments are also available to assist supplementary benefit recipients.
  The home insulation scheme has advanced enormously in terms of the resources devoted to it, and there will be provision for assistance for basic insulation to be topped up.
  It comes ill from the right hon. Gentleman to decry what the Government have done on conservation. No Government have done more. The scheme that my right hon. Friend launched at the end of last year includes a publicity campaign throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. It is being conducted at 40 different centres and is being led by my right hon. Friend and Ministers in my Department. That campaign gives to energy conservation an importance that no Government have given previously. The right hon. Gentleman should at least give us credit for that. He may still want to give more, but the assistance that we are now providing is more than that given by any previous Government.
  Mr. Orme: I appreciate that the Secretary of State and Ministers are going around the country speaking to industrialists, having breakfast meetings and so on, but that campaign is not backed up by statutory powers. It is only exhortation. However, where does the domestic consumer figure in that campaign?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are dealing equally as well with the domestic scheme. Neighbourhood energy action is another area in which the Government and my Department are directly helping voluntary organisations. But the energy conservation scheme is not related solely
  1074
  to industrial conservation. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that—perhaps that is why the motion is worded in the way that it is—I shall be happy to send him details of the campaign, including the work that is being done through local authorities and other local voluntary organisations. In that and in many other ways, we are doing a great deal.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie rose——
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall give way for the last time, because I promised to be brief.
  Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to impress on the House how much the Government have done for energy conservation, but it is more a policy of exhortation than money. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that prior to 1974 the Conservative Government had never even heard of conservation? The Labour Government in 1974 introduced the concept of conservation, and the right hon. Gentleman is merely saying that this Government are trying to build on it.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am relating my remarks to the motion before us. What matters is what we are doing now and what we plan to do in the future. The hon. Gentleman is normally fair about these things, and I am sure he will accept that the money is not merely being spent on publicity. A major part of it is spent on actual energy conservation schemes, and directly helps people with insulation and so on. These are facts, and as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do,
  "Facts are chiels that winna ding."
  Those are the facts. They may make the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) uncomfortable, but the fact that we are achieving more than his party has done is no reason for deriding what is being done to help.
  Successive Governments have realised—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman referred to this point in passing—that where help to the needy is concerned, the important thing is to direct that help to the areas where it is needed. The right hon. Gentleman referred to standing charges. I cannot help being aware from Question Time, from my correspondence and from delegations I meet that many people feel very strongly about standing charges, changes in tariffs and so on. However, the matter is one that must be examined very closely. Many of the suggestions that have been made for the abolition of standing charges or for changes in the tariffs would mean that the available help would have to be spread very much more widely. At the end of the day, someone has to pay. If a charge is abolished for one group of consumers, others will have to pay.
  Many people who are disabled, sick or elderly, or who are caring for a large or a young family, are not wealthy and have very high energy costs. It is better to help those in need directly through the social security system, through the various heating additions. That is the most effective way of providing help.
  I was interested to read a report published by the Labour Government in 1976. It was entitled "Energy Tariffs and the Poor". The foreword was in part a summary of the report. I quote:
  "After considering the group's report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities"—
  changes in standing charges or tariffs—
  "offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills."

  1075
  That foreword is signed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). That was the conclusion of the Labour party when it was in power. It ill behoves Labour Members now to call for the very measures that they rejected when in government, when they considered those possibilities and realised that they were not a sensible way of giving help.
  The specific question of fuel disconnections has been raised. It is a question that gives me cause for concern. There is a code of practice, and it is worth remembering one or two of the guidelines in that code. No old age pensioner can be disconnected between October and March. That seems to have been forgotten in some of the reports that we have read. The code of practice was revised as recently as July 1982 after the independent report from the Policy Studies Institute. The working of the code of practice in relation to disconnections is at present being monitored by the gas and electricity consumer councils. Both those councils will shortly report to the Government on the results of their monitoring.
  We must think hard before we consider the introduction of the statutory code which some people have called for. One of the advantages of the present system is flexibility. I speak as a constituency Member. Like other hon. Members, I have to deal with disconnection cases. Very rarely are two disconnection cases alike; there are always different circumstances and a different background. I therefore believe there are advantages in flexibility. The Government have an open mind and will consider what the consumer councils may recommend in a constructive and positive spirit.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the Select Committee. The Government will reply to that report in the proper way, but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put the report into perspective. It is a valuable report and a great deal of work went into it, but what we are talking about is an increase of less than 2 per cent. in electricity prices. The Select Committee had no criticism to make of gas prices but the right hon. Gentleman took care to ignore that fact.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No. Time is short and there have already been several interventions.
  The right hon. Gentleman also forgot that the actual price increase, which has still to be endorsed by the electricity boards, was not imposed by the Government. The Electricity Council, after consultation with the Government, decided to recommend the increase to the electricity boards. There was no question of the increase being forced by the Government on the electricity industry. There have been times when energy prices have risen rapidly. When that happens we are right to be concerned about the problems created. However, let us consider the present situation, and our main energy costs. The increase in coal——
  Mr. Skinner: There is plenty of coal about.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As usual, there is a Pavlovian reaction from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). In November last year coal prices increased by 3·8 per cent. That increase was below the rate of inflation, as previous increases had been. Gas prices were increased by 4·3 per cent. in January this year. That was the first increase for 15 months and was well below the rate of
  1076
  inflation. With electricity prices, an increase of slightly less than 2 per cent. is proposed, to take place in April. That is the first increase for two years and, again, it is below the rate of inflation. If we compare prices for the final quarter of 1982 with those with the final quarter of 1983 in real terms—in terms of what money will buy—we find that coal prices are constant, that domestic electricity prices have fallen by 5 per cent. and that domestic gas prices have fallen by 2 per cent.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East was a member of a Government who raised electricity prices by 2 per cent. every six weeks during their period of office. For him to complain about the record of the present Government, under whom electricity prices are to be increased by 2 per cent. after two years, shows what nonsense the motion is and how right the House will be to reject it. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Allen Adams: There were three things wrong with the Minister's speech: he read it, he read it badly, and it was not worth reading.
  I read in The Times this morning that it was 21 March. It might get a few things right. The date reminds me that 428 years ago Archbishop Cranmer was burnt at the stake at Oxford. On the way to the stake the previous October, Archbishop Latimer said:
  "Be of good comfort Master Ridley and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England, as shall never be put out."
  Five hundred years later the Government have put that fire out, or at least had a damn good attempt at putting out the fires in many homes in the country.
  Three weeks ago I introduced a Bill on the method of paying fuel bills and asked that a commission be set up to examine the methods by which domestic consumers must pay their monthly or quarterly fuel bills. Remarkably the Government let that Bill have a First Reading. I assume from that that at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month they will overwhelmingly support its Second Reading. Perhaps it would be fair to say that when the Bill received its first Reading the Government were too busy with Cheltenham to bother with it.
  The essential fact behind my Bill is that it is clearly ridiculous in the northern hemisphere to imagine that life can be sustained without heat. We have all noticed that from time to time it gets a little chilly. Yet many citizens, especially those who need heat most—the old, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed—because they are in their homes day in, day out, are least able to afford it. That is the kernel of the problem.
  We all know from constituency experience that such people sit in cold, darkened rooms, although they have given a lifetime's work. They sit with their coats on, the curtains drawn and, at best, huddled over a single bar of an electric fire. Is that the manifestation of a land fit for heroes, when people have given their all for 40 or 50 years? In winter, many such people die. We do not need to trot out statistics to prove that. We all know that the death rate in January and February is double that of June and July. At the bottom of our hearts we all know why. It is because the over-70s cannot afford to pay for gas or electricity. Moreover, they sit shivering with fear as, every two or three months, a little bill comes through the letter box saying that they must pay £50, £60 or £70. The old

  1077
  grandmother stoops down, picks up the bill, takes it out of the envelope, and often the shock is too much for her. That problem is increasing.
  As with many other problems, we merely tamper. We turn on the television and see a district council representative talking about putting carpets in old people's lofts, another talking about putting foam into walls and someone else talking about insulation in roofs. They are not striking at the core of the problem. There are two issues: how do we generate fuel, and how do we pay for the generation?
  Tom Johnston, who was Secretary of State for Scotland in the Attlee Government, had the hydro-dams built in the highlands of Scotland. The great slogan of the time was "Power in the glens." I suspect that that slogan translated in his mind to "Power to the people." He had those dams built because they could generate power infinitely. There is no limit to the amount of electricity that can be generated from nuclear power either. We are probably the best endowed country in the world for fuel. We have finite fuels in gas, oil and coal and infinite fuel from hydroelectricity generation and nuclear energy. If we do not use nuclear or hydro-power, where does it go? It is the same as asking: if one does not use one's voice, where does it go? It has no limit. We should be able to generate enough electricity to enable everyone to walk around with neon lights on their heads. There is no limit to the amount of power that we can produce, so why are we not producing it? The immediate answer is that the Government are using electricity generation as a method of raising tax rather than as a service for the people. It is as simple as that.
  Many ordinary people are fed up with the crocodile tears that are wept in the House year after year. We constantly say how sorry we feel for the poor and the unemployed and how sorry we are about the old dear who dies behind her door in February. We are all desperately sorry until July, when we forget about the issue until we become sorry again in November and December. I suggest that we put up, pay up or shut up.
  The electricity generating service should be regarded as an extension of the National Health Service. Without fuel and heat, people die. When people did not have medicine in the 1920s and 1930s, they died. The introduction of a national insurance stamp to pay for health care has increased longevity remarkably, reduced infant mortality and made our people's health incredibly better in a short time. We should regard electricity in the same light. If we believe in helping the poor, the needy, the old, the infirm and the sick, we should provide the heat that is needed in our northern climate. If we are to do that, we must take from each according to his means and give to each according to his needs.
  The solution is to introduce a system of payment similar to that which we all agree is good in the NHS. We should pay according to our means so that everyone is ipso facto entitled to the heat that is generated as a national asset. I suspect that the Government will not welcome that proposal with open arms because electricity is regarded no longer as a national service but as a method of raising tax. If we mean what we say about helping the poor and the old, we should all agree to pay according to our ability to pay.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I do not intend to pursue the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) but I shall refer to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said. In 1982–83 the Exchequer paid £1,417 million for heating bills of one fifth of all households that depend on benefits, whereas Government expenditure on insulating the homes of such low-income families amounted to only about £18 million. I pay tribute to the Government's work on insulation, and I accept that expenditure cannot be raised to astronomic heights, but if we are to get value for money it is probably a good idea to spend more on insulation and less on meeting heating costs.
  I should like to raise a point with my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security as he is present. A person on the social service ladder who gets supplementary benefit gets a lot of consideration, but a person who happens to be more than 80 years old and has more than £3,000 is told to run down those savings to come under the umbrella. In other words, at 85, with only £3,050, a person gets nothing by way of heating assistance. If my hon. Friend can devise any scheme that will do something for many of the old constituents who have talked to me about such problems, I shall be glad to learn about it.
  I am primarily concerned, however, not merely with people on low incomes, but with consumers generally. It may be useful to refer to the Electricity Act 1947. Section 1(6)(b) of that Act says that electricity boards shall
  "secure, so far as practicable, the … cheapening of supplies of electricity".
  Section 36(1) says that it is the duty of the central authority to
  "secure that the combined revenues of the Central Authority and all the Area Boards taken together are not less than sufficient to meet their combined outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account taking one year with another."
  It is extraordinary that in the charter Act of the electricity industry there is no compulsion on these bodies to produce a profit. If this were a private enterprise, it would probably distribute a lot of this by way of dividend, in this case to the nation at large. The electricity supply industry has been given a financial target of 1·4 per cent., which is obtainable on its existing profits. External financing limits have been given minus figures for 1983–84 of £418 million and for the ensuing year of £740 million.
  I believe that there is no need to raise prices for electricity this year. This would help consumers in general and the poor in particular. In fact, in paragraph 36 of its report the Select Committee says that there is a
  "reasonable prospect of achieving the EFL without a tariff increase".
  My right hon. Friend says that the 2 per cent. increase in domestic prices from 1 April has not been imposed on the industry but has been won by consent. I should have thought that it was a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the industry.
  What is even more interesting is that we have three types of legislative control. One is quite apparent—it is by Act of Parliament; the second is obvious to most—an Order in Council; and third is a decree by White Paper. What legislative framework is behind the setting of financial targets, EFLs and performance objectives—none and I am fortified by the fact that the Department of Energy

  1079
  "took the view that the real price of electricity should be allowed to fall."
  That is in paragraph 27. If that is the case, why is the Secretary of State increasing it on this occasion? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a speech reported in one of the papers to the Select Committee, EP3, said:
  "Present and expected capacity in the industry is more than adequate to meet forecast demand over the next few years at least. The cost to the industry of meeting marginal increases in demand is thus likely to be lower than was expected."
  That is on the basis of capacity, but it can also be seen on the basis that the price of coal is not expected to shift markedly in the near future.
  We have been told in the course of this debate that electricity prices went up by 391·7 per cent. between 1974 and 1983. However, speaking in real terms it is only 50 per cent.
  What troubles me—and this is a point which is apparent on reading some of the statements in the Select Committee report—is that the debt of the ESI of £4,337 million will be repaid by 1988–89. It will then be a debt-free industry. Is the industry then to be expected to build up large cash surpluses? If so, what is to happen to them? Will not the result be that there will be a levy on the electricity industry comparable to that on the gas industry? Is it not one of the great faults of nationalised corporations that the public—the people supposed to benefit, the consumers—are never allowed to receive the benefit of a commercial windfall? It must go to the state for other purposes quite alien to energy purposes.
  It is perhaps ironic that while the Government are arguing in the European Council against the energy tax proposals of the EC, they should be falling victim to their own proposals here in putting up the price of electricity. I do not blame the Government so much as the civil servants and the Treasury who have wrought these changes. They say that they want to maintain prices at economic levels to reflect the continuing cost of supply, including an adequate return on the capital employed.
  Let us see what the Electricity Council says, because that is the body established for the industry and its members are the people who speak on these matters. The chairman of the council said, according to paragraph 35 of the Select Committee's report, that the proposed increase of 2 per cent. was not necessary on economic grounds in order to meet the ESI's financial target. And in paragraph 41 it is stated that the industry believes that current prices are
  "equivalent to a broadly mid-point view on Long-Run Marginal costs under a surplus capacity situation."
  Then we come to the report of the consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, on electricity bulk supply tariff which was prepared at the instigation of the Department of Energy. Paragraph 6.33 says:
  "In the present circumstances of the CEGB, with substantial and persistent excess capacity, it is perhaps not surprising that economic reasoning should lead to the conclusion that since the nation has paid for the capacity already it is appropriate to set tariffs which encourage its use."
  In other words, we should drop prices to increase consumption.
  I shall not support the Opposition motion tonight. I am arguing for the whole body of consumers, who are fed up with the nationalised corporations putting up prices. The sword of Damocles hangs over this particular industry and, whereas the price could come down, it has gone up, even if only by 2 per cent. The argument may be that the rate of return on investment is something like 2 per cent., but
  1080
  I can give the figures for the rest of manufacturing industry, which are also low at this time. In manufacturing industry, the rate of return in 1982 was only 3·3 per cent., and it would be expected that in utilities it would be a low figure anyhow.
  Mr. Bernard Conlan: I cannot follow the logic of this argument. Everybody knows that the CEGB was forced to put up its prices against its will because of Government policies.
  Mr. Skeet: If the hon. Gentleman is wise enough to have read the Select Committee report, as I hope he has, he will see that the Committee is suggesting that it is because of the persuasiveness of the Treasury that the Government, or the Ministers, had no alternative. I refer him to paragraph 49, which says:
  "Despite the strenuous denials of the Treasury witnesses, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the only plausible motivation for the large increase in the ESI's negative EFL for 1984–85 … was the Government's wish, on grounds of macro-economic policy, to raise additional revenue in order to reduce the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement."
  Who talks about the public sector borrowing requirement? It is not the Department of Energy, but the Treasury. The Department of Energy probably has never heard of it. It is the Treasury that has laid it down and has determined this. The significance of what I am saying must be quite apparent. It has been determined by a Government Department, the Treasury, the continuity boys who were there when the Labour Government were in office and we were in opposition. It does not make any difference which party is in office, the Treasury maintains its position.
  I have quoted the report of the consultants, Coopers and Lybrand, which was commissioned by the Department of Energy. It gave its view that a reduction was called for. The Select Committee report does the same. I have racked my brains to try to find out whether there is an energy reason for increasing the cost of electricity, and I can find none.
  I can see why the Government are concerned about public expenditure and want to have some impact on the nationalised industries' claims on the PSBR. It may irritate many that in Europe there is VAT on electricity and gas and that the United Kingdom has none. In Belgium there is 6 per cent. VAT, in Luxembourg 5 per cent., in Italy 6 per cent. and in the Netherlands 18 per cent. It may be that because we do not have this the Treasury considers that there should be some compensation through the 2 per cent. increase from 1 April. It may be that the energy tax that was adumbrated from Europe is another way of securing it locally.
  I know that this is a short debate, so I shall not take too long or comment on too many different things. However, I pay tribute to the Select Committee for getting together the facts. There is no justification for an increase in electricity prices. I have made no comment on gas price increases, because they are justified. If we are to have an increase in the price of electricity in a good year, I dread to think what will happen in a bad year. Can one ever envisage in future years circumstances in which the prices of electricity could fall?
  It is argued that as inflation is 5 per cent and this increase is below the rate of inflation, we should not complain. I do not hear any company chairmen arguing the point that because the rate of inflation is 5 per cent. prices must go up by that amount. The market consideration should apply. If one fiddles about with the EFLs, target

  1081
  performances and so on, one can so organise the figures that ultimately the price must rise still further. In other words, my argument is for the consumer. The 1957 and the 1947 Acts lay this down specifically. They do not tell the electricity supply industry that it must build up accumulated profits that cannot be distributed to anybody except the Government.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: What the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) said is even more remarkable in relation to Scotland. At least in England and Wales people know what the price increase will be. A figure of 2 per cent. has been quoted. However, in Scotland, where there is an over-capacity of 80 per cent., the rumours are that the announcement from the electricity boards will be of an increase of 4 or 5 per cent., which would be lunacy if it were to take place.
  It is no coincidence that the three Bills on this subject that have been introduced under the ten minutes rule, by the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) and by myself, come from Scottish Members. In Scotland, we have to put up with climatic differences that cause considerable problems for those who are ill, the unemployed and the elderly. Those are the categories of folk who are in difficulty and who have been dying because of lack of heat.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is in his place, because I have a copy of a statement printed in The Observer on 16 December 1979. He reported that, as a Minister at the DHSS in 1976, he had wanted to answer a question about the numbers of hypothermia deaths, but his Department overruled him, giving the reason that, if he were to reply as he had wanted, showing up to 35,000 deaths a year caused by lack of heating, according to an independent survey, that would affect large numbers of old people and be used to bring pressure on the Government to improve heating provision for old people.
  I can see why the release of that information would run counter to the Treasury, which has just been attacked by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North. There would be two savings from coverinig up on hypothermia. First, there would be no need to give an adequate allowance for heating provision; and, secondly, if people died prematurely, the national insurance fund would be helped because pension payouts would be reduced. Over recent years many more deaths—although fewer than the true figure—have been registered as being due to hypothermia.
  Surveys have shown that in the winter months in the United Kingdom the number of elderly people who die goes up by 20 per cent. The number of babies under one year old who die in winter months has increased by 40 per cent. We must remember that we are talking not just of elderly people who are kept in their houses, but of low-income families. These families with young children have great difficulty in resolving whether their money should be spent on food, clothing or heating. This is true of many parts of the United Kingdom, but it is especially true in the north, which suffers from climatic severity.
  1082
  Fuel poverty exists and it is accentuated by several factors. First, it is accentuated by low incomes, and with the increase in unemployment and the increased numbers of elderly there is now more of a problem.
  Secondly, as has been said, fuel prices are, relatively speaking, far higher now than they were 10 years ago. We all know why. There has been not just general inflation, but fuel inflation. However, the statutory monopolies are not allowed to make better use of their capacity by reducing prices. Any private firm faced with over-capacity would try to dispose of the product by advertising and price-cutting, and it would be encouraged by the knowledge that the more it sells, the more efficient the enterprise and the more overheads decline in terms of overall finance.
  The third factor is the type of housing that we have. We have had 20 years of building houses that are a disgrace to housing standards. We have multi-blocks. Indeed, those spread out are apparently worse than the high rise blocks. We have houses that do not even have sound insulation, never mind insulation to keep in heat. In my constituency, I have an area of high unemployment—the Whitefield housing estate. One part of it, the Skarne housing development, was built on a prefabricated basis to a Swedish design. The first thing that happened to it was that the specified triple glazing was taken out. There are now holes in the fitments of the windows where the draughts can come in and the heat can escape. The insulation of the walls was progressively reduced to fit Government financing. These are mistakes of the past, but people still live in and have to heat those houses. Lack of insulation affects much of our housing stock.
  The 20 per cent. increase in the deaths of elderly persons and the 40 per cent. increase in the deaths of babies does not happen in Scandinavia, partly because there are higher heating allowances, but partly because the housing quality is better and therefore less heat is lost through the walls. We provide statutory heating provision for those who work here. If the temperature in this place—although I do not think we are affected by the Factories Acts—or in an office block or factory were to go down, there would be a legitimate walk-out because people were having to work in low temperatures.
  However, there is no such protection for those who have to stay in their homes because of illness or unemployment. The figures speak for themselves. The poorest 20 per cent. of the population pay 11 per cent. of their income on fuel and the richest 20 per cent. pay 6 per cent. The rich will have better heating provisions in their houses and larger houses to heat. However, compared with their income, the overall impact is less.
  We have had a bad winter in some parts of the country. In fact, I wrote to the Government about it. When the DHSS found it unnecessary, according to its criteria, to set off the trigger points for the exceptional heating allowances, many people in Scotland were amazed. People were trapped in their houses for weeks. It was not the coldest winter in terms of temperatures, but in terms of snow it was a remarkably bad winter, and people were trapped in their houses. Crieff, for instance, had 2 ft of snow for about three to four weeks, and it was difficult for elderly people to get out of their houses.
  The Minister for Social Security should do something about these exceptional allowances, because at present they constitute a fraud. One sees from the figures that, in the very cold winter of 1981–82, there was an increase of

  1083
  32 per cent. in the number of degree days, but there was only 1 per cent. increase in the amount that was paid by the Government in allowances. Indeed, recent figures show that in the north of Scotland about 2,903 degree days were sustained, compared with south-west England with 1,906 degree days. I have been quoting figures of 30 per cent., but according to the latest information that I have, I have been under-estimating that. According to one calculation, the figure should be 48 per cent.
  As time is short, I shall not speak at length, particularly as, on 25 January, when I launched my Social Security (Cold Climate Allowance) Amendment Bill, I had an opportunity to describe fuel poverty in some detail. I have the opportunity to meet the Minister next week, together with the sponsors of the Bill, to discuss the need to revise the fuel allowances to take account of severity of climate. I shall put the arguments to him on that occasion. However, according to the figures that I have about the amount of fuel that is consumed, Scotland, in both cash and percentage terms, is very much above the rest of the United Kingdom. Yorkshire and the north-east of England come close behind, so I do not make a peculiarly Scottish point here. I know from discussions with hon. Members of all persuasions from Northern Ireland that, although they might not qualify in the same category as the north of Scotland, their heating costs are so ferociously high in the Province that there is a considerable degree of fuel poverty.
  We must deal with the problem in a number of ways. First, we must improve the housing stock. That point has been made by a number of hon. Members, so I shall not expand on it. It is common sense that, by improving the amount of insulation, we can reduce the amount of fuel that people have to burn to get an adequate degree of warmth.
  Mr. Rost: I have followed closely what the hon. Gentleman said. He referred to Scandinavia and said that the higher insulation standards there are the main reason why fuel poverty does not exist there. No doubt he is also aware that the other reason is that in Scandinavia people do not waste hot water from power stations but pump it into buildings to heat them, whereas we throw away two thirds of the fuel used in producing our electricity.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is pushing at an open door there. His problem is to persuade his own Government, or any Government, to take account of his arguments. We both agree that insulation is necessary.
  Secondly, if electricity and gas prices can be restrained or reduced, poorer consumers will automatically benefit.
  We should accept, therefore, that cash aid is necessary now. It is the quickest way to alleviate the problem and to curtail the misery that many of us encounter when we see people living in cold and chilly houses—conditions that we would not tolerate for ourselves or our families.
  Hypothermia does exist. We cannot sweep it under the carpet. People die because of lack of heat, and illness is caused by lack of heat. The best way to solve the problem is to have a new and comprehensive system of fuel allowances that will match the nature of the problem. Compassion demands that. I hope to continue the argument on Wednesday next when I meet the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 6.30. There are still seven hon. Members who hope to speak from the Back Benches. I therefore appeal for brief speeches.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Tony Speller: We all know where the energy deprivation battleground is, but I suspect, as is usual in energy matters, that we are using wrong weapons and outmoded tactics.
  I was more interested than entertained when one hon. Gentleman said how much had been spent in 1979 compared with what was being spent in 1984. The truth is that we spend our time in the House arguing which side should spend more or did spend less. That has no effect on the people of whom the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) spoke, although he made that unfortunate remark about kicking open doors, which only lets the draught in. When we speak about our constituents being cold, it is quite immaterial on which side of the House we sit.
  I always seem to get the rough edge of time having to limit my speeches to the final five minutes, but I shall do what I can. The first matter I wish to stress is that we should use existing energy sensibly and efficiently. We are not short of energy. We generate vast amounts of it, but we do not distribute it to those who need it—not even those who need it and are prepared to pay for it. The wastage is vast. If one lived in the sunnier clime of California, for example, the privately-owned local utility companies would do an energy audit on one's property. They would point out how, for a very low price, one could keep heat in a house. Many of our buildings allow the heat to leave as quickly as it is produced, but there one is told it is most important to conserve the heat within the building. Once that happens, each person can be given, for less money, a great deal more comfort. I suspect that hypothermia is not known in that part of the world, not because of the climate, but because they have a sensible approach to making each house energy efficient.
  I know that we have an energy efficiency campaign going on, and I am delighted about it, although I should have been happier with one Government office controlling it instead of three offices in competition. I suspect that, as in so many cases, the cost of administering the schemes is rather more than the benefit they produce.
  I do not believe for a moment that a discussion in the House about fuel poverty need divide us on party lines. Mention has been made of the Select Committee, and three or four hon. Members now present are members of that Committee. We appear able to debate fiercely, and yet to bring in logical unanimous comments. Energy is not a party political matter when it reaches the stage of personal fuel poverty—or, if it is, it should not be.
  Mention has been made of the cost of fuel. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made a couple of quick interventions, wishes us to use more coal. I wish that we used less coal, much less oil and much less gas, because they are all finite resources. We should start to look more sensibly at renewable energy that comes back again and again—the wind that never ceases to blow, I think I am happy to say, in my constituency of Devon, North, and the tide that rises and falls 30 ft. at Ilfracombe. I am talking about the things that nature provides. They

  1085
  contaminate neither the atmosphere with sulphur fumes nor, at a later stage, our grandchildren's land with some form of waste.
  If we were sensible, we would give tax advantages—not grants—to people who build energy-efficient houses. Too many grants are given and things built simply because they have been made grant-worthy. We should give a tax advantage to the builder and architect who produce an energy-efficient house. We could give advantages in the form of tax concessions—again, not in grant—to people who install energy-efficiency measures which do not use the normal fossil fuels on which we all depend or, if they do, use them wisely and moderately. Let us do things which conserve for our grandchildren those resources with which we seem to be so profligate today.
  I find it sad that, according to a parliamentary reply yesterday, the DHSS has doubled its fuel bills in the past five years. I doubt whether one patient is one jot warmer for that vast increase in cost. We do not build to the conservation of energy standards that we should, and until we do that we are wasting our time here as we have wasted
  6 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Happily, we are coming to the end of a relatively mild winter. Unfortunately, it has not been so comfortable a winter for some as it has been for hon. Members in this warm House. The shocking fact of life in Britain today which cannot be disputed is, as has been said, that thousands of elderly people and babies die every year because their homes are too cold. We know that that is mostly the result of energy prices that are held artificially high by the Government or the Treasury. I do not know the difference between Treasury and Government policy—the policies are the same.
  We all know the absurdity of raising gas and electricity prices when both industries have made fantastic profits in the past year. That is the kind of insane policy that one has come to expect from the Government. They have sought to raise prices at a time when over 2·25 million people are given fuel subsidies. It is patently obvious that the poor and elderly are once more the Government's targets. One thing that is certain is that those who suffer will not be those in the income brackets which the Chancellor helped so generously in his Budget last week. I shrewdly suspect that not too many of them will figure among the 120,000 disconnections undertaken by the gas and electricity boards in a year. Nor will many of their number be among those who die as a result of cold homes. Instead, the Budget measures on building alterations and double glazing have made it much more difficult for those in real need to gain the warmth that they seek.
  In December it was estimated by the national Right to Fuel campaign, which has done so much work in this field and should be complimented by hon. Members who speak in the debate, that before the spring is out there could be as many as 44,000 deaths among those over 50 years of age and over 500 deaths of babies under a year old. As I have already said, it was a relatively mild winter and we do not know whether those estimates have been realised. None the less, the fact remains that at the end of the day many will have died as a result of those hardships. All hon.
  1086
  Members have surgeries and can well imagine the particular hardships of disconnection. In my area in the north-west they run into thousands. Many know how difficult it is, even when the debt is paid, to be reconnected. Maladministration often causes great hardship.
  That brings me to the bureaucratic nightmare that has followed the housing benefit scheme. The picture across the country has been a dismal one of huge backlogs, long delays and unnecessary suffering for those least able to cope with it. The scheme has been so disastrous that even the Government have recognised that they must have a thorough review.
  In my constituency, the Tameside welfare rights organisation has furnished me with some disturbing facts, especially about pensioners and the chronically sick who are not taking up their entitlements to heating costs, largely through ignorance. Welfare rights organisations in Britain are doing a great job. It is clear that people well below the poverty line are not heating their homes properly if they are not claiming extra help for heating. Indeed, a recent survey commissioned by the Electricity Consumers Council found that, on average, elderly people spend less on heating their homes in winter than most families do in the summer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) made that clear.
  The Government's continued indifference to the appalling consequences of fuel poverty is a scandal. We noted with interest the launching of the £100,000 advertising campaign by the Minister for Social Security to encourage people who were illegally underpaid supplementary benefit to claim the money that they are owed. I am glad that he responded to the Child Poverty Action Group's pressure on that matter, although he may think that he acted on his own initiative.
  Is it not about time that we had a similar campaign to encourage people to take up their entitlement to supplementary benefit, upon which heating allowances depend? Too high a percentage are not even within that scheme. The Minister is talking to known claimants in that campaign. We are talking about those many thousands of people who are not identifiable. It is clear that the DHSS can identify only its own claimants. We need to target those who are not getting heating allowances since they are not claiming supplementary benefit. We desperately need such a campaign, although so far the Minister has increasingly preferred to spend his money on the social security inspectors chasing people suspected of fraud. Much more important is the need for that money to increase the staffing levels in local authority and DHSS offices to deal with the problems of fuel poverty.
  The problems do not seem to go away over the years. I spoke in a debate in the House on a subject close to this in 1971. I referred then to many disgraceful incidents of pensioners in my constituency who had to stay in bed until midday because they could not afford to turn on the heating. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), did not believe what I was saying and asked me to furnish him with the facts. More importantly, the Daily Express, equally disbelieving what I was saying, sent a representative to spend two or three days in my constituency. In a major article it concluded that, if anything, I had underestimated the problem.

  1087
  This morning I received a number of letters on the subject, as I suppose has every hon. Member. One was a letter from a lady who said:
  "At the moment it is 2 pm. I am sat in the house with all the curtains shut to try and keep warm as I can only afford to heat the house in the evenings. This is heart-breaking after a lifetime's work and thrift. Perhaps Mrs. Thatcher would like to share our life-style for one month. She would be very welcome if it would do any good but being so cold-blooded she would not feel the cold. I am normally an optimist but I find I am getting very pessimistic about the future. Perhaps the bomb would be a blessing."
  She concluded ironically by saying:
  "I write on the blotting paper because I am not a wasteful person."
  That letter spells out much of what the debate is all about. One could go on, but I shall not. I shall adhere to your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will reply positively. If he does, he can only conclude at the end of the day that he must march into our Lobby.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) should have referred in such disparaging terms to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who came to the Dispatch Box this afternoon after a tremendous battle in Brussels to save the real resources of Britain for a variety of other policies, one of which must surely be the resources that are spent on energy.
  The Select Committee on Energy is grateful to the House for an opportunity to debate the second of our reports to be published in a comparatively short space of time. The debate is turning largely into one on the consequences of hypothermia and how policies should be adapted to avoid it. That is a legitimate objective and one which enjoys the sympathy of every hon. Member. However, energy policy is a much larger issue altogether when compared with that narrow, if important, segment of social policy. The difficulty is whether our energy policy should be as strongly influenced by that as some hon. Members have suggested this afternoon.
  I shall give one example of how dangerous that can be. Northern Ireland has been quoted. I believe I am right in saying that there the average figure of energy expenditure per household per week is more than £12 compared with the national average of £8·35. I believe that one of the reasons, into which we need not go now, is the fact that a very large segment of the community in Northern Ireland refuses to pay any energy bills at all. That means that the rest of the community, naturally and inevitably, has to pay a higher energy bill. That could be a national problem.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Electricity in Northern Ireland is expensive because it is produced from imported oil. We depend 90 per cent. on oil for electricity generation. We need a new strategy from the Government. Indeed, electricity charges are pegged to the level of the highest rates charged on the mainland.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that that necessarily disqualifies my argument. I am aware that other special energy considerations apply in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) suggested that a substantial segment of the housing stock in the United Kingdom should be improved. No one would
  1088
  quarrel with that generalised argument. One could pick out houses in almost any community which are examples of poor insulation and design when considered by energy criteria. In the interesting pamphlet produced by the national Right to Fuel campaign, it is stated that 5 million dwellings—28 per cent. of the total—need essential repairs to make them wind and weather proof, generally at a cost in excess of £2,500 each. One does not need a computer or a calculator to work out that the national cost of that possibly desirable suggested policy is £12·5 billion more than the whole of the yield of the North sea for one year. That gives some perspective on what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are arguing in terms of the improvement of our housing stock. These ideals should be considered carefully, but we cannot escape the consequences of such policies.
  It is important to distinguish between what the Select Committee on Energy said and what it did not say. I refer to page xii of the report, "The purpose of the enquiry", where, in eight subsections, the precise questions to which it endeavoured to find answers are stated. While I would be the first to admit that we criticised the Government on their electricity price increase, we did not substantially criticise the Government on their gas price increase, and at no time did we take into consideration—this is carefully stated in a report—the rate of return on capital in the two industries, except in so far as the financial criteria, which were applied at an early stage in the calculations, implied a rate of return, but we did not examine that.
  Opposition Members say that these industries made "great profits". I always find that term as wide as it is long. It is seldom related to the return on assets. As regards these two industries, if we had enlarged our inquiry to consider that aspect—which for various reasons we did not—we night well have had further to qualify our conclusions.
  It is helpful, and sometimes informative, to distinguish fuel poverty from poverty in general. I suppose that an absolute can be defined in the sense in which the national Right to Fuel campaign has endeavoured to define an absolute. I suggest that we may go down many puzzling roads in this respect. I was in Nepal recently. I am sure that the definition of fuel poverty in Nepal would appal the House. Nepal was running out of timber, which was the sole source of fuel in many areas. I am sure that a large proportion of the Nepalese population experienced a degree of discomfort in winter which, by comparison with the worst standard in the United Kingdom, would seem almost a paradise. Let us be careful about defining these matters so rigorously lest we set standards that others might envy.
  When one refers to fuel poverty, one might refer equally to food poverty, clothing poverty, transport poverty and housing poverty. In the family expenditure survey of 1982 some figures stand out starkly. I suggest that the prime causes of fuel poverty—if, indeed, it exists—are as follows. The basic fuel cost is the most significant element. Secondly, the high cost of building power stations in the United Kingdom makes a substantial contribution. There is the high cost of mining coal, which the House debated recently, and the high cost of oil and gas, for all sorts of reasons that hon. Members understand, not least of which is the high taxation imposed by producers and consumer Governments, regardless of the energy or social consequences of that taxation. That criticism can be applied to producer and consumer

  1089
  Governments on a broad front. Heavy taxation plays a not inconsiderable part in fuel poverty, or the proportion of all incomes taken by the consumption of fuel in a normal household.
  Another aspect is revealed by the family expenditure survey. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), opening the debate, said that those who need insulation cannot afford it. I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain figures. The level of fuel expenditure can be exaggerated. It has never exceeded 6·3 per cent. of the average household over a long period in this country, as shown in a graph in the family expenditure survey. It does not exceed 14 per cent. of one-adult households where the householder is dependent on state pension—the narrowest segment to which I know the Opposition attach so much importance. It does not exceed 11 per cent. in households occupied by single women over 60. It accounts for 5·2 per cent. of all households' disposable income. We are therefore considering one twentieth of the average household expenditure in the country.
  Fuel expenditure appears to be not elastic to income. If I may explain that somewhat ambiguous term to the House, it means that as incomes increase—and this is different from prices falling—one would expect, if all these arguments apply to the extent that Opposition Members have argued, the first priority would be an increase in expenditure on fuel, but that is not so. If one considers the figures from incomes under £40 at one end of the range to incomes of £400 at the other end of the range, the increase in fuel expenditure is from £5 to £20, but the increase in food is from £11 to £54, alcohol £2 to £17, tobacco £1·50 to £4·50, clothing £2·50 to £38, durable goods £2·20 to £34, transport £3·40 to £61, and services £3·90 to £76. Nobody would attempt to deny that, for certain important segments of the population, significant social problems are attached to the price of fuel. However, this is not a general problem for the vast majority of citizens, and that is a credit to the energy policies of successive Governments who have handled a difficult problem in a difficult area under constant criticism.
  This suggests the directions in which policies should be driven. I put them in this order. The first is conservation and insulation, where it can be made capital efficient, and the criterion is all-important. Secondly, there should be energy price redistribution up to the point at which it is an acceptable social policy which we can afford. It should also be taken in conjunction with any other social redistribution policies that we may wish to pursue. Thirdly, there should be income redistribution by taxation. However, fuel policy must also take into consideration all the other matters that need to be taken into account when such changes are made.
  Hon. Members talk of the people's right to fuel, but where there is a right, there is an obligation. In this Chamber we hear a lot about rights and very little about obligations, or meeting those rights. As Kennedy once said, they always require real resources.
  "Enough is a function of what else is important."
  We forget that time and time again. Whose obligation is it? Is it that of the state, the energy industries, or the fuel industries? Obviously, the obligation is shared by all three. However, for the country as a whole, prices must
  1090
  cover costs. The bigger the exemptions, the higher the prices in the unsubsidised sector. That conclusion is wholly inescapable.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are 10 minutes left before the concluding speeches begin. Perhaps I could ask the two hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate to speak for five minutes each.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I shall try my best to accede to your request, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not wish to waste the time of the House, I should not wish to lose this opportunity of paying tribute to the man who single handedly established—and it took great effort and personal commitment to do so—that hypothermia is a major problem in Britain. I refer to my predecessor as Liberal candidate for my constituency, Dr. Geoffrey Taylor, who, I believe, sadly died last year. His commitment to that cause brought it to the forefront of the public's imagination.
  Our support for the motion depends on both of the clauses within it. Despite what the Minister said, we believe that the Government have used fuel prices as a mechanism for raising revenue by stealth, and have sought to do so in a manner that does not come within the tax balance. I wish that the Minister had been in his seat to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who completely demolished his idea that it was not the Government's fault, that the Government were not twisting the arm of the electricity board and that the board was making its own decisions freely. That is a fig leaf behind which the Minister cannot hide his nakedness, either inside or outside the House.
  Everyone recognises that the increased electricity prices that have placed such a burden of misery and deprivation on those least capable of bearing it are a mechanism by which the Government seek to raise revenue. Nothing that the Government have recently done has more clearly demonstrated their total lack of compassion and the fact that they are out of touch with the reality of those increases for the poor and deprived, about whom they seem to know so little.
  Nevertheless, we must also blame ourselves. All Governments have taken a wrong view of energy policy. The Ronan Point disaster led us to withdraw gas from flats and to put in, instead, electricity. The installation of underfloor central heating has meant that there has not been a sufficiently flexible heating policy to allow for shutting off heaters in particular rooms, and so on. The lack of drive on insulation is particularly important.
  As the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) said, it is important that the debate should range a little more widely than hitherto. We believe that the new burden of fuel costs cannot be carried within existing supplementary benefit provisions. In addition, the additional heating allowances are woefully inadequate for the task. The problem is much greater than that. As the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) said—although he is not now in his place—we must look at it on a much broader scale.
  The Government seem to be missing a great opportunity. We must provide short-term urgent and immediate assistance to enable people to bear their heating costs and, twinned with that, there must be a major

  1091
  programme of insulation. The Minister was right to say that the Government have put more revenue and resources in than the Labour Government did, but they are still hopelessly inadequate to the task. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North exposed the Minister's figure by saying that it was about one third of the total cost paid in short-term heating bills. As has been rightly pointed out, that cost is paid now and gone tomorrow.
  Instead of making a major investment in insulation, solving the long-term problems, and making investments that will assist industry, help employment and provide a long-term resource for the people of Britain that will allow them to have adequate heating, the Government's fuel policy has exposed the compassionless heart of the Tory party as well as its lack of touch with the reality of life for the poor, old and disadvantaged. That is where the Government are most indictable. Their policy has caused a great tide of misery for those least able to cope. The Government have missed a great opportunity to help our economy, drive down unemployment and invest in the future of Britain in a way that would provide great returns and banish for ever from houses in Britain the misery and danger of cold.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Sean Hughes: It has been said that it is a minority who are suffering the most. However, it is precisely because they are a minority, and a minority who seem to get the wrong end of the stick every time, that I wish to raise a few points.
  The clear, unchallengeable fact is that those at the bottom of the earnings scale pay more proportionately for fuel, light and power than those who are better off. I shall use some figures, the first of which was mentioned, I believe, by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Households on about one third of average weekly income spend 11 per cent. of their income on fuel, light and power. Households on between 50 and 60 per cent. of average weekly income spend between 7·5 and 9·5 per cent. Those households on the average weekly income spend between 4·7 and 5·5 per cent. on fuel, light and power, while those on twice the average weekly income spend between 2·9 and 3·5 per cent. on those items.
  What makes matters worse is that the cost of fuel has risen faster than other prices or incomes, thus exacerbating the original inequality. If the retail price index stood at 100 in January 1974, it stood at 342·6 in January 1984. However, the figure for fuel and light was 469·3 and for electricity alone 492·1. Thus, the worst off are even worse off. Of course the Government can respond, as they did in the debate on low pay, that average earnings have increased and that it is only sensible that fuel prices should rise realistically in relation to that rise in income, but, as my school headmaster used to say, the point about an average is that 50 per cent. are above it and 50 per cent. are below it.
  Since the Conservative party took office, a family of four on average earnings has seen a 6 per cent. improvement in income, while a similar family on five times average earnings has enjoyed an improvement of 22 per cent. and those on 10 times average earnings have enjoyed an improvement of 54 per cent. Therefore, to accommodate the above average pay increase for the well off, there has to be, by definition, a below average pay increase for the badly off. So at every turn those at the bottom are further disadvantaged. They have to spend
  1092
  more of their income on fuel, the price of that fuel is rising faster in comparison with other goods, and they get fewer income increments to meet it. It is a new law of diminishing returns—those with least will receive less than the average percentage wage increase, while paying out the largest percentage in price increases.
  Of course, that mathematical formula of deprivation applies even further. As has been mentioned, it is the worst off in our society—the old, the sick, the unemployed and the single parents—who spend most of their time at home. They often live in homes that are damp, badly insulated, if at all, or draughty. They live in precisely the conditions that demand more money being spent on fuel—money which they do not have.
  In an article in The Guardian on 1 February Robert Davies wrote:
  "Fuel poverty is endemic to Britain. Good King Wenceslas would be struck by the irony of a society whose Parliament finds time to legislate for multi-channel cable television to reach several million homes, yet which cannot supply adequate heat for 3 million of the poorest people."
  It is a political decision to increase these prices and it would take only a little political courage to introduce the sort of measures proposed in the Opposition motion.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: There could scarcely be a starker illustration of the disinterest of the Government in fuel poverty than the Chancellor's Budget a week ago. By abolishing the investment income surcharge, he gave a tax handout of £360 million to the tiny number of very rich people with share capital in excess of £100,000 and at the same time he halved the stamp duty on share transactions. That is giving a gain of something like £1,300 per person per year in this elite category while at the same time the 9·5 million pensioners who are struggling to keep warm were almost totally forgotten. For them it was not so much the fish and chip Budget as the kerosene Budget. That was a measure of such footling triviality as to be more an insult than a concession to the elderly.
  Fuel poverty is one of the most tragic disfigurements of our society, as my my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) pointed out so eloquently and forcefully. Like poverty itself, which is increasing sharply in Thatcherite Britain, the problem is getting steadily worse because all the component causes of fuel poverty—low incomes, deteriorating housing conditions and the high relative cost of fuel—are all intensifying under Thatcherite policies. As hon. Members have said, fuel is the third most important component of the budget of the poor, after food and housing. When there are 9 million people living on the official poverty line and the Chancellor is so supremely indifferent to this group, as he showed in his Budget, it is scarcely surprising that this has become a major political issue.
  I ask the Minister to pay attention, because in his opening remarks he showed a blithe indifference to what it is like to live in fuel poverty. At the root of the problem is the fundamental and incontrovertible fact that income support arrangements for households living in poverty—on the Government's own figures that means one in six of the population of Britain today—are patently inadequate. I do not know whether the Minister realises it,

  1093
  but in the current supplementary benefit single household rate the amount set aside for fuel is £6·05 per week. I ask the Minister a simple question: does he believe that he could live on that total fuel expenditure for a week? I do not think I could; I wonder whether he could. If he has any doubts about it, he should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) because he tried to live for a week on that level of income and he was unable to keep warm.
  Fuel makes up a larger proportion of the budget of the poor than of others, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South has pointed out. Although it is true that benefit rates go up in line with the general price index, this means that poor families are not being compensated fully for the faster rise in fuel prices. That is the significance of fuel poverty as opposed to other forms of poverty. In the last five years under this Government gas prices have risen by no less than 116 per cent. and electricity prices by 66 per cent.
  There is no way that the army of fuel debtors, which numbers 1·5 million, can be fobbed off by allegations of lack of thrift or lack of prudence. Only one adequate explanation stares one in the face—that there is now an under-class whose incomes are so low that they cannot, with existing heating aids, afford adequate fuel at today's prices. There is no other explanation for the size of that figure. That is the incontrovertible fact at the heart of the debate.
  It is no use the Minister going through, as he did, all the clever paraphernalia about strengthening the code of practice, tilting the tariffs, reducing standing charges, easing debt repayments or making the disconnection procedures less arduous; all those are peripheral to the central point—that, under Thatcherite policies, low incomes have been reduced so much and fuel prices have been raised so much that fuel poverty is a major political issue.
  No amount of tinkering with the system of benefits can offer a remedy. As my hon. Friends have pointed out far more eloquently than I could, the result is clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that there are thousands of elderly people who, because they are physically vulnerable through age and disability, will die from cold-related conditions because they cannot afford on their low incomes to heat their leaking homes.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge, as none of his colleagues has done, the role of the high price of coal in the cost of electricity? Will he also acknowledge that, if the CEGB could import coal at prices some 25 per cent. lower than it has to pay for coal in this country, electricity prices could be lowered by 10 to 15 per cent.? Every time an uneconomic pit is kept open, the cost of grandmother's electricity goes up.
  Mr. Meacher: I am sorry I gave way, if that is the best the hon. Member can do. Perhaps he should realise that coal is subsidised significantly in all our competitor countries but that does not happen here. That is what makes the difference to the figures that he quoted.
  The Minister repeated today that the Government have spent more on supplementary benefit additional requirements for fuel. The point he did not make is obvious: the number on supplementary benefit because of mass
  1094
  unemployment has risen rapidly under the Government; in fact, it has risen by 70 per cent. since the Government came into office.
  The Government made a great song and dance about the home insulation programme that they inaugurated two or three years ago. In principle this is an excellent idea, and we fully support it, but the results have been pathetic. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) pointed out so forcefully, expenditure last year was £18 million, which is only a drop in the bucket compared with what is needed.
  I am glad that the Minister for Social Security will be replying to the debate because he has to answer directly for the disaster area of housing benefit. That has had a seriously damaging knock-on effect on heating. The poor take-up of housing benefit supplement, which has not improved according to the latest figures, has meant that many claimants no longer get the additional payments for fuel to which they should be entitled. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address himself to that point. The whole area of fuel poverty is a mess, with a steadily rising toll of hardship and cold-related deaths.
  Fuel pricing has been based on principles of strict long-run costs, which is perfectly reasonable. Conservation policy has also led to high fuel prices, yet the response of the DHSS has been so piecemeal and disjointed that it has failed completely to stop a fast increase in fuel poverty.
  In the face of that desultory and tragic fragmentation of Government policy towards those afflicted by fuel poverty, two fundamental reforms are needed. The first requirement is a genuine home insulation policy. I mean a genuine policy, not the one in name only that exists at present. Such a policy would save fuel, create jobs, improve the housing stock and reduce the risk of debt, disconnection and discomfort among many poor families. One can think of few reforms which for so little money would achieve all those excellent objectives.
  We need a comprehensive, direct insulation programme on the lines of the North sea gas conversion project. If that could be done, an insulation programme could also be successful. Not only would that be good social policy; it would make sound financial sense.
  The specialist groups have been mentioned in the debate. I pay tribute to the work of the national Right to Fuel campaign and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which are united in the view that financial aid for heating costs is too fragmented. I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has joined us, will accept that.
  We need a national rebate scheme for fuel, on the lines of the rent rebate scheme. It should be flexible enough to take account not only of income levels, but of the size of family, the numbers of elderly people and young children in the family, house size, the condition of the house and conservation.
  The Minister will be tempted to ask how much that will cost. Government is about determining priorities. This Government showed their priorities a week ago when they gave away £520 million to the richest 1 or 2 per cent. of the population by abolishing the surcharge on unearned income and by halving the stamp duty on Stock Exchange transactions. The same Government over the last five years have given tax handouts amounting to about £2,700 million to the same tiny group of rich people. We totally reject such values. We assert that the growing and ugly problem of fuel poverty could and should be overcome.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way. I am concluding.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his question to the Minister, because I am not giving way now.
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman want to raise a point of order?
  Mr. Wilson: I asked a specific question, and it has not been answered.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Meacher: We assert that the growing and ugly problem of fuel poverty can and must be overcome, given a Government with the will, at a fraction of the cost of the tax largesse that has been wilfully showered on a tiny number of idle and unproductive rich over the last five years. Because we are committed to the poor and not to the rich and because we assert that this Government with their priorities will never have the will to overcome the problem of fuel poverty, we seek the support of the House for our motion.
  6.43 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We have had a good debate. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said that we were discussing an important issue, and he is right. It involves energy and its costs and what one can do to ensure that the least affluent in our society have sufficient money in their pockets to buy the necessary fuel.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said that he hoped that I would reply positively. I shall take him up on that and reply positively. The motion
  "condemns the Government for increasing gas and electricity prices … ignoring the increased hardship this will create for millions of pensioners, one-parent families, low-income households, disabled people and the unemployed".
  The motion is tabled as if the Government have done nothing but bury the faces of the poor in the frost by hugely increasing the price of energy and doing nothing to help people pay for it. I have to reply positively to that in terms of what the Government have done and what the country knows we have done. I must speak the truth. I am always guided at times like this by people who lead me morally.
  There are two sides to the argument, as there are two sides to the Chamber. There is a right and wrong, and obviously I am on the right side. In a mixed economy, one must have a form of pricing which serves both the producer and the consumer. That is the way that money should operate. If one does not have that, one operates a totally Communist system, directed from on high.
  We live in a compassionate society. I do not bow to the Opposition when it comes to compassion. We share compassion.
  Mr. Winnick: It does not show.
  Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman displays an arrogance like the Pharisees of old. I certainly do not bow to him. Compassion exists on both sides of the Chamber. What can we do with the money available to ensure that people's basic needs are met? That is what the debate is about.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Boyson: No. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has done nothing but make seated interventions. I have no intention of giving way to him, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs).
  Mr. Beggs: I do not want to appeal to compassion, but does the Minister agree that British citizens in Northern Ireland should be entitled to fuel at the same respective cost as citizens on the mainland? Does he further agree that it is time that we had the interconnector between Northern Ireland and Scotland?
  Dr. Boyson: I take that on board. I am not an expert on fuel prices in Northern Ireland, but I shall study them tomorrow. Citizens throughout the United Kingdom have the same basic requirements in fuel, food and other essentials.
  What have the Government done to deserve such condemnation?
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Government have done so little.
  Dr. Boyson: That is right. Coal prices were increased last November by 3·8 per cent. after one year. Gas prices were increased this January, after 15 months, by 4·3 per cent. Electricity prices are to be increased by 2 per cent. in April, after no increase in two years. Under the last Labour Government, prices were increasing by 2 per cent. every six weeks. [Interruption.] For anyone to intemipt at that stage shows guts, if not much intelligence.
  In the last two years there has been no increase in standing charges. The February 1984 edition of "Energy Trends" shows that over the period between the fourth quarter of 1982 and the fourth quarter of 1983 coal prices were constant in real terms, domestic electricity prices fell by 5 per cent. in real terms and domestic gas prices fell by 2·6 per cent. in real terms.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Boyson: No,. the Minister will not give way. Since 1968, gas prices have risen at a lower rate than average earnings or retirement pensions.
  The second part of the Opposition's motion calls upon the Government to introduce measurs, as though we had done nothing. Let us consider the supplementary benefit heating additions introduced by the Labour Government and the increased cost of fuel and light, compared with the Government's record. We shall then see the competition of compassion and appreciate what the Government are doing about the problem.
  When the Labour Government were in office from. July 1974 to November 1978, supplementary benefit heating additions increased by 112 per cent. At the same time the heat and light components in the retail price index increased by 107 per cent., giving a tiny increase of roughly 5 per cent. in the value of heating additions provided by the Labour Government, when compared to prices. Between November 1978 and November 1983 the average supplementary benefit heating additions increased by 140 per cent., while the retail price index components for fuel and light increased by 100 per cent. In other words, there has been a 40 per cent. increase under a Conservative Government in real terms, compared with a 5 per cent. increase for a similar period under the Labour Government.

  1097
  I do not know how the Opposition can table such a motion as this. Perhaps they will withdraw it when they have heard these facts and figures. The Government are spending £130 million more on heating additions in real terms than when we came to office.
  Before the hon. Member for Oldham, West talks about unemployment, it is important for him to remember that unemployment is only one factor among many. The Government have increased the additions as well, as the figures show. In 1979–80 the Government introduced heating additions with immediate effect for those on supplementary benefit above the age of 70. The Labour Government could have done so, but did not. We came to office, saw the light and did it. The elderly had no automatic heating allowances under Labour, despite all that the Opposition have said today. We introduced heating additions for those on supplementary benefit aged 70 and older, as well as for those with children below the age of five. Hundreds of thousands of British people are grateful to the Government for introducing those additions at that time.
  We have heard good speeches on energy policy from Conservative experts on energy, although we do not always agree entirely. My hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) and for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) have both spoken on the matter, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).
  Mr. Frank Field rose——
  Dr. Boyson: I shall not give way. I am speaking my mind. I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman for whom I have the greatest regard, but I must continue with my theme and talk about the views of my hon. Friends. We have only seven minutes left before a Division.
  Reference has been made to the over-80s by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North. The Government have helped the over-70s on supplementary benefit as well as unemployed men aged 60-plus who were in need of long-term supplementary benefits. [Interruption.] Those men were in need of benefits, which the Labour Government did not provide. Now they receive £11 a week more than on short-term supplementary benefit. I appreciate that the benefit addition at the age of 80 is only 25p a week and I shall look at this matter, although I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to increase it.
  Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are listening avidly to what the Minister has to say, but if he insists on addressing his remarks to his hon. Friends with his back to the Opposition we cannot hear his important remarks.
  Dr. Boyson: I apologise. I shall not turn my back on the Opposition again.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would rather the Minister did not turn his back on me, either.
  Dr. Boyson: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. You have brought me entirely to order. I am glad that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is following my argument so closely.
  In 1978–79, towards the end of the Labour Government's period of office, £124 million was spent on
  1098
  additional heating allowances. Indexed for inflation, that would now be £250 million. We are spending £380 million—a real increase of £130 million—and more than £200 million of that goes to pensioners. Heating additions are now paid to 2·5 million households, compared with 1·6 million households in 1978, and help is now given to 1·6 million pensioners compared with 1·2 million in 1978.
  Mr. Allen Adams: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Boyson: We have given automatic heating additions to pensioners over the age of 70 and to households with children under five, as I have mentioned.
  The Opposition motion suggests that we have no insulation policy. In the last year of the Labour Government, 239,000 lofts were insulated, compared with 431,000 in 1982–83. We have almost doubled the number. All who need to insulate their lofts are eligible for a local authority grant of up to £69, or 66 per cent. of the cost. Pensioners and the severely disabled on supplementary benefit or housing benefit can obtain 90 per cent. of loft or home insulation costs up to £95. This was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, North and for Havant and by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Salford, East. We all agree on the need for insulation. The Labour Government gave some assistance, but we have increased it. The Opposition motion is therefore somewhat ungrateful.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to poverty. I refer him to the ministerial statements of his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, who said that no Government had ever accepted that the supplementary benefit level was the poverty level. The right hon. Gentleman said in answer to an oral question:
  "Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 255.]
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West should have dinner with his right hon. Friend afterwards and get the full story.
  A little nearer Christmas in the same year, the right hon. Gentleman said in a written answer:
  "It is a paradox that using supplementary benefit levels as the poverty line can mean that the number of people in poverty can increase whet} a Government improve benefit levels".—[Official Report, 13 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 497.]
  The very fact that we have increased virtually every benefit, including a 5 per cent. improvement in real terms in short-term and long-term supplementary benefit rates, means that we are now attacked for allegedly putting more people into poverty. That is the nonsense of trying to draw the poverty line in that way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk to his right hon. Friend and get this sorted out so that the same argument does not arise on every occasion. We have increased virtually every benefit since we came to office, but time does not allow me to recite the list of 18 or 20 examples.
  I conclude as I began. In a free society producing goods and services there must be a proper pricing policy related to return on assets in energy as in any other industry. This is a necessary indication for both producers and consumers. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his opening speech, there is only about a 1 per cent. return on assets in the electricity industry. There is concern

  1099
  on both sides of the House about the need to help the poorer families. We have considerably increased the help given to those families, as our amendment makes clear.
  The Government were elected and re-elected to bring inflation under control. We have not just talked about that: we have done it. The Labour Government had 110 per cent. inflation in five years. They shed no tears for the people whose life savings they destroyed. In many cases, that is why those people are now in the queue for fuel assistance. As the Gallup poll of two weeks ago showed, old people are still more concerned about the effects of inflation than the size of their pensions—no doubt because they remember their sufferings under the Labour Government.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 289.

  Division No. 197]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dubs, Alfred

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Alton, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Anderson, Donald

  Eadie, Alex

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Ellis, Raymond

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ewing, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnett, Guy

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Beggs, Roy

  Flannery, Martin

  Bell, Stuart

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Forrester, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foster, Derek

  Blair, Anthony

  Foulkes, George

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Freud, Clement

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  George, Bruce

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Golding, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Gould, Bryan

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Campbell, Ian

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hardy, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Haynes, Frank

  Clay, Robert

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Coleman, Donald

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Home Robertson, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Howells, Geraint

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  John, Brynmor

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Johnston, Russell

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Dixon, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Dormand, Jack

  Lambie, David

  Douglas, Dick

  Lamond, James

  1100

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Redmond, M.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Loyden, Edward

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ryman, John

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

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

  Marek, Dr John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Michie, William

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Strang, Gavin

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Straw, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon A, (W'shawe)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Nicholson, J.

  Tinn, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Torney, Tom

  O'Brien, William

  Wainwright, R.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wareing, Robert

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Welsh, Michael

  Park, George

  White, James

  Parry, Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Patchett, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Gordon

  Penhaligon, David

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

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

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Prescott, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Randall, Stuart

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ancram, Michael

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

  Arnold, Tom

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Conway, Derek

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Coombs, Simon

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Benyon, William

  Crouch, David

  Best, Keith

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Body, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bright, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Favell, Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Browne, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Marcus

  Butcher, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  1101

  Freeman, Roger

  Knox, David

  Gale, Roger

  Lamont, Norman

  Galley, Roy

  Lang, Ian

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Latham, Michael

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lester, Jim

  Gorst, John

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Gow, Ian

  Lightbown, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Lilley, Peter

  Greenway, Harry

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Gregory, Conal

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

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

  Lord, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Ground, Patrick

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Grylls, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maclean, David John.

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Hannam, John

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Major, John

  Harvey, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Malone, Gerald

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Maples, John

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Marland, Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hayes, J.

  Mates, Michael

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mather, Carol

  Hayward, Robert

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Heddle, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Henderson, Barry

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mellor, David

  Hickmet, Richard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hirst, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Moate, Roger

  Holt, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hooson, Tom

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hordern, Peter

  Moore, John

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

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Mudd, David

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Needham, Richard

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Neubert, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Newton, Tony

  Jackson, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Norris, Steven

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Onslow, Cranley

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Key, Robert

  Parris, Matthew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Pawsey, James

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knowles, Michael

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  1102

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stokes, John

  Porter, Barry

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Sumberg, David

  Powley, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Raff an, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Renton, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tracey, Richard

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Viggers, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ryder, Richard

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walters, Dennis

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shersby, Michael

  Watson, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Sims, Roger

  Wheeler, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Whitfield, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Speed, Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Speller, Tony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Spencer, Derek

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stanley, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stern, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Archie Hamilton

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes that increases in the prices of the nationalised energy industries are now below the rate of inflation and that the Government has maintained and improved the real value of social security particularly for the neediest members of the community.".

  Alexandra Park and Palace Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In January 1980, Alexandra park and palace were transferred from the Greater London council to the council as trustees, together with the sum of £8·5 million in consideration of the agreement by the council to accept the transfer of functions. It has been and remains the policy of the council to comply with the requirements of the trust, whilst ensuring that the expenses of the park and palace are not thrown upon the rates.
  For most of their existence over 100 years, the park and palace have been a financial liability. In agreeing to accept the transfer, the council as trustees was aware that in a short space of years the £8·5 million would be used in maintenance and repair costs and that, unless a fresh approach were made to the nature of the activities at the park and palace, losses would inevitably be incurred and the council, as local authority, would have no alternative but to turn to the rates to make good the losses. This was unacceptable.
  It was therefore resolved to ask Parliament for amending legislation to alter the powers of the trustees with respect to what activities should be permitted to take place at the park and palace. A Bill was promoted in the 1979–80 Session. Unfortunately, in July 1980 there was a serious fire at the palace, which caused substantial damage to the building and in the circumstances the council withdrew the Bill.
  The council's proposals for the palace and park are that the western end of the building, including the great hall, is to be developed largely as an exhibition centre, including an hotel, while the eastern end of the building will be set aside for cultural and leisure purposes, including sports facilities, a concert hall, a television museum and a drama school. The provision of car parking and other works in the park are also proposed. The planning application which was considered by the Secretary of State sought only such planning approvals as were necessary for the scheme, and the planning permission for the hotel has subsequently been granted.
  The present Bill takes account of the decision of the Secretary of State. Part of that development is already within the statutory powers of the trustees. The Bill amends the acts of 1900 and 1913 and the 1966 order and, for convenience, those Acts and that Order, as amended, are scheduled to the Bill. A number of other minor amendments to the trustees' powers are also proposed.
  Use of the park and palace in accordance with the existing Acts and order, as amended and added to by the Bill, would be in accordance with the duties of the trustees. The trustees believe that these proposals represent the best way in which the park and palace can be made financially viable without imposing a burden on the ratepayers. They also believe that the proposals are the most appropriate compromise between various conflicting interests and claims on the use of the park and palace.
  May I, on behalf of the promoters, give the House this undertaking:
  1104
  "The Promoters undertake that at no stage in the passage of the Bill will they seek to introduce an amendment the effect of which is to empower the Council to insist on the appointment of the chairman of the proposed advisory committee."
  I hope that the House will accept that and the way in which the promoters present the statement to the House.
  Perhaps I can comment on remarks which have been made since the statement of the promoters was circulated to every Member of the House. When it was first circulated, I and others were asked it there was unanimity of opinion within the borough. I must say, in all honesty, that there are some controversies and differences of opinion arising out of the very nature of Haringey as it has been since 1963, an amalgamation of existing boroughs which represent very different groups of people and income levels.
  The amenities at either end of the borough are startlingly different. The borough runs east-west and, according to the degree of eastern interest as against western interest, the differences are quite marked. For instance, in the western end of the borough there are some 3,000 acres of woodland and open green space. Within that 3,000 acres there are two golf courses as well as the palace, and there are also some other protected areas. Near the palace itself is a wildlife conservation area. From that point of view it has an extremely privileged position within the borough as against the eastern end, where there are scant facilities of this sort and very little open space because virtually the whole of the Lea valley is taken up with reservoirs and water-covered areas. There is certainly very little access for people at the eastern end. Because of that geographical difference, those who live in the more densely populated end of the borough are envious of those who live a little more luxuriously in the western end.
  It is worth noting that the rate yield per acre from the eastern end of the borough is greater than from the western end, although I immediately concede that people living around the Alexandra palace area pay higher rates than those who live at the eastern end of the borough.
  There is communication between the two parts of the borough. Tottenham has one of the most noted heronries in the country on the River Lea. Each night, the heron communicate between east and west. I understand that underneath their flight path they have nicked every goldfish between Tottenham and Alexandra palace. At one time, the RAF seriously suggested that it would make available fighter aircraft and electronic surveillance equipment to discover what the heron were doing at night, and some hon. Members may recollect the correspondence in The Times.
  More seriously, my final point relates to the rates and the amenity itself. As I have already mentioned, the undertaking by the promoters that the activity must be self-viable means that the people who will most enjoy the amenity will not contribute to its upkeep through the rates. However, some other problems will be involved, and I readily acknowledge the existence of those problems. Because of the essential viability of commercial enterprise within the palace area there will, of necessity, be events during the year that attract 10,000 or possibly more people. That could mean the arrival of 4,000 vehicles—on one occasion there were 4,000 motor cycles—which could cause disruption to the amenities of the area.
  However, we cannot have it both ways. If there is to be commercial viability, of necessity there must be disruption to the area. That must follow, if there is to be

  1105
  no charge to the rates. If it were decided that vehicles would not pass through the neighbourhood, the only alternative would be a charge on the rates.
  The promoters have, however, given an assurance to minimise any disturbance. They have said that they will take all possible measures, within the terms of the proposals of the amenity committee, to avoid the sort of disturbance to which I have referred. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.22 pm
  Sir Hugh Rossi: Listening to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) move the Second Reading and describe the large amount of open space that my constituency has the good fortune to enjoy, I wondered for a moment whether he was going to suggest that we should use that land to build houses and industrial premises. Fortunately, he is promoting a Bill part of the objective of which is to preserve the open space in the parkland surrounding the Alexandra palace.
  I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting the instruction to the Committee on the Bill which stands in my name. In recommending it to the House, I should point out that its terms have been agreed by the Bill's sponsors, after protracted negotiations. It is in return for their agreement that I do not propose to divide the House on the Bill.
  The instruction flows directly from the recommendation made by the inspector of the planning inquiry into the proposals by the London borough of Haringey for this 200-acre site, which lies in the centre of my constituency, and for the burnt-out shell of a substantial Victorian building which dominates the landscape of north London.
  The Alexandra palace and park have had a chequered history, as the hon. Member for Tottenham has just mentioned. The palace was first built in 1875 and has been burnt down twice. It has been through a number of hands—private owners and public trustees—and in January 1980 the GLC paid the London borough of Haringey more than £8 million to take it off its hands. At the time, Sir Horace Cutler described that transaction as the best property deal he had ever made in his entire professional and public life. But divine providence came to the assistance of Haringey, and six months after it acquired the building and £8 million, the palace was substantially destroyed and damaged by fire. That produced an insurance settlement of £ 18·5 million, which has been well invested since.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment then agreed to the public inquiry into the future of the site, which has considerable regional significance. The proposals before the inspector included the provision of 11,360 sq metres of exhibition space, including back-up areas. No other venue south of Birmingham can provide between 2,500 and 10,000 sq metres of clear span, solid floor space with at least 9 metres head room, except for Olympia. Thus the importance of these proposals.
  They also included extensive leisure and recreational facilities, a concert hall with a fine Willis organ, museum, theatres and drama school. Deemed planning permission has already been given by Haringey to itself to build a hotel and provide 10 acres of parking space.
  1106
  After hearing evidence for five months into these proposals, with a great number of local objections, the inspector produced a detailed 200-page report in which he concluded:
  "the proposals would benefit the local and wider community firstly, by preserving a building of considerable character and historical interest which forms an important landmark on the London skyline and which is held in affectionate regard by many people. Secondly, by providing a modern exhibition and public events venue of a suitable size for London, which is likely to benefit the exhibition industry and visiting public. Thirdly, by providing recreational and leisure facilities for the use of people living both in and around the borough. Fourthly, by improvement to the Park which would upgrade it to Metropolitan park standards."
  However, the inspector drew attention to several disadvantages, the main one of which stemmed
  "from the impact on the area due to excessive volumes of traffic and numbers of parked cars which may be generated by events at the Palace."
  He recognised that considerable problems had been caused to local residents in the past and the objections these had generated to the council's current proposals before him. However, he went on to say:
  "I feel that it would be wrong to condemn a potentially beneficial scheme just because it might be mis-managed in the future. However, in view of the history of past problems, including for example the noise disturbance caused by the recent Jam Concert at the Pavilion, some arrangement for independent monitoring and control of the running of the Palace is needed."
  He suggested the setting up of a small advisory committee, independent of the Haringey council but upon which there would be equality of representation, to keep an eye on activities at the palace in terms of their impact on the area. Excessive interference in the running of the palace would, he said, be undesirable, but the committee should have some form of veto on the type and size of events proposed.
  As we all know, the inspector had no power to make the setting up of such a body a condition of the grant of planning permission. The Secretary of State—who endorsed the findings, including the establishment of the committee—does not have that power either. Unfortunately, Haringey was not for a while disposed to set up a committee voluntarily, seeking to rely on an advisory body which it dominates and which, according to the inspector,
  "is not … a suitable body to exercise such control."
  Hence my need to trouble the House. However, agreement has finally been reached with the sponsors, on the basis of the inspector's recommendation.
  Paragraph (1) of the instruction carries through the recommendation by requiring the establishment of an advisory committee upon which the local authority and local residents' associations will have equal representation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for his parliamentary undertaking that the council will not seek at any stage during the passage of the Bill to produce an amendment which would give it the right to appoint the chairman of the committee.
  The committee will advise on events and activities in the palace and park with a view to ensuring that they do not cause nuisance or annoyance, and are not of detriment to the amenities of local residents. No absolute right of veto is proposed, as this could amount to excessive interference in the running of the palace, but the council will have to give full, proper and due weight to the advice that it receives and to do its best to carry out the recommendations of the independent statutory committee.

  1107
  Paragraph (2) seeks to ensure that the affairs of the palace are conducted in a prudent and businesslike manner, that the council does not overreach itself and that no burden or cost falls upon the ratepayers, who bear the heaviest burden in the whole of greater London. The hon. Member for Tottenham will be relieved about this, since his constituents fall within that body of ratepayers. This paragraph covers an undertaking given repeatedly by the council when putting forward its proposals.
  Paragraph (3) deals with the vexed question of car parking in adjoining streets. The inspector found that
  "the introduction of car parking charges in the park"
  —as proposed in the Bill—
  "would make street parking an … attractive proposition."
  On the other hand, if no charges are made, it would be difficult to cover the cost of—for instance—a multistorey car park. The inspector said:
  "the Borough Council should reconsider the possibility of introducing residents' parking permits, or some similar measure, in the surrounding area."
  Such permits could be issued free to local residents, enforcement taking place only on the occasion of major public events.
  However, the Bill cannot deal with what happens outside the palace and the park. Therefore, that third and final paragraph requires the Committee on the Bill to satisfy itself on this matter, as it can do by receiving appropriate parliamentary undertakings from the sponsors.
  Having explained the intent of the instruction and the reasons for its being made, that there has been agreement between the sponsors and myself, and that we seek only to give effect to the proposals of an independent planning inspector who heard evidence for over five months in order to assess the position for himself, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I wish to declare an interest as a ratepayer in Haringey and as one who was a member of the council of the London borough of Hackney for nine years, representing two wards immediately adjacent to the palace and park. As one whose family has lived in the Hornsey area for over 150 years, I can claim to have some knowledge of the area.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) on the way in which he presented his case and the grace with which he conceded the instruction which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has tabled. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green on the way in which he tabled the instruction and the work that he has done for his constituents, of whom, in part, I am still one, in trying to obtain relief for them.
  I was in a small way responsible for objecting to the Bill, in loco parentis for my hon. Friend, who was then
  1108
  a Minister and therefore unable to do so. I am delighted with the instruction which now appears on the Order Paper and I wish the palace and the park, and the adjacent residents, good fortune. This important site in north London has a great history and, I believe, a great future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second ime and committed.
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction
  1. (a) that they amend the Bill by including a provision establishing a statutory advisory committee to assist the Trustees in fulfilling the Trusts and ensuring that no activities undertaken or permitted by the Trustees in Alexandra Park and Palace shall be a nuisance or annoyance or of detriment to the amenities of local residents;

  (b) that the statutory advisory committee shag he composed as follows:

  (i) eight Councillors appointed by the council of the London Borough of Haringey of whicn not less than one shall represent each of the wards currently known as Alexandra, Bowes Park, Fortis Green, Hornsey Central, Muswell Hill and Noel Park; and

  (ii) eight representatives of local residents associations from within the above named wards;

  (c) that the powers and duties of the Committee shall be to consider and advise the Trustees on the following matters—

  (i) the general policy relating to the activities and events arranged or permitted in the Palace and Park;

  (ii) the effects of such activities and events upon the local inhabitants and local environment;

  (iii) the frequency of activities and events attracting more than 10,000 people at any one time and the maximum number to be permitted on such occasions;

  (iv) the adequacy of car parking arrangements within the Palace and Park so as to avoid overflow into adjoining residential streets;

  (v) any proposals which require planning permission;

  (vi) the establishment and maintenance of the Park as a Metropolitan Park;

  (vii) the furtherance of recreation and leisure in the Alexandra Palace and Park;

  (viii) such other matters as the Committee to which the Bill is referred may consider appropriate;

  (d) that the Trustees shall consult the statutory advisory committee on all matters listed in (c) above, shall have due and proper regard to the advice received, and shall use their best endeavours to give effect to such reasonable recommendations of the statutory advisory committee as are consistent with the Trusts;

  2. That, subject to the approval of the Charity Commissioners, they amend the Bill by including a provision that nothing therein shall permit any contribution to be made out of the Rate Fund by the London Borough of Haringey towards any of the expenses of the maintenance, management or administration of the Park and Palace; and
  3. That they satisfy themselves that the Council of the London Borough of Haringey will take all reasonable steps to ensure that car parking does not occur in residential streets near the Palace and Park as a result of the activities and events therein.—[Sir Hugh Rossi.]

  European Community (Information Technology)
  7.37 pm
  The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7619/83 concerning the proposed European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology (ESPRIT); and supports the Government's endorsement of the programme at the Research Council on 28th February as helping to strengthen the technological competitiveness of the Community's information technology industry.
  I am aware that the motion must be set against the background of the current difficulties facing the Community, the breakdown of talks yesterday over the future funding of the Community, and the attempts to establish a solid financial base for its future development. The Prime Minister made clear in her statement today the Government's determination to resolve the difficulties so that we shall have a fairer and more secure Community which can play its full role in the world. My right hon. Friend said:
  "We shall, however, persevere in our efforts to achieve reform of its finances and to make its internal and external policies more relevant to the needs of today's world. I want to see a more effective Community, developing its full potential."
  Our debate tonight should serve as a signal of our commitment to the development of industrial collaboration in Europe in the vital area of information technology.
  The House will be aware that the European Community has for some time been discussing ESPRIT as part of the overall research and development strategy formulated when I was president of the Research Council in 1981. The aim of the programme is to lay the basis for Europe to compete in advanced information technology with Japan and the United States. That Europe has major strengths in IT is not in doubt, but it is clear that these strengths have not always been used to the full. As the introduction to the ESPRIT proposal says, Europe's industry commands only 10 per cent. of the world IT market and less than 40 per cent. of the indigenous European market. Unless we can do better than that, the trade deficits in all IT products will continue to grow substantially. We must improve the position. That has been recognised by the Community and by Europe's IT industry, which have come together in a most encouraging way in the preparation of the ESPRIT programme.
  I shall now consider what is happening in Japan and America, as they pose a challenge for Europe. We must ensure that we retain our standing in advanced technology. Europe's competitive position is weaker and our major rivals in America and Japan have embarked upon substantial programmes to maintain or increase their technological lead.
  The Japanese Government are reported to be investing some £200 million in their fifth generation programme, which is designed to extend the frontiers of information technology beyond data processing and computation into knowledge processing. This programme, which is only the latest in a series of Japanese programmes which have the stated objective of securing 40 per cent. of the world market in IT, has rightly been seen as a challenge which other countries will need to match. Our own Alvey programme has been set up to provide the national basis for meeting this challenge.
  1110
  I remind the House that the Alvey programme for cooperative pre-competitive research amounts to some £350 million during the next five years—£200 million from the Government and £150 million from industry. It concerns research into the next generation of computers. It is probably the biggest national research programme since the jet engine.
  Other countries in Europe have also set up national programmes—that of West Germany was announced only last week. They have taken the same view as us—that there is a need for a national and a Community effort, each reinforcing and complementing the other.
  American industry is also organising itself in response to Japan's fifth generation programme. The strengths of America's IT corporations are well known and are now being pulled together through various collaborative ventures such as the Semiconductor Research Corporation and the Microelectronics and Computer Corporation. In addition to these private sector-led ventures, there are also major Government-sponsored programmes operated by the United States Department of Defence.
  The ESPRIT programme covers research and development in five vital areas of information technology. The first is advanced microelectronics. Europe is heavily dependent on microelectronic components purchased from America or Japan and this over-dependence is at the root of our general lack of competitiveness in IT. It is essential to have a national and a European capability to produce the most advanced microcircuits and microchips, as they will help our industries in the early development of hardware. If they are developed in America and Japan first, companies there will develop the ensuing equipment earlier.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was with pleasure that I accompanied the Minister on a visit to Nippon Electric at Livingston last year. He told me of the enormous sums of Government money that had been poured into that company, which even now employs only some 70 youngsters and a few Japanese engineers. How does all this tie in with the huge quantity of taxpayers' money which, rightly or wrongly, is going to several formidable international corporations? I also represent Hewlett-Packard, and the same argument applies to the Americans.
  Mr. Baker: I remember the visit well. Nippon Electric is an important development in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is the first stage of what I hope will be a full production facility. At the moment, the large factory that we visited is used for assembling microchips. I agree that it employs only about 70 or 80 people, but it is doing the type of work which has hitherto been done offshore, in Taiwan or Korea. It is interesting that we have reached the point at which the post-assembly of chips is done onshore. Nippon Electric plans to do post-assembly onshore, and I believe that this year or next year it will develop the manufacturing capability for the microchip—the ovens, the baking of chips and the implantation of images on them.
  I remind the House that Scotland has been extremely fortunate in attracting a high level of overseas investment in the electronics industry. In addition to Nippon Electric, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is Hewlett-Packard at South Queensferry, the investment of which will produce another 700 jobs. National Semi-Conductor recently

  1111
  announced an investment of £100 million in chip manufacture in Scotland. We also have the Motorola investments in the south of England. Only yesterday I celebrated with Commodore the building of a factory in Corby which is to make about 2 million microcomputers a year, 75 per cent. of which will be exported. That is all excellent news for Britain. We have undoubtedly become a magnet for overseas investment in electronics on a substantial scale. It is therefore all the more important for us to have the underlying research and development in companies and universities to ensure that that thrust continues. I believe that we are ahead of many of our European partners, but that lead will not be retained unless we have our own national research programme and a cooperative international research programme.
  There is a consensus that Europe must become more self-sufficient. The research teams in our IT firms and research centres are the basis of our self-sufficiency. The benefits of linking such teams across national frontiers could be substantial.
  The second technical area of ESPRIT is software technology. Software development in Europe and elsewhere still has more of the characteristics of a craft than the true engineering discipline which it must become. There is an urgent need for powerful techniques to produce cheaper, more reliable and standardised software. That will lead to higher productivity. The size of the British market for software is estimated to be about £2 billion a year. There are no accurate figures, but it appears to have grown enormously from a few hundred million a year in the middle and late 1970s. The programme of work in software technology is exciting. It is an area in which British organisations—our software houses, larger electronics companies and universities—will be well placed to take part.
  The third technical aspect of the ESPRIT programme is advanced information processing in which the thrust will be on knowledge-based systems. This is perhaps the most futuristic part of ESPRIT, as the aim is to develop computers with reasoning capacity to allow the accumulated knowledge and experience of human experts, such as doctors, to be put on to a data base. A huge data base for diagnostic purposes will be much closer to the human mind than the present generation of computers. Such research work is at the very frontier of knowledge and will require work in single processing so that machines can deal with speech, images, how the brain works in cognitive science and human factors.
  The three areas which I have so far mentioned cover the key technologies at the core of TT. Their mastery is the key to the application of IT and to the competitiveness of Europe's IT industry. Europe lags behind Japan and America in the supply and use of these systems, and for this reason two other areas have been chosen for ESPRIT because of their growth potential and importance. They are office systems and computer integrated manufacture.
  A key dimension of ESPRIT will be that Europe as a whole will be encouraged to work to common standards and conventions. That is of special importance in the IT sector, in which it is not viable for any one company or country in Europe to operate on its own with incompatible products.
  ESPRIT should also give a real impetus to collaboration between European firms outside the specific fields of research and development included in the programme. This spill-over effect is already happening. It is for United
  1112
  Kingdom firms to decide the extent of their links with Europe, but Europe is a large market which it is open to our IT industry to penetrate. ESPRIT, European standards and wider collaboration can assist this penetration.
  I do not think that we are making anything like the progress that we should be making in Europe in agreeing common standards. It is a very difficult task. There are so many different areas of IT that it will be impossible to develop European products that can be sold easily right across the world unless there is movement on standards. There are so many different bodies and I think that this is an area in which the new European Community will be able to play a much greater and more determining role.
  ESPRIT is an ambitious project and it was right to test the commitment of European industry by pilot proposals. The formal ESPRIT proposal was introduced in June 1983 only after a pilot stage which the Community agreed in December 1982. The contracts for the pilot projects were let last year and there were 38 in all. I do not know whether the proposals have been laid before the House, but I should be very happy to see that they are, because they are very interesting.
  The United Kingdom was very successful in securing participation in these projects; it is involved in over half of them and in the lead in about one third. So this is a Community programme in which there is a very positive net benefit to the United Kingdom and British companies. We have a more influential and involved role than any other member state of the Community.
  The British representation includes major IT companies such as GEC, Plessey and ICL; software houses such as Logica, Scicon and SLD; engineering firms such as Babcock Power and British Leyland; research bodies such as Cranfield Institute of Technology and the Welding Institute Ltd., both outstanding research bodies in the United Kingdom; and several universities, including Newcastle, Southampton and Queen Mary college. The projects in which Britain is involved are wide-ranging. They include a high level computer-assisted design system; a software production and maintenance system; advanced algorithms and architecture for signal processing; standardisation of local area networks; and' the exploitation of real time imaging for arc welding. The British participation in the pilot phase reflects our expertise in these areas. I am sure that the House will join me in expressing pleasure that British companies and universities have taken such a prominent position in the ESPRIT programme and are doing so well.
  I have talked to the companies and to some of the universities involved in ESPRIT and the undoubted view is that this is an excellent programme. They have already benefited from co-operating with the French, the Germans, Danish and Dutch universities and Italian companies. This is already beginning to show through in their own research programmes.
  When the proposal for the main programme was introduced, it was clear that it enjoyed general support throughout the Community. The Stuttgart summit endorsed ESPRIT as an exemplary project. The United Kingdom has always attached a high priority to ESPRIT, which we see as just the kind of new policy which the Community needs for its future development.
  Although there has been strong support for the ESPRIT proposal and a determination that the programme should be established, its scale has posed difficulties. ESPRIT will cost 1,500 mecu over five years. Half of this—

  1113
  some £430 million—will be borne by the Community, the other half by the participants. I am sure that the House appreciates that half the money will come from Community sources but that half will have to be paid by the various institutions and companies which co-operate in ESPRIT projects.
  It was therefore necessary to find a basis for financing the programme within the budetary framework for research and development. Essentially, it is a question of priorities, and at the Research Council on 28 February the Community agreed that ESPRIT was of sufficient priority for the necessary funds to be allocated to it over the next five years within the research and development resources available to the Community.
  Mr. Dalyell: Would the Minister confirm that almost more money is spent by one Japanese firm, or possibly three Japanese firms, and almost more money is spent by four, if not five, American firms, and that all the money that has been promised to ESPRIT is peanuts compared to what is spent in Japan and America?
  Mr. Baker: I would not agree that the sums of money we are talking about are peanuts. This represents a programme of some £900 million—£860 million, to be precise—half of which is going to be provided by companies and half by the research and development body of the European Community. On top of that, we have to take into account all the individual national research programmes. Our own, just in this area, is £350 million. Germany announced a programme last week of £600 million or £700 million. The House will remember that, in the Budget debate on Monday of this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a further £170 million or £180 million of assistance to high technology, of which £120 million was to be for the development of microchips. We have committed that money over the next six years, in addition to Alvey and ESPRIT, because we want to ensure that the research which is being done in the ESPRIT and Alvey programmes is developed in products that can be sold in the market places of this country and of the world.
  At the Research Council member states were also concerned to secure an effective technical work plan and adequate management arrangements for the programme. Important improvements have been made to the original management proposals which will have the effect of involving member states directly in decisions on major projects and the general direction of the programme. This is a point on which we rightly insisted. We have also pressed for much of the management to be carried out by people on secondment from industry rather than by permanent officials. That is a very important change.
  As to the technical work plan, considerable effort has gone into drawing up a technical programme for ESPRIT. Industry has been closely involved in this process and many British firms have played their part. I regard this involvement of companies as extremely important as a means of ensuring that the programme is not just a bureaucratic exercise but is genuinely affected by the market place. All who are concerned with sponsoring and supporting research in our laboratories—this goes for previous Governments as well—have been impatient that a lot of our research and development does not get into the market place quickly enough. With programmes such
  1114
  as Alvey and ESPRIT, a system is necessary to pull all this out of the laboratory into developing projects and products.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On this point, I absolutely agree with what the Minister has said. Would he agree that one of the most valuable aspects of the ESPRIT proposal is the yearly review which is going to be conducted and that this will be a very important mechanism to ensure that it does not fall into the hands of the Eurocrats in Brussels? Admitting that, as I see he is doing, will he tell us precisely what form he would wish that review to take? It is nice to have that written into the agreement but it is really the mechanism and the form that that annual review will take that will determine whether it will be effective.
  Mr. Baker: We would envisage that the annual review would be undertaken and a report would be prepared by the Commission and the secretariat that deals with the ESPRIT proposal and submitted to the Governments and the Research Council. I should be very happy to make documents of this sort available to the House. What we are doing more and more is make available the research that the Government pay for by publishing the results at an early stage. Some research gets published through scientific journals, but in various other projects—we are going to do it with Alvey, for example, and we are doing it with the office project pilot schemes—we are publishing the results of our developments so that people can benefit from them. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and I will do as I have said.
  Agreement on ESPRIT has been possible only because of the importance which all member states have attached to the programme. As I have said, there has been considerable discussion within the Community on the funding of ESPRIT, its management and the technical work plan. I very much regret that the time scale for resolving these issues was such that the House was not able to debate the proposals in detail before the council decision. The conditions allowing ESPRIT to proceed moved quickly over the days preceding the Council meeting and only fell into place on the day of the Research council meeting, by which time there was a clear necessity to take a decision if the programme was to be agreed in keeping with the original time scale.
  Even though agreement had been reached on the main decision for ESPRIT, no progress would have been possible unless the work plan had been endorsed at the same time, and provision was made for this in the decision itself, although subsequent annual work plans will come before the council well before their need to be adopted. I hope that hon. Members can accept it was necessary to endorse the work plan at the Research Council, even though it had not been formally reported on by the Scrutiny Committee.
  I have great sympathy with the view that we should try to arrange debates before decisions are taken. In this case, events moved quickly and a decision had to be taken. I regret that, as I would have much preferred a debate. This debate provides an opportunity for hon. Members to give their views on the work plan and the Government will take these into account when considering the Commission's proposal for the next work plans. There are occasions when the timetable of events in the Community does not allow us to debate some proposals in the House. I regret that ESPRIT fell into this category.

  1115
  I regard ESPRIT as one of the most exciting initiatives that the Community has taken. I hope that it will involve the sort of co-operation that will characterise future development of the Community. It presents major opportunities for Europe to build on its IT capability and to benefit from collaboration. I have no doubt that the United Kingdom must sieze these opportunities to the full. As I said earlier, Europe has to come together technologically if it is to meet the challenge from America and Japan. This programme allows that to happen.
  The programme cannot make this happen—that must depend on the universities and the talents and abilities in the companies and the research departments. We are at least providing the means and possibility for that to happen. That is why I hope that the House will endorse this most important programme.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank our colleagues on the Select Committee on European Legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing and other colleagues of all parties who do unsung work on a non-party basis for the House have had the good sense to put this subject forward as being worthy of debate. Often the Select Committee does not get credit, so I give it credit for this and for the work that it does on behalf of the House as a whole.
  I am in the position of a bad fairy—a bad fairy whose heart wants to believe in ESPRIT but whose head tells him that certain questions should be asked. Therefore, my speech will be in the form of a number of questions to the Minister, but not, I hope, in too curmudgeonly a spirit. He can judge that for himself.
  First, on universities and finance, I point out to the Minister that last night, about midnight, a group of us were pleading with his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, for the department of pharmacy at the Heriot-Watt university to be kept open. In an age when a number of science and technology departments of our universities are being closed, are we sure that money is best spent in this way?
  What consultations have taken place with the University Grants Committee about ESPRIT money? The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science rather wrung his hands—I am not criticising him—and said that as a Minister he could not tell Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, the chairman of the UGC, what to do with the choices that come within its orbit. Does the ESPRIT programme fit in with the priorities of the UGC? Has the UGC agreed on all this? If so, may we have examples of particular university departments that are being helped by ESPRIT money?
  My second question relates to personnel. The Minister said that he was glad that personnel were to be seconded from industry rather than that decisions should be made by professional civil servants. I am not one of those who criticise professional civil servants as bureaucrats. Often their decisions are as good as anybody else's, and sometimes a good deal better. What is more, if decisions are not made by professional civil servants, what is the basis of continuity? I should like to know a little abaut the folk who will be seconded. For how long will they be seconded, from where, and on what basis and criteria?
  Mr. Rob Hayward:: The hon. Gentleman asked about education departments that are
  1116
  already involved in this project. Strathclyde university, which is close to his constituency, is already involved in one of the initial projects.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not doubt that; but if there is to be an overall pattern and if all this money is to be put in, there must be an overall plan. This is an important issue, because, without an overall plan, there might be some difficulty in allocating ESPRIT money between universities.
  My third question relates to standards. Here my heart goes out to the Minister. For some years I used to have to listen to Mr. Spinelli—enough said—when he was Commissioner for Technology. To be fair to Mr. Spinelli, and particularly to Guido Brunner when he `lad that portfolio, those Commissioners sweated their proverbial guts out to get some sort of standardisation.
  I do not want to tell my grandmother how to suck eggs, but the Minister knows that this is all about money. If there is to be standardisation along the suggested line, which the Minister said was an important objective, who will pay for it? Huge amounts of compensation will be involved. Time and again, when I was exiled to the European Parliament and was on the Budget Committee, it became clear that we could have standardisation—for example, the Energy Committee in Brussels was told this—but at a cost! Is this a priority for the European taxpayer? Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on this point about standardisation.
  My fourth question is on a fundamental issue. We go back to the Japanese and their fifth generation computers. The Minister will recollect the sum that he told me—I think that the conversation was private, so I shall not repeat it—that was going to Nippon Electric from Government money, of all sources. The sums are substantial. Can we afford to subsidise the great international companies and then, concurrently, say that we must have a European scheme?
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that large investment projects, such as that of the Nippon Electric silicon plant, are internationally mobile. The company has the choice of putting the factory here, in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, or some other part of the world. Therefore, as he knows, we have programmes of assistance to attract those internationally mobile investment programmes to this country. I do not apologise for that, because it strengthens the base of what is happening in Scotland in electronics. One of the reasons why Scotland has done so well in the electronic age is that, with assistance from successive Governments, it has attracted big international companies and a range of investments. It has built up its own attraction. It acts as a magnet, and people and companies come of their own volition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to say that he wishes us to dismantle such support, because, if he did, we should lose some of those internationally mobile projects.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but the reply to that is that we shall have to go on attracting such people.
  Mr. Baker: One is beginning to see that happening in Scotland. Companies are coming of their own volition, because a critical mass has been built up. A critical mass is not just a number of companies in related industries, but changes in the education infrastructures producing a

  1117
  greater number of technicians, electronic engineers or computer scientists. By using the money as catalytic or magnetic money, one is not committed to doing it for ever. One builds up a capability which acts as its own attraction.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am not goading the Minister, but I shall be interested to hear in his winding-up speech how the ESPRIT programme will help to create what he calls this "critical mass".
  All I am saying is that other firms in the category of Nippon Electric come along to Scotland and other areas, inevitably ask for huge amounts of Government money and be given it. There are so many competing factions for Government expenditure. We should not forget that just up the road from Nippon Electric is Leyland at Bathgate, where many more people are employed. If anything happens to Leyland for want of Government money and looking at the matter from the point of view of employment, I know what most of my constituents will think.
  I do not want to be ostrich-like or Luddite about the matter, but I gently ask the question: if we are to attract great international firms, are we sure that we should also put money on this scale into the ESPRIT programme? Is it not one or the other? If the House can be persuaded that the two are complementary, I shall be quite satisfied.
  I want to ask a number of specific questions. The document, in page 2, says:
  "Measures taken so far, however, have not been sufficient to reverse the trend, and by and large have only managed to slow down the deteriorating process. The situation threatens now to get dramatically worse: our balance of payments in IT products and services".
  Could we have some flesh on that? What is the Government's estimate of how dramatically worse it is likely to become? It would certainly be useful if the Minister could tell us that.
  That last paragraph in page 3 says:
  "Long lead-time R&D at precompetitive level, sufficiently upstream of the product development phase, would appear a suitable domain for such co-operative action, and one which could be started without delay."
  It says:
  "could be started without delay".
  Are we to start it without delay? What is the time
  In page 4, paragraph 3, we read that
  "in the sector in Europe of some $5 billion per year and given the fact that the largest American companies active in the field invest every year, individually, some US $2 billion."
  I do not want to give the figures, because I cannot remember whether I was given the information privately or publicly, but I can say that the Hewlett-Packard investment is enormous in this respect. Furthermore, the distinction that some of us would like to make about incoming companies is that Hewlett-Packard, for instance, to its enormous credit, does its advanced work and research in its international divisions, others tend to use such factories as they have as supplies or sales offices for Europe. I do not mean Nippon Electric. We shall have to wait and see.
  However, the Minister knows, as does every hon. Member, that some Japanese firms, which had marvellous intentions when they started, nevertheless had a sales point of getting into Europe. Is that not so? That distinction must be made, and we should be very clear on what basis such firms are setting up.
  The document, in page 8, says:
  1118
  "By 1980 the trade deficit had reached $5 billion, and according to certain sources, the $10 billion mark was passed in 1982.
  The problem of the trade deficit is compounded by the fact that Community imports are primarily high technology products—such as central processing units and computer memories—from the United States and Japan, while its exports"—
  here I come to the point—
  "are the more mature older technology products that formed its past strength but are now only of interest as a replacement market and for the less developed countries."
  On the question of mature products, can we be sure that the ESPRIT programme and the giving of money will act quickly enough? We come back to the matter of decision-making. One of the striking aspects of the success of Hewlett-Packard is how quickly it gets decisions out of Stamford and its Californian headquarters. That is one of the main reasons for its success.
  The Minister must agree that there have been endless delays with the ESPRIT programme. I shall not go into them. How will we avoid delay in the decision-making in the ESPRIT programme? It may be overcome, and it may be just a question of being convinced.
  That brings me to page 10, paragraph 17:
  "The main criterion used in defining the R & D work was to be highly selective in order to enable the programme to focus on the key technological factors."
  Who will carry out the selection-making? I see the Minister's adviser holding up a document. Perhaps it is the same document that I read on this subject, but it does not make clear who is to make the decisions. Here we are concerned with the speed of decisions.
  Paragraph 21, in page 12, says:
  "Funds will be made available to launch in the Community cooperative projects of precompetitive industrial R & D falling within agreed strategic technological lines."
  Agreed by whom? How long will this agreement take? It is easy to make cheap remarks about European decision-making but frankly, after this week, as well as the past years, what evidence is there that any agreement will be reached quickly? We may be told that things will be different in this area from the macropolitical area.
  All I can say to the Minister, with total good will, is that I served for four years as a member of the Energy Committee of the indirectly elected European Parliament, and things were sometimes as slow as the Dickensian circumlocution office. Will things be different in future? The Minister smiles. If he can persuade us that things will be different, he is a man of magic. He will have transformed the continent! However, that is counter to the frustrating experience that some of us have had.
  The document, in page 14, says:
  "Projects that rely mainly on flexible infrastructure and on individual thinking rather than on a system approach, and require relatively much smaller resources. Such activities, that will be referred to as type B projects, could range from very long term, very speculative R & D to relatively shorter term very specifically oriented R & D".
  Who will choose those projects? Will it be the people who are seconded? Will it be the Department? I do not cast any contemptuous glances. On the contrary, I think that the civil servants have probably given good advice. Nevertheless, who will choose those smaller projects? Will it be done on a commercial basis? Will it be done on a short-term or long-term commercial basis?
  In paragraph 26, we read:
  "The remaining 50 per cent. should normally be provided by the industry itself'.
  I do not know what "normally" means, but I do know that matching grants in this area takes an immensely long time.

  1119
  I fear that in this whole project decisions could be overtaken by events, because the Japanese and some American firms take these decisions extremely quickly. Does the Minister doubt what I say? One cannot read facial expressions into Hansard.
  Paragraph 35, in page 18, says:
  "For the expected overall synergetic effect to take place, access for a project team to foreground knowledge generated by another team working on a different project within the ESPRIT framework shall also be arranged under privileged conditions in as far as such information enables better or quicker results to be obtained from the project which needs it."
  "Gobbledegook" is an unpleasant word, but I wonder what that means.
  Paragraph 37 says:
  "To be meaningful and stimulate the new strategic thinking that must underly the definition and execution of the R & D programme, a Community intervention would have to stimulate a joint long term effort in precompetitive R & D of the same order of magnitude (i.e. of at least 5 to 10 per cent. of the current overall industrial effort)."
  If the document means what it says, we are talking about huge sums of money.
  May we have spelt out precisely what global sums are involved from member states such as the United Kingdom, not necessarily this year or next year, but the year after? Are we sure that we will not be involved in slow decision-making in relation to the formidable international, multinational firms? In particular, is there not an overlap between the huge sums that are given as of right to international companies coming to the United Kingdom—extremely welcome though they are—and the kind of project that we have in hand?
  The ghost of Mr. Spineli and all that he stands for rather haunts me.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: It is not often that I seek the leave of the House to speak a second time on the same day, and I should immediately give any hon. Member who had the misfortune to be here earlier this afternoon when I spoke consent to leave the Chamber.
  I have, as hon. Members may know, a certain enthusiasm for this subject, which I believe to be of immense importance. It is somewhat sad that, although we have been given the opportunity to discuss this subject, only about a dozen hon. Members are able, willing and wish to discuss it, That is a sad matter, because this is probably one of the most important single decisions facing the United Kingdom and western Europe for the rest of the century. That is my firm judgment and I would defend it in any quarter.
  The absence of Members is particularly sad today when the whole range of European policy has to some extent been cast in the melting pot. If we were discussing butter mountains and such matters, I have no doubt that the Benches would be crowded. Here we are discussing what could be the most catastrophic deficit of microelectronic circuits, with all that that means for British and European industry towards the end of the century, yet where are hon. Members? Alas, it is a sad matter.
  I start by referring to an interesting speech that M. Gaston Thorn made to the European Parliament not long ago. He said that
  "years have been wasted by Member States promoting national champions and feeding intra-Community rivalry instead of exploiting their complementary qualities to meet outside competition."
  1120
  He was referring specifically to research and industrial cooperation. M. Thorn went to say:
  "In all, Community countries have invested more than 2000 million ECU"——
  roughly £1 billion sterling—
  "in recent years to boost their information technology industries, far more than Japan and the United States"——
  over the period to which he referred
  "But the results have been disappointing. Europe still lags behind—not because it lacks funds or ideas but because it lacks the ability to make a united effort."
  Today of all days that remark is pregnant with meaning and significance for all of us and for this subject.
  There is no doubt about the importance of the ESPRIT programme. It affects the future of many major countries and perhaps it is interesting that the motion does not strongly endorse that programme but merely takes note.
  I want to refer to three papers that are involved. The first is the document that has been put out by the Commission to summarise the ESPRIT proposal. It is an interesting document and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has saved me a good deal of time by asking several significant questions. It is interesting that last week West Germany announced new spending plans for information technology which will eclipse the EEC ESPRIT programme if they are approved at a Cabinet this week. The German science ministry has put forward an £800 million programme for microelectronics over the next four years compared to aid of £435 million from the EEC under ESPRIT and Britain's £250 million Alvey plan. That is interesting, but sad, because it shows that within the German Government and Cabinet there is a lack of confidence in ESPRIT. I hope that our support for it shows that although we have our own programme in Alvey we do not lack confidence in what can and must be done.
  If ESPRIT succeeds it will redress Europe's information technology gap. It has a reasonable chance of overcoming that gap, but some policy is necessary—if not ESPRIT, something else; if not the ESPRIT resources, larger resources; if not spent in this particular way, spent in some other way; if not in the public sector or this particular mixture of public and private sector, in some other, more appropriate and more effective sector in the European context. That we must have. If we have 10 per cent. of the world market and 40 per cent. of the European market after this massive investment over such a Long period, it shows that something is seriously wrong.
  The Commission wants to achieve work in long lead time research and development. It wishes to address the large leading edge markets. I am sure that everyone would support that. It wishes to achieve technical parity with, if not superiority over, world competitors within 10 years. That is an ambitious target, but we must have such ambition. To provide the technology base to become and stay competitive such research must be done. That research must be done on advanced microelectronics, software technology, advanced information processing, office systems and computer integrated manufacturing. The overall responsibility, as has been pointed out, rests with the Commission. Should that be so? I ask that because the United States, which is one of the main mountains which we seek to climb in competitive terms—the other being Japan—has obviously gone down a different road.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to a remarkably interesting document—a publication of the Department of Trade and Industry. The overseas technical

  1121
  information unit has just produced a report, the author of which is Mr. Baxter, our science councillor in the embassy in Washington. It is an excellent report on Silicon Valley and the United States semiconductor industry. Mr. Baxter describes in the greatest detail how Silicon Valley has come into being, how venture capital supports technology there, and the interesting mixture that has now been created in hundreds, if not thousands, of small thrusting venture capital firms, the average turnover being about $8 million, and the interesting set of organisations which have been established, as it were, halfway between public sector and private research.
  The first is the Microelectronics and Computer Corporation in Austin, Texas, with a budget of $75 million and based on industry-wide co-operation between a substantial number of firms. The second is the Centre for Integrated Systems in Stamford, which has a $40 million budget from Government and industry, and represents 80 major companies, including IBM, International Telephone and Telegraph and General Electric. The third is the Semiconductor Research Corporation in north Carolina, which is an organisation put together by 13 United States ship manufacturers, joined now, I believe, by a further six, making it 19. It has already committed $9 million, and will be committing a budget of $30 million in 1984, much of which will be to funnel research into universities—a very interesting concept.
  This extraordinarily interesting contrast exists between the highly centralised philosophy and approach in ESPRIT and the very different approach in the United States. It is an interesting question why the latter has succeeded so obviously and effectively, and whether the former is the right device and set of institutions to compete.
  The other target—and every hon. Member knows this—is Japan. The United States is now very concerned, and these three organisations have been established because of that concern about the Japanese performance and predominance, particularly with regard to semiconductor manufacture and semiconductor equipment manufacture, which is now assuming much greater importance.
  That brings me to the last point that I wish to make, and I refer to yet another document produced by the same organisation in my right hon. Friend's Department. This is a study of the Japanese giant, Matsushita Electrical. It is a particularly interesting document, because it points out in a sense why ESPRIT is important and has been brought into being. It also describes the kind of target that ESPRIT will hit, if it is successful. The House may like to know some of the fascinating details that emerge from this study of the Matsushita organisation's most recent activities in information technology.
  The company's sales in 1982 were £10 billion, and its spending on R & D alone was £400 million. That is the basis of the operation with which we are competing. Such large figures sometimes mean very little. I wish to draw to the attention of the House a fascinating description of what the organisation is doing and how, in commercial terms, it offers a dramatic challenge to western Europe and the United States, which ESPRIT is designed to counter.
  The company has produced a completely new line of computer-controlled robot machine tools, known as software programmable robots. It has built up a series of three assembly lines making video tape recorders. The
  1122
  United Kingdom is a very large consumer of video tape recorders. I believe that we stand highest in the world in relation to our population, outside Japan. The United Kingdom has about 1 million video tape recorders, but a large market remains to be addressed.
  What has Matsushita done? It is aiming not at the United Kingdom, Japan or the United States, but at the world market. It has already developed three computer-controlled assembly lines for the manufacture of video tape recorders. The company takes the view that manned assembly lines have defect levels of 2 to 3 per cent. The company's target is zero defects, and it would like to eliminate manual assembly in as many areas as possible. That is the company's philosophy. The company has done this by establishing production lines. The older ones, which they call M1 and M2—this is nothing to do with monetary compensatory allowances—produce 2,500 video tape recorders a day. The next, more modern version, M3, produces 5,000 video tape recorders a day. The new line now under construction, as described to our science attache, will produce 10,000 video tape recorders a day. The factory intends to turn out 5 million video tape recorders per annum.
  What is the significance of this for ESPRIT? On the production line, the company has 127 work stations occupied by what it describes as Pana Robo modules. One is occupied by a human worker. His task, to fix and align the audio head, defied automation when it was being installed, but it will be automated on the next line so that it will go from 127 to one to 128 to zero. The company has developed special machines for this purpose. Its hardware costs for the production line now in operation are $6 million, or approximately £4 million.
  The company intends to use production engineering to turn the production of video tape recorders into a mass market. It is now achieving production not only of the video tape recorder, but of the manufacturing equipment behind it. The company's purpose is to cope with 15 per cent. of the world demand for video tape recorders. It expects that prices on the free market will fall by at least 50 per cent. in the comparatively near future. When this is achieved, the replacement market in the United Kingdom, according to its calculations, could be two to three million units a year, with a value of hundreds of millions of pounds.
  If our indigenous manufacturers are ever to compete successfully on equal terms, their production facilities will have to be at least on the scale of those developed at Matsushita. We shall therefore have to address the world market, or give up altogether. This applies not only to the United Kingdom, but to every country in western Europe. Indeed, for most countries in the world, the prospect is that video tape recorder sales will produce a constant drain of revenue towards Japan for the foreseeable future. That is the situation that we face with a product that is familiar to practically everybody in the country.
  The challenge is immense. We shall not meet it by sitting back and doing the things that we have done over the past few decades, pouring subsidies into industries which, because they are there, we think should go on being there.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not present, but I could not disagree with him more profoundly than when he argued the day before yesterday that we must have steel, shipbuilding and motor cars, and that the microelectronics world of

  1123
  information technology was something on which we could not survive. I believe that I have demonstrated otherwise. The Japanese, as a matter of policy, have decided that they will feed their nation on the basis of such industry—the information technology explosion—which, by the end of the century, will be a much larger industry than the world steel industry, the world automobile industry and the world chemical industry. Information technology will be the largest of all, and it is moving rapidly in that direction.
  I can see no earthly reason why we in the United Kingdom should not so restructure our industrial apparatus that we take our appropriate share of that market, our appropriate share of the prosperity that it will give us, and forget about the other things. They will not do us much good, they will waste our resources, and they will inhibit our capacity to do this, whether through ESPRIT, or by other methods.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: There are two delicious ironies about today's debate. The first is that we are holding it today. That is ironic, because ESPRIT is a small example—as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) said in a very perceptive part of his speech—of what Europe might have been had it not been for the closed minds and rather narrow vision that prevailed last night. It is interesting that the Government have significantly excluded ESPRIT from the blockage in the budget proposals. It will be remembered that they decided to end negotiations until they had solved the budget issue. However, they rightly excluded the ESPRIT programme and allowed it to go ahead. Would that they had managed the same imagination last night.
  In a real sense, ESPRIT is the sort of transnational operation that the EEC should be concerned with. What a pity, therefore, that the crude nationalism that seems to prevail in the Prime Minister's mind and sometimes in that of Labour Members, and that the narrow vision and little Englander mentality that sometimes prevails with Labour Members, should have prevented either the Labour or Conservative party from recognising that the spirit of ESPRIT—if that is not a Euro-pun—is the true spirit of Europe, and that its success is the single bright spot in an otherwise pretty bleak future as a result of last night's performances.
  The second irony has only just occurred to me. It consists of the rather curious spectacle of a Government who are usually committed to the concept of a free market and to non-governmental intervention in helping the economy to get going, nevertheless supporting and espousing—as the Minister has done with great knowledge and enthusiasm—a policy that is anything but free enterprise. It recognises the necessity for Government intervention to be able to make good an industrial deficit. Would that that spirit prevailed throughout the British economy.
  Incidentally, it is also ironic that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should express doubts about ESPRIT because it is centralised and planned and not sufficiently left to the free market, when the Labour party believes in a centralised and planned economy. It would seem that the new technology is leading not only to new thinking in British industry but perhaps to new thinking in British politics—and a jolly good thing too.
  Mr. Hayward: The hon. Gentleman's analogy is unfortunate, because the Government have provide
  1124
  dassistance to several industries—including one, Westlands, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—because they have recognised that there is a long-term benefit in investing in those industries that remain in a particular market, and in developing their technology.
  Mr. Ashdown: Of course there is a good deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. However, if the Government had declared an interest in picking winners—there cannot be a clearer winner, of course, than Westlands—we could understand it, but they seem to be very capricious. Government intervention, and the way in which they have assisted Westlands and the new technologies, would be of benefit to all. It is not only my party that says that, but also recently the CBI.
  As hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Havant, who is very knowledgeable on this matter, have said, there can be no doubt about the need for ESPRIT. It is worth quoting the figures as they have not yet been mentioned. In 1975, Europe enjoyed a rough balance in trade in the new technologies and in information technology. By 1980, that had changed into a $5 billion deficit. In 1983 that deficit had increased to $10 billion. It is predicted that by 1992 that deficit will have increased to $16 billion. However, it is predicted that in 1992 the United States of America will have a surplus of $22 billion on that trade, while Japan—for many of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Havant—is predicted to have a surplus of $40 billion.
  I am told that eight out of every 10 personal computers in the United Kingdom are made in the United States, and that nine out of every 10 videos are made in Japan. In the world as a whole, 50 per cent. of printed circuit boards and integrated circuit boards are of Japanese manufacture. Meanwhile, it is predicted that in the next five years the world electronics market will have shifted from a total of £195 billion to £450 billion. The hon. Member for Havant and others have said that there are enormously rich pickings for Britain in a shift from our traditional industrial base to the new industrial base. Thus we cannot let the European deficit continue to grow, or let Europe become a subservient partner in the information technology market. There are fruits that have to be gathered.
  It is also true that, just because Europe has slipped behind, there has been a transition of key people within European research and development facilities to the production line facilities involved in the new technologies. I am told that Europe spends only 1 per cent. of its total budget on research and development in information technology, although Japan and the United States are now spending some 6 per cent.
  Therefore, there can be no argument about the need for ESPRIT. That need is urgent. However, throughout the document on ESPRIT and the Minister's otherwise extremely valuable and useful speech, there seemed to be far too much self-congratulation, which almost bordered on complacency. Perhaps the Minister rejected the statements of the hon. Member for Linlithgow far too lightly. We recognise that ESPRIT is an important programme, standing at £850 million and that it is a commitment to the future. At £350 million Alvey is also a commitment to the future. But the reality is that IBM spends £1·3 billion on research and development every year. That is equivalent to the total for ESPRIT and Alvey for the next five years.

  1125
  Of course the Minister is right; we must prime the pump. However, it should also be recognised that, given the scale of the current problem, the commitment to ESPRIT and Alvey combined is still not enough. It is the first, not the last, step. The agreement says that we will be driving towards parity and that we are seeking through the ESPRIT programme—the inference is, through the ESPRIT programme alone—to achieve parity in world markets. There is no chance that the ESPRIT programme on its own will take the European information technology industry from its current position, which is significantly behind the rest of the world, into anything like parity. We shall only stem the reversals that the European technology industry has suffered. I hope that the Minister will accept that this initiative is not the last, but rather one to be built on in future. The Government and the EEC cannot rest on their laurels in the face of the facts.
  The Minister used the phrase "critical mass". I assume that he means a nuclear analogy—that we have to get to a certain point before the chemical or nuclear operation will continue to work. Of course the Minister is right, and that is a useful expression, but the critical mass has to be contained within an environment that continues to make it work. Therefore, we should see this as the first and essential step that must be expanded on if we are to catch up in world markets.
  The Government have made an exception of ESPRIT and have allowed it to go ahead, but why have they not made an exception of the very important new European innovation initiative which is due to be launched towards the end of the summer? I believe that the Government are still blocking that. That innovation initiative provides seed capital for innovation and represents an important new European programme which could greatly help us. In many areas it might be taken as something that would allow the initiatives that could be developed through ESPRIT to be continued and expanded.
  I have two points of particular note for the Minister. First, in relation to small business, Mr. Jean Cadiou, the director of the European Community's information technology task force, said in reference to ESPRIT that it would also serve to provide
  "smaller off-beat projects with high risks and high potential returns".
  That is reflected in the ESPRIT agreement in article 1(2), which refers to
  "companies, including small and medium-sized undertakings".
  That is a piece of rhetoric and a commitment to the future which I welcome strongly, but we must find out how it will be done.
  Constantly and consistently I get complaints from the microcomputer industry and from new technology industries everywhere that small businesses are not getting a sufficient slice of the action even within Alvey. Only the other day, a respected computer manufacturer told me that, despite the attempts that had been made to provide sufficient funding for small businesses, where much of the important initiation, innovation and research is going on, he had given up on the Alvey programme. We must ensure that the rhetoric of article 1(2) is brought into action. The Government should insist that that happens. I ask the Minister how he will ensure that small, new, high-technology software houses in particular get some spin-off from ESPRIT.
  1126
  The Minister has heard me speak before on the second problem of extra-territoriality. I am sorry to have to bring that up in this debate, and I do not wish to subvert the debate. The Minister knows as well as I do that many people have strong feelings about the way in which the American high technology industry is using COCOM and related agreements to block British and European exports of high technology so that their own salesmen may move in. To give an example, only today I heard of a case in which, while COCOM was being used to block the export of system X telephone exchanges, at the same time the Americans have through the Bell Telephone manufacturing company in Belgium sold no fewer than four units to eastern European countries which are in the business of making telecom chips. That is totally at variance with decent practice.
  Whatever we may do to encourage an appropriate degree of information technology development and research in Europe, it is likely to be subverted unless we can protect our industry adequately. COCOM and the operation of the COCOM agreement have not been brought before the House. Given the impact that COCOM is having on the high technology industry in Britain and the impact that it could have if ESPRIT comes to fruition, it is high time the matter was brought back to the House and there was a proper debate on the effect the agreement has on our industry.
  We can warmly welcome ESPRIT, not only as an example of what Europe is really all about but as a genuine commitment and a declaration of intent by Europe that it intends to be in the forefront of technology. It is important that we reject too much self-congratulation or complacency. ESPRIT is only the essential first step in what is necessary to put Europe back among the leaders in information technology. While I welcome ESPRIT, I also urge the Government to recognise that much more will have to be done if we are effectively to build on the essential first step.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: In this brief contribution I want to make it clear that I endorse the Government's support for this programme. In doing so I shall not touch on the rather sore spot of EC financing. Let us hope that we reach agreement on that soon so that the necessary cash is available to enable the programme to go ahead.
  I, too, share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) at the fact that this most important debate is not better attended. The consequences of not keeping up with the information technology revolution are devastating when we compare ourselves with the foreign competition. If we review what has happened over the last decade or so, we find once again that our overseas competitors have stolen a march on us. This time we are in companionship with the rest of the EC. To catch up and then go ahead, it is better if we work with the EC and use the combined talents, brains and resources of the EC.
  To deal quickly with what the opposition in the United States and Japan have done over the past few years, we see the huge research and development tax credits that are being pumped into the industry in the United States. Large companies are making huge investments and they have a good home base as a market for the products. The Japanese, with their lasar beam type investment and

  1127
  method of picking off the product, have done extremely well. Again they have put a huge investment into those specific areas.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) apologised for quoting statistics on how we have been doing on imports. I shall not apologise because I think that we should repeat those figures time and time again to show the market that we are losing out on. In personal computers nine out of 10 come from the United States. Eight out of 10 videos come in from Japan. We are losing out on both those markets. If we do not keep putting the achievements of the opposition in front of us at every opportunity, we tend to put them to the back of our mind where they may be ignored.
  I should like to ride a personal hobby horse. I do not think we help much in the EC by having an import tax regime that helps completed products as opposed to the components. I see no advantage in havng a tax on made-up computers coming into the country that is lower than the tax on the components that are also being brought into the EC. Surely it must be sensible to have a tax regime that favours the assembly of the components in this country rather than bringing in the completed article from abroad. Therefore, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to maintain pressure on the EC to try to reverse that differential.
  The Japanese in particular have identified the areas in which they think they can sell a product and then they have exploited them ruthlessly. In some cases they have made sure that other Japanese companies have not got involved. The banks and various organs of Government have supported one or two firms making specific products. The Japanese have designated information technology as their major growth area for the next 10 years, because they see the huge rewards that they will get. We ignore that decision at our peril. The speed of development is so great that it will get harder and harder to catch up. The difficulty in catching up will become proportionately greater on a geometric rather than an arithmetic scale.
  We must remember that while we are embarking on this programme the opposition is not standing still. The House has already heard what the Japanese are doing with their fifth generation computer and what the United States are doing with the billions of dollars that they are pumping into this industry. We also tend to ignore the fact that other countries are leapfrogging various stages of their industrial revolution and that they are moving directly into the electronics industry. To the £850 million, we add our Alvey money and the other EEC countries are putting money in the project. The proposal for a Council decision states:
  "Measures taken so far, however, have not been sufficient to reverse the trend, and by and large have only managed to slow down the deteriorating process."
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also quoted from that document. I endorse what he said. Our position is stark, if we are to stay in the market. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, only 10 per cent. of the world market involves EEC industries. We have only 40 per cent. of the EEC home market. I draw parallels with the telecommunications equipment that we had in Britain 25 years ago. Then we had 25 per cent. of the market. Today our share is in the low single figures.
  The proposal continues:
  "unless a co-operative industrial programme of a sufficient magnitude can be mounted, most if not all of the current IT industry could disappear in a few years time."
  1128
  One has only to see the cost of our competitors' products to realise that if we do not match that cost we shall not be able to subsidise the products and stay in the business.
  I fully support the decision to follow the Japanese laser beam approach. The Japanese have carefully chosen their products which will be highly saleable. An investigation by Professor Bownas a few years ago showed that the Japanese spend a considerable time choosing the product to be made. Once the decision is made, they go like the wind to produce it cheaply, effectively and in huge numbers.
  Our EEC resources, small indeed compared with the money used to support the wine lakes and butter mountains, should be channelled into the development of selective products which will give us an industrial advantage. The arguments by universities that the work is too applied or by some industries that the work is too basic cannot be allowed to predominate if we are to prosper in the programme.
  I gain a degree of heart from the report when it says:
  "The main criterion used … was to be highly selective".
  If we are not highly selective we shall lose out. We cannot afford to spread resources too thinly. We must concentrate on specific, tight areas to succeed.
  Mr. Dalyell: Who is to do the selecting? That is the problem.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Member for Linlithgow anticipates the next point that I want to put to the Minister. Where will the practical control lie in the project selection? Will it be in the management and consultative committee or will it be rolled up inside the Commission? If it is to be the latter, I am worried about the time delay. Speed is of the essence. The opposition is moving so rapidly that if we do not match it or go ahead we shall lose out.
  Who will have use of the results of the research work? Will it be protected by patents? Will the industry that does the work successfully have the benefit of the patents'? Will industry have to repay the Commission and will there be free access for anyone who wishes to take advantage of this considerable investment?
  I should like to echo some of what the hon. Member for Yeovil said about the way that small businesses can be used in the project. Near my constituency is a small electronics firm—Case. It is an object lesson in skill and expertise. I am delighted to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) in whose constituency that magnificent company operates.
  I should like to see whether we can help small businesses. Only a few years ago Case employed about 100 people. Today it is desperately recruiting to reach a work force of about 1,000. That is an example of success in the small business sphere.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to keep pushing this fast development area at every available opportunity because that is what will provide the jobs, the employment and the income for the future.
  I have so far resisted commenting on an area that could be promoted. I am wrestling with a home computer, and I believe that the interface between man and machine could be considerably improved. Anything that can be developed to make computers easier to understand and operate will be successful in the market place. As those machines become more complex fewer people will be able to operate them. I hope that more skill and expertise will

  1129
  be directed to computer development, so that the number of individuals and companies who can operate these advanced machines can be increased.
  There is great potential for computer development in Britain and the EEC, and the programme will provide an opportunity to use it. I hope that we shall see rewards flowing to industries in Britain and Europe in the next five years.
  9.6 pm
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House to spread the Front Bench speeches through the debate, as we have extra time available. I welcome the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow very properly looked a gift horse in the mouth, as is his wont, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer his cogent questions.
  The enthusiasm for the project that was voiced strongly on both sides of the House would be much more persuasive if, for example, hon. Members could plug computers into the Commons telephone system. It is not possible to use a modem in the House. Strictly speaking, we are not allowed to use acoustic couplers or the Serjeant at Arms will throw us out of our offices. By an extraordinary archaism, while we enthusiastically advocate striving at the frontiers of technology, we go on with cobwebs, oak and brass in the real seat of power. That explains many of the problems underlying the debate.
  I am suffering from an acute attack of nothing-new-under-the-sun-itis. The Minister of State was kind enough, before the debate, to allow me to see the director of the Alvey project who is much concerned with the ESPRIT programme. He occupies the office in Millbank tower that was used by Sir Richard Clarke, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Technology in the 1960s. In that room, the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed on the GEC and ICL mergers, arranged under the interventionism of the then Labour Government. I am also glad that the chairman of the British Computer Society's committee on expert systems, Mr. Alex d'Agapeyeff, is advising the Alvey directorate. He was one of my software advisers in the 1960s.
  The gurus of Alvey and ESPRIT work in that monument of 1960s brutalism which replaced the old mathematical laboratory at Cambridge in which in the 1950s I learnt to programme EDSAC, the first computer in Britain. In no way has that changed the atmosphere in which they work. I am still trying to discover what there is in the current jargon of intelligent, knowledge-based systems and expert systems that we did not discuss in Claude Shannon's information theory seminar at MIT in the 1950s with Marvin Minsky, now professor of artificial intelligence at MIT. One new feature, however, is the total disjunction between the interventionism of the Alvey and ESPRIT programmes, on the one hand, and the non-interventionism—not to say the nihilism—of the Government's main economic and industrial programmes.
  As a consequence of this, the peripheral and even trivial character of the applications and demonstrations proposed under the Alvey and ESPRIT programmes raises serious questions about the rightness of the concept. One must seriously question whether good results can be achieved
  1130
  with so great a stretch and such trivialisation or whether resources will be diverted into such distorted patterns that progress will be frustrated.
  Hon. Members on both sides are enthusiastic about more money being made available—and so am I—but the fact remains that recruitment plans for VLSI-trained electronic engineering graduates just for Inmos and National Semi-Conductor oversubscribe by a factor of two the total national supply of such engineers in prospect in the next few years. Within higher education, in both teaching and research, the universities are so preoccupied with cuts and maintaining their viability as institutions that no amount of isolated new-blood money to isolated academics who cannot build up research teams with proper Research Council backing, and no amount of unbalanced development of one department and neglect of another, can possibly produce the manpower and skills needed to carry out, not the kind of programmes for which hon. Members have called today, but even the kind of programmes that the Minister has succeeded in getting through the Cabinet. As a result, in the next year there will be an enormous increase in salaries for VLSI-trained electronic engineers in this country. I leave it to Conservatives to judge the wider inflation consequences of that.
  With regard to ESPRIT, I have searched in vain through document 7619/83 for any coherent definition of the problems and the programmes to tackle them on a deeper level than the general waffle of the kind that we could and did write 30 years ago. The nearest that I could find to a concrete example, on page 16 of the annex, was a reference to
  "a high level interface capable of understanding and synthesising the human voice."
  The document calls for
  "special algorithms for pattern recognition … and ultra high speed computing power"
  operating at 100 million instructions per second. That is getting on for the computing capacity of the human brain, which also has to cover the servicing of vision and the whole central nervous system.
  I suspect that if the Minister of State asked biologists working on the structure of the inner ear, they would tell him that that amount of computer overkill on voice recognition is not a sensible approach. If he wants the view of a distinguished applied mathematician able to judge both the biological and computing aspects, I advise him to talk to Sir James Lighthill who has a distinguished record and an interest in intelligent, knowledge-based systems. I would lay a fair bet that Sir James's work on the modelling of the inner ear is far more likely to produce a cost-effective solution to the problem of voice recognition than the romantic overkill of the ESPRIT programme.
  We do not know the technical details of the programme, and I doubt whether we ever shall, although the Minister was kind enough to say he would let us have the list of projects. They have been published. The details will remain commercially confidential as that is the whole point of the programme set-up. Therefore, there will not be much publicly judgable information on the real cost-effectiveness of the programme.
  As for the underlying logic of the programme, I confess that I am sympathetic to the idea of enabling technologies

  1131
  being, pulled through by demonstration projects, which is the basis of the Alvey project, with a similar concept in the ESPRIT project.
  The Alvey major demonstrators under consideration include the Department of Health and Social Security's tax benefit inquiry system, cellular radio, integrated designto-product systems, alert response systems, speech recognition, a groping submersible, and an aircraft cockpit. It is striking that none of these major demonstrators includes any mainstream data processing or process control applications, yet this data processing and process control account for 90 per cent. of the computer programmes written and computing done today.
  No inquiries have been made by the Department of Trade and Industry of the biggest and most successful computing operations in this country, which are, I suppose, the transactions systems between clearing banks and their customers and, in terms of profitability, the financial market information in the Monitor service of Reuters, which the investment analysts seem to value, according to press reports, at something like £1 billion. No approach has been made either to the clearing banks with their vast systems or to Reuters to ask what is in it for them.
  It could be argued that these ventures are so successful and profitable that they require no support and that no developments are needed. That is an extraordinarily complacent view. The clearing banks' software—and they have the advantage of being the largest bank chains in the world—is basically that of the 1960s. It is rigid and imposes an inflexibility on clearing bank operations of which we have begun to see the consequences in their pace of development, which will become a great deal more severe in the future.
  On financial market information, the dirtiest words that can be said in Reuters today are "a new Bretton Woods system", because the consequence of a regime which stabilised exchange rates and the price of financial assets to a greater extent than occurs today would be greatly to diminish the demand for the services of Monitor and diminish the value of those Reuters shareholdings to our press. The press has a very strong interest in maintaining the unpredictability of financial market prices.
  The contrast here with the approach taken in Japan is very instructive. In Japan, information utilities were developed by Nihon Keizai Shimbun—the Financial Times of Japan—and the same integrated approach was taken not only to the development of the transaction information that is the basis of the Reuters-type service, but also to the dissemination and analysis of economic models, forecasting, policy design work, and so on, which is all done now within that single network under the control of Nihon Keizai Shimbun, with its close links with the Japanese economic research centre, MITI, and so on.
  To go bigger still, it may not have escaped the notice of the Minister of State that next door to the splendid new Inmos factory in Newport is the Business Statistics Office which, if I am not mistaken, is the direct responsibility of the Minister. It is the most comprehensive information system, the most widespread intelligent knowledge-based system, the most expert system, that we have in this country. The Government could not function without it. Yet, at the behest of the Prime Minister's favourite corner grocer, Sir Derek Rayner, the Government are busy dismantling what was once the pioneering statistical system in the world.
  1132
  There is a most extraordinary statement on the record from Sir John Boreham, director of the Central Statistical Office and head of the Government statistical service.—it is reported in the current issue of Statistical News—in which he says:
  "I am speaking as the Head of the Government Statistical Service in a country which has developed, both economically and statistically. Other countries have other environments which are changing in different ways. A point of fundamental importance (but I shall not mention it again) is that the scientific establishment in Britain is strong enough to take the Government on, successfully on many issues".
  He is issuing an open invitation to rebellion against the Government. He added:
  "In the United Kingdom the Government Statistical Service now concentrates heavily on serving Government. This is a shift of emphasis since 1981; before that, serving 'society' (which includes industry) received more weight, it still gets some weight, but less than before 1981. The reason for the shift was that the Government decided that it is not an appropriate use of tax revenues to provide a heavily subsidised national statistical sevice, i.e. one for 'customers' outside Government. Whether or not to accept that decision is the question I shall raise at the end. I, obviously, accept it"—
  loyal civil servant that he is—
  "but some others may not".
  I cannot conceive how any person of common sense who has looked at the proper organisation of a serious information system can possibly argue that information collected for Government purposes should not be made available in the best possible form for private use as well as for the service of industry.
  Why are the Government deliberately playing in the junior league? Why are they actively sabotaging the nation's nervous system? One simple explanation is their politics. The present information technology programme is all that the Minister of State can get away with. Like most members of the Government, I do not for a moment think that he believes in all the hogwash of the Government's medium-term financial strategy, but, unlike other Government members, he learnt in the Treasury and Civil Service Committee what was wrong with it in detail and contributed notably to that learning.
  Politically, it was a smart move—and I admire him for it—to launch his information technology campaign while needling the Government on their economic strategy. It was much safer to have him in Government than out, and he makes an admirable Minister. But the price we are paying is the current distortion of information technology policy—the trivialisation of the application, with heavy support for particular narrow lines on hardware and software development.
  Should we gratefully accept the industrial support that we are offered and not look a gift horse in the mouth? Undoubtedly that is the reaction in industry and the universities today, which are so starved of resources that no coherent criticism is voiced at all—at least not to the Government or publicly. But, by crikey, there is to the Opposition.
  That attitude is perfectly understandable given the relations between Ministers and so on, but that should not be the attitude of the Opposition. In fact, the Government have no coherent strategy on applications, hardware or software production, research or development. The description of the present state of information technology in this country has been eloquently spelt out on both sides of the House, and I do not need to repeat it. However, I

  1133
  am concerned with what we can salvage from the mounting pile of rubble while the Government remain in office.
  What lines should the Opposition take in developing and putting forward their own strategy? First, in response to the Government's policy, we should encourage the mainstream data processing and process control users in this country to get stuck into the Alvey and ESPRIT projects and make them into something serious. It is ridiculous that there is no cashless society or process control project on the list of Alvey projects.
  I know what the reaction would be if the Minister of State went to Reuters and said, "What about it?" Reuters would ask with whom, in Europe, it could sensibly form a partnership. However, that attitude misses the whole concept of the ESPRIT project, which is intended to form not just international but inter-functional links. Reuters is a well established company with a strong but by no means monopoly position in transaction data for foreign exchange and money market traders. Reuters could seriously go to the central banks and invite their partnership with Monitor in a study of transaction systems for the future and intelligence upon them.
  Following the Versailles summit, a study was done on exchange market intervention, under the chairmanship of Philippe Jurgensen. All the serious work in support of that technical study on the effectiveness of foreign exchange intervention had to be done by the United States Federal Reserve Board, and specifically by Dale Henderson in the international department, because nobody in Europe was equipped to do the job. There was nobody in the Bank of England, the Treasury, the French Ministry of Finance, the Banque de France, the Bundesbank or anywhere else. The mainstream apparatus for studying the future of the world's monetary systems should not be left solely in the hands of the Americans. But, if it is not, how is the practical work to be undertaken? Is it not open to Monitor to go to the Bank of England or the Bundesbank and suggest an exercise on the subject? I am sure that the Minister of State would not oppose such a move, and such enterprise and initiative would greatly stimulate the Commission itself. It is recognised on both sides of the House that part of the problem is that the Commission badly needs the stimulus of new ideas.
  Those in the mainstream of process control—mainstream control engineers, control theorists, economists and the econometricians—should also get stuck into the Alvey programme.
  Hon. Members may not appreciate that there is discontinuity in the Alvey and ESPRIT programmes between the data processing and process control applications, which account for 90 per cent. of computing today, and the systems described as intelligent knowledge-based or expert systems. I would not willingly give way to others in my interest in intelligent knowledge-based systems and artificial intelligence. I have maintained a steady interest in the subject, despite the ups and downs of fashion, for over 30 years. But if that area is to be in any way practical, it must stand upon the shoulders of conventional data processing and process control applications. We must not dismiss 90 per cent. of computer applications, leaving the problems of the applications until we have worked out the IKBS and expert systems. The progress that has been made in data
  1134
  processing and process control is based on the fundamentals of logic and information theory which will have to be reinvented if it is left to IKBS to find a way round simulating them.
  Another important area that does not figure in Alvey or ESPRIT and has had much work done on it is finite element analysis. The biggest finite element analysis computation that is done in the world today is weather forecasting. It can be argued that we should not include weather forecasting in an Alvey-type project because it is a one-off, but the same argument and the same mathematics apply to metal and plastic forming processes, fluid dynamics and reaction kinetics. It is a big and expanding area that is extremely scientific and technical. It will not be invented on the back of an envelope or recapitulated in an IKB system. It has heavy computing requirements and is admirably suited to the transputer. Why is there not a serious project on that?
  The explanation, when one goes into the matter with experts—I have spent much time talking to them in the past six months—is simply human. It is deplorable that no one in computer science at Cambridge has talked to the control theorists at Imperial college or Warwick or to the economists at the London School of Economics or even in Cambridge during the past 30 years. They are now all too busy in the Alvey directorate or among its expert advisers to look more widely. Unless the Minister and his officials require a wider spread over data processing and process control, tunnel development will continue in important projects.
  Let us demystify the language within IKBS and expert systems. We should insist that demonstrations be given to us in simple forms that we can understand and examine. Decision trees are, on the whole, things that are widely distributed in offices, even such as social security offices and others. That is all that an expert system really is, plus a few frills and furbelows. Why can we not have simple demonstrations of decision trees for fault-finding purposes, for diagnosing causes of crashes, risk analysis of metal fatigue, and even choosing which bus routes to take? That is what expert systems are about. Why can we not have a simple programme, such as Visicalc, which does the basic shell work of a programme, which can give us a practical demonstration of what the hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money are supposed to be doing?
  The consequence of the route that the Government have taken is that we are embarking on major expenditure programmes, produced by a small minority of interested experts, of a type that it is not reasonable to expect hon. Members to be able to judge. That has happened because of the straitjacket within which the Government's economic and industrial policies are formulated. They are not allowed to be generally interventionist so they must be specifically interventionist in areas of high glamour and total opacity which afford the maximum opportunity to pull the wool over people's eyes as to what they really amount to.
  The categories in the ESPRIT programme are somewhat wider and offer more scope for expansion and development of the type that I have been urging. The advanced microelectronics, the software technologies, the advanced information processing office systems and computed integrated manufacture are all capable of

  1135
  evolution in what I think would be generally regarded in customers' as well as suppliers' information technology systems as representing the balance of research needed.
  It is certainly the case that ESPRIT at present lacks the focus of the ALVEY programme, but it also avoids some of its eccentricities.
  I am entirely in favour of the European co-operation aspects of the ESPRIT programme. For years I have been trying to persuade the Treasury and the Social Science Research Council to take an interest in the French effort on computing in the economic field, and particularly the Moduleco project, into which they have put very substantial resources compared with the scale of any effort in this country.
  I have worked as corporate planning and personnel director in Mullard, which is a subsidiary company of a European company operating in this area, and I have seen the sort of co-operation that is possible across national boundaries. I confess that I am somewhat uneasy, though prepared to be persuaded, about the practicalities of working in international consortia. It is a great deal easier to work within a single company, although the relations and rivalries are difficult enough even then. But no doubt we shall learn from experience. Certainly ESPRIT offers a wider range of people a chance of seeing how things are done abroad and what the nature of the market is.
  My overall reaction to ESPRIT, therefore, is by all means to go ahead and make the best of it, but not to kid ourselves that it amounts to an information technology strategy. That design of a strategy has to be addressed to the main economic problems and the social needs of the people of Europe.
  I have argued elsewhere—so I shall not do so this evening—for the use of information technology within the mainstream areas of Government and decision-making in industry. It will happen, and we will get the linked enterprise, company, industry, national economy, and international models and so on which are needed to operate such systems. We will get the well-informed, democratic, widely distributed decision systems that information technology makes possible.
  The market as it is supposed to work, but as this project clearly assumes that it does not work, cannot possibly achieve that spread of an information system, open in access and free for people to use simply by its own internal dynamics. It needs facilitating by the Government, and the Minister of State has taken some actions—most particularly in the educational sector—which will help to facilitate it.
  There is a task for, and an essential contribution will be needed from, information technology. I do not think that ESPRIT and Alvey begin to glimpse what that task is. We have to make sure that in the way in which they are conducted they do not positively frustrate the performance of the real task waiting to be done.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: Having listened to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), I can only describe his speech as surprising in places. There were a number of inaccuracies in the comments he made, but in the light of the limited time available this evening I intend to deal only with his references to the standard of education available in relation to information technology in general.
  1136
  The impression that we were given was that there were no universities or facilities available which were attractive to any company, whether British, European or any other. I find it somewhat surprising, therefore, that during the past year Wang has been attracted to Stirling because of the facilities available at the university and Hewlett-Packard—to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred—has been attracted to both South Queensferry and Bristol because of the facilities available at Edinburgh, Bristol and Bath universities. I really feel, therefore, that these comments by the hon. Gentleman were probably the most disparaging of the several inaccurate statements in his speech.
  Dr. Bray: I put it in rather carefully phrased terms, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to check it by writing to Inmos and National Semiconductor asking them what their recruitment plans are for VLSI-trained graduate electronic engineers over the next few years, and comparing that with the output of the existing universities. I should like him to do that, as I think that he will find that the demand is approximately twice the existing supply.
  Mr. Hayward: If the hon. Gentleman checks the Official Report, he will see that I did not refer to VLSI engineers but to a separate section, with which he dealt in greater detail—the educational facilities available and on offer to high technology and information technology companies.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow made several relevant comments about the development of companies in this country and how they are attracted here. I share his concern about the ESPRIT programme and the potential that it has for operating at speed. This view was also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). This is a worthwhile programme, but I am concerned that the European bureaucracy might not act with the speed at which the Japanese and American companies in particular seem to be so able.
  We have heard reference to the investment made in a number of places, and there have been comments about the disparity of investment and research and overall employment between Europe, the United States and Japan. Equally, we heard quite often about the magnet that this country is for overseas companies. However, there is a danger that that magnetic effect can be overdone. We are attracting many companies, but put in the context of the amount of money that is going on world-wide today it is a somewhat limited quantity.
  I have two particular concerns about the ESPRIT programme. One is the danger that it will be regarded as the ultimate—the be-all and the end-all—when it is not, either on its own or in association with Alvey. We have to encourage companies to invest large sums of money outside those two programmes. If companies invest only in them, and if the Government allow them to do this, we shall fall not merely further behind than we are but considerably further behind, despite the appalling statistics that have been cited by a number of hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to extra-territoriality, particularly in relation to the United States. That concern is held not only by his party but by all parties.
  The other aspect of ESPRIT that conerns me is that I have some doubt, despite my originally complimentary

  1137
  comments, about the interrelationship between some universities and industry and about the effectiveness of the way in which they work together on this subject. There is not satisfactory liaison between the two. We should get encouragement from what happens in Germany and France, where industry works particularly effectively with universities on a number of subjects. We might learn and benefit from them.
  I do not wish to go over ground that has already been covered by other hon. Members. There has been consistent emphasis on the ESPRIT programme and discussion about how we should work within the European Community. I am concerned that British, French and German companies may work together without directing consideration to countries outside the European Community. For example, Sweden has much to contribute in information technology.
  Also, while we must be aware of, and concerned about, the challenge presented to us by the Japanese and the Americans, we should not presume that we cannot cooperate with companies from those countries. There is much to be gained from that as well as from working within ESPRIT, as there is from directing our attitudes and aims well outside the countries and companies of the European Community. In that way we can benefit from investment in research and development that is being currently carried out by those two countries, particularly in the case of companies that are investing in this country, whether Japanese or American.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow was worried about the amount of money that we were contributing in trying to attract companies to this country. He failed to recognise that there tends to be a breeding effect within a few years of any company being established, in that people who previously worked as engineers in a particular company leave that company and set up a small company of their own, which then grows rapidly into a major company. They have seen a gap in the market, a gap in the technology. Technology is moving so rapidly that there is a complete change in technology in general within a period of three or four years.
  With those brief comments, I endorse the ESPRIT programme. I hope that it has the effects that the Government believe it will. I hope, too, that the Minister will reply to what I have said this evening, because I have certain worries not only about the programme but about matters outside the programme.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Timothy Wood: I, too, welcome the ESPRIT programme, because its proposals are overwhelmingly desirable. I very much enjoyed the enthusiastic speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), and I agree with what he said about the importance of information technology in all regards. The development of computer systems and the applications from those systems will make enormous strides during the next 10 or 15 years. One is scarcely talking about an evolutionary process; it is more of a revolution in this sphere. The impact of computer systems will be overwhelming.
  As has been said, there is no doubt that within Europe we have gradually been sliding back compared with many of our significant competitors. I, like the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), spent a period at the Cambridge mathematical laboratory. I confess that my
  1138
  development in terms of mathematics and logic seems slightly different from his. Many of the developments going on at the time I was there could be regarded as in the van of developments in computers, but some of the developments that are now taking place, which one would like to see taking place in this country, are following far too late behind those in the United States and, in some instances, in Japan.
  My worries follow some of those that have already been mentioned. A number of hon. Members have said that we must ensure that moneys made available under the ESPRIT programme are made available in a way that speeds up the development of new technology. It would be too easy to have long discussions about certain projects that should be supported. I was involved in my previous experience in ICL in precisely such discussions on a variety of Department of Industry programmes. Although money was made available in many instances, the discussions that preceded that often took several months, and in this sphere one cannot afford that time.
  The other point that I want to raise—it contradicts some of the arguments that were put by the Opposition—is about the quantity of money. In my opinion, the ESPRIT programme should act as a catalyst—not as a major funding activity, not as an expectation that this is the full source of funds for new developments in information technology. It will act as a stimulus, and just a stimulus. Certainly, much larger sums should be spent on development. I have been conscious, as has been touched on by others, of the fact that some of the major developments in recent years—the development of some of the chips that are now in widespread use in home computers, and so on—have been by bodies such as Motorola, Intel, and so on. Small innovative groups have often produced chips that have been taken up by other small micromanufacturers rather than by slow, ponderous and big research efforts.
  It is our task to ensure that on the one hand there is the environment and stimulus for small companies rather than the big, fat companies to take the initiative and then to provide opportunity in terms of a market so that those machines and developments have widespread application. One of the tragedies has been that the EEC has not fulfilled our hope of a more effective market for the sale of high technology products. Because the market has been and has continued to be so diffuse, the sales that are the main justification for any development have not followed. That, as much as anything, is the other aspect that must be pursued apart from research and development. Let the Government and the EC provide a catalyst for research and development, but at the same time we must ensure that within the EC we have that big market that ensures that when someone has a good idea it really is marketed on a large scale.
  Let me emphasise once more the importance of this field of high technology. Comments have already been made about constraints imposed by the transfer of technology, and so on, from the United States. In computers that is of the utmost importance and we must ensure that individual companies and Europe as a whole develop their ideas and develop them in the van, not five years behind other people.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting debate, and I shall try to answer the many points that have

  1139
  been made. I noted particularly the detailed comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about the programme's content. He said that he wanted to demystify the language. By their very nature some of his points were complex and intricate. I shall look carefully at his speech tomorrow in Hansard and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the director of the Alvey programme and to that of our two representatives on the ESPRIT programme. Some of his points will be of great value to them.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) started the debate some hours ago with a series of questions. I fully respect questions that come from West Lothian. I do not think that I can answer them all, if only because I was not quick enough to take them all down. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that those that I do not answer tonight I shall cull from Hansard tomorrow and write to him about them.
  The hon. Gentleman asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), about how the projects under ESPRIT will be selected. They have to be within the framework of the work plan and there is a deadline for the submission of applications to ESPRIT. The applications will then be examined by a panel of experts drawn from the Community. The larger projects will be put before the ESPRIT management committee, which includes representatives of all member states. We have two members on that committee. The committee will decide which projects are to be approved. A firm commitment is written into the rules of procedure that decisions must be taken within one month as a normal practice, and, exceptionally, in two months. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) said. There is a danger in any bureaucracy, particularly in the bureaucracy in Brussels, that matters will get bogged down in elaborate bureaucratic procedure and one does not want that.
  Dr. Bray: If the Minister is not going to reply to any of my points, may I ask whether he has he checked the demand for VSLI electronic engineers in Inmos—never mind the other semiconductor companies that are proposing to invest in this country? Secondly, can he confirm that he has ministerial responsibility for the Business Statistics Office?
  Mr. Baker: I can confirm that the Business Statistics Office is responsible to my Department. I am not the Minister responsible but I am a member of the Department in the House. Of course I accept responsibility to answer for that. On the requirement and demand for the VSLI engineers and electronic engineers generally, I accept that there will be not only a national but an international shortage of electronic engineers and VSLI engineers for the next few years. We are trying to ensure that, in the new blood initiative, which the hon. Gentleman dismissed very scathingly, but in which there is a significant increase in the number of teaching posts, and undergraduate and postgraduate posts in the research projects, there is a concentration of resources.
  In the general context, we are trying to move the balance of the educational budget for the whole country, over a period of years, more from the humanities to the sciences.
  I was pressed by several hon. Members about the importance of small companies in the ESPRIT
  1140
  programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) emphasised how important it is to involve small companies. I recognise that, because many of the most innovative companies in the area of high technology, and in biotechnology, are very small companies. This involves the talents of one, two or three people. We want to tap those talents, to encourage them and to allow them to benefit from the ESPRIT programme. I will ensure that the points made by hon. Members about small companies are borne in mind strongly by our representatives on the ESPRIT committee. I think it can be accepted that, in the pilot projects, small companies have been involved. One such small company, Knowledge-Based Systems, a spin-off from the Polytechnic of the South Bank, is involved in one of the ESPRIT programmes. I should like to see many more such companies.
  On the question of the time scale of ESPRIT, as I have stated, 38 pilot projects have already started. The work planned for 1984 has now been adopted and published. Applications for 1984 have to be submitted by 7 May. These will be evaluated by the experts, and contracts will be awarded from August onwards. The time scale is fast, and I am as anxious as the hon. Member for Linlithgow, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage and for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), to ensure that the time scale does not slip. I will heed, and follow, their advice.
  Mr. Hayward: Are the universities, which may be involved in these projects, satisfied that August is early enough for them to prepare for the ensuing academic year?
  Mr. Baker: Six universities are already involved in the pilot projects. The work plan has been published. Ai the universities will regard this as a source of additional funding for some of their research, I am quite sure that the applications will be rapid.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West asked about tariffs, and referred to the adverse effects of the high import tariff on semiconductors. He will know that this has been raised in the House. I believe that the hon. Member for Yeovil has raised it on previous occasions. One result of the high tariffs is to discourage assembly of equipment and sub-assemblies in the EEC, and we deplore that. We have begun the process of persuading our Community partners of the benefits of the reduction in the tariffs, and we are pressing ahead with that as strongly as we can.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire. South-West and the hon. Member for Linlithgow asked about intellectual property rights—foreground knowledge, I believe, was the phrase used. I can well understand the problems. It is a difficult and complex subject—who owns the patent rights and who owns the licensing rights. The existing arrangements in the pilot projects are that ESPRIT provides for an exchange of patents and copyright between companies engaged in different projects where that is needed for the execution of the project, or for the exploitation of the results.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned standards. One of the most useful things that I hope will come out of ESPRIT will be not only industrial collaborador on research and development, but a move towards closer, and agreed, European standards in high technology. This matter was touched upon in the data transmission points

  1141
  that were raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. There is a variety and complexity of standards that hinders the development of the new industries in Europe. The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked what the cost was of moving towards standardisation. I accept that there is a cost in doing that, but there is an equally high cost in not moving towards standardisation. However, it is encouraging that many of the big high-tech companies in Europe are coming together to agree on standards. Without that, IBM will dominate standards not only in America, but in the whole of Europe.
  I have been asked about the secondments. Those involved will come from companies in Europe and will work in the small secretariat in the Commission dealing with information technology.
  I was also asked about overseas companies. Several hon. Members will know that we have become a magnet for major investment by overseas companies. That is good news for us all and is welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that we do not want those companies just to be sales offices, but, on the other hand, I do not discourage sales offices or screwdriver assembly plants from starting up, because that is the beginning. Hewlett-Packard started as a screwdriver assembly plant near South Queensferry. It has led to another huge factory in Bristol and now to the first research and development facility for that great company outside America. I think that that is a cycle of virtue.
  Over the years my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) has been one of the great proponents of support for information technology and the new technologies. Just when I have persuaded my ministerial colleagues to spend more money on research and development, he gets up and says that it is not enough. He wants more and more. I try to satisfy his demands. We have increased expenditure on research and development in my Department from £100 million per year to £369 million this year. That is one of the largest increases in any Government area of expenditure.
  Mr. Dalyell: Bill Hewlett, a member of the Presidential Science Advisory Council, and Dave Packard, who became the Under-Secretary for Defence, would find it strange for Hewlett-Packard to be described as a screwdriver company. That company came to South Queensferry as a very formidable Californian organisation. However, the question is whether they and others have been consulted about ESPRIT. What do the large multinational companies think about it?
  Mr. Baker: The role of the multinational companies in both ESPRIT and Alvey is complex, because it depends on the extent to which they have an involvement in our country. The main thrust of both programmes is to develop our own research and development capabilities. I do not seek to be disparaging in talking in terms of screwdriver assembly, but that company started in a very modest way.
  1142
  However, it has made a major series of investments which we welcome—[Interruption.] However, in response to the hon. Gentleman, I should point out that Alvey has been asked. Some of the companies have been approached and others have approached us. Discussions are continuing. As far as I know, none of the American and Japanese multinational companies has applied to ESPRIT, so that question has not arisen.
  I turn to the funds that are available. We are talking about a £900 million programme, half of which is to be provided by the Community and half of which will be provided by industry. There is also the Alvey programme, which stands at £350 million. In addition, on Monday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced £120 million for microchip development. Thus, we are committing substantial funds.
  In response to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood and for Stevenage, I should point out that the money is catalytic. One cannot expect national and international Government funds to bear the whole burden of research and development. The main thrust of research and development must come from the profitability of companies. Indeed, half of research and development in the United Kingdom comes from that source. Thus, the money is catalytic. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, I should say that I do not exclude international co-operation, such as ICL with Fujitsu of Japan. Yesterday I spoke to the Swedish Minister about possible research and development in medicine. ESPRIT does not exclude that.
  The debate has shown that there is widespread support. So far as I can see, there is no contention in the House about the need for industrial collaboration in the European context. The challenge from Japan and from America is vivid, real and growing all the time. If we do not develop these industries within a European framework or within our own countries, the trade deficit in these products will grow substantially over the next 10 years.
  I should like to express my gratitude to the House for the full expression of its views. I welcome the chance that we have had to debate this important issue. I again express regret that the debate could not take place earlier. I am aware of and strongly sympathetic to the requirements of the resolution of the House of 30 October 1980. Although I reported to the House in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on 29 February, I recognise that this did not fully discharge my obligations to the House. I hope that I have been able to do so in my opening remarks tonight. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7619/83 concerning the proposed European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology (ESPRIT); and supports the Government's endorsement of the programme at the Research Council on 28th February as helping to strengthen the technological competitiveness of the Community's information technology industry.

  House of Commons (Services)
  10.5 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
  That paragraph (12) of Standing Order No. 103 (Select Committee on House of Commons (Services)) shall have effect for the remainder of the present Session as if the words ", Canada and the United States of America" were inserted at the end of line 54.
  Before the House now is the avowed intention of the Computer Sub-Committee of the House of Commons Services Committee, and I hope not to delay the House on the matter. None the less, when a similar motion came before the House before Christmas some right hon. and hon. Members expressed certain misgivings. It is therefore appropriate for me, as Leader of the House and Chairman of the Services Committee, to outline briefly the reasons for the appearance of the motion on the Order Paper.
  The Computer Sub-Committee of the House of Commons Services Committee is currently undertaking a study into information technology and how that technology might benefit Members of the House. In the course of that study, the members of the Sub-Committee have concluded that their investigations should take account of the experience of foreign legislatures in this field. They believe that a good deal is to be learnt from the United States Congress and the Canadian Federal Parliament. They therefore wish to visit those assemblies.
  The Services Committee has given its approval to this plan. The present position in regard to the Sub-Committee's ability to travel is, however, that it has the authority of the House to travel only within the United Kingdom. If, therefore, it is to seek approval for the proposed visits, Standing Order No. 103 requires amendment. The effect of the motion is to make the necessary amendment only for the remainder of the current session.
  As the House is aware, Select Committees have for many years had authority to travel abroad, and they do so fairly frequently. The Liaison Committee has on behalf of the House of Commons Commission the task of examining applications for overseas travel from Select Committees and gives or withholds approval as it sees fit. There is nothing in the motion to disturb this arrangement, nor in my view would it be right to do so. The Sub-Committee's proposed visit would be subject to that scrutiny by the Liaison Committee in the normal way.
  I do not propose myself to explain in detail the arrangements for and cost of the proposed visit. The chairman of the Computer Sub-Committee, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), is present and will, I know, be glad to address any questions of that sort that may be raised. More important, the motion before us does not seek the approval of the House for this or any other visit but merely for the amendment to Standing Orders which is necessary before any such visit can be proposed.
  If the motion is passed, the Computer Sub-Committee will then seek the authority of the Liaison Committee for the proposed overseas travel, and the Liaison Committee will examine the request in the same way as it now considers other Select Committee requests. On that basis the Services Committee has recommended that the amendment be made, and in that spirit I commend the motion to the House.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House was very much in the debt of the Lord Privy Seal on almost Christmas Eve when he withdrew a closely similar proposal on 22 December.
  In accordance with the Greek proverb, "Second thoughts have been wiser, though not very much wiser", it was feared that what the House might have passed on the nod with the spirit of Christmas would have extended the facility to the whole of the world outside the United Kingdom.
  The proposal before the House this evening is more modest. It restricts the Sub-Committee's potential licence for foreign travel, subject of course to the overriding control of the Liaison Committee, to North America—to the United States and Canada. We are able to address ourselves more specifically to the hypothetical utility of the Computer Sub-Committee of the Services Committee adjourning from time to time and from place to place, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the United States and Canada.
  Before the Lord Privy Seal set us free for our Christmas holidays on the previous occasion, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), the Chairman of the Sub-Committee offered—I was almost tempted to say "was injudicious enough to offer"—some reasons to the House in defence of the proposal. These can now he considered more closely as we have had warning that we are concerned with American and Canadian trips.
  Before the hon. Gentleman speaks tonight, one can refer to the observations and reasons that he gave on 22 December. First, he said as regards the United States:
  "experience in the United States has shown that the cost to the United States Government of the information technology provision for members of its legislative assembly is greater than the entire cost of providing for the Palace of Westminster, all its staff and all its Members."
  That is something that most of us would have assumed without any detailed knowledge of the circumstances. We would have assumed that the provision of computer technology for the Amercian Congress would be vastly expensive. It excited the curiousity, not unnaturally, of this very active and diligent Sub-Committee of the Services Committee and it wants to go to the United States. Its members want to examine the example of the United States to discover what the Americans did wrong.
  It is not in search of information that might be of use to the House that this Dickensian expedition to the United States is to be authorised. It is to find out why the benighted Americans are so benighted, even though we know in advance why. It stands to reason that if one provides computer services to the Members of that—I must be very careful and remember that I am referring to the democratic institutions of a friendly, if not an allied, state. I do not use the word "bloated" which occurred to me but leave reference to the United States Congress without any adjectival qualification.
  For my part, I should have thought that any reassurance as to the mistakes that the Americans have made and the cautionary benefit of their experience could have been adequately verified in writing without going to the United States and subjecting the Americans to the humiliation of an interrogation by a Committee of the House on why they went wrong.
  I can even imagine that the clerk to the Sub-Committee might write to them and inquire whether they had any ideas

  1145
  about why they had gone wrong. Any attendant information would be printed as an appendix to the eventual report and could contribute to the entertainment of the House. In short, is there really any reason for a trip across the Atlantic to satisfy our curiosity in regard to the United States' experience? I would answer that in the negative.
  There is also a question of going to Ottawa. The hon. Gentleman said
  "we wish to visit Ottawa to study specific measures that have been taken in the provision of information technology in linking building within a 10 km radius".—[Official Report, 22 December 1983, Vol. 51, c. 576–7.]
  We are all conscious of the vast extent of that great dominion and the constitutional inconveniences which are imposed upon it by the ocean of solid land by which various parts of it was separated. Even in the wildest imperial dreams of those who wish to build upon the Palace of Westminster, build new palaces of Westminster or build additional accumulations for Members of the House and their staff, research assistants and other hangers-on, I do not think that it has ever been suggested that such additions might go as far as a 10-km radius—that is, about six miles.
  Are we seriously contemplating a large excrescence six miles from Westminster and the installation of computers to keep ourselves in touch with what is going on here? It is bad enough when hon. Members exile themselves to the excrescences built on to this ancient edifice and thus fall out of touch not only with their colleagues in the House but with what from time to time might be going on in the Chamber.
  I should not have thought that the Canadian experience in coping with the enormous distances with which that country is afflicted would be relevant to any conceivable service or assistance required, or which ought to be acquired, or which anyone otherwise than in a nightmare would imagine could be required, by hon. Members of this House.
  Those are the two grounds which have so far been specified for the indulgence that the proposal seeks from the House. I submit that they are entirely insufficient and that, unless the hon. Member for Blaydon, like the Lord Privy Seal but perhaps much more so, has had wiser thoughts he would be wise to request the indulgence of the Lord Privy Seal—a delightful event—for a second time, to withdraw the proposal.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I rise to support the motion, having heard the magnificient speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I thought that I had left him behind some years ago in computer technology, in which I must declare an interest. He rightly says that what is happening in Washington and Ottawa is what we must learn to avoid and perhaps learn from.
  It is not sufficient that we should stay in this place and be ignorant of what others are doing and have done. We can surely rise above the faults of those across the Atlantic and try to understand how we can benefit the House and use the technology available across the world to improve the facilities of the House. I commend to the right hon.
  1146
  Gentleman the sentiment that we should have heart. Perhaps that phrase is unpopular now in the United States, but we in this place can believe in ourselves and learn.
  I served for many years on Council of Europe committees dealing with information technology and associated subjects. I was very much aware that hon. Members should never turn aside from the facilities available to them, which they may or may not choose to use, because that would be useful to hon. Members in their ability to do the task for which they are sent to their place of congregation, their Houses of Parliament. As a member of the Computer Sub-Committee, I commend this opportunity to the House. We should not neglect it, as it is a chance that may pass us by.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. James Tinn: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on his entertaining speech. I owe him an additional debt as I was one of those who faced the prospect of travelling to Ottawa and Washington in February—a duty that I did not contemplate with eager anticipation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) will confirm—though not, I hope, repeat—that in my reaction to the idea I used some fairly blunt northern expressions. Nevertheless, for reasons that I shall develop briefly, I was convinced that we should undertake the trip. When it was suggested—not, I am sure, by the right hon. Member for Down, South—that we were seeking some sort of holiday jaunt, I certainly expressed myself in earthier, more Anglo-Saxon terms than are customary in this place.
  There are two common sense reasons why the House should approve the visit. So far, the Sub-Committee has travelled only within London and once to Glasgow to look at equipment installed by comparable, though not entirely comparable, establishments. For instance, we spent an interesting half-day with Strathclyde county council. It may be suggested that we should rest on the experience gained from those visits, but the establishments that we visited were neither Parliaments nor legislatures, and I believe that we should study the experience of other legislators and legislatures.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South fairly suggested that we could obtain the information by correspondence. A good deal can be achieved in that way, but not sufficient. We need to talk not just to the people who design, manufacture and, above all, sell the equipment but to the people in other legislatures, especially in Canada, who use the equipment so as to discover what the snags are. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though we were merely going to look at the mistakes. Certainly, we want to learn from the mistakes of others, but we also want to learn from their achievements.
  I confess that I now look forward to the visit with a good deal more pleasurable anticipation than if it had taken place earlier, but I urge the House, in all seriousness, to enable a very hard-working Sub-Committee to complete its work by seeking relevant information and experience from at least two legislatures abroad.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: Since I have been a Member of Parliament I have attended four debates involving some form of high technology—Second

  1147
  Reading of the Telecommunications Bill, Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill, the debate on high technology on 17 February and the debate that has just ended.
  When the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) seeks to justify the proposed visit, I shall be interested to hear which hon. Members expect to take part, as those of us who sat for two and a half hours today and throughout the debate on 17 February are constantly amazed at how few Members have any interest at all in high technology in any form. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) has said, if there is such a wealth of knowledge in the Sub-Committee, its members should have come to the debate earlier today or on 17 February to give us the benefit of their expertise rather than allow us occasionally to fill in time. They could surely have imparted that knowledge and their doubts about the operations here before going to the United States or Canada.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend may not realise that I am a member of the Sub-Committee and was present for all the technology debates that he mentioned.
  Mr. Hayward: I am aware that my hon. Friend is a member of the Sub-Committee and has attended the greater part of all four debates. I shall be interested to see how many other members of the Sub-Committee can make that claim. I see the hon. Member for Blaydon gesticulating to the effect that he was present for the debate on the Telecommunications Bill, on which he was an Opposition spokesman. However, I shall also judge on the basis of the Data Protection Bill, the debate on high technology on 17 February and the debate earlier this evening.
  There is another question. Why choose Canada and the United States? If we are to be confronted by technology, surely the aspects of technology and manufacture can equally be considered in a number of other legislatures, both in and around Europe where they make and install their own equipment and have the facilities. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly said, legislators in Ottawa have confronted problems that we should not wish to meet ourselves. The legislatures of Europe might be more comparable with ours than are some of those suggested elsewhere.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: This is the third time this evening that I have sought the indulgence of the House to make a statement, but I could not resist intervening to support the motion, particularly in the light of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), which had about it a certain baroque magnificence which we find all too rarely in the House nowadays. It was sheer pleasure to listen to him. While I share the admiration of all hon. Members of those qualities of his speech, I part company with the right hon. Member when it comes to sharing his enthusiasm for the baroque nature of the building in which we live and of some of the institutions by which it is governed.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is mock-Gothic.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am happy to accept that it is mock-Gothic. I was trying to make my similies match.
  There is a computer saying that I know to my cost: "garbage in, garbage out". I have discovered that for myself since owning two computers in the House. It is possible to make major mistakes very easily through not having the information to hand and not having the benefit of the experience of others who have been involved in such things.
  Anything that can improve the knowledge of the House before it takes an important step towards what I regard as an essential reform, anything which gives Members information about operations elsewhere, will be of benefit to the Committee and will assist the decision which could have long-term implications for the services that we enjoy, not least those of cost.
  It may be, as the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) has said, that we should not have confined our visits to America and Canada, but at least it is a first step taken, and to an area that I believe has some experience in this technology. The gaining of a wider kind of experience than has, I think, come before the Committee, well served though it has been, cannot but benefit us and protect us from perhaps making the wrong decisions about what can be a key reform for the House.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) touches rather a raw nerve in me since I was present on 17 February and was prepared to speak at not inconsiderable length on new technology but had time only to declare my interest. I do not, therefore, accept any admonition from him that I was absent from any or all of those debates. I admit that I was not present on the occasion of the debate on the Data Protection Bill, but I was here on the other occasions to which he has referred and I either spoke or attempted to do so. I do not, therefore, believe that interest in high technology in the House is quite as narrow as he would suggest.
  As for the right hon. Member for Down, South, he has changed his ground somewhat in his objections to the visit, because on the last occasion he objected to it on the basis that it would somehow be improper for the Computer Subcommittee to take evidence outside this country. I prepared myself with the appropriate section of Erskine May to refute that argument.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman followed me on that occasion. Therefore, when I spoke I was not apprised of the inadequate grounds—which they are—that he would advance. I was able to address myself to those tonight.
  Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will accept that he argued that it was inappropriate for Select Committees of this House to take evidence outside this country. Equally, I am

  1149
  sure that he will accept that on mature reflection, and on looking at the rules, that is not the case. That is not what we are talking about tonight.
  We are not asking the House to give us permission to travel overseas. We are merely asking for permission—much more limited than any other Select Committee—to make a bid to the Liaison Committee, purely within this Session of Parliament and purely for one visit, to cover the Unite States and Canada. That is much more modest than the request of any other Select Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South also referred to the hypothetical utility of adjourning from place to place and from country to country. That is when he referred to his original objection. This is not hypothetical. The utility is one of learning from other people. I do not think that the font of all wisdom necessarily rests in this place. What is more, we have a duty to seek that wisdom wherever it may lie and try to use it to the benefit of hon. Members.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that America was expensive, and suggested that it would be a humiliation if we asked the Americans what they did wrong. America is expensive, but I do not think that the Americans would be humiliated if we asked what they did and why. I believe that they would be proud to say, "All right, it is expensive, but that is the price of an informed democracy, and it is a price that we are willing to pay." That is one of the options that we must consider when discussing what information should be available to hon. Members.
  It may be that that is not a price that we are willing to pay—perhaps it is unreasonable—but we cannot say that until we have asked the Americans why they choose to spend that money and are told the reasons why that price was paid. We cannot pre-judge that situation.
  We received written evidence from the Congress and read it. It is one thing to consider the written evidence from officials sitting on Capitol Hill, but it is quite another to speak to the people who must use that system to find out how effective and efficient it is. It may well be that the written submission is biased, given the very nature of the people who wrote it.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South made great play about the vast reaches of Canada, and asked whether the linking of buildings within a 10 km—or, six mile—radius was appropriate. We also have buildings within a radius, and we shall always have parliamentary buildings within a radius. The Canadian Parliament has set up a local area network within its parliamentary buildings and has linked them to enable Members of the Canadian Parliament to have the benefit of access to the maximum amount of information available via that network.
  It has done something else even more important. It has built in fibre-optic cables alongside the coaxial cables used for the network. There is nothing to tell us why that was done, but we can assume that it was because the Canadians had a very good idea what the future of information technology would be, how much access to such technology Members would want, and what kind of
  1150
  hardware would be required to provide that access. That is an area that we should probe, and we cannot do so in this country. We shall need to see the people who took that decision and find out why they took it.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), who set out our case most succinctly. I can also reveal to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) gave a somewhat understated account of what he said to me when our original intention of going to Canada and the United States in February became known. We did not wish to go to the United States in February because we expected to find conditions there particularly comfortable. We wished to go because we wanted to finish the report for which we had taken so much evidence and on which my Committee colleagues had worked so hard. We wanted to make the report as complete as possible. In order to complete the report, we need the additional evidence which we wish to approach the Liaison Committee for permission to collect.
  The report should not be left incomplete. It is unlikely that another such report, involving so many sessions of taking evidence, will be produced in the foreseeable future. The amount of work involved is too great for that to be countenanced.
  The decision as to whether we go to Canada and the United States rests with the Liaison Committee. If the House agrees, the Liaison Committee will consider our application in the same way as it considers applications from other Committees. If we cannot make our application stand up, we will be knocked back just as any other Select Committee would be. The House does not have to decide whether we should go. It has to decide only whether we should be allowed to approach the Liaison Committee for permission to go.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 13.

  Division No. 198]

  [10.38 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Henderson, Barry

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hirst, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Bright, Graham

  Lamond, James

  Butcher, John

  Leighton, Ronald

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Litherland, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon

  Loyden, Edward

  Cope, John

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Craigen, J. M.

  McWilliam, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maxton, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Eastham, Ken

  Neubert, Michael

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  Norris, Steven

  Freeman, Roger

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Gale, Roger

  Parry, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Penhaligon, David

  George, Bruce

  Pike, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Porter, Barry

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

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Prescott, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Randall, Stuart

  1151

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waller, Gary

  Rogers, Allan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Speller, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nicholson, J.

  Hayward, Robert

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

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stern, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  1152

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. William Ross and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That paragraph (12) of Standing Order No. 103 (Select Committee on House of Commons (Services)) shall have effect for the remainder of the present Session as if the words, "Canada and the United States of America" were inserted at the end of line 54.

  House of Commons (Services)

    INSHORE FISHING (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

  Agricultural Grants (Northern Ireland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  10.49 pm
  Mr. James Nicholson: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the anomaly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of agricultural grants. The difference exists in two respects—prior notification and field inspection on claims for payment.
  Prior notification requires inspection at claim stage. One reason that was advanced for continuing the present system to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) in recent correspondence was that, in areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest or in a national park, the proposal must be cleared with the relevant authority. The relevant authority in Northern Ireland is the Department of the Environment.
  The Department of the Environment is responsible for many things in Northern Ireland. It is a large conglomerate of many interests. However, I fail to see why it requires prior notification in agriculture. I shall develop that argument further.
  There is the matter of central Government involvement. The Department uses prior notification to identify problem areas. I find it hard to understand why we have this problem of prior notification. I have been a farmer. As a farmer, when I do a job, I depend on a number of factors. I depend on the contractor and when he can start. I depend also on the weather. When I wanted a grant, I rang the Department of Agriculture to give prior notification of my starting work at 10 o'clock that day. I fail to understand how prior notification will be of any use to the Department of the Environment in identifying scenic areas in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in any other area in Northern Ireland.
  The fact that we do not have proper local government in Northern Ireland should not be used to deny our farmers parity in this matter. That is another reason that has been advanced. The Department of the Environment is responsible for planning, although in fact planning should be the responsibility of the local district council. That should have no bearing on the matter of prior notification.
  Does the Minister feel that farmers in Northern Ireland are so stupid that they cannot identify the areas where they reside and have to inform the Department to take special cognisance of those areas, which may have tourist attractions? After all, farmers have been trusted in this respect down the years, and to the best of my knowledge they have not abused their conservation responsibilities in rural areas. I have yet to see examples where agriculture has ruined the landscape. In many instances the farmers have improved it. It would be difficult to find monstrosities that they have built that have ruined the landscape. They have acted responsibly.
  In many ways the farmers have acted more responsibly than many Government Departments in Northern Ireland. When the Department of the Environment constructed a road outside Armagh to a new housing estate, it pulled down more than 20 large trees which had taken 150 years to grow. Within one day they were lying flat. That is how
  1154
  the Department of the Environment goes about conservation. It believes that it can get away with it and does not worry too much about the rest. That is a bogus point to make about prior notification and it should be given little cognisance. The view that Northern Ireland is different should have no bearing on the case. I ask the Minister to remove that unwarranted anomaly.
  When one fulfils the terms of a grant and applies for payment, the work is subject to technical scrutiny. That is right. If money is paid to anyone in the form of a grant one should ensure that the money has been spent wisely and to good effect for the future. The anomaly arises because in Britain only a percentage of claims are inspected, while in Northern Ireland all claims are inspected. That has been the case for some years.
  In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South on 16 December 1983, Lord Mansfield said:
  "Nevertheless, it has been accepted that in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland difficulties could arise if my Department was seen to be applying checks on some farmers and not others. Not only could the Department become involved in the task of refuting allegations of discriminatory treatment, but there would be a real danger that once it was known that inspections did not have to be made in all cases the Department's staff in the field could come under pressure to refrain from inspecting in specific cases."
  The Minister replied in similar terms to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East more recently.
  In some respects that is a fair point, but I submit that it is also fair for the rest of the United Kingdom. While Northern Ireland has a great many problems, that is not one that arises in the farming community in rural areas. Any farmer that I have ever known who applied for a grant to improve his land, buildings or whatever, knows only too well that he must do that job properly. Will the Minister elaborate on the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Surely the Department has enough faith in its officials to know that they will act in an impartial manner. There should be no fear that they will bear down more on one section of the community than on another.
  My experience and knowledge of grant officials who inspect the claims submitted by farmers in Northern Ireland is they know the people whom they must watch closely to ensure that the grant is properly used. They know the people who, when a claim is submitted, do not go back until the day on which the grant is passed. They know the people whom it is wise to visit three or four times before completion of the grant. Grant officials in Northern Ireland have a good knowledge and awareness of the claimants with whom they deal. I do not believe that any grant inspector in any area in Northern Ireland will ever be found to bear down more on one section of the community than on another. That is a foolish argument, and one that we in Northern Ireland have great difficulty in accepting.
  If the Department is afraid that farmers will apply for approval of work that is not completed, or if it has evidence of any such practice in the rest of Great Britain since the implementation of the scheme, that would be useful information to consider in future. However, this anomaly in Northern Ireland must be abolished, and the sooner the better.
  I ask the Minister to reflect on the saving that could be made if there were parity between Northern Ireland and the

  1155
  rest of Great Britain. A saving could be made by reducing the number of a staff employed in the Department of Agriculture.
  Another aspect that has given rise to great concern in recent months is the speed of approval of grant claims. One of the greatest problems that hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland have to deal with is the situation of constituents who telephone to say that, although they applied for their grants six months previously, they have received no money to date. Those constituents may have overdrafts at the Bank, say for a large silo complex or a drainage complex, because it takes months to process the claims. I believe that the present staff could be better deployed in carrying out such work. Spot checks by officials would be far more effective than the present checks, some of which are paper checks only. The official may go to the house, but he may never go to the field to inspect the drainage work. I think that the Department should take that under its wing. If the official visits the house only, that is no proof that the drains were in fact laid, as claimed.
  I do not accept that the Department of the Environment would require an increase in staff to monitor such claims. The Department of Agriculture will identify a grant application that requires planning approval, and the application will then be Passed to the Department of the Environment for its comthents. The only difference would be that the fanner would have to apply to the Department of the Environment after which an official of that Department would inspect the application. Rather than two Departments being involved, the farmer would apply to one Department only, and that would result in better liaison. Any problems would be easily solved by the planning officials making a visit to the applicant with the involvement, if necessary, of a local councillor instead of a Member of Parliament becoming involved. For example, a man might be seeking to widen his access to a road so that he can get bigger lorries or farm machinery in and out of the farm.
  In considering the savings, I refer the Minister to an answer that he gave to me on 17 February. In 1980, when we had the change from the prior approval system under the farm capital grant scheme to the prior notification system under the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme, it resulted in less time being spent on initial field inspections and in a consequent reduction of 27 in the number of technical staff and of 35 in the number of clerical staff in Northern Ireland. No doubt there was a lot of redeployment, but there was also a big staff saving when that reorganisation took place. If we went on to reorganise again, there could well be a further saving.
  The financial saving as a result of that change was £700,000 per annum. That saving could be much greater still if we did away with prior notification and inspection, and cut the number of staff to a minimum by redeploying them elsewhere. We could also give a much better service to the agricultural community and to the farmers that it represents. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider my remarks about the anomaly, to get the Department in Northern Ireland to do away with it, and not to ask farmers in Northern Ireland to suffer something that farmers in the rest of the United Kingdom farmers do not have to suffer.
  11.6 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I am glad to see that the hon. Member for
  1156
  Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) has brought this problem before the House. It is also good to see some of his right hon. and hon. Friends supporting him. Often, the House is empty for an Adjournment debate, apart from the hon. Member who has raised it, the Minister and the Whip.
  The hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to two main questions: prior notification and field inspection. He queried the justification for both of them. He also referred to the speed, or lack of it, in dealing with grant claims. He gave part of the answer that I would have given about the recent history of prior notification. It may be worth reminding the House that this feature of the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme came into effect in October 1980, as a result of a study carried out in consultation with Sir Derek Rayner of the administration of agricultural capital grant schemes. In consequence, savings were achieved. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to those, and indeed, one should be grateful that the costs of Government were so significantly reduced.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the sum of nearly £750,000 and the total of 62 technical and clerical staff saved. He should accept that that was a very thorough review, and that if it had been deemed sensible to go further at that time, the team operating under Sir Derek Rayner would no doubt have so advised. Yet he questions whether prior notification is required and he looks for total parity of treatment with Great Britain.
  The fact is that the circumstances are different in Northern Ireland. The prior notification scheme operates in Great Britain in respect of special areas, to which he referred, such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, and in these areas a farmer must clear his proposal with the relevant statutory authority before starting work. Northern Ireland is different only in the sense that notification needs to be dealt with at central Government level because, as the hon. Member pointed out, these matters are dealt with centrally and not by district councils. I share his hope that at some time in the future it may be possible for that responsibility to be devolved to local councils, but it is not the case at the moment.
  The reason prior notification operates is to allow the farmer to meet his obligations in regard not only to conservation but also to planning matters. It is not a particularly cumbersome procedure. I have considered carefully the forms involved and it is relatively simple.
  The hon. Member suggested that the Department of the Environment might be the better authority to be informed on these matters. That is a point that clearly has validity, but that would mean that the farmer would be dealing with two Departments, and we have judged it preferable for notification to be made to the Department of Agriculture, with which he has most contact as a farmer. It is then up to the Department of Agriculture to liaise as appropriate with the Department of the Environment. I do not believe that to involve the Department of the Environment directly would accelerate matters. It might well lead to confusion.
  The hon. Member went on to ask why 100 per cent. field inspections were necessary. He referred only to the justification which my noble Friend had made. I do not doubt that in explaining the situation my noble Friend would have gone much wider than the possibility of allegations of discrimination. There are local circumstances of this nature which apply in Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that they should be mentioned entirely in isolation. Even in other circumstances, one fanner might

  1157
  begin to question why he had been subject to a field inspection when his neighbour had not. Certainly it is much more convenient if 100 per cent. field inspections are carried out on that ground alone—namely, the avoidance of allegations by one neighbour against another of discrimination.
  Surely there is the much more important point as to whether or not there has been any abuse of the scheme. One has only to think of a subject which was very close to our hearts a few years ago. If I remember correctly, a certain depth of hard core and a certain depth of concrete were required in concrete roads. I understand that in several instances the specifications were not fully met. I do not believe that in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman would have wanted anything but a proper inspection in all cases so that public money was not abused.
  There may be other circumstances in which field inspections are not absolutely necessary, but I suspect that for the time being at least it will be wise for us to continue in that way.
  Mr. Nicholson: The only argument I have with the Minister is that he seems to imply that in Northern Ireland only 3 in. of hard core might be put in, when in Great Britain 6 in. would be used, and that therefore inspection was not required in Great Britain. I do not necessarily disagree with the Minister. Perhaps a 100 per cent. inspection is the one sure way, but even with that, officials will not be 100 per cent. sure.
  Mr. Butler: Yes, but alternatively it is possible to argue that it would be preferable to follow the practice in Great Britain. We have to look at this. If we can be satisfied that anything other than a 100 per cent. inspection will ensure that public money is not misused, we would be justified in moving in that direction because a cost saving could be achieved. I should want to be satisfied about that before proceeding down that road. That is something that we have in mind to see whether we can make any change in the procedures.
  The hon. Gentleman questioned whether it might be possible to transfer staff involved in such activity to deal
  1158
  with the grant claims. As 100 per cent. inspection is required, and will continue to be required unless and until changes are made, there is no question of changing staff to deal with grant applications. However, I am conscious of the problems caused by the delays in paying grant which have been mentioned in the Chamber—for example, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), on at least two occasions. Farmers have expressed concern. I appreciate that cash flow problems must have caused considerable inconvenience.
  There was an upsurge in applications, largely because various items were being deleted from the list of work eligible for grant under the grasslands scheme and because grant would be no longer available under the agricultural development programme for the initial application of lime and fertiliser.
  I have examined the situation carefully. In the period 1 April to 30 September, about 22 per cent. more applications were made for grant. That by itself does not seem significant, but when one breaks down the figures one finds that in August and September the application rate was nearly 60 per cent. higher. That, meeting the seasonal peak for other applications in respect of hill livestock compensatory amounts, calf premiums and sheep scheme payments, put a considerable strain on the Department.
  Extra staff were taken on, but they had to be trained. In the training period output fell. Overtime was worked in 1982, so the introduction of overtime in the autumn and winter of 1983 did not make for a relative improvement on the previous year. The decision to take on extra staff was justified.
  The delay was about 25 or 26 weeks, but it is now down to 18 to 20 weeks. Given no unforeseen circumstances, we expect to be back to normal by the end of May. That will be a consolation to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's questions satisfactorily. They are important. We shall examine further the 100 per cent. inspections and if we make any changes we shall announce them in the appropriate way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Public Records Office
  Public Records Office
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Budget Payments
  Budget Payments
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Third World
  Third World
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Political Integration (Spinelli Proposals)
  Political Integration (Spinelli Proposals)
  "Pipeline" Debts
  "Pipeline" Debts
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gulf Crisis
  Gulf Crisis
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Moscow
  Moscow
  Central America
  Central America
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Eastern Europe
  Eastern Europe
  Stockholm Disarmament Conference
  Stockholm Disarmament Conference
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Immigrants (New Commonwealth and Pakistan)
  Immigrants (New Commonwealth and Pakistan)
  Syria (British Community)
  Syria (British Community)
  USSR (Jewish Emigration)
  USSR (Jewish Emigration)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Italian Foreign Minister (Disarmament Talks)
  Italian Foreign Minister (Disarmament Talks)
  India
  India
  South Africa (Sporting Contacts)
  South Africa (Sporting Contacts)
  East-West Relations
  East-West Relations
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Disarmament Talks
  Disarmament Talks
  Hong Kong (Expatriate Civil Servants)
  Hong Kong (Expatriate Civil Servants)
  Jordan
  Jordan
  Spain (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty)
  Spain (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty)
  Gulf War
  Gulf War
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Honduras
  Honduras
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  British Dependent Territories
  British Dependent Territories
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Anti-satellite Weapons
  Anti-satellite Weapons
  Israel and PLO (Venice Declaration)
  Israel and PLO (Venice Declaration)
  British Council
  British Council
  Eritrea
  Eritrea
THE ARTS
  Works of Art (Capital Taxation)
  Works of Art (Capital Taxation)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme
  Young Workers Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drink-driving Offences (Tests)
  Drink-driving Offences (Tests)
  Work Permit Holders
  Work Permit Holders
  Computerised Information
  Computerised Information
  Shane Paul O'Doherty
  Shane Paul O'Doherty
  Immigration Officials (Guidelines)
  Immigration Officials (Guidelines)
  Crime (Statistics Charter)
  Crime (Statistics Charter)
  Computerised Personal Data
  Computerised Personal Data
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Drugs
  Drugs
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Vincent and Grenadine
  St. Vincent and Grenadine
ENVIRONMENT
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Rate Support Grant (Lewisham)
  Rate Support Grant (Lewisham)
  River Lea
  River Lea
  Land
  Land
  Land Registers
  Land Registers
  Inner Cities (Development)
  Inner Cities (Development)
  Amusement Centres
  Amusement Centres
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Land Sales (Private Treaty)
  Land Sales (Private Treaty)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  Customs Duties
  Customs Duties
  Seamen (Tax Relief)
  Seamen (Tax Relief)
  EEC (Net Payments)
  EEC (Net Payments)
  EEC (Value Added Tax)
  EEC (Value Added Tax)
  Alcohol (Excise Duties)
  Alcohol (Excise Duties)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Life Assurance
  Life Assurance
  Age Allowance
  Age Allowance
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
PRIME MINISTER
  Service Personnel (Injury Claims)
  Service Personnel (Injury Claims)
  Passport Office
  Passport Office
SCOTLAND
  NHS Staff
  NHS Staff
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Geriatric Patients
  Geriatric Patients
  Day Patients (Hospital Attendances)
  Day Patients (Hospital Attendances)
  Barlinnie Prison
  Barlinnie Prison
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
WALES
  Perinatal Mortality Survey Group
  Perinatal Mortality Survey Group
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Insurance
  Insurance
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Overseas Trade Statistics
  Overseas Trade Statistics
ENERGY
  Biomass
  Biomass
  Gas
  Gas
DEFENCE
  Soviet Missiles
  Soviet Missiles
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Police Officers (Claims and Charges)
  Police Officers (Claims and Charges)
  Charities
  Charities
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Parole)
  Prisoners (Parole)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Drainage Scheme (Blackwater)
  Drainage Scheme (Blackwater)
  Fines (Increases)
  Fines (Increases)
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Armagh Prison (Strip Searches)
  Children's Homes (Committee of Inquiry)
  Children's Homes (Committee of Inquiry)
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Intervention Payments
  Intervention Payments
  Subsidised Food and Wine (USSR)
  Subsidised Food and Wine (USSR)
  Foodstuffs
  Foodstuffs
  European Community (Food Import Taxes)
  European Community (Food Import Taxes)
  Subsidised Food (Grants)
  Subsidised Food (Grants)
  Bread (Vitamin Content)
  Bread (Vitamin Content)
  Agriculture Committee (Report)
  Agriculture Committee (Report)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs and Medicines
  Drugs and Medicines
  Tobacco Product (Health Claims)
  Tobacco Product (Health Claims)
  Hospital Patient Transfers
  Hospital Patient Transfers
  Renal Units (Staff Training Costs)
  Renal Units (Staff Training Costs)
  NHS Staff (Patient Lifting and Handling)
  NHS Staff (Patient Lifting and Handling)
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Private Health Care
  Private Health Care
  Hyperactive Children
  Hyperactive Children
  Spectacles (Elderly Persons)
  Spectacles (Elderly Persons)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
  Home Nurses
  Home Nurses
  Lunch Clubs
  Lunch Clubs
  Elderly Persons (Residential Care)
  Elderly Persons (Residential Care)
  Tadworth Court (Redundancy Payments)
  Tadworth Court (Redundancy Payments)
  Social Workers
  Social Workers

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Family Practitioner Committee Finance: Report
Lord Hunter of Newington: 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 expect the Binder Hamlyn report on Family Practitioner Committee finance to be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we are still studying this report.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief reply. Does he realise that those who lead the family doctors at the present time are highly responsible and very much concerned about costs? They believe that the legislation making the family practitioner committees directly responsible to the Secretary of State sets the stage for future relations. Does the Minister realise that the opportunity is slipping away, and with it good will? The pharmacists are also anxiously awaiting the report
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, will the Government reconsider their decision about delaying publication?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am well aware of the responsibility exhibited by doctors and I am also aware of the concern which the noble Lord expresses. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will note what he says, but the fact is that the report requires further consideration.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister be good enough to answer the Question? The Question is: when do the Government expect the report to be published?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the report may be published in due course.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister agree that most Members of this House will not be satisfied with that answer? Will he explain to the House why, when a report is paid for by the taxpayer and is available to the Secretary of State, it should not be available for discussion by the professions, by the patients, and by this House? Why is the report not available for publication now? Why does it have to await the conclusion of the Secretary of State?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to publish the report anyway, and he is further considering it. That is why it has not been published.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many professional people are interested in this report? On reflection, will he not agree that he has just lost a good opportunity to have made an interim Statement which would have been acceptable to the profession, instead of treating it in the offhand manner in which he has treated this Question this afternoon?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that there is no question of treating the profession in an offhand way. The fact remains that this report, which has been produced, is being considered by Ministers, and when that consideration has been completed, it may be published.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, last December the Government said that they would publish the report "soon", but today the Minister says that "it may be published" in due course. Does that mean that the Government are actively considering not publishing the report?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords; it means that the noble Lord and I each put a different interpretation on what "soon" means.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister explain why it is necessary for the Secretary of State and himself to consider the report before other people, who may also be experts and whose views may be very helpful, should have the opportunity to consider it? Why cannot it be published now?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State commissioned the report and it is up to him to decide when to publish it.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether this report will suggest any further cuts in the health service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not prepared to say anything about what the report contains.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is it not a fact that the financial squeeze on hospitals has resulted in an increase of some 10 per cent. in the general practitioners' drug account? Is the Minister aware that National Health Service hospitals now discharge patients with only one or two days' supply of drugs, whereas prior to the financial cuts two or three weeks' supply was the normal practice? Is it not a fact that these financial cuts on the hospitals have considerably added to the workload and the drug costs of medical practitioners? Are these not good reasons why this report should be urgently considered for publication?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, all that the noble Lord says about drugs is of course important, but it is not directly connected with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Question and Answer are verging on becoming a constitutional matter? Is it not clearly understood that in the case of a report commissioned by a Minister, it shall be left to the Minister to judge whether or not it shall be officially reported to the general public? I have no doubt that the parts of it which noble Lords opposite want to develop will be leaked in time, and they will have every opportunity of emphasising their points.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, certainly for the first part of his question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers, which are normally a model of clarity, on this occasion have added confusion to confusion, and that he leaves the House in a state of some uncertainty? As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, is it not the case that in December there was a commitment "to publish soon"? Those apparently were the words used. Now the noble Lord says that there is no certainty of publication and no idea as to when the Minister may make a Statement. Surely the noble Lord can be a little clearer. It would assist the House and the country generally, especially the medical practitioners, if he could indicate whether or not this report will be published and when the Minister is likely to make a Statement. Will it be within one month or six months? Will the noble Lord consider that very carefully. If he is not briefed to give clear replies today, will he undertake to the House to come here and be clear a little later on?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have given a perfectly clear statement on what is the position. The fact is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on 13th December that we hoped to publish the report shortly. For various reasons it has been decided not yet to publish the report, since it is being further considered; so I have nothing further to add.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an undertaking that he will see that his right honourable friend the Minister sees an account of today's proceedings in your Lordships' House?
Lord Glenarthur; My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will read what has taken place.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, whatever may be the recommendations of the Binder Hamlyn report, are the Government still considering ways and means of limiting the family practitioner services?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the best thing would be for the noble Lord to wait and see the outcome of the report.

Unemployment Figures
2.44 p.m.
Lord Diamond: 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, when publishing figures of unemployment claimants, they will additionally publish their internal estimates of total unemployed including all those available for work.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, estimates of the total number of unemployed seeking work are available only from household surveys, the principal one of which is the labour force survey. The latest information relates to 1981, when the number of unregistered unemployed were roughly offset by the number of those registered who were not seeking work. Estimates from the 1983 labour force survey will become available later this year.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer. Do I gather from that that he accedes to the request contained in this Question that when these figures are available they will be published together with a statement of the unemployed claimants?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is my understanding that the labour force surveys are published.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Minister not aware that whatever criteria are used for publishing unemployment figures, they show a progressive increase in unemployment among all age groups? How does the noble Earl square this with the continuing statements from Government Ministers and some of their friends in the Community that the economy is improving? Does he think that the people who are joining the dole queues in increasing numbers will have regard to those statements and think they are correct?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is a sad fact, as I have said to the House many times, that there is no correlation in the western world at the moment between rates of economic recovery and improvement in unemployment levels.

Beer Measure Discrepancies
2.47 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: 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 now implement Section 19 of the Weights and Measures Act 1979 so that beer drinkers will no longer be sold "short measure".
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the available evidence does not suggest that the practice of dispensing short measure beer is widespread. The Secretary of State, however, recognises that all the while the law is capable of being interpreted differently in different parts of Great Britain and that an underlying current of doubt, confusion and disquiet may remain. Discussions are therefore taking place with the interested parties to see whether an acceptable solution can be found. The Government hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his obvious understanding of the complexity of this problem. Is it not time that we gave up this absurd system whereby beer is sold by the so-called brimful measure, so that it is either slopping over the sides onto the counter or being sold in short measure? Is the noble Lord aware that the trading standards officers are now of the opinion that beer drinkers are being defrauded of half a million pounds a year in short measures? As the Government have already acted commendably to protect wine drinkers from being cheated, is it not time that they did the same for beer drinkers by making use of the oversized marked glass obligatory?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, so far as the oversized glass is concerned, I would stress to the noble Lord that if beer were to be served in line measure glasses this would cause large bills for replacement of brim measures and ultimately mean higher prices for the consumer. As for what the customer expects when he asks for a pint of beer, of course that is for the courts to decide.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, while I appreciate the sympathy expressed on behalf of beer drinkers, although I never drink the stuff myself, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would express a little sympathy for those who partake of other liquid refreshments? Frequently when one asks for a double whisky—I will not say where; I exclude your Lordships' House and the environment—they sometimes add rather too much water. Can something be done about that? Why should there be a monopoly for beer drinkers?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I was not aware that anywhere where the noble Lord partakes of his tipple water was added to the mixture of whisky. Of course the noble Lord and the House will be aware that if they come north of the Border they tend to get one-fifth of a gill and not the measure south of the Border. Perhaps if the noble Lord would accompany me home at the weekend he might obtain greater satisfaction.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider whether we can possibly have an oversized glass appointed for sparkling wines, in time of course for the hundredth birthday of the noble Lord who has just spoken?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I take note of the noble Viscount's comments.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, speaking as a publican, I never give short measure of beer or any other drink?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful to receive that comment from my noble friend. I am sure that the entire House will note my noble friend's comments.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, in asking my noble friend a supplementary question, may I declare an interest in that formerly I was a director of a company which produces a stout of which the courts of law have ruled that the froth is part of the drink. Is my noble friend aware that in the places where the beer is sold the glasses are of a particular size, which are a pint and other standard sizes? Can the noble Lord say how to get a quart into a pint pot?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, and indeed your Lordships, would care to study the fascinating case of Marshall v. Searles reported in [1964] Crim. L. R. 667, D.C. In that case, the particular brew which has been mentioned but not by name by my noble friend was detailed as, when it was supplied, containing less than 19 fluid ounces of liquid, the remainder being froth. In that case the defence successfully contended that the advertisements for this great brew presented it to the public as a beverage with a head equivalent to 10 per cent. of the whole and the mixture of gas and liquid was what the customer expected to get.
The judgment went on to say that it had no effect on the ability of the inspectors to prosecute in cases of short measure of other beers. I hope that satisfies my noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the questioning upon this important matter concludes, will the Minister care to make it quite clear that there was no imputation upon the sobriety of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, when he said that every time the noble Lord asked for a pint of beer it was a matter for the courts?
Lord Lyell: Yes, my Lords; but I hoped that I was answering the question on what the customer expects when he asks for a pint. The answer it has been suggested that I should convey to your Lordships in this respect is that what does or does not constitute a pint of beer is a matter for the courts. I shall refrain from going into a Scottish case which was dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in an earlier incarnation. In that case it was held north of the Border that the customer expected to obtain a head on his beer.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the real problem here rests on the old adage that, "There's many a slip twixt cup and lip"?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and I shall pay attention to his adage myself.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, if the noble Lord is not disposed to be moved in this matter by the consumer arguments, will he bear in mind that it is the opinion of the Customs and Excise that the sale of beer in short measure defrauds not just the beer drinker but the Inland Revenue as well, since duty is collected on non-

1225
existent beer and then is not paid to the Inland Revenue? Finally, does the noble Lord recollect that in the last court case on this matter the judgment appeared to suggest that short measure was only short measure if the customer said it was short measure? Is that not a very unsatisfactory position in which to leave the law?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid I am only able to quote the law as I find it. I will not go further into the 1978 case and I will not quote the 1964 case, but Section 19 of the 1979 Act, which the noble Lord asked about, has yet to be implemented. My first Answer goes to show that the Government are aware of the problems and that we are taking it seriously.

Junior Hospital Doctors: Working Hours
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in reducing excessive hours worked by some junior doctors.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the most arduous rotas which required junior hospital doctors to be on duty for 105 hours a week or more have been banned. In addition health authorities have managed to reduce the number of juniors contracted for more than 84 hours a week from 5,000 to 4,000, with prospects for a further reduction. Of these 4,000 only about half are on rotas which are likely to require significant amounts of work when on-call. Overall less than 10 per cent. of junior hospital doctors are now on rotas which would generally be considered hard-pressed. This is a significant improvement.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very satisfactory Answer and ask him whether he will be able to continue this encouraging improvement, as this is very important indeed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Department of Health and Social Security has issued guidance setting a one in three rota which equates roughly to 84 hours a week as the target maximum commitment for the future. Authorities will be pursuing this as part of the normal management process.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister say whether that is accepted by the junior hospital doctors? Surely a figure of 80 hours a week is their objective, and does he not agree that that would normally equate to serving no more than one in four nights a week on duty?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the average junior is contracted for almost 90 hours a week, but works about 55. The remainder of the time is quite often spent at home on standby. Many junior doctors have said that the really tiring element is not the number of
1226
hours they work but the disruption caused by calls in the middle of the night. We believe that what we have said is consistent.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would not the hours that the noble Lord has quoted be further reduced if there were fewer unemployed doctors?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have already, on numerous occasions, answered questions dealing with the unemployment of doctors. The statistics which have been displayed have not been verified by the department.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, at the end of January it was announced that there were insufficient pre-training posts for doctors who had been successful in their final examinations and had qualified. Will the Minister confirm that that is unprecedented in the history of the NHS? Will he also assure the House that all medical students who qualify in June next will receive a job?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I obviously cannot commit anybody as to whether doctors qualifying in June will find jobs, but there is no evidence to suggest that there is unemployment in the way that I think lies behind the noble Lord's question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister not agree that this distressing question of excessive overtime on the one hand and threatened unemployment on the other that affects junior doctors is also now applicable to SENs, SRNs, state certified midwives and ward sisters? Would it not perhaps be a good thing if the Government were prepared to talk about these issues with representatives of the junior doctors via the British Medical Association and the Confederation of Health Service Employees?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to doctors and not to the other staff the noble Lord refers to.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the decision taken some time ago by the Secretary of State to increase the number of consultants' posts in the health service in order to alleviate the log jam for junior doctors, thereby enabling the younger doctors to get into the service for which they are trained, would have been helpful? Can he tell the House how many new consultants' posts have been created as a result of that decision?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not able to give the figures which the noble Baroness asks for without notice. An increase in the posts for junior doctors would not necessarily be the answer to reducing hours, either.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I ask the Minister whether the Government will try to encourage more junior doctors trained in British medical schools to work in our British spinal units? Is he aware that nearly all of them come from abroad and were trained in medical schools abroad?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that question is not particularly relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, since the Government require that newly-qualified doctors must complete so many pre-registration posts before they are finally registered, do the Government not have a clear obligation to see that there are enough pre-registration posts available for newly qualified doctors?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that that point will be borne in mind by my right honourable friend.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council Meeting.
With the leave of the House I should like, in the normal way, to say a brief word about the timing of the two short debates this afternoon standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. It is usual to suggest putting a standard for such debates; but, following the principle that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, the maximum for the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard will be as high as 14 minutes and that for the debate in the name of Lord Jenkins of Putney 12 minutes. Nevertheless, perhaps I should still point out that if any noble Lord should speak at even greater length, he would do so at the expense of later speakers in that particular debate.

Highlands and Islands Development Board
3 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard Viscount Massereene and Ferrard rose to call attention to the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and its cost to the national ecomony; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I initiated this debate for two reasons. First—and here I have to declare an interest—I have property in the Western Highlands and Islands, and I have spent a large part of my life there from my early years. But my chief reason for putting down this Motion was that the Highlands and Islands Development Board is in its 20th year. It came into being as a brain-child (if that is the right expression) of the Labour Government of 1965. Most of your Lordships will be familiar with the financing of the board, which is financed by the Treasury. The board finances various projects in the Highlands by means of grant and loans. Taking it overall, the amounts of the grants and the loans are about equal. You sometimes get more grant assistance and at other times more loan assistance. On the grants, the board hopes to retrieve the money after five years. Of course,
1228
whether it does so is not always certain. Regarding the loans, they are subject to a very small rate of interest, and the loans repayment terms are a matter of negotiation.
The board also invests in equity; but these days some 75 per cent. of the projects which the board go into are financed by private investment. That was not so when the board first started. The objects of the board, as your Lordships will know, are to promote jobs in the Highlands and Islands especially and preferably for local people; also to improve the amenities, to stop depopulation; and also to help and advise regarding the improvement in public services. The board started in 1965 and I am afraid for a few years they made some serious mistakes. But the Western Highlands and Islands are not an easy part of the nation in which to invest money. This is because with some people there is an attitude there which can, in a way, be compared with that in Spain, the attitude of not doing today what you can do tomorrow. But tomorrow never comes.
I feel that if the board had taken early advice of people who had more experience of the Highlands and Islands, they might not have made so many mistakes at the beginning. The late Lord Leverhulme gave millions to the Hebrides at the turn of the century. If he had been alive at the start of the board in 1965 I am sure we could have learned a lot from him. I should like to say that the population of the Highlands and Islands, which, as your Lordships know, includes the Shetlands and the Orkneys, is at the moment 352,000-odd compared with 371,000 in 1921. The population during this period reached its lowest in 1961. I can personally remember when the population of the Island of Mull, where I happened to stay, was twice the number it is today.
However, that is not the board's fault. The reason is that in those days people did not have to have TV sets or two cars, or deep freezers and gadgets. Although their standard of living was lower, the population was larger but quite self-supporting. There were no subsidies; but the people in those days cultivated the land far more than is now the case. There were far more in-shore fishermen; there was far more private employment on the estates. There was no unemployment and the people on the whole were more self-reliant. But, as I say, the high standards of today make impractical the existence of a population as large as it was in the 1930s. The board have been very generous to Mull; but the population has remained at about half what it was in the 1930s. Again, that is not the fault of the board. If the board had not helped, then the population would have been lower than it is now. And I think that that applies to all of the Highlands and Islands area, to a certain degree.
What I can never understand is that the first two chairmen, who were both very charming people, were professors of urban planning. It is rather as I remember the Army—although this is an old joke—where it was said that if you a had a recruit who was a driver, you made him a cook; and if you had a cook, you made him a driver. But it does seem rather odd to me that the early chairmen of the Highlands and Islands Development Board were professors of urban planning. They had no experience of the Highlands, no pertinent experience. No doubt some of

1229
their advisers had such experience; but their advisers were not very successful.
The local people—and I am not speaking now only regarding the Isle of Mull—were given grants and loans, but with disastrous results. That is not so today. I remember one occasion when the board wanted a boat to take tourists out to a small group of islands off Mull. Two boatmen were given grants. The first recipient was a man who got drunk and ran his boat on the rocks—and that was £5,000 or £10,000 written off. I do not think that the next recipient took anyone out. He hopped it to America with most of the money. There was a third man, who did take people out; but in the end it was a financial disaster for the board. There was a man, a retired colonel of a Highland regiment, who had no money. He asked for a grant and was refused it. He bought a boat on hire-purchase and ran the service. He ran it excellently and it cost the taxpayers nothing. I am giving those examples, but I think that perhaps the advisers were not very good in those earlier days. Now it has all changed.
It is no good crying over spilt milk, but in those days the board was rather wasteful of money. One criticism I would perhaps make is that the board appear to have a finger in every pie in the Highlands and Islands, whether it is forestry, agriculture, tourism, the fishing industry, transport, or boat building; one could go on and on. I wonder whether there is not some overlapping and duplication, because, after all, we have the Scottish Development Agency, the local authorities, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Highland Regional Council, the EEC, and so on. There appears to be overlapping, and in any case too many cooks spoil the broth.
One disaster, which was not the board's fault, was the closure of the pulp mill at Fort William. The Government planted hundreds of thousands of acres all around that area, and now there is no pulp mill. It closed because of the high cost of electricity. I am told that in Canada the cost of energy is five times less than in this country. I am also told that it is less in Australia. That closure was a tragedy.
Then 14 months later there was the closure of the smelter at Invergordon. There is now some redress due to the fact that quite a lot of activity is going on in connection with the repair of oil rigs, and so on. The board have done a lot of get back employment in that area. They have also tried it in Fort William, and I am told there is some hope that the pulp mill may be starting up again. I hope that is right, because sending pulp to Norway and Sweden is completely uneconomical. Today some of the plantations are not thinned, and even if they are thinned, the trees are left on the ground.
The board's report—I have it here, and I must say it is a good report, beautifully produced—suggests that there should be more planting because the Forestry Commission has not taken up all the land it was allowed to plant during the last year. But I should like to say that if we go on planting and planting, though it produces employment, very soon all the lower slopes of the hills will be in sitka spruce and that will make all the higher ground completely valueless, because anything living on the higher ground will not have any wintering.
Also, I should like to warn the board that I know of a salmon farm (which is not mine, but is on my land) where the experts take the fresh water all the time and test it. They have found that where there are spruce, in particular sitka spruce, planted down to a loch, there is far higher acidity, especially when timber is being cut. There is there one big loch that the hotels rely on for fishing facilities for their tourists, and it is now very near danger level. It would be a disaster if the Forestry Commission, by planting around the lochs, killed the fish in them.
I see that my time is running out, and I must not take too long, but I should like to mention that tourism is extremely important to the Highlands. The board have been extremely helpful with regard to tourists and they gave £4 million in 1982. But there is a danger, to which I have previously referred in this House, that when tourists go to the Highlands, if there are tens of thousands of them and there is no control, they tend to spoil what they go to see.
I have now spoken for 14 minutes and I should like to go on for half an hour, but, on the Chief Whip's instructions, I shall sit down. Of course this is a very big subject to cover and there are so many facets of the Highlands that I have not touched on at all. Before sitting down, I should just like to congratulate the new chairman of the board. I think he has done very well and his heart is in the work. We are getting a lot of jobs. The board have created, or retained, over 22,000 jobs in 5,989 projects during the last 10 years. The board now receive quite a good interest from their previous investment, though obviously it cannot hope to equal the expenditure. Expenditure in 1982 was £15 million-odd over income, but on the whole I think it is money well spent. I was very anti the board when it first started, but I have changed my mind. My Lords, I shall sit down now, but I am so pleased to see that so many of your Lordships, who are such great experts on this matter, are going to speak in the debate. I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Viscount on choosing this subject. I am delighted to be able to debate the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and I agree with almost the whole of the noble Viscount's speech. If I have one quibble it is over the wording of his Motion, because I think it could have called attention not only to the cost of the board to the national economy but to its benefits. I think it has been of great benefit, not only to the Highlands but also to the economy in general.
In my more boastful moments I claim to have suggested this board. It is a boast made by hundreds of other people but I keep up my own. I think it was obvious to anyone who knew the Highlands that it lacked capital, it lacked an injection of new thought about employment and therefore the board was necessary. I would maintain that it has justified those who advocated its creation.
It may be that there is some overlap between bodies; for example, between some local authorities and the board. If that is so, by all means let us straighten it out; but I do not think the fault lies primarily with the board. I say that because as the years have gone on the

1231
Highlands and Islands Board has branched out from the provision of capital and the encouragement of new enterprises to take a very acute interest in the whole social framework of the Highlands. It has been, for example, instrumental in setting up co-operatives and dealing with social problems throughout the area. I know of no other body which is in a position to do that over the whole area. Furthermore, it is a very special area. I need not tell your Lordships of its traditions, of its language and of its economy, which are in many ways quite different from the rest of Scotland.
If I have two very small criticisms of the board, I think it is true to say that they are both being met. First, like many other bureaucratic bodies, it began to creep up in numbers; and, secondly, it seemed to me at one time too centralised on Inverness. I do not know how many people are employed in its Inverness offices now, but there were over 200. However, it has now taken some trouble to spread its wings and send out its officials over the whole Highlands area, which I welcome.
We should bear in mind that it has gathered together an extremely expert staff. It would be invidious to mention too many names, but I must mention Mr. Storey, who was at one time the development officer of the Shetlands, and who I regard as a most outstanding man in understanding the Highlands and encouraging these social developments, to which I attach considerable importance.
I have one major suggestion to make. It has long rather concerned me that in the Highlands, and indeed all over this country, we drain off national savings. If you look at the accounts of the Aberdeen Savings Bank, you will see that there are very considerable savings in the Highlands and there are also very considerable oil revenues. And what happens to them? For the ordinary person, the only outlet for his savings is either a building society, a savings bank or Government securities. Therefore, they are taken out of the area, they are taken south and instead we get back grants and loans from central Government.
Apart from this being expensive, I do not think it helps the area. We could mobilise a lot of local patriotism in the Highlands for Highlands enterprises. I should like to see the board, in conjunction with the banks, the joint stock banks, some merchant banks and the savings bank, set up a bank or an institution in the Highlands which will take in local savings and will use them for the development of the area. I should also like to see such a bank give expert advice to the fairly small number of entrepreneurs who are prepared to set up businesses in the area, to existing businesses and to co-operatives, which have a very considerable future in the Highlands.
This happens in Europe; it does not happen in this country. There are Scottish banks and new Scottish banks. There is what is called the Adam Bank in Edinburgh and there are people in the Highlands who have banking experience. I should very much like to see the board go into this, because not only does enterprise in the Highlands lack capital, but very often it lacks expert advice; for instance, on accountancy matters. In Spain, for instance, the Casa Popular Laboral supervises the enterprises which it has helped to set up and gives that kind of expert advice.
1232
I should also like to see some of the oil revenues going to the board. There is a considerable debate going on as to what should be done with the very large oil revenues which are accruing in the area. No-one will know better than the noble Lord who is to reply about those large sums of money which are accruing from oil. I believe that the board, and possibly the ICFC, in conjunction with banks, could invest this in not only industry but agriculture, social development, fishing and so on in a way which would be highly beneficial to the whole area.
Very soon, we shall have the report—I am not quite certain whether or not we already have it—of the Montgomery Commission on the Highlands. I shall be interested to see what they recommend as to the future economic development of the Highlands and Islands, and as to the relationship between the Highlands and Islands Development Board, local authorities and other authorities, public and private; and, indeed, private landlords in the whole area. I have discussed this matter with the chairman. Finally, I should like to congratulate the chairman and his staff, as well as his predecessor, on the work that they have done. I think they can claim to have made a very considerable contribution to the improved living standards and economy of the whole Highlands area.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in rising to speak in this House for the first time, I would ask for your Lordships' patience and, as a lowlander from North Fife, I would also look for the leniency of noble Lords from the Highlands, in case by mistake I now proceed to say anything with which they disagree. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has introduced this debate today on the Highlands and Islands. Although the territorial area concerned is as much as half that of the whole of Scotland, the problems of the Scottish 6 per cent. living there are so different from those of the rest of the country that, presumably, it must always be difficult to do justice to them in any general debate on the Scottish economy as a whole.
As is all too evident, not only do the Highlands and other rural areas tend to suffer more when the rest of the country undergoes inflation and recession, but, conversely, even when conditions improve elsewhere there is still a risk that people will succumb to the temptation to leave their home ground in order to find jobs in the south. In view of this, it is very heartening to note that the steady decline in Highlands population, which began in the 1850s and continued relentlessly well into this century, at last came to an end in the 1960s, and for the net gains in population and jobs that have occurred since the late 1960s a great deal of credit should be given to the work of the HIDB.
Of course, North Sea oil exploitation in the early 1970s, which has led to much welcome employment, would have probably done so anyway, irrespective of the existence of the board or of some other form of Government aid. Yet population and jobs began to improve before North Sea oil came along and, if the HIDB had not been operating for the last 19 years, I think that many opportunities which have been taken would have been missed, and that our present hopes

1233
for the future prospects of the region would not have the same foundation.
But the questions which are implicitly put to your Lordships in this debate today are: how expensive is the board to run; how responsible has its work been for the present level of achievement, and how likely is it in future that its work can lead to better conditions? One criterion of cost measurement is to compare the money spent in creating a job with the money thereby saved in unemployment benefit and other Exchequer losses. Using this measurement, my information is that the average cost of creating a job in the Highlands and Islands between 1971 and 1983, at 1983 prices, has been £4,200. The deduction from this of unemployment benefit and other Exchequer losses per capita thus means that the real comparative cost to the Exchequer has been a figure even lower than £4,200. That national cost is surely good value for money and if that is the case, even if it were to be related to a national population total of millions, surely it is all the better value for money when it comes to be related to a regional population total of only 340,000.
My other point on the HIDB's costs concerns the powers and remit of the board in general. As these are so wide, it follows that the comprehensive annual figures produced can give us a fairly clear picture of what has been going on and, presumably, a far clearer picture than could ever have been given by one or two separate agencies, each with narrow and specific remits, had they had the task collectively of reporting on the same issues instead. By this, I do not mean to suggest to your Lordships that some Government departments and agencies are better at adding up their figures than others, nor am I particularly anxious to advance the theory that, nowadays, Highlanders always tell the truth. At any rate, no-one has as yet provided me with irrefutable evidence on either subject.
But simply in the interests of clear presentation of figures, accurate monitoring of costs and, hence, relative adjustments to priorities of spending in the region, it would appear to be as important now as it ever was that the powers and remit of the HIDB remain more or less as they are for a total land area such as the Highlands and Islands, as large and varied as it is.
The work of the HIDB and how that is carried out are, of course, separate and further considerations. Can it be said that the right kinds of jobs are being promoted and that all places in the community are benefiting as much as is reasonably to be expected? I imagine there must always be a temptation for any development agency to favour growth areas and population centres, rather than other places. At the same time, there can never be any point in ignoring an opportunity from however predictable an area, particularly if, from it, further jobs and ancillary industries may well spread out elsewhere later on.
In that regard, in general, from recent HIDB figures it is evident enough that there has been a fair coverage of assistance in grants, loans and shares throughout the geographical areas and economic sectors concerned, which happens to have produced a total of jobs created and retained between 1974 and 1983 of 22,000. And over the last year or so, the successive annual increases
1234
in applications for joint venture reflect the fact that the board is winning the confidence of its region. But how strong is our own confidence that these hopeful trends can last indefinitely? For the main aim must surely be to continue to sustain growth, after any welcome intervention such as North Sea oil has come to an end, and to continue to increase employment, irrespective of some other opportunities, which may be finite or which, through improved technology and efficiency, will probably employ decreasing numbers.
In this context, I should like to mention one or two points, not necessarily because I think they are being neglected but because I believe their potential for the long term should always be stressed and developed every bit as much as for earlier dates. The first of these is forestry. Many of your Lordships will remember the keen advocacy in this House by my father of the afforestation of the Scottish Highlands. For that reason alone I should like to mention the subject today. Among current problems are the joint needs to develop timber processing and markets for existing thinnings and here the HIDB has a useful role to play, along with the Forestry Commission and other bodies. But for the long term what matters most is sticking to planting targets. Provided that the Forestry Commission continues to be encouraged to acquire land for this purpose and private forestry continues to be given incentives to plant all through the next century, the Scottish Highlands should at least be able to look forward to some level of mature timber reserve for increased jobs and materials. But if any government are side-tracked from these planting targets—and there is always this temptation, since afforestation takes at least a generation to produce a result—any such government would do a long-term disservice to the future of the Highlands and Islands.
Another Highlands product of long-term relevance, but this time one which is perhaps more palatable to governments and to everybody else, is Scotch whisky. While it is not difficult to predict a date when the energy in the North Sea will no longer be there to be consumed, there is surely no good reason at all why spirit from Highlands distilleries should ever cease to be there to be consumed either by the international markets to which it is currently exported, or even in moderate and patriotic amounts in the refreshment areas of your Lordships' House. Surely every effort must be made to support Scotch whisky and its markets. In that regard, I am very glad that in his Unstarred Question in this House last November my noble friend Lord Tanlaw reminded the Government of the present plight of the Scotch whisky industry, and in particular that of the 106 distilleries which are situated in the Highlands and Islands.
Lastly, there are two Highland industries which, almost by definition, ought to be able to flourish wherever people are to be found: the tourist industry, which brings visitors to all places in the land, and that part of the service industry which supports the local communities themselves. If the effort persists to raise standards of accommodation and tourist attractions overall, tourism in the Highlands and Islands should bring in wealth and jobs for many years to come. More important than anything else, however, is the long-term viability, cohesion and growth of existing communities where the service industry has a major

1235
part to play and where, correspondingly, national aid and incentives are imperative to counter the higher prices which are to be found in isolated villages and small towns.
My Lords, in summary, I think that the cost of the HIDB to the national economy is well justified by the present level of spending, by the number of jobs created and by the nature and number of incentives already given. If this work can continue and if long-term aims are never forgotten, not only will the national economy be fully repaid in due course by the increased wealth of the region but the national community will benefit from the success, the variety and the inspiration of the Scottish Highlands and Islands.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is a great privilege to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech. His father was well-known to us in this House. He had a distinguished career in the Commons and a very distinguished career in this House. He contributed greatly to our debates and to our counsels. The noble Earl has shown in his maiden speech that he will make a significant contribution to our affairs. It was lucid, very well delivered and modest. In fact, it followed every rule. The fact that he is a lowlander and therefore perhaps feels not fully entitled to speak makes it easier for me, as an Anglo-Irishman, to participate in this debate. The noble Earl can be well pleased with his speech. I hope that we shall hear frequently from him, not only on the Highlands and Islands but on other subjects, too. Unfortunately, he has not been the twelfth Earl long enough for his career to be put into Who's Who, but we shall study it with interest when it appears.
I am reminded of a joke which may be known to the older generation who remember the First World War. In order to qualify to be an officer in a Highland regiment one had to own property in Scotland. One officer who managed to get into a Highland regiment said, when asked for his qualifications, "I have a pair of trousers being cleaned by Pullars of Perth". This is an old joke but it gives me my qualification: I lost a pair of ski socks at Aviemore. My entitlement and my interest in the Highlands spring from a number of events: first, coming back from Northern Greenland, when our propeller had fallen off our schooner, we managed to beach at Castle Bay, Barra. Rather to our horror, we found that it was the Sabbath. Luckily, however, Barra is one of the few Catholic islands in Scotland, so on that occasion we were not without entertainment.
My particular interest in the debate springs from my interest in ski-ing. I should like to speak about this, because ski-ing is of very great importance to the economy of the Highlands and Islands. It is important for the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I do not believe that many people are aware of the size of the industry and of the problems that confront it. On any one day there may be as many as 5,000 people ski-ing at Aviemore. They have 10 ski tows and four chair lifts—probably more than they have in other Highland resorts. In the course
1236
of a season as many as 300,000 people may ski at Aviemore.
Many people say, "Why go ski-ing at Aviemore? It is cold, wet and you can't be certain of the weather". I am bound to say that some of the coldest and most miserable ski-ing I have ever had in my life—colder, even, than when I was in Greenland or at my prep school—has been at Aviemore. On the other hand, I have known marvellous snow and sun there. Indeed, there is very good snow at Aviemore at present and it will probably continue right through into June. It is a pity that the ski reports which are supposed to appear in the newspapers do not appear very regularly.
Perhaps I may pay a tribute to those who developed Aviemore. I am told that Bob Clyde, the manager of the ski lift, Mr. Frazer and others were originally rock climbers who, when climbing in Glencoe, saw people sliding around with planks on their feet and thought it was interesting. Bob Clyde literally built the ski lifts at Aviemore. There are now 12,000 beds in that area. It is fair to say that it has been the catalyst for the whole of the Spey Valley. They have problems: they were not allowed to extend into the neighbouring area. The Nature Conservancy Council have made much of the HIDB area into a site of special scientific interest. There is a problem and skiers do have a destructive effect. Nonetheless, it is so important to the economy that I hope that in regard to the development of both roads, which are essential, and further ski-ing grounds they will have the help that I am sure they have earned by their efforts. For those who say that it is the same distance as Switzerland, it is worth noting that one does not have to cross a frontier. One has only to travel on a sleeper and one can be on the ski slopes at 10 o'clock the next morning. I have waited a long time for an opportunity to say that and to congratulate those who have developed that facility. I shall not refer to the other ski centres.
I have a second reason for feeling gratitude to the Highlands and Islands Development Board; namely, the help they gave me in relation to my report on the Falkland Islands. Before I went to the Falklands, in trying to find an analogue, I rushed up to Shetland. As a result, I talked to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. They lent me their development officer, Mr. Bob Storey, and they were uniformly helpful. They were the only people in Britain to understand the problems of the Falklands. I have been very impressed by the degree of commitment and expertise which they offer on practically every subject in the world, which they bring to bear in isolated areas, and their willingness to give advice.
Previous chairmen of the board have included one whose name I cannot remember but who played the bagpipes—
Lord Ross of Marnock: Sir Andrew Gilchrist, my Lords.
Lord Shackleton: Yes, my Lords, and they have all been enthusiasts. If mistakes were made, it was inevitable—even though the number of failures they have in supporting activities is only about 4 per cent.
I will conclude these brief remarks by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock because he was the father and author—and people I have talked to

1237
over the past few days constantly refer to that initiative. Perhaps it was an easier moment to get that sort of proposal through the Cabinet than is likely today. Although there are some critics, it has achieved a reputation, and it is something of which my noble friend can be very proud—even if the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, also thought of it before.
What the position will be as a development area under the new regional grants system and others, and whether they may be classed in a way that affects their position of what I believe is called peripherality in relation to the EEC (and their grants from the EEC are dependent on the grants they receive in the United Kingdom) I do not know. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has already shown what a very low price the creation of a new job is in the Highlands. In many parts of this country, it may cost £100,000 to £200,000 to create a new job. And so the cost in the Highlands and Islands is really a bargain. They have sought to build up resources which are relevant to the Highlands—not only timber but fish, fish processing, and tourism.
It is rather interesting that small-scale units have also been established. I will mention just two of them. There is one company in Skye called Galetec—and if we stop for a moment, we can guess what that means—making transducers. That company has won an export award. Then there is Clansman Holdings, which is making and marketing tweed in Lewes and employs some 200 people. Some of their expertise is helping to create similar industries in the Falklands. On the whole, they are concentrated on small areas and small activities, and a great proportion of the benefit goes to the people who live there. There is strength in their flexibility and determination to create activities with high value added.
I hope that the Highlands and Islands Development Board and those who live in that beautiful region flourish. There are difficulties, but I have no doubt that this is a most valuable activity. Whatever criticisms may be made, the proportion of failures is probably lower than that of most publicly-run activities. I, for one, am grateful for the work that they have done for the Highlands and Islands.

European Council: Brussels Meeting
3.45 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I attended the European Council in Brussels on 19th and 20th March, accompanied by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. As the House will already know, the Council did not reach agreement on the reform of the Community's finances nor on any of the other matters before it.
"I made clear at the summit in Stuttgart last year that the United Kingdom would be prepared to consider an increase in the Community's financial
1238
resources but only on condition that there was effective control of agricultural and other spending, and that there was a fair sharing of the budget burden.
"We made progress towards securing control of spending by, first, an annual limit on overall expenditure and, second, a strict financial guideline on agricultural expenditure. The French presidency also proposed a lasting system for a fair sharing of the budget burden. We would have been able to accept this system but some other member states, despite the long discussions over the last nine months, were still unable to do so. Nor were we able to reach agreement on the level of the United Kingdom net contribution which would result from the application of the system.
"The Council also had a long discussion on the agricultural problems which had been remitted from the Agriculture Council. Ireland sought exemption from the super-levy on a quantity of milk which would have been higher than their 1983 production. Their demands and those of other member states would have led to milk production well over I million tonnes in excess of the production level set earlier by agriculture ministers for the Community as a whole. Further discussion of the agricultural package will take place in the Agriculture Council next week.
"We made a sustained attempt to reach a satisfactory compromise on all the matters at issue. At the end of the discussions the proposition which the United Kingdom was invited to accept was: first, that instead of a lasting, equitable system for Community financing there should be a five-year ad hoc arrangement which would have left us receiving less than the average refund which we received in the years 1980 to 1983.
"Second, that we should endorse the unsatisfactory and discriminatory arrangement for milk which I have already described. Third, that we should accept an increase in the Community's VAT resources to 1.4 per cent. in 1986 and have in prospect a possible future increase two years later to 1.6 per cent. I made it plain that neither I nor the British Parliament could accept such a package. Therefore, I did not agree to any increase in the Community's resources. The 1 per cent. VAT ceiling remains.
"Immediately following the European Council, the Council of Ministers (Foreign Affairs) met in order to see whether the objections of some member states to the regulations necessary to implement the United Kingdom's 1983 refund of 750 million ECU net which was agreed last year could be removed. But France and Italy blocked these regulations. The Government are considering what action we should now take to safeguard our position.
"The Community is in a difficult situation. We shall however persevere in our efforts to achieve a reform of its finances and to make its internal and external policies more relevant to the needs of today's world. I want to see a more effective Community developing its full potential. That is the Community in which I believe."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I am sure that the whole House would agree that this is the most serious Statement to be made since we first entered the European Community in 1973, and that the implications of failure to reach agreement are very grave indeed. We deeply regret this failure and also the action of France and Italy in blocking the payment of £457 million in rebates on this country's 1983 budget contributions.
Will the noble Viscount confirm that one of the matters to be decided is whether Britain will withhold part of the monthly contributions to the Community budget? Is there any doubt about the legality of such action? Can the noble Viscount also say how quickly further negotiations on the budgetary issue will proceed? Is it intended that there should be an early meeting of Foreign Ministers to seek to resolve the problem? The Prime Minister has been reported as saying that the gap between her and her colleagues had not been very large. Can the noble Viscount say whether that is in fact true? Can he say how large is the gap and what was the figure involved—if it can be translated into a sum of money? Can he say which countries in addition to Ireland opposed the agreement on milk made by the agriculture Ministers a few days ago? In view of this agreement, how can one explain that part of the Statement which says that progress has been made towards securing,
"a strict financial guideline on agricultural expenditure"?
Furthermore, can the noble Viscount say whether the Bill to grant £100 million to the EC Commission to help the Community's cash flow problem, which I understand was due to be introduced in another place next week, will now be introduced? Apart from the actual figures involved, can the noble Viscount say whether the meeting came near an agreement on some permanent correcting mechanism, to avoid the annual haggling which has caused, and continues to cause, such acrimony between the member states?
Finally, have any decisions been taken with regard to expanding the Community's own resources? What decisions, if any, were made about the EC regional and social funds, from which this country benefits?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, but we hear it with the very greatest alarm. It is presumably an exercise in brinkmanship, but those who practise brinkmanship run the risk of falling into the abyss. It seems to us that the position of the European Community is now very serious indeed. It is of a quite different order from the difficulties that we had in the past, which involved all-night sittings, but which led subsequently to agreements. This problem today is of a quite different kind.
We understand that EC funds will run out somewhere by the end of June. Is there any method by which an informal summit can be called to avert this catastrophe—for catastrophe it surely would be—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested, is it possible that the Foreign Ministers will be able to get together to avert this alarming possibility? After all, we in this country stand to lose very considerably from the many benefits which we draw from the Community, in
1240
particular in relation to training schemes, if the financing of the Community cannot be satisfactorily settled—and soon.
We also hear with considerable concern that there is a possibility that the Government will decide to withhold payments if the refund is not forthcoming as we had expected. Surely it is likely that if we do that, we shall be taken to the European Court. If we go to the European Court, we shall lose and we shall be virtually excluded from the Community. So both the future of the Community and the future of this country in relation to the rest of the Community as it now stands is very much in peril at the present time. We must remember that when we entered the Community we knew full well that we should have to make a larger contribution, if only because we intended to import more of our food from outside the Community than is the practice among other members. That was a risk that we took, with our eyes open, when we entered the Community.
We understand that the difference in financial terms over which the split has arisen is in the order of £180 million or £200 million. Is this really the value that the Government put on our membership of the Community and on the development of the Community for the future? Is that all that they really think the Community is worth? The suggestion of a five-year settlement would surely not have been impossible to accede to, even if it meant that we would receive slightly less than we thought we would. We on these Benches must press for an early debate on this subject, which we regard as one of the very greatest to be considered in recent years.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and the points that they have put forward to me. In view of the large number of points, I think it would be best if I tried to seek to answer each of them in turn, and if I overlap, I hope that the House will accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned the worry of the French and Italian blocking of the refunds due to us. The Government take that very seriously. This was the result of a free-standing agreement at Stuttgart, and we believe that it is money to which we are entitled. We deeply regret what has happened. On the question of withholding payments, perhaps I should reply to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness together. This is clearly a matter which will have to be very carefully considered. The Cabinet will discuss it and make a recommendation to this House and, of course, to Parliament, in due course. As to what follows from that and as to the question of legality, I think it would be right for me to confine myself to that statement before the Cabinet has had a chance to consider all these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about further discussion. Indeed, I hope that there will be further discussion. I mentioned, for example, that the problems of the agricultural package will be pursued further by the Agricultural Council, I think next week. I cannot give any answer as to whether there will be a further meeting of Foreign Ministers, but clearly that will have to be most carefully considered.
On the question of the gap, it is important to remember that the gap revolves on a number of

1241
agreements which all had to come together. First was the question of whether it was right to agree to an increase in the total resources of the Community. We were prepared to do that, provided there was clear financial discipline and a clear understanding on the control of the CAP. Equally, that was clearly dependent on the agreement of the Agriculture Council and the whole question of milk, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred. Therefore, it all had to stand together. I think I can best say to the noble Lord what was on offer; but I must emphasise that it depended on the other agreements and, of course, in particular on the agricultural agreement on the CAP. We were offered 1,000 million ECUs for five years. That, of course, was even lower than the average refund of 1,100 million ECUs a year which we have received over the last four years on the basis of the original 1980 agreement, despite the fact that the Community's expenditure has gone up considerably since then and is, indeed, going up all the time.
The noble Lord asked what figure we would have accepted. My right honourable friend will make it clear that we would have been prepared to accept a figure of 1,250 million ECUs in the first year of operation of the new system. However, a system based on the parameters devised for this figure would have given us limits on the level of our net contribution in the future.
It is important to remember in all these discussions that we are, of course, one of the two main net contributors. Germany and ourselves are the two main net contributors. Everything that is said has to be looked at against that background.
I turn now to the noble Baroness. I think that I have answered her on the question of withholding. That will be most carefully considered by the Cabinet, and it would be wrong of me to make any further statement in advance of that consideration. I believe that she hoped that further discussion would take place. Yes, indeed; I cannot say when, but clearly the agricultural Ministers will have their meeting and I have no doubt that there will be a meeting of the Foreign Ministers, too.
The noble Baroness mentioned the loss to us from any failure of the Community in many fields, including training. Yes, indeed, but of course that has to be looked at against the background of the fact that we are still one of only two net contributors to a budget which has constantly been rising. In the very important debate which we had in this House, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, made it clear that so far we have not been able to restrict the amount of the Community's expenditure, nor its demand on resources, and yet, as one of the two net contributors, we have to meet that burden. I think we are entitled to look at the matter against that background.
The noble Baroness says that it is a small amount and asks whether disagreement about such a small amount is worth the future of the Community. It is not just the small amount; it is the problem of the whole future financing of the Community, which includes the CAP and the burden that it will place on the total resources. Unless the Community can solve its internal financial problems, all its other great values—to which I should like to say that I fully subscribe—are inevitably put at risk. Perhaps in that context, I am entitled
1242
to say this. I think that some unfair things have been put about regarding my right honourable friend. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me about the milk position and the Irish proposals. It has to be said that they were opposed by several other members long before the United Kingdom came into the arguments. Very few other member states were prepared to accept that particular Irish proposal. That shows the complexity that we are up against.
We come back to this, and I answer the noble Baroness properly in this field. Of course this is a proper matter for discussion and will be discussed, no doubt, in this House and elsewhere. I hope that no one will think that this disagreement means that the Government are not totally committed to our position in the Community and desire to play our full part in it. All we ask is that we are able to do so on the basis of a sound financial proposition for the future and one which will be fair to our country.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the need to reach a satisfactory revision of the arrangements under the CAP is so fundamental that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will have the full support of most people in this country in refusing to agree to a temporary and unsatisfactory package which would have been unfair to this country? Secondly, may I ask my noble friend whether he is in a position to give us the reasons (which I do not think have so far been stated) as to why it is that France and Italy have decided to block the repayment of the monies which are lawfully owing to us at this stage?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I think perhaps it is important to say that, when one comes to the question of the CAP, we were prepared and ready to accept a 7.3 per cent. cut on the 1983 output of milk. I think that this would be recognised by many noble Lords who know our agricultural industry well to be a very considerable matter and one which would have been very difficult for our dairy farmers. It has to be said that the Irish Government sought authority to continue increasing its milk production. I think that such discrimination would have been extremely difficult for this country to accept. It would have been an extremely difficult idea for anybody in this country to sell to our dairy farmers, who, I believe, would have been perfectly prepared to accept the sort of restrictions that anyone else would have accepted. But I do not believe that they would be prepared, or should be asked, to agree to something which is so totally discriminatory.
On the reasons for France and Italy blocking our payments, I think that the proper and correct diplomatic answer to that (which I am not very good at giving) is that that is a matter for the French and Italian Governments.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Minister aware that some of your Lordships who have had the advantage of studying this subject in some depth for many months past most warmly support the stance taken by the Prime Minister in the recent negotiations and believe that in the end she will be successful? But would the Minister

1243
be good enough to answer this question? Since the milk arrangement apparently was agreed by all parties before the summit in the last two days, why was it then repudiated by those who had already agreed to it?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, as I know will be my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who in fact this morning called my attention to the speech made by the noble Lord in the debate in this House recently. I did not actually need my attention called to it, but I pretended that I did as I thought that was a wise action to take.
On the second point, the answer is, to be fair—and one must be strictly fair in this matter because that is very important as between partners in any community when there has been a disagreement or as between partners in any aspect of life when there has been a disagreement—the Irish Government did reserve their position at the Agriculture Council.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government now stop talking about refunds as if we were in an arm's length deal with a shop which we claim has sold us defective goods, and rebates as if we were tenants receiving charity from a benevolent landlord in regard to rent, and realise that the European Economic Community is an international institution of which we are full members, exactly like the others? Will they realise that all these woes stem from the failure of the Heath Government to carry out certain economic forecasting routines when we first joined; that the Community was bound to impose the burden that it has on any member state whose economy was the shape that ours is; and that what we see here is lack of foresight, just as clearly as we see it in the comparable collapse of the fishery policy negotiations?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not think that I would wish to bring too party political a controversy into this. I would simply say this to the noble Lord. The benefit of hindsight is very valuable. It is particularly valuable to the Liberal Party, which over many years has not had the responsibility of forming a Government in this country. I quite understand that. Those who have had the responsibility of forming the Government of this country sometimes have to admit their failures and errors. Those who have not can always use the benefit of hindsight without ever admitting that they have made any errors at all.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has told us in repeating the Prime Minister's Statement that there was no agreement about any matter at the summit. I think I paraphrase him correctly. Is that really correct? Was there no agreement about political co-operation? If there was some agreement, why was there no political communiquéé? Is not the Middle East in dangerous turmoil, American policy having, on the admission of Mr. George Schultz, collapsed, and is it not high time that the European Community gave a lead in that part of the world?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I think that I have to say—and no doubt he will regret it as much as do many of us who believe in the political importance of the Community and of its voice in the world—that the meeting was so concerned with these particular financial problems that I do not believe that that matter was fully discussed. I think that it is very important that we solve our financial problems so that once again we can, in accordance with the hopes of many of us who supported this country's going into the Community at the start, have a full voice in the affairs of the world, and a much stronger voice together than we should have apart. I still believe that that is crucially important.
Lord Wilson of Rievaulx: My Lords, is this not a coup which is even more unacceptable than anything that even President de Gaulle aimed at, and is not the whole thing due to the grasping habits of the French Government, whose agriculture is almost the worst organised in Europe? Is it not a fact that everyone, whatever view they have taken about the Common Market—British entry or anything else—in the past should now express their full support of what the Prime Minister said yesterday?
Viscount Whitelaw: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord who has—perhaps I could almost say—an unrivalled experience in these very great and very difficult matters. I am grateful for what he says. I think it would perhaps be political for me at this stage to allow his comments on what the French Government have done to rest in his mouth and not in mine. He will understand the reason for that.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in the Statement read out by the noble Viscount. it says that, presumably as part of a deal which includes some agreement on the common agricultural policy, the United Kingdom was invited to accept a five-year ad hoc arrangement which would have left us receiving less than the average refund which we should have received in the years 1980–83. But is it not a fact that in one of those years we received practically everything, and that our liability was consequently nearly zero? Therefore if we had no more to pay now net than something equivalent to what we paid in the last year or two, or a little less—I think it is probably a little less—surely that would be fairly satisfactory from our point of view?
On another point, may we take it from what the noble Viscount has said that before the Government take the probably illegal and possibly fatal decision to withhold funds after the end of this month, there will be a full debate on this issue, both in this House and in another place?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first point, I am sure that what was said in the Statement was factually correct. Certainly we did better in one year—and the noble Lord was perfectly correct—than many people expected at the time; but I do not think that that in any way changes the basis of the whole principle on which the finances of the Community in the future are to be based as a result of this agreement. I am sure he would agree with that. As

1245
for the question of withholding, I made it perfectly clear that that is a subject which the Cabinet will consider, will recommend to this House; and of course if any action were to be taken it would certainly come before this House.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, would it not be somewhat unwise for the Cabinet to decide tomorrow to embark on a course of withholding which, whether or not we like it, would indisputably put us outwith the pale of Community legality while negotiations were still continuing? Secondly, is not the crucial issue not the matter of the budget but in the long term the control of agricultural surpluses? Could my noble friend explain what, in fundamentals, is the difference between what he calls strict financial guidelines in the agricultural sector, and a character who was well known to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the 1960s and 1970s, called "Solomon Binding", who turned out to be a man of straw?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I can only say that I will take account of it. In view of his important contribution to this Government in the last Parliament, I will certainly make sure that his views are represented to my colleagues, as is my duty. On the second point about the control of spending and the agricultural problem, I do not think I should be drawn too far down the road that the noble Lord goes, except to say that indeed the controlling of the CAP is an essential part of controlling the expenditure of the Community. In the final event, there can he nothing other than hard reality so far as that is concerned, and I do not believe that solemn and binding assurances will mean anything unless they can be backed up by hard facts, and that is part of the problem.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind the wise words of the late Field Marshal Montgomery when he told this House (I heard him) that we would never get effective co-operation in the field of defence or economics in western Europe until the political association between the western European powers was defined? It has never been defined, and in view of the fact that the original Council of Europe, of which I was a member and which might have done it, was smashed by a British Foreign Secretary—Mr. Anthony Eden—does he not think that Her Majesty's Government should consider making a political initiative designed to achieve not fictitious but real union in western Europe?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that I have made clear already in some of the other answers I have given the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the political solution—and I have associated myself with that. I note the importance of the reference he made to history, and I accept much of what he says. It makes it all the more important that we seek to solve sensibly the problems before us now; otherwise we shall prejudice our efforts at political unity.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that despite the very serious current situation it would he a gross distortion of the facts to
1246
pin all the blame on the British? Successive British Governments, those under my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx and with the present Prime Minister, have endeavoured to arrive at some sensible agreement, and they have been thwarted time and time again by others quite bluntly in this community of nations ganging up against us. I believe that if we give way on this now, there will not be much point in remaining in the Community because we will not have the spirit and the support of the British people behind us.
May I also ask the noble Viscount whether, if we can sort out this current problem and when things are flowing properly again, we will examine the absurd situation on the CAP? Then we can see that the greater contribution that can he made for ordinary people via the regional and social funds are given much more support and made much more of a reality. That is the quintessential of what this Community is all about.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that there are many people who will understand some of the feelings of frustration that the noble Lord expresses, after considerable years of experience—as we all have—in this matter. I hope that the House will agree that it will be part of my job as a member of Her Majesty's Government, and part of Her Majesty's Government's job, to do everything possible to cool the situation and to try to see how we could advance sensibly to an agreement. Therefore I would not wish to indulge in any particular comments about the actions of other people, and I think that would be correct. Of course it is important that we should examine the CAP. It is because we have failed so far during these discussions to get an agreement to a sensible solution to the problems of the CAP that we are in this difficulty.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that while there are big issues at stake on CAP and Community financing, it is a sad failure of British diplomacy that world opinion should have been presented with a picture of a British Government in a minority of one jibbing at a sum of money which in context is negligible?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord makes these various assertions; but I have made it clear first of all on some of the matters that were raised to do with the common agricultural policy that we were certainly not in a minority of one—because that in itself leads to some of the other problems—and it is quite unfair to suggest that this was all the others against the British Government; and I simply do not accept it. As for these failures of British diplomacy, all I can say to the noble Lord is what I have said—although perhaps it is not quite so fair to say it to him as it is to some of those who have never been in Government: that is, of course it is much more difficult, as I think the noble Lord knew at the time, to be in Government with responsibility than it is, with the benefit of hindsight, to criticise from outside.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the noble Lord take back the message that this country is united behind the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister for us all, and that that is what we would expect of a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am naturally extremely grateful to the noble Viscount, from his position, for these remarks, as I know my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be. There will be many arguments, and I realise that there are arguments between some Members of your Lordships' House. I understand that perfectly fully. But I hope that it will be recognised by everyone that we have a British position and we ought to stand up for our own interests—other countries in the Community do so—and we would be failing our people if we did not.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would use his good offices to encourage my right honourable friend the Prime Minister not to lessen her most admirable resolve in any way?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend's resolve is very clear and very plain. Naturally, she is disappointed at the failure to get an agreement because she believes in the future of the Community, and she very much hopes we can have an agreement in which this country will play its full part. I think it is important for me to say to this House once again that that will be the purpose of Her Majesty's Government.

Highlands and Islands Development Board
4.21 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, before we resume the debate of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, I can inform the House that this debate should now end at six minutes past six.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for initiating this debate this afternoon. I should also like to congratulate him on his interesting and well-informed speech.
May I also take a few moments of your Lordships' time to congratulate—along with other noble Lords—the particularly interesting and excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Dundee. Those of us who were privileged to know, and be very fond of, his late father will welcome him as a very worthy son.
I should like to congratulate also the Highlands and Islands Development Board, for had we not had this debate today some of us might not have had the privilege of reading the report. The report was full of interest; it was instructive; it was, in my view, very encouraging and it gave vent to many imaginative schemes.
Since the age of 16, when I used to go shooting with my father, I have realised the beauty of Scotland, such as I have not found in any other part of the world. I saw that beauty in sunshine, rain or snow; in any temperature, I think as a country it is unsurpassed. The people from the part of Scotland with which the Highlands and Islands Board (which I shall now call HIDB) concerns itself need nurturing. Life can be very tough in some parts of Scotland.
1248
In the few minutes I have available to me I want to talk about three matters. First, I shall refer to tourism. Surely without tourism in this lovely country there can be no possible expansion. I was very pleased to read that in 1982 the tourist season had been better than that in 1981. While accommodation of all kinds and at all levels can be obtained at reasonable prices to encourage the tourists, the main method of transport is by road. I was very unhappy to read that the cost of petrol, for instance, is 15 per cent. more in Lochinvar than it is in Glasgow. That surely must be wrong. A lot of expansion has to take place with a view to encouraging tourists. For instance, there are proposals for three new marinas; there are proposals for three new yacht harbours; and there are proposals for 14 new yacht stations. There are increasing numbers of people, as I found out, from the southernmost parts of these islands who take to the sea in boats. Surely they should be encouraged to take their yachts and boats to Scotland and enjoy the fantastically idyllic panoramic views from sea to shore.
As a very ordinary Sassenach—who has only a quarter Scottish blood, but who was married to a Scot—I should like to say that I think visitors do not need very up-to-date methods of spending their days. I think they need the simple things of life. I think they go to Scotland to get away from the cities and for the walking, the loch fishing—if it is not too expensive—the sea fishing, and the ceilidhs at night, with the bagpipes and the dancing. These are surely enough to encourage all people to go not only from far afield but from England to Scotland. But transport is vital; not only for industry, not only for the tourist trade, but also to keep the population of the Highlands and Islands in their homes.
In some areas if you are elderly and cannot drive a car you are completely cut off in all seasons of the year. The HIDB continues to press for the early implementation of a system of ferry charges based upon the Road Equivalent Tariff, and a full implementation of the RET fares within a limited period because some ferries are not viable and have been discontinued. For instance, the Ardnamurchan to Tobermoray ferry has been discontinued, which means that the fishermen from Ardnamurchan or Tobermoray now have to take their fish for sale from Kilchoan—a round trip of 120 miles. I doubt very much if those who shut that particular ferry took that into account. The islands depend on ferry services, and I for one hope the HIDB will be successful in pressurising the Government for more financial aid for these ferries.
One method of getting to Scotland—which I do not happen to use, but which I should like to ask the Minister about—is the Stornoway airport, which was going to be enlarged only about a couple of years ago. Can the Minister possibly tell us whether this is still going to be so?
We must not forget that the most important resources in the Highlands and Islands are the people themselves. The HIDB can only do so much on its own. The Highlanders and the Islanders themselves need to take full advantage of all the help the board provides. The board has in the past—and I am sure will in the future—encourage to the best of its ability

1249
the small businesses on which the local population thrive.
A criticism which is, unfortunately, often levelled at the board is that it is too keen to offer financial assistance to incomers—that is, to people with no Highland connections or with only tenuous links with the area—but that it has been reluctant to assist those who have spent all their lives living and working locally. From what I can understand, this criticism is misconceived. The board does, of course assist non-Highland companies to develop in its area, and many good and secure jobs have been encouraged by its doing so; but the vast majority of the board assistance goes to local inhabitants. I understand, for example, that between 1971 and 1980, 80 per cent. by value of all board assistance went to people or businesses with addresses in the Highlands and Islands at the time of the applications.
I love this part of the world. I am looking forward to August when, as my late mother-in-law used to say, DV—which means God willing—I shall be visiting Inverness, Ullapool, Stornoway, Tarbert Uig, Mallaig, Ardnamurchan and Oban. I am hoping during that "wee tour" to see something of the work of the HIDB. I commend the board's report. I hope that the future is good for it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on his maiden speech. I feel particularly delighted because his father was Under-Secretary of State in the Scottish Office when my husband was Secretary of State in 1936 and 1937, and I knew him very well. I am sure that he would have been enormously proud of the speech that his son has delivered with such enthusiasm and such care. I hope that we shall hear the noble Earl often and that he will play an active part in your Lordships' House.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for initiating this debate. It is a long time since we have had a debate of this kind. When there are so many noble Lords who are such experts on Highland affairs, it is enormously interesting to hear what they have to say. I do not farm in the Highlands, but I spent a great deal of my childhood there. I used to go often with my parents on holidays in the Highlands. I remember it as one of the places that I loved best and enjoyed most on holiday.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that the report of the Highlands and Islands Development Board makes very good reading. It covers a vast area with a very sparse population. According to the report, there are 23 people per square mile in the Highlands and Islands compared with an average of 600 for Great Britain as a whole. Many communities live in remote areas. Transport is vital and also extremely expensive. In the language of the EC, these are less favoured areas. They should be treated as generously as other less favoured areas in Europe.
The variety of activity in the Highlands is enormous. I read with great interest of the crofting and fishing that are the oldest industries and also about tourism which has already been mentioned. All these activities are of vital importance and very popular.
1250
This admirable report, with its excellent illustrations, deals clearly with all of them. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had to say about ski-ing. I have only a vague knowledge of what takes place at Aviemore because I am much too old to ski now. It is, however, interesting that ski-ing has developed on such a big scale. What the report says about fish farming is also excellent reading. There has been an increase in salmon farming from 1,133 tonnes in 1981 to 2,152 tonnes in 1982. It is good to read that there are hopes for continuing progress. There is also reference to the shellfish industry. There has been a great spread in the distribution of shellfish throughout Europe. To know that much of this development has taken place in the Highlands and Islands is extremely interesting.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod about the importance of the small industries. The board distributes to people starting small industries what are really quite small sums of money compared to what is given in other parts of the world. The sum is up to, but no more than, £10,000. Someone able to start a new industry on so small a sum is certainly making a great contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who must know, I suppose, more about this area than almost anyone, having been for so long the Member in another place for Orkney and Shetland, has testified to the importance of what is happening in the Highlands and Islands and how important it is for the work to be supported.
The Highlander has a character of his own. He is a great individualist; he will not be pushed around by anyone. On the other hand, with help to which he is able to respond, it means that help is being given to some of the most interesting characters in the United Kingdom. As the report states, the Highlander is being encouraged in every way possible. The job creation experience of the board is extremely good. The cost is much less than the many millions spent on job creation in other parts of the country. One development that I should like to see results from the closure of the pulp mill at Fort William. There is a tremendous forestry industry in the Highlands. Almost everywhere today, and certainly in the Borders where I have some forestry interest, and where the Government also have an enormous forestry interest, trees have to be sent to Norway or Sweden to be pulped for paper, after which the pulp is re-imported. If we had a really first-class pulp mill in Fort William or somewhere else in the Highlands, although I imagine Fort William would be a good place, this would be a great asset to the forestry industry. I resent having to re-import pulp from Noway or Sweden when it should be handled in this country. I hope that the board will take up this development. It would be a great advantage now that the amount of forestry in this country is much greater. Once it matures, there will be need for far more manufacturing equipment than we have ever had before.
I should like to think that this area could be treated by the EC in the same way as other less favoured areas of Europe. I was a member of a small delegation to the less favoured areas of Europe last year. We visited the Mezzogiorno and other parts of Italy, and also Bavaria, and Provence in France. I saw there that great help was being given, particularly to the tourist trade

1251
in Bavaria, and also concerning the growing of olives and grapes in the Mezzogiorno. That was a great help to an area where the population would otherwise have gone elsewhere to try and find work.
I should like to see the Highlands and Islands of Scotland given the same treatment. It is vital that people should stay in this lovely area. It is one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland. I hope that we can get for it as much help from the European Community as is given to other parts of Europe. I strongly commend the report. I hope that the Government will back its findings and give as much help as possible to one of the most beautiful areas in the United Kingdom.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I, too, must express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for enabling us to discuss this subject. I should also like to say that we have heard an astoundingly good maiden speech—I should have thought it astounding, however long he had been a Member of this House—from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I envy profoundly his ability to speak apparently entirely without notes. I saw that he had notes, but I never saw him glance at them. As the years go by, I find that I have increasingly to consult my notes.
Although I live far from the Highlands, as do several of those taking part in the debate, this does not inhibit me from taking a very keen interest in that area, I daresay largely for the reasons so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Macleod. None of us has the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, but when I was at the Scottish Office in the years before the board was set up, I then had certain responsibilities within that area which perhaps fired my interest to an even greater extent than previously. In those days—and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, will remember this—the area was known as the "crofting counties". It was regarded by the Government as a totally unique area. If my memory is correct, I believe that I persuaded the Government at that time to do something which was not allowed in any other part of the country; namely, to pay the overnight expenses in Inverness of people who had to visit patients in hospital. I can remember in the discussions that took place it being said, "We will have to settle for this because it is the crofting counties". But I can also remember that, despite much pressure, not even the Isles of Scilly were able to get that benefit.
I now turn to the cost of the Highlands and Islands Development Board "to the national economy"—and those words are included in my noble friend's Motion. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that one has to think deeply about the benefits. In terms of quite merciless monetarism, I suppose that the HIDB must have many critics, yet I cannot believe that anyone would seriously suggest that the Highlands area should not receive special treatment.
The area has three basic industries. One is tourism, which is a success story. Nearly 20 years on the Scottish Tourist Board has recently adopted the pattern of the Highlands board, though—if I may say so somewhat meaningfully to my noble friend on the
1252
Government Front Bench—without all the powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
Its second industry is the fishing industry. I am of the strong opinion that many of the small harbours in the far north and west would be in the same tragic condition as is the great port of Hull today had it not been for the activities of the board. Is this a reflection on the Scottish Office? I do not think it is. However, the Highlands board has the power to act more quickly and this has engendered a great deal of confidence.
Fish farming has been mentioned, and salmon farming in particular. I do not believe that any salmon farming is carried on outside the area of the Highlands board, chiefly because no other area in Britain has sufficient purity of water to allow the successful farming of salmon. I suppose that its contribution to jobs has been numerically small, but nearly 20 years ago from the village of Lochailort, where salmon fishing first started, nine people were employed in salmon farming. I do not know what the figures are today, but that was a very high percentage of the population, and it mattered a great deal.
The third industry is farming. Here I think that the success has been less spectacular. It is not an easy area for integration of forestry and farming. As my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard remarked, trees grow very well at the bottom of the hill, but they sterilise the soil at the top and, therefore, to integrate forestry and farming in the Highlands is very difficult. However, the people who have really borne the torch in showing how to make grass grow on the hills are the Cadzow Brothers, and they have done so not only on the island of Luing, which grows grass beautifully, anyway, but on the hills of Argyll, where they have shown how to make grass grow and how to carry more stock by putting on lime, by reseeding, and by refencing. I am sorry that the board has not taken their technique on board to a greater extent. I think that it could have done; and I should have liked to have seen the board latch onto this.
The board enables farmers in the area to borrow money from the bank at lower rates of interest than they can obtain outside, which is a useful benefit. I have found no specific reference to this in the report. I believe that my noble friend Lord Massereene said that perhaps one criticism could be made of the board; namely, that it has a finger in every pie, and, therefore, the question arises whether there is not some overlapping. One of the great strengths of the board has been its flexibility. Section 7 of the 1965 Act allows it to give advice. Section 8 allows it to give grants and loans, and it has a very free hand.
I can recall that 10 years ago when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture I said how I wished that south of the Border there was an organisation such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I shall tell your Lordships why I said that. The drive to export food from this country was just being talked about, and there was a great show in Paris. The Ministry of Agriculture has no statutory powers to give funds from its Vote money for promoting food outside this country. The Board of Trade was not interested in exporting food; it was much more concerned about industrial exports. Therefore, as a result, practically nothing went to the Paris show from English farmers,

1253
or English processors, as they were called in those days. But when I paid an official visit I found a stand manned by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, stuffed with crabs and cheeses from the Orkneys and shellfish from here and there, with the kinsman of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, beaming over the counter and doing a great deal of sales promotion. That is an example of the flexibility that has made this board a very great success.
I come now to transport, which is a matter not so much for the board, but for the Government, and which has been mentioned as a matter of supreme importance in this area. I can recall going to talk to Mr. Maudling when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and asking him whether it really was impossible that the duty on petrol might be lower north of a certain line than it was south of it. I recall that motoring north in those days one always filled up in Blair Atholl because once one got to the pumps five miles on the petrol was something like three old pence dearer. I remember having quite a long discussion, and I said, "If it is possible for the distributors to charge more, why is it not possible for the Exchequer to charge less?" I think that the answer was that it could be done, but that it really would be an awful nuisance. I remember quite distinctly another objection, which was that a great lot of traffic would move from the dear side to the cheap side in order to get their business fill-ups, and so on. Personally, I do not think that that is an obstacle which should get in the way.
Enormous advantages would accrue if petrol could be a few pence less in terms of the excise duty, because of course when petrol goes up not only does the excise duty run up, but so does VAT, and cumulatively it is a heavy burden. That would enable my noble friend Lady Macleod to do the tour more cheaply. I would just say to her that, in my humble submission, she should not have used the term, "DV"; she should have used the good Scottishism, "If I am spared", which I am quite sure she will be. Finally, let me put on sackcloth and ashes and say that one of the votes that I have long most regretted is the one that I cast against the establishment of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, in view of the shortage of time I hope that your Lordships will take as read the preliminary remarks of thanks and congratulations—very sincere congratulations—which I should have wished to make. First, I should like to draw attention to a small administrative problem. The board's written report is for the calendar year, whereas the accounts are for the year to 31st March. As these are published together there must inevitably be a considerable delay before the public can see what the board has been doing. Perhaps my noble friend could look at this. However, as we are working on the 1982 report the board chairman, Mr. Cowan, with his usual efficiency, has provided some of us with a brief updating for 1983. Obviously he cannot give his report.
I should like to congratulate Mr. Cowan for the grasp he has secured in a comparatively short time of the difficult problems confronting Highland development. I should also like to express relief at
1254
having a businessman at the helm rather than a planner or an academic. In the North one gets a feeling of far greater efficiency in the hoard. As an example of this economy, he has not come here today—he is busy working away for the Highlands—but he has sent his wife, and I know she is listening attentively to what we are saying.
I believe, and always have believed, that transport is the key to Highland development. My noble friend Lady Macleod touched on this. Those of us who live in the North owe a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for having set in train the improvement of the A.9 and the Kessock Bridge. Everyone now commends these developments as of great benefit, even if there are still design errors on the A.9 which casue serious snow problems.
Since reorganisation of local government we have had few other major road works in the Highlands, and even the Beauty Bridge promised to the old county council has now been deleted by the Scottish Office from the list of projects. Schemes upon which we were working when I was chairman of the Inverness County Roads Committee are scarcely mentioned now. I well remember some of our shopping list: the Skye Bridge, vital for the short and therefore cheaper route to the Western Isles; the Dornoch Bridge, which would bring Caithness and Sutherland so much closer to the centre of things; the Mallaig Road, which must be far and away the worst trunk road in Britain; and the short crossing from North Uist to Harris to connect the Uists with their centre of administration in Lewis—even if this is fraught with problems because of tides and shoals between the two islands. Yes, these are expensive projects, but they are once and for all, and they would stop enormous running expenditure annually in the Highlands. And when compared with an annual budget of over £30 million for the HIDB and £¾ million for running the Crofters Commission, should we not take a close look at our priorities?
Now, my Lords, the other transport expense of course is fuel. My noble friend Lord Stodart really put this over better than I can possibly do, but I should like to make one or two further points on it. One of the penalties under which the Highlands suffer is being a small rural voice in an urban country. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not appreciate that every time he puts up the fuel tax he hammers another nail into the coffin of the Highlands.
May I quote a small extract from the board's report:
"Some of the problems faced by the Highlands and Islands are created by the action of Government and other bodies who adopt policies which though sensible for most of the country can be counter-productive in peripheral areas."
This fuel tax is certainly one of these.
My secretary at home was, like so many of us, delighted with most of the Budget. She said, "I will have £100 off my tax", but then, rather ruefully, "But the Chancellor will take it all back off me in fuel tax." She comes from Wolverhampton, and she said that had she been living there she would be £100 better off from having her tax reduced and she would have public transport, and therefore not have to pay it all back to the Chancellor in petrol tax. That is only one small example.
For and area which depends mainly on forestry and agriculture, the costs of fuel are vital. A differential

1255
fuel tax for the Highlands would be a lifesaving transfusion. I am sorry that I cannot see my noble friend's face on the Front Bench at this suggestion, but I suspect that he does not like it. Successive Governments have set their faces against it. But I have yet to find anyone in the Highlands who does not think that this suggestion is a simple, efficient and fair way of putting lifeblood into what is known as a "fragile" area. I am sure that my noble friend must have sympathy with this even if he does not agree with it, but I can appreciate how he is probably in a minority in the Government on these matters. However, I hope that he will do his utmost to fight for some similar project.
Further on transport, it must be noted from the board's report that they were able to show British Airways that one of the reasons for the loss on the Inverness-Heathrow route was because of totally unsuitable timings. Now that route has been privatised, the fares are reduced, the timing is convenient, and the planes are largely full. Again on transport, it must be noted how the HIDB was able to show British Rail that most of the Highland railways were paying their way unlike what the railway had previously told us.
As your Lordships will know a new "wafer board" wood mill is under way near Inverness, if I may say ably abetted and helped by the board. The promoter was very anxious to use rail transport to take his product south, but I heard this week that British Rail have lost the contract. It would seem that this was an ideal thing to have put on rail. It really seems that something ought to be done about it. It just shows how we in the North suffer.
Surely it is unsatisfactory that the Highlands need to have a board of their own to tell the nationalised industries where they are at fault. As my noble friend Lord Massereene said, there is overlapping. Unfortunately, in this sort of example it is necessary to have overlapping. They have to tell the Scottish Office where they are at fault, but, unfortunately, I do not think that they listen to the Highlands and Islands Development Board or the Government. This is a problem with which we are faced, and I feel it would be preferential for public expenditure to go directly to development.
I should have liked to mention forestry and agriculture which are, of course, vital to the Highlands, but time has run out, so all I can do is ask the Minister to consider very carefully the 17th report of the board on these subjects. Certainly, my Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree with me that the more one studies Highland problems the more one realises that government from Edinburgh would be disastrous.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him: did he really mean to condemn the contribution of what he called "academics" and "planners"? Is he aware, for example, of the contribution that such as Stirling University is able to make in the development of remote sensing? If he looks at the House of Lords Select Committee report he will see that it is of profound importance to the Highlands, as has already
1256
been shown by the Grampian Regional Council in a different area.
Lord Burton: My Lords, one should consider, for example, the aluminium smelter at Invergordon; the objectors told us what would happen. They knew that the cost of fuel would be far too expensive. But this was one of the projects which at that time the board was putting forward. In the Jack Holmes report, which was commissioned by the board in its earlier days, you would find innumerable mistakes which the board would not look at now.
5.2 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I have two apologies to make; the first is for putting my name down late for this debate and the second is that, unfortunately, I have a meeting at half past five and my time was put out by the Statement taking so long.
I bow to no one in my admiration for the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. The way he put it across was an example to us all. I hope it will be a long, long time before, like the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston and myself, he has to look at his notes. We look forward to him regaling us further with the type of speech he gave us today. I shall have something to say in a moment about what he said. In the meantime, I congratulate him.
I was tempted to my feet by three remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, about forestry. If I heard him correctly, he said that the commission—he is not too easy to follow sometimes in his speeches—had not taken up its quota. The commission does not have a quota. It has a descending acreage which I do not think one could call a quota. The Government have asked it to reduce its acreage down to 5,000 hectares. There is no question of it not completing a quota.
The noble Viscount also mentioned the isolation of the tops of the hills, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stodart. I do not know what private forestry has done, but when any forestry project is brought forward, the Forestry Commission consults the Department of Agriculture. As we know, there are many hills in Scotland with no grazing on them; they are of no use for grazing and they are used for planting on the lower ground. But if there is grazing to be had on the tops of the hills, wide rides are left as part of the plan for allowing the sheep and cattle to pass freely.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, thank you. The point is that the Forestry Commission has learnt that now, but when it first started it planted huge plantations on the lower ground and, near the sea, right down to the sea. That made the higher ground quite useless. The FC would plant the first 300 or 400 feet—I am talking of near the sea now—and wildlife and sheep want to get down to eat the seaweed, as the deer, particularly the stags, do. They are prevented from doing so. Accordingly, the high ground is made of little value for stocks wild or domestic.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point that mistakes were made in the early days of the Forestry Commission, but these were put

1257
right a long time ago. That is not something that can be put against it now.
The other point that the noble Viscount made was that Sitka spruce created acidity in the lakes and rivers. When rain falls on conifers they do not produce acidity unless the rain is acid rain from elsewhere. To blame Sitka spruce, or any other conifer, for producing acidity is the wrong way to do it. The trees may be holding the acid rain, which drips down into the rivers. That may be right, but the noble Viscount gave me the impression that he was blaming Sitka spruce for producing acidity. That is not the case. It is the acid rain from our factories elsewhere that creates this problem.
Lord Burton: I am sorry, my Lords, but where there are large plantings of Sitka spruce and where there are signs of acidity, I think one will find that it is nearly always very much worse where the Sitka spruce is planted.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, that may be, but the point is that it is not the spruce that creates the acid. The acid comes from acid rain from factories elsewhere. The noble Lord is simply blaming Sitka spruce, I have it from the Forestry Commission that any conifer has the same attraction and does the same thing.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The latest EEC report suggests that scientific investigation shows that nobody knows the answer to what is causing this trouble. It is probably ozone.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I hope the two noble Lords are taking in that stricture from my noble friend—that is, that none of us knows about acid rain.
I now consider forestry as a whole. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, pointed out that forestry was the one thing that the Highlands could produce and produce well and that we should continue the forestry policy there. This is correct, but one can see what the Government have done. They are reducing the commission's quota, target or whatever one calls it and hoping that private forestry will make up between 30,000 and 40,000 hectares a year. I do not follow this argument because before private forestry and commission forestry were running fairly equal, with commission forestry a little ahead of private forestry. From the inception of the Forestry Commission it has done a good job, and I think that the Government are making a grave mistake in cutting down the commission's work. It has the expertise and the land, though it is a pity that it is having to sell some of the land.
The other thing that is important—this is where the Highlands and Islands Development Board comes in—is the processing of the trees produced in the forests in the Highlands. It is ridiculous to move that production to Sweden and elsewhere and to bring it back as pulp. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said, it is a pity that the Fort William pulp mill had to close. I should like to think that the Highlands and Islands Development Board will see that production in one place in particular, the development of the forest north
1258
of Inverness, should be processed locally by saw-milling, pulp-making or what have you and should not be moved for processing away from Scotland, because that would give much work to the Highlands. As the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, and other noble Lords have said, farming and forestry are the two main activities of the Highlands. Many ancillary and other industries as well should be encouraged to go to the Highlands, but these two will forever be the main activities.
This issue of overlapping was touched on by one or two noble Lords. It is a difficult problem. Integrated development schemes were brought in a few years ago. I will not say they upset the Highlands and Islands Development Board, but there was much overlapping and the Department of Agriculture and the North of Scotland College had much to do with that. I had hoped that there would be better co-operation between the bodies than there was at that time.
From what I have seen of the work of the HIDB, although mistakes have been made, that is no real criticism and we all wish it well in the future with its new chairman.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this debate has been worthwhile and for that we have to express our thanks to the noble Viscount who started it: worthwhile if only for one of the finest maiden speeches I have heard, either in this House or the other place. I mean that sincerely. We all thought very highly of the noble Earl's father. He was a friend of mine and I can remember, sometimes with amusement—because he perhaps follows his father in oratory but not in stature—when he was the hereditary standard bearer for Scotland and he assisted me when I was on my way to Holyrood, that in trying to get into a car his legs got entangled with that flag, I remember his good humour then and his advice at all times. He was a good Scot. I consider, judging by the speech that he has delivered today, that the noble Earl is a considerable acquisition of strength to the Scots in your Lordships' House—and, may I say, we sorely need it! There have been a lot of sinners come to repentance today. The noble Viscount said that eventually he changed his mind. I never heard a more placatory speech by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, today on the Highlands and Islands Board, than on anything that any Labour Government had done in the Highlands. Nobody actually said that it was a Labour Government that did it.
The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, went overboard. He regretted his vote against the setting up of the board. May I remind him that he never voted against it. There was no vote on Second Reading against it and there was no vote on Third Reading. There was criticism. I was interested when he mentioned the fact that part of the success of the Highlands and Islands Development Board was because of the powers that it had, powers that no other development area has in the whole country. It was a noble friend of his who later became Secretary of State—and I am sorry he is not here today; but he would not mind, he would smile at it—who said that the powers that we had included in the 1965 Act were straight from Karl Marx. I suggested that his criticism came from another Marx, one of the Marx brothers.

1259
I was interested, too, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. He must join a long queue of people who thought of this before anybody else did so. May I say that I have a leaflet promulgating the suggestion that was published by the Scottish Trades Union Congress in the 1920s; so that he is not alone in claiming some cedit for the Highlands and Islands Board. All that I can say is that in 1964, when I tried to pursuade the Cabinet that we would get a Bill of this kind through the House of Commons, a Bill containing these powers that were criticised at that time, there was nobody else there. There were no Liberals there, no Scot Nats, only myself; and we had a majority of only six. But we persevered and there was no opposition to it eventually. There was criticism but no opposition. The reason for that was that it was so absolutely necessary, that it was almost the last chance for the Highlands.
Population statistics were quoted as to how much higher the population was in 1921. Between 1851 and 1961 the Highlands lost a quarter of their population. I am glad to say that the touching year, whether it was coincidental or not, was 1966. There was certainly a feeling of confidence created in the Highlands by the Highlands and Islands Board. I strongly resent the kind of criticism that is made of planners. I think that the first chairman of the board, Sir Robert Grieve, had a very difficult task, because people were very cynical about the Government promising action in the Highlands, but he was able to prove that this board was different. He went around. The result was that, by the time he had finished, people had accepted the board. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, never accepted the board. He has never accepted anything that came from a Labour Government. If the noble Lord is about to intervene, I am sorry but we have limited time and, with his interventions, he has had a fair share.
The fact is that it has become virtually part of the glorious scenery of the Highlands. People now take it for granted. It was evident in the speeches. But it does not take its own work for granted. It still has a terrific challenge. When you appreciate the nature of the area, nearly half the land area of Scotland, one-sixth of the whole of Britain—but the density: 24 people to the square mile There are great wilderness areas where you can go all day and you will never see a human face. You may see more red deer than you see Highlanders.
When I became Secretary of State and looked into the Highlands problem, what did I find as the Acts of Parliament that related to the Highlands?—the Congested Districts Act, for example. And why were the districts congested? The trouble with the Highlands was that it was drive and drift. The Highlanders were driven out of their own glens; they were driven to the seashores; and on these seashores they were told to fish for a living, to scratch for a living. These were the congested districts. From there, the drift started.
My Lords, what matters to the Highlands matters to the Highlander, who has a greater attachment to his countryside and his own areas than probably any of those who live in urban areas. It is something to be proud of. There was something I said at that time on the Second Reading of the Bill: that the Highlander
1260
was the man in Scotland's conscience. Well, I think we are doing something about it now, and we have to be grateful to all the staff and to all the chairmen of the Highlands and Islands Board since 1965, for what they have done. But let us remember the task.
Somebody said they have a finger in every pie. There is practically no place with more than 40,000 of population. Of course, there is Inverness and then you get Stornoway and Fort William. But you get great pockets of little villages where people want to stay, where everything there matters to them. So when you say that they have a finger in every pie, there are so many things related to the problem of improving the social and economic environment of the people of the Highlands and to encouraging them to do something for themselves. One thinks of the things that matter, for example, transport. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, said about that. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, who made a wonderful speech. She will be getting a job with the Tourist Board of Scotland in respect of what she has said about the Highlands in that speech.
But the Government have already turned down Road Equivalent Tariff. It was about a fortnight ago, I think, when we had a Statement from the noble Lord, Lord Gray. They turned it down. Mind you. I should not say that! It was in the Tory manifesto in Scotland that they were going to do it. They turned it down. Rightly or wrongly, they have got to appreciate that in turning that down they have not solved any problem; because the problem of the ferries and of distance in relation to the remoter islands is still there. The Government have got to do something about it.
A suggestion was made by one noble Lord that we should do something about getting finance for Scotland in respect of oil. I am perfectly sure that the Government, if they apply themselves to the task, could take the money. They would be able to do that. It is not just petrol that is dearer there than anywhere else. Every necessity of life that is taken by the ferries and taken by road is dearer. The only thing that you can get on the Western Isles that will cost the same as in London is a Postage stamp. Everything else has been dearer since we departed from (what was it called?) resale price maintenance. Once that went, then the people who suffered were the people in the peripheral areas. So I am very glad that there has been this expression of feeling in the House today, that the Government still have to do something in respect of that.
On tourism, I think that about 30 per cent. of the money spent by the board is on tourism—not just on hotels, on beds and breakfasts; but on raising the level of accommodation, which people demand nowadays, and also in relation to the actual facilities. I am impressed by the work that is going on. Aviemore has been mentioned, and of course it is getting older. A lot more now needs to be done in renewing Aviemore. I am glad of the work that has been done by Aviemore people, the local authorities, and the Highlands and Islands Board. I think it was again the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, who said that we have copied the successful way in which they have laid down a structure in respect of tourism with the local areas and a general council, as I think they must. We are now

1261
applying that to Scotland, and it shows how successful they have been.
Apart from the big tourist area of Edinburgh and also the area around Glasgow, the Highlands is the third most popular area in the whole of Scotland; and of course many of those who go to Glasgow and Edinburgh eventually go to the Highlands as well. The area has unparalleled scenery. I was impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said about the simple things. Yes, the simple things, too. But we must—and I think the board are looking into this—make provision for something to obviate weather spoiling a holiday. Some things have been done in Oban, and other things have been done elsewhere, so that people can still enjoy themselves even though a drop of rain falls now and then on the Highlands. The board are doing something about it.
When I consider that the board have to cover such a very wide area, I am amazed that they do so with such little expenditure and so few staff. I know the board have been cramped for staff and for money, during this last year particularly. This is a part of Scotland where we should not cut down on available cash, because so much depends upon it. One of the reasons why the board were set up in the first place was that it was so difficult to get things done. There was the problem of getting money at all, and getting support from banks. Also, the addition that can be given in respect of the relief of interest by the board has been a tremendous help. The fact that at that time they created 22,000 jobs—I think this was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—is itself an indication.
Of course, things go wrong—and, by the way, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, mentioned the closing down of the smelter, but that had nothing to do with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It was the national Government who created that and they were prepared to welcome it there: of course they were. They were glad of it. If the noble Lord wants to get on to anybody about that—and I should be prepared to get on to people about letting it go rather than starting it up—he might be on to something. But when that smelter went and the pulp mill went, losing 2,000 jobs between them, to whom did the Government turn? They turned to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I think they offered them about £10 million to be spent over so many years in respect of surveying the impact and of seeing what could be done. In Invergordon we now have an enterprise zone, the agent for which is probably the Highlands board. They are working, too, with the Scottish Development Agency in Fort William.
We should consider what has been done in respect of agriculture for the crofters. There has been the business of interesting them in the improvement of their stock and in the co-operative ideas which have earned the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. This is a bold, new venture, and it is still an experiment. The board suggested, "Let us not he too optimistic about it", but some very worthwhile things have been done in improving the stock and in improving marketing as well as buying and everything else. Good things have been done in fish farming. I do not think many people in the United Kingdom realise that there are now about 1,000 people employed in fish farming, where there are small pockets of people
1262
who want to stay there. There are now eight salmon farms, I think, in Scotland; and I am glad that a tribute has been paid to them. Not too much has been said about what has been done about shellfish; but with difficult coasts and in small areas it has been possible to put some new life into the possibilities of development and of continued living in those areas. On crafts, the board have just developed the whole idea of getting together all the crafts in relation to techniques, marketing and so on. I think it is at Beauly Craftpoint.
A number of ventures have been started by the board. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton,—and I am grateful to him—spoke about people going there to find out what was being done. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, I am sure, will be able to confirm that people come from all over the world to look at similar kinds of problems which have been dealt with by the Highland and Islands Development Board. They come to see how we have dealt with them in Scotland.
The challenge is still there. It is one which continues as economic conditions change; but at least in that part of the country we have something which is prepared to meet the challenge. I pay my tribute to the staff—to Mr. Cowens and his present staff, as I did to Ken Alexander and his staff, to Sir Andrew Gilchrist, to Bob Grieve and the others. I think they are doing a first-class job. Of course they have made mistakes—my goodness! who among us sitting here has not made mistakes? But they have had to try; they are still trying; and—thank heavens!—they are succeeding.
5.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard on three counts: first, on his success in the ballot today; secondly, on his patience—because I understand he tabled this Motion some time ago and has had to wait for this success. Thirdly, may I congratulate him on his choice of subject today in order to allow us to talk about the Highlands of Scotland and about the Highlands and Islands Development Board in particular. What I have heard today makes me feel very proud indeed, because I am a Highlander myself. My family has lived and worked in the Highlands for six generations, and I have always felt about the Highlands the way that people have expressed themselves today. It is nice to have one's thoughts confirmed so vigorously.
May I also join with other noble Lords, and particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in offering my warmest congratulations to my noble friend Lord Dundee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I thoroughly enjoyed his maiden speech. It was certainly one of the best that I have heard, either in your Lordships' House or in another place. I look forward very much indeed to hearing his contribution to future debates in your Lordships' House.
I regard myself as fortunate in having ministerial responsibility for the Highlands and Islands Development Board and I am grateful for the opportunity which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, has given us this afternoon. The board was set up following the passing of the Highlands and

1263
Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965; and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was of course Secretary of State for Scotland at that time. I am pleased to acknowledge his part in the board's establishment. He did a very good turn to the Highlands when he got this particular measure through the Cabinet at that time.
The principal objectives of the board, as set out in the Act, are to assist the people of the Highlands and Islands to improve their economic and social conditions, and to enable the Highlands and Islands to play a more effective part in the economy and social development of the nation as a whole. In recognition of the particular difficulties of the area, the board is empowered to act across the whole spectrum of the Highland economy, covering agriculture, fisheries, forestry, transport, industrial development and tourism. Although the board's primary purpose must be to assist economic development, its social role is enshrined in the statute, and the board is required to keep under review matters relating to the social well-being of its area. It is also required by statute to have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty and the scenery, of the Highlands and Islands. The board's functions and responsibilities are therefore wider than any other statutory agency in the field of economic policy, and the board's powers are correspondingly diverse.
The Highlands of course have never been without their problems; and of recent years those problems have been large and serious. My noble friend Lord Massereene referred to the closure of the pulp mill and of the smelter, as did my noble friend Lady Elliot; and, of course, these were severe blows at that time. Good, then, that we have the Highlands and Islands Development Board in position to tackle the problems which were created by those closures. But we have had great successes in the Highlands, too. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve mentioned tourism and, of course, that has been a major success. The year 1982 was a very good one indeed; 1983 was even better, and we have every confidence that 1984 will also be very successful. We have had successes in industry and we have had successes in wood processing. Indeed, at the present moment the board is concerned with a major project which is to take place at the Dalcross industrial estate near Inverness. This will be a major step forward and should go a long way towards providing employment in the area.
The board is empowered to undertake, promote or aid developments in any sector of the Highlands economy. It may give financial assistance by way of grant, loan and equity subscription towards the capital cost of new or developing enterprises. It can undertake research and promotion, provide advisory and management services, acquire land, erect factories and provide equipment and services.
It has been suggested that the board has made mistakes; that it has had failures. I defend the board absolutely on this issue. I suggest that there are not many merchant banks in the City of London which would readily acknowledge that they, too, have had their failures. But because the board is spending public money, and because it respects confidentiality in its commercial transactions, it is only its failures which
1264
are seized upon as they become public knowledge and the press, quite naturally and quite rightly, illustrate the risks which it has to take. But, of course, if the board did not take risks it would not be doing its job properly. When you are investing money in an area such as the Highlands of Scotland, of course there are risks to be taken. But the board has learned from its mistakes, its record is good and, for all the few failures which it has had, it has had many successes.
My noble friend Lord Dundee referred to the geographical area and the enormity of it, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. It is interesting to note that the board's area of operations covers virtually all of the north-west of Scotland. It includes the former crofting counties of Argyll, Inverness and Ross and Cromarty, including the Western Isles, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland; and now, also Nairn and Bute. This is a vast area. From the Mull of Kintyre in the south to Muckle Flugga in the north of Shetland, the distance is about 420 miles.
My noble friend Lord Dundee also mentioned the Highland forests project, to which I referred a few moments ago. I believe that this project demonstrates the confidence which the private sector has in the future of forestry in the Highlands. It is a very good project, because the Forestry Commission is guaranteeing the supply of a considerable amount of timber and, with the private capital which is combining with the board's capital, this project is one of the finest in that area.
Since its inception, the board has been faced not only with the problems of the Highland and Islands economy, but also with the changing pattern of the British economy as a whole and, indeed, with changes in society. As a result, the board has had to have a clear view of its objectives, but at the same time it has had to be flexible enough to take account of these changes. This has not been easy and the board has had its occasional failures. There have been very many more successes, as I said, and the commitment of successive board chairmen and members of the board, as well as the loyalty and enthusiasm of its staff, have been the major factors in the board's success. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, in paying tribute to the staff. I can tell him that the total numbers employed by the board at the present moment, about which he asked me, are 260. But this figure includes the local officers, and the board is now represented on the ground at 10 different locations within its area, rather than being centralised in Inverness, as it had been until about two years ago.
I was most interested in the contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made to our deliberations, and we welcome him to debates on Scottish affairs and Highland affairs, in particular, and I was very glad about the kind words which he said about the board. I hope that the information which he was able to receive from the experts who work there will be of help to him—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, we did, in fact, model the Falkland Islands Development Agency on the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I just hope that it works as well.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am very glad, and very proud indeed, to think that our achievements in the Highlands are being recognised in such a tangible way. The confidence which the Government place in the board has been recognised in the level of funding that we have made available to it. I really cannot let the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, get away with his suggestion that we certainly should not be cutting back on what we are giving the board, and that that must be a priority. Of course it is a priority; and let me tell him how much we realise it is a priority. At the time when the party of which he is a loyal member left office in 1978–79, the grant in aid to the board was £12.7 million. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that it is now £29.8 million in 1983–84 and will be £34.2 million in 1984–85. When income from loans repaid is added, the board's expenditure in 1984–85 is likely to exceed £40 million. In addition to direct funding of the board, the Government of course channel very substantial additional sums into the board's area through rate support grant to local authorities, through specific assistance to road, transport and ferry operators and to agriculture, fisheries and other bodies. All this reflects our continuing awareness of the problems facing the Highlands and Islands and the importance of improving conditions there.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, also suggested the setting up of a bank for further investment in the Highlands. It is an interesting suggestion and one which will no doubt be borne in mind. However, I would sound a slight warning note. Local banks in Scotland have traditionally tried to spread their risks by amalgamation, and there are now only three major clearing banks in Scotland, whereas some 10 to 15 years ago there were, perhaps, more than double that number. The important point is the attitude which the banks take to development and investment in the area. The increasing proportion of private finance, which the board's assistance attracts, is an encouraging sign that banks are more willing to lend to development projects in the Highlands and Islands than they were once upon a time. Indeed, it is also refreshing to know the ratio at the present moment. In other words, every £1 which the board is spending on investment in the Highlands is being matched by approximately £3 from the banks and the private sector.
If I may return to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, he made reference to ski-ing. I am grateful to him for his remarks about ski-ing and for the encouragement which he gave. The board is also giving very considerable encouragement to ski-ing. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is quite interested in this sport. I commend to him the skis which are manufactured locally in Aviemore. When he next visits the area I hope that the noble Lord might be tempted, if he has not already been tempted, to make a purchase and thus encourage some of the investment which is going into the Highlands.
It is undoubtedly true that, by building up its contacts in and knowledge of the Highlands and Islands the board is reaching parts of its area, in both the geographical and economic sense, which other agencies did not or could not reach in the past. Over the last decade the board has provided assistance to businesses in its area totalling £159 million at 1982
1266
prices. I must emphasise that this assistance is discretionary, not automatic. The fact that the board now processes over 1,500 applications for such assistance annually—which is double the number five years ago—is testimony to its improved efficiency. The board seeks to maximise the impact of its assistance by attracting a very high proportion of private sector finance.
The assistance amounting to £159 million which I have mentioned has created, according to the board's estimates, 16,000 new jobs. This figure was given by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard in his opening speech and I can confirm that he was absolutely correct. Nearly 6,000 other jobs which were at risk in this period have been retained. Bearing in mind the difficulties of terrain, remoteness and climate, this is a very significant achievement and one of which the board may justifiably be proud. It has created good relations with the Scottish Development Agency, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. It has been suggested this afternoon that there is a certain amount of overlapping. I do not believe that there is overlapping. The board has gone out of its way to try to ensure that this does not happen. My noble friend Lord Dundee suggested that the cost per job in the board's area was £4,200. I agree with him entirely that this is very good value indeed. I agree also with those who suggested that the powers of the board should be retained in their present form.
It was my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve who suggested that there has been criticism that sometimes the board is more anxious to help incomers than those who are resident in the area. I was glad that she defended the board. I can confirm that the board is well aware of the problem, that those who live in the area are given every encouragement to apply to the board for help for their businesses and that the board is also very interested in small businesses. The increase in the number of applications which have been processed highlights the fact that many more small businesses and small concerns are applying to the board for help. The board has provided some 290 factory units from Arran to Shetland, with the firms occupying those factories giving employment to some 1,700 people.
In seeking to follow a broadly based sectoral strategy the board correctly emphasises the need to give priority to businesses and projects which build upon the natural resources of the region. It is the board's aim to increase the value added to these resources within the Highlands and Islands. Examples are mineral exploitation, processing of offshore oil and gas, increasing the expenditure of each tourist to the area, support for the crafts industry, processing the output of agriculture and fishing and the development of suitable sites for fish farming. The most obvious examples of this strategy in action are the board's involvement in the new orientated structure board plant being built near Inverness and the new fishmeal factory about to be started at Ardveenish in Barra. However, I would not want your Lordships to be misled into thinking that the board is concerned only with the large, prestige projects. The bulk of the board's work has been, and will continue to be, with

1267
the small businessman on whose success depends the success of the area as a whole.
A number of specific points have been raised in the debate, and during the few minutes which remain I should like to try to answer some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, said that there is an awkward difference between the calendar year for the report and the financial year for the accounts. The 1965 Act requires the calendar year report. However, we are aware of the problem and will consider a change when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, also asked me about transport. The board has been a major source of expertise on transport matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, it has achieved greatly improved transport links within its area. For example, the various transport operators have been encouraged to reconsider their policies. Many of them have done so.
Reference was made to RET. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was perfectly correct when he said that this was contained in the Conservative Party's manifesto at the last general election. However, as I explained when I made a statement on the subject, the fact of the matter is that when we looked at the different islands which are involved we found that certain islands would be considerably worse off if we followed the RET route. It was for that reason, and in view of the fact that we were making a major investment not only in the ferries but in harbours and piers, that we decided to retain the selective method of offering assistance rather than to switch to RET.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, thought that the board was confined to an investment of £10,000. This is not correct. The percentage of grant and loan assistance which was approved in 1983, for example, meant that cases up to £5,000 accounted for 53 per cent. of the grants and loans awarded, that cases up to £10,000 accounted for 75 per cent. of the grants and loans awarded and that cases up to £25,000 accounted for 89 per cent. This confirms the noble Baroness's view that the majority of cases involve sums less than £10,000. However, the limit is £250,000 and the board can, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make an award of up to £400,000.
In his 1980 report on local government my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston recommended that the area tourist organisation system in the Highlands and Islands should be extended elsewhere. The Government were pleased to accept that recommendation. The HIDB is leading the way and has led the way for the rest of Scotland. It is also leading the way in the new computer booking of holiday accommodation. This is a wonderful computer which has been established in Dingwall. I visited it a few weeks ago. We are almost sure that other parts of the United Kingdom will follow. Therefore the HIDB is once again in the lead.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the regional policy review and its effect on the HIDB area. I cannot predict what the outcome of the review will be, but the Government will take into account the special needs of the Highlands and Islands area.
Perhaps I may return to the comment of my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston about the duty on
1268
petrol and the differential. I note my noble friend's point, which he will appreciate is not new to me, and no doubt it will be taken note of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will say, however, that there has been a substantial improvement. I bought petrol in Inverness last Saturday at only 2p per gallon dearer for four-star than is the price in London. That is a great improvement and one which we hope will be maintained. It is inevitable that when one travels in some of the more remote parts of the Highlands, the price will be greater. There are a number of reasons—not least because the outlet is unable to take a really large tanker-load and therefore there will be an excess charged on the load. But even that excess should not create a difference as large as there has been in some areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, commented, in connection with tourism, that the HIDB spends money on hotels, facilities and standards. I agree that this is so. In the standard of hotels in the Highlands, there is probably no more emphatic evidence of the success of the board. I can remember only too well, as I am sure the noble Lord can, that only a matter of 20 years ago there were many good hotels in the Highlands but there were also many which left a great deal to be desired. Moving around the area today, one is immediately impressed by the high standard of accommodation available and the considerable choice that is offered—even in some of the remote areas. This is very encouraging.
My noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston referred also to help for Cadzo Brothers. I have to tell him that the board has in fact provided financial assistance for the brothers' enterprise—especially for the development of the special breed of cattle they are dealing with there. So the board has been involved.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, I did not mean to imply that the Cadzo brothers needed financial help from the board. I merely wished to say that the board had latched on to some of the ideas which the Cadzo brothers were propounding.
Lord Gray of Contin: In either event, my Lords, the board is interested. It has been asked for advice and whether in fact it has been asked for financial assistance I do not know—and my noble friend would appreciate that I would not say if I did know.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve reinforced the forceful point made about tourism by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I will say to her that I am sure the Scottish Tourist Board will certainly note her remarks and be appreciative of them, even if they do not necessarily offer her an immediate seat on the board, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was suggesting.
In conclusion, I should like to confirm that the board is determined to make the best use of the indigenous resources of its area by adding value in the Highlands. The board has a very clear commitment to small businesses. It is primarily upon the small businessman that the economic success of the board's area must depend, and that will be its prime objective.
I should again like to thank my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for introducing this subject

1269
this afternoon, to acknowledge the very deep interest he has in the Highlands, and to thank him for giving us all the opportunity to comment on this, the most wonderful part of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all your Lordships for your contributions, and to thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I must especially thank my noble friend Lord Dundee, whose father I knew well—but he has already received so many accolades that he does not really need mine, but I certainly give him one as a bonus.
I am feeling rather sorry that, for the first time in my life, I obeyed the Chief Whip and spoke for only 14 minutes, because I got through only about one-quarter of what I wanted to say. I will not say it all now, but I am rather sorry that we did not have time to debate conservation of the Highlands. Although I am all for having hundreds and thousands of tourists to the islands—and they come over to Mull in their tens of thousands—I believe there should be some plan to stop them from spoiling what they come to see. I have made paths but they do not stay on them—and if that goes on, we shall lose our rare birds; our peregrines, our eagles, and the sea eagles which we now have.
Conservation has worked when I have dealt with geologists. Apparently, my estate is one of the most interesting geological parts of the world. The geology students used to clamber all over the place, but I have now come to an agreement with the universities and the polytechnics, to which they adhere very strictly. They now only come at certain times of the year, when they cannot disturb the wildlife and do further damage.
I would like to have a go at the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because I rather thought that he accused the landowners for the deer which he said had driven the people off the land. In fact, it was the sheep which drove the people off the land. I will not say any more. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Nuclear Holocaust
5.56 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney rose to call attention to the approach of the nuclear holocaust; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, it is first necessary for me to show that the nuclear holocaust is approaching. As this is a Private Member's Motion, I am not altogether surprised that these Benches are no more crowded than they were for the previous occasion. But I hope that as a result of our debate this afternoon it will be decided that this subject should be debated on an official Front Bench basis, with a Motion from one of the Front Benches.
I wish in my heart that it were not the case that I believe that this terrible event is coming nearer. Like the rest of us, I have lived with nuclear weapons since 1945. At one time I thought there was reason to hope that the atomic bombs dropped on the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States Air Force would not only he the first but also the last.
Over the years, that hope has gradually been diminished and is now very nearly extinguished. Even so, for many years, while I marched with many others to and from Aldermaston, I thought that we were seeking to protect unborn generations in the future. It is only recently that I have been forced to the conclusion that the holocaust which will extinguish humanity is likely to come in the lifetime of most people now on earth.
I say "likely to come" because I do not believe that inevitability has yet been reached. It is very close but, as I shall suggest before I conclude, there are actions which the Government can take, once they are convinced of the imminent danger, and these actions might at least give humanity a chance of avoiding the final catastrophe.
I am not alone in believing that the developments of the past few years, which I shall outline, have shortened the general expectation of the life of humanity. Herman Kahn, the American expert and no friend of peacemongers, has said that the years we are now in are those in which nuclear war is likely to come. The Year Book of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute states that the nuclear balance is becoming increasingly unstable. The American Department of Defence has abandoned the concept of deterrence and is now arguing that a nuclear war can be fought and won. The fact that American scientists are advising the precise opposite does not seem to deter them. In fact, the word "deterrence" is now used to cover a nuclear war-fighting policy. As Caspar Weinberger puts it:
"If you have developed the ability to take out their missiles you have achieved a degree of deterrence".
That is not the sense in which the word "deterrence" has been used throughout the world. Neither is it the sense in which the Government themselves now use it.
Questioning the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Air Force in Congress revealed that the old policy of mutally assured destruction—or MAD—had been abandoned. General Davis said that it had now been replaced by "Counter force". Asked what it meant he said, "war-fighting". Pressed further, he said:
"The enemy must be engaged and defeated by conventional or nuclear weapons".
Alexander Haig says that NATO plans to fire a nuclear warning shot at the other side. IF NATO does that, it will be the end of the world; but they plan it all the same. The American Ambassador to France says that NATO's theatre nuclear weapons give America the opportunity to attack the Soviet Union from Europe while keeping the United States out of strategic nuclear war. Our role as nuclear sacrificial lambs was never made more clear. No wonder France does not commit its nuclear weapons to NATO and refuses to have American nukes on French soil. And so I could go on.
It can no longer be argued that America is committed to a deterrent policy. It is committed to a

1271
war-fighting policy and is piling up nuclear weapons of high accuracy with a view to arriving at a position in which every Soviet nuclear weapon can be put out of business in one pre-emptive strike. For example, General Allen says that the United States must have first-strike capability whether they use it or not.
What is the Soviet reaction? It is to build up their own nuclear forces, if possible to parity. In some areas they are ahead—for example, in land-based missiles in Europe. But the truth is that as a predominantly European power—essential areas of the Soviet Union are in European Russia—the Soviet Union recognise that they could not survive a nuclear war. Hence the constant proposals of various kinds. But there is another and more sinister possibility. The United States distinguishes between having a first-strike capability and the intention to use it. But the Americans always assume that whatever capability the Russians have they will be prepared to use. However, the Americans are, after all, the only people who actually used the nuclear weapon in war, so one can imagine the Soviet Union thinking on that.
From the Soviet point of view, all this could not be more alarming. They can no more distinguish between capability and intention than could the Americans were the boot on the other foot. The Soviets are therefore in great danger of being forced into what the Americans call a "use it or lose it" situation. It is rendered even more precarious by the adoption by the Americans of the Airland Battle concept, which is now the official doctrine of the American Army, according to General Otis who is American Commander in Europe. This policy, which Robert McNamara has described as suicide, envisages the immediate in-depth use of nuclear and chemical weapons. Furthermore, all new nuclear weapons that America is developing and ordering have a counter-silo capability.
In these circumstances, in which deterrence is obviously not working, the Soviet Union are likely to be forced to consider the possibility of pre-emption. In turn, the Americans in emergency would turn to the possibility of anticipating this pre-emption with their own first strike, because they have immense technical superiority. Of course, that technical superiority would be of no value in a second strike position. The position is therefore developing very dangerously indeed.
We are up to our necks in this with our purchase of the Trident D5 with its counter-silo capability, which must help to provoke the Soviet Union into a "launch on warning" posture. Once that happens it will only be a matter of time—and not a very long time at that—before the holocaust is upon us and all our hopes and dreams are at an end.
A surprising and sad development of the past few years has been the degree to which the Government have become a monkey dancing to the tune of president Reagan's organ-grinder. For anyone who wants chapter and verse on the terrifying nature of the Reagan Administration in this respect, I commend an information paper issued last month by the Labour Party. In case it should be thought that such observations are anti-American, may I point to the growing number of United States citizens who are determined to replace their dangerous Government
1272
with a democratic President. It worries thinking Americans as well as anyone else that the relationship between this country and the United States has deteriorated to the point at which it bears some similarity to the satellite status endured by members of the Warsaw Pact in relation to the USSR. If anyone doubts that, I commend to them a letter from Robert J. Wolfson, a distinguished American professor of economics, published recently in the Guardian.
We cannot be surprised if the Soviet Government prefer to wait now in the hope that after the American presidential election they will be able to talk to someone who really wants agreement and is not simply concerned to pretend about peace while preparing for the ultimate war.
I am here only considering one of several risks of nuclear extinction. Two others are, first, war by accident. There are many false alarms of Soviet attack. In time of emergency the tendency to treat alarm as reality would be very great. The same temptation applies equally on the Soviet side. Indeed, it is probably worse, because they are technically less advanced. Secondly, there is the possibility of a nuclear war arising from a super-power involvement in such conflicts as that between Iraq and Iran. I say nothing of the general process of proliferation as a result of which several more nations are on the verge of becoming nuclear, if some of them are not already.
It is time for the Government to assert an independent initiative. I am glad that the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister is coming here next week and that Sir Geoffrey will be visiting Moscow. I hope that in these discussions we shall begin to speak for our own people and forsake our position, which is all too like a ventriloquial doll sitting on the American knee and parroting NATO slogans. I hope, too, that the Minister in reply will reject that role.
I have tried to approach this grave problem without resorting to any position which could be identified as being peculiar to that of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, of which I am nonetheless proud to be a member. I have tried to suggest nothing which it would he impossible for any rational and sane person on this or on that side of the House to consider as something which should be looked at.
I ask the Government to do two things. I ask them, first, to recognise the gravity of the situation and to appreciate that neither our people nor any others have ever in history been faced with the possibility—even the probability—of nuclear annihilation. Secondly, having appreciated the unprecedented nature of the peril in which we stand, in which it now seems unlikely that our civilization will reach the second millennium and may end much earlier—having appreciated that—I ask that the Government in this pre-crisis time, this breathing space, to call a meeting or meetings of all parties. In this way all the most experienced minds may get together to discuss the dilemma which we are in.
Old arguments about unilateralism and multilateralism have no relevance to our present perils. The survival of this nation and of mankind itself is at stake. We must see whether our people still have the combined wisdom out of which to distil policies and proposals which may yet lead us out of this valley of the shadow of death—the death of the species to which we belong. I beg to move for Papers.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this debate is to be commended for his sincerity. The whole debate is founded on sincerity, and the question which it begs is founded on delusion. What little contribution I can make I hope will introduce reality. It seems to me that all the issues and all the arguments can be thrown aside but for one. What is such a pity is that this is the one issue on which there will be no meeting of minds.
Unpalatable though it may be, the reality of deterrence—and I recognise that the noble Lord has spotted a discernible shift in the meaning of the word "deterrence"; I am using it in the old sense—is that holding and maintaining in balance numbers of nuclear warheads is not unstable. The truth of the matter is that this situation is inherently stable and that the existence of numbers of these weapons available to both super powers is at the heart of this stability. Of course, no sane person can morally defend this satanic arsenal. There is nothing honourable about the bomb. But Pandora's box is open; we cannot close it. The thermonuclear genie is out of the bottle and we cannot put it hack in.
In defence of my firm conviction of fundamental stability underpinning the deterrence principle, I have to make just a few short points. The first is that because these armouries are huge, the achieveable damage is virtually infinite. I hope that nobody seriously suggests that this fact has escaped the notice of the political masters of the dominant groups. It never fails to surprise me—and again I concede that the noble Lord who initiated this debate would not join in what I am going to say—how the people who speak for peace and one-sided disarmament feel that they alone hold the copyright to a true understanding of the consequences of these weapons. That is simply not the case. The consequences are equally understood by the individuals who command the use of these devices. In fact I would propose that, because they are in a position to unleash the awesome power of nuclear war, they are that much more likely to have a sharp perception of the horrific potential.
My second point is paradoxically simple but underlyingly deeply complex. Nobody has fought a nuclear war. Each day that passes I believe—and I speak for myself; I do not speak for my Front Bench—slightly diminishes the option that they will. The other camp will argue that the very existence of these weapons means that they will be used. We have already had cited an example that they twice were at the end of the second world war. I counter that by proposing, on the contrary, that the existence of these weapons in substantial numbers is tantamount to a guarantee that they will not be used. Theories about nuclear war are thick on the ground. I feel I have read most of them. I welcome them all, and the more chilling in their forecasts the better. But I believe that for the first time in history we have the intellectual luxury of theories for which there will never be a practical test.
My third point about inherent and increasing stability derives from the fact that communications between the super powers are unrecognisably more open and richer in content than ever before. Setting aside political rhetoric, the dialogue between NATO
1274
and Warsaw Pact interests is continuous, detailed and sophisticated. Lastly, I believe that the situation is now more stable because of the technical change in delivery systems. In some part this echoes a speech that I made here defending the Trident system. Twenty years ago our response to confrontation crises had to rely on our bomber forces held on runway alert. We have heard of the danger of hair-trigger responses. Those bombers were the very stuff of hair-trigger response. With our capabilities now controlled by submarines invisibly patrolling the deep oceans, the stability of deterrence is enhanced and not diminished.
In a sense, by focusing on the stability of nuclear deterrence I have shown my hand too early, because it is the one central issue with which I can never hope that the one-sided disarmers will agree. Without their belief that it is fundamentally unstable after all, they have no argument. I wanted to achieve two things by taking part in today's debate. The first was to emphasise this belief of mine that for a variety of reasons nuclear deterrence when mutually practised is stable now and getting more stable.
But the one-sided disarmer comes in two strengths. The real vintage stuff supposes that the conscience of ideologically antagonistic nations is somehow alerted by sacrificial self-denial. This is simply rubbish. I do not think that it is particularly dangerous rubbish but it is rubbish. A far more insidious, subtle and better argued case comes from those parties in the shape of the no first use concept. It is persuasive, honourable and does not ask for NATO to throw down its arms, and it is very, very dangerous. I propose to demolish it.
Like all nuclear jargon, no first use needs a little explaining. It is that a firm undertaking should be given that the West, and the East for that matter, should in no circumstances whatever be the first to use nuclear weapons. This proposition has often been urged by the Soviet Union, though its military tactical doctrine and training actually stress pre-emptive action. It is a theme which has been vigorously taken up by some Western commentators. The first article in this month's Scientific American is an elegantly argued case in point. I am not talking about first strike, which is the idea of a massive pre-emptive operation. That is not a NATO option and could never be.
Another misconception is that NATO has a policy of first use. That is not so. NATO has a policy of not accepting the conquest of any of its homelands. The scale and the nature of the armouries, as I said a little earlier, are such that both sides now dispose of effectively boundless physical force. This fact changes fundamentally the significance of any military operations between them. It sets quite new and intellectually very difficult problems.
Classically, the professional military aim in major war has been to deprive the adversary of effective capability for further action, but this has become an unattainable aim. The only possible purpose of the defender's operations at any level—conventional as well as nuclear—must now he to induce the aggressor to desist by placing plainly and credibly before him the prospect that further aggression will be met, not by surrender but by resistance at a level which will sooner or later cost the aggressor more than he can afford to pay. Given the two-way fact of boundless force, the aggressor could have embarked upon aggression only

1275
on an assessment that the defender was afraid to use his capability and would prefer to lose rather than do so. The longer and the more resolute the resistance, the more pressure on the aggressor to recognise that his initial calculation was mistaken and that for his own survival—which is ultimately just as much at risk as that of the defender—he must back off.
NATO clearly recognises this central idea, the aim of inducing an essentially political reappraisal, not pursuing the mirage of military victory as the centrepiece of its nuclear planning. The concept is without question an uncomfortable one, turning, as it fundamentally does, upon intention, judgment and resolve, rather than clear-cut physical force.
We have to recognise, however, that no other concept of military resistance can be available. The risk of escalation is sometimes cited as a key argument against first use. It is inherent that escalation is always a possibility and never a certainty; but the risk bears upon both sides and both must reckon with it. That arises with any act of resistance at any level, since escalation begins with the first warlike act. If the existence of this risk is regarded as an overriding argument, it tells against any use of nuclear weapons, not just against first use, and indeed against any Western military resistance at all. The logical inference would be that the only rational policy, in the face of a nuclear capable potential aggressor, is pacifism and willingness to take all its consequences. The seduction of no first use is a notion of honour; the reality is that we are saying, "Whatever you take, you keep."
I hope that I have not overstayed my welcome. These are complex arguments, occupying brilliant men; but other issues must wait for other days. For example, cruise. The possibility of splitting Europe away from the United States, so an adversary would confront not one but two super powers, is for another debate on another day. I will wind up by merely using the same phrases that I used to close my defence in the debate on Trident three years ago. In a perfect world there would be no armies; in an imperfect world of a sort there would be all the defence funding that we needed for total security. In the real world, we have made a real choice—I think it is the right one—but our leaders must never lose sight of what such choices are: they are the choices between different keys to the doors of hell.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, will be warmly welcomed on these Benches—not least what he had to say about a declaration of no first use. He will forgive me, however, if I take a slightly different line in the very few comments that I propose to make. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has stated that the point of inevitability had not quite arrived; but in fact the wording of this Motion:
"To call attention to the approach of the nuclear holocaust",
and a number of the arguments and comments which the noble Lord himself made in his speech, strongly suggest that the holocaust is inevitable.
I want very briefly to argue on the contrary: that the holocaust is by no means inevitable but that the propaganda of CND supporters, by exaggerating the
1276
likelihood of nuclear war, and by increasing distrust between the super powers, certainly does bring the holocaust nearer. I think it is common ground on both sides of the House that nuclear war would produce unimaginable horrors and perhaps end civilisation. Of course this has been common ground between members of all political persuasions for 30 years and more, long before the establishment of CND. Indeed, what is so surprising is that so many CND supporters seem to have woken up to the danger of nuclear war so late. Many needed to be jolted by the cruise missile programme into appreciating the danger at all, and during the 1960s and 1970s, when the problem was already acute, many of the present CND supporters were comfortably asleep.
Where the disagreement comes is not about the horrors of nuclear war but about whether they can be avoided; and, if so, how. The Motion, as I say, strongly suggests that they cannot be avoided; and it is true that tension and distrust between the super powers is very high; and it is true that they are armed to the teeth; and it is true that the prospects of arms control and disarmament are poor at the present time. But it should he said again and again that for all their foolish actions and statements, both the United States and the Soviet governments sincerely want to avoid nuclear war. There cannot be any doubt about that whatever. Nobody who has the chance of going, as I have, quite recently, to Moscow and Washington or to meet Soviet and American spokesmen in London, can fail to see that that is the absolute truth. And indeed mere common sense suggests it. Why should Soviet leaders or American leaders not strive their utmost to save themselves and their families—to put it at its lowest—from the ordeal of a nuclear holocaust? It is common sense and every well-informed person knows it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, if directly challenged, will agree that the Americans genuinely wish to avoid nuclear war. I am not challenged. I am sure that is true. No one doubts it.
East-West relations are strained at the moment, but they are not as strained as they have been on occasions in the past. They are not as strained as they were in 1963 at the time of the Cuba crisis. The world was much closer to war then. It was nearer to war in 1949 when the Russians closed the road and rail access to West Berlin and then started buzzing our planes in the air corridor. East-West relations were worse last year than they are this year. Today, moreover, both sides have got a much clearer understanding of what each side can and cannot do without provoking a violent reaction on the other side. The Americans know better than to promote liberation in Eastern Europe. The Russians know better than to threaten Berlin. There has also been an improvement in hot line communication and in confidence-building measures to lessen the chances of misunderstanding and accident.
Of course, the nuclear capacity of both sides has reached more horrifying levels than ever before. Of course, we live in dangerous times. But nuclear war is by no means inevitable. What could make disaster certain, however, is the belief that nuclear war was inevitable. If either the Soviet or the American Government came to believe that, then indeed we would be doomed because once war is held to be

1277
inevitable, the arguments for getting one's blow in first are irresistible. That is why propaganda that exaggerates the likelihood of war is so irresponsible and dangerous. CND is not only guilty of this, but it is guilty of a worse crime: of encouraging the Soviet delusion that the Americans are seriously contemplating a first strike against them. The Russians do fear this. I had that put to me earlier this year in Moscow by a very high Soviet official. For the reasons given, it is nonsense; but it is inflammatory nonsense, and those who propagate it do no good to the cause of peace.
The Soviet and American governments are manifestly anxious to avoid nuclear war. The great danger is that neither really believes that about the other side. Those who exaggerate the likelihood of nuclear war or encourage the Russians to believe the Americans intend to attack them, inflame suspicion, raise tension and bring the nuclear holocaust closer. I am bound to say—I say it with great regret—that I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and his CND allies are guilty on both counts.
Lord Kaldor: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him one question? I am sure he is quite right in what he says about America, speaking about Americans in a generic term; but unfortunately the President of the United States has made statements—perhaps quite some time ago—to the effect that America can conduct and win a nuclear war. On another occasion he said that it can and will win a nuclear war in Europe—in other words, without affecting the United States. Given the fact that the President of the United States is a responsible official—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Kaldor: Would the noble Lord agree that dangerous developments do not arise simply as a result of the efforts of those who want nuclear disarmament, but by irresponsible statements of people like the American President.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, of course—as I said in my speech—both sides make the most foolish and unhelpful statements. When one speaks with leading people in Moscow or Washington they both have the same characteristic: they both fasten on the most stupid and provocative statements made by the other side, and entirely ignore the rest. The job of peacemaking when you are in Russia is to tell the Russians that the Americans do not intend it, and that these stupid statements do not reflect American opinion; when in Washington your task is to tell the Americans that the Russians are not as bad as the statements made by so-and-so at such-and-such time would seem to indicate. That is the task of peace-making. The opposite task of telling each super-power that the other super-power is preparing for war is a different matter altogether.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I do not share the feeling of impending doom which oppresses the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I have always felt that the oft-quoted phrase of Lord Mountbatten,
"We are on the brink of an abyss"
1278
is an exaggeration. Nor do I share the noble Lord's wish to see the total abolition of nuclear weapons. If that were achieved—or we thought it had been—we should have returned to an era in which the major industrial powers could think of going to war with each other as an acceptable means of continuing their policies. The results of that in this century have been bad enough. Another European war—even without nuclear weapons—could be even more destructive then the last two. In any case, we cannot return to that era because everybody now knows how to make nuclear weaspons, and even if you thought you had totally abolished them you could not prevent their return once war had broken out. You would have lost the general deterrent to war which I believe their existence does provide: you would have made war more likely with no guarantee that if it erupted they would not again make their appearance.
I agree with the noble Lord who believes that there are far too many nuclear warheads about: far more than are needed for that primary purpose of deterring war; and that the two trends which have led to their being over 20,000 warheads in the hands of each of the major nuclear powers are dangerous and should be eliminated.
The first trend is the pursuit of counterforce strategies: that is strategies designed to knock-out the enemy's nuclear delivery systems. They demand two things: first the capability to strike first—there is no point in hitting the enemy's delivery platforms after they have fired; and, secondly, a superiority in quality, quantity, or both, which can ensure that the first strike is almost 100 per cent. effective against all the enemy's systems. Those prerequisites are not only highly destabilising and dangerous, but the search for such superiority is—and always will be—vain. It is technically unattainable and merely encourages the other side to engage in the same hopeless race.
The second dangerous trend is to try to redress the opponent's superiority in conventional forces by the use of nuclear weapons against them. Even if this is only intended to be a threat—which, in the event, NATO would not implement—it is dangerous and has led to a proliferation of weapons for every arm of the service. It is dangerous because it encourages politicians and military men to assume, first, that it can compensate for inadequate conventional forces and, secondly, that as soon as things begin to go wrong, the resort to nuclear weapons would provide an effective defence. It might have done when the other side could not answer back in kind. But ever since the Soviet Union has been able to do so at every level, it has become a potentially disastrous self-fulfilling strategy.
Over the past few years these realities have become increasingly apparent to a large proportion of the public, including those who have been directly involved in defence matters. But the Government appear to ignore them. They give the impression of complacency: of thinking that, having won a general election, having decided to go ahead with Trident, having accepted the first instalment of cruise missiles—and let some of their vehicles out for a short night-time drive—it can sit back and leave things as they are: that there is no need for NATO to re-think its nuclear weapon policy.

1279
It would be a tragedy if that view were to prevail; for this year provides a unique opportunity for Her Majesty's Government to take the lead in persuading NATO to put its nuclear thinking-cap on. The Americans are distracted by the American Presidential election. There is general agreement in NATO that something must be done to put East-West relations on a more sensible and realistic basis, responding to the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his Alastair Buchan memorial lecture last year. The omens for progress in Stockholm at the resumed MBFR talks at Vienna, and at those about chemical warfare at Geneva, are not unfavourable.
If the Government consider that the sort of views I have expressed today—and have often done before in this House—are confined to their political opponents, a few defence academics and retired senior officers, I draw their attention to a recent study carried out by the British Atlantic Committee. Its report, "Diminishing the Nuclear Threat" was published in January, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I read four short extracts. The first is on page 11:
"The present weapon arsenals are far in excess of the needs of deterrence. There is no security requirement for weapons to include 'every rung of the nuclear ladder'. The concept of controlled, step-by-step escalation is impractical nonsense in an unpredictable and largely uncontrollable and chaotic situation. The world would, in fact, be a safer place if some of these rungs were removed now. They merely encourage theories of nuclear war-fighting. The West possesses too many weapons systems and means of delivery for the task it is trying to achieve. So too does the Soviet Union.".
Turning to page 18:
"The contradiction contained in flexible response is now emerging into the spotlight of public opinion. An increasing number of people are unhappy with a defence policy over-biased in terms of vast numbers of nuclear weapons which are incapable of use in large numbers, and have little practical significance".
On the same page, it is stated:
"It is now time to question—

(i) whether the West needs slavishly to match the Soviet nuclear armoury at every level. The complaint that one side or another should not be allowed to have a 'monopoly' of some particular nuclear weapons system is particularly illogical and has little to do with deterrence;

(ii) whether the forward location of nuclear warheads any longer makes either military or political sense. From their present dispositions, the Warsaw Pact could destroy many of these delivery systems in quick time. The weapons themselves would present the Allies with the dilemma of 'use them or lose them'.".

And on page 25:
"It is arguable that confining all cruise-missiles to carrying conventional loads would be a considerable step to clarifying the whole position as to what weapon might be nuclear and what might be conventional. In a significant number of cases there is no way of telling. This is a neglected and deplorable situation. We would suggest that there is an outstanding need for full examination of this problem which seems to have been largely ignored.".
Those views are not the views of the loony lefties, pink pacifists or even maverick field marshals, but of a group chaired by the noble and gallant Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Cameron of Balhousie, and consisting of three retired generals, one of whom was the former commander in chief of NATO's Allied Forces Northern Europe, the former Permanent Under-Secretary and the former Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Defence, the former assistant director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and the committee's director of studies. Could you have a body of more unexceptionable qualifications to express views on this important issue?
1280
I beg the Government to take this matter seriously and to study the important proposals which the British Atlantic Committee report has recommended. The first is that,
"NATO should move towards a strategy in which the first use of nuclear weapons is no longer an essential part of the deterrent".
What better time could there be for Her Majesty's Government, for a change, to take the lead in NATO in this, the 35th Anniversary of the Alliance, which owes its existence to the initiative of that great British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, and the year in which another notable British Foreign Secretary assumes the post of Secretary-General. I urge them to try and persuade the alliance to ask itself, and the Americans who own most of them, just what all its nuclear weapons are for; and to reduce them to only those needed as a general deterrent to war and as a deterrent to the use by the Soviet union of these dreadful weapons—for dreadful they undoubtedly are.
6.43 p.m
Lord Brockway: My Lords, listening to this debate one is tempted to spend the short time in which one can speak in commenting upon, and answering, points that have been made in previous speeches. Because the subject is so serious, I thought carefully about how best to use my time. I have come to the conclusion that the most constructive contribution one can make is to look at the proposals which have been made for containing and for ending nuclear war, and to ask, in respect of many of them, what is the view of the Government.
First, there is the proposal for no first use of nuclear weapons. That has very wide support in the world today. It is supported by the majority of nations in the United Nations General Assembly and is also accepted by the Soviet Union. The Government rejected it. However, in doing so, they said that they were prepared to support a proposal which would not only mean no first use of nuclear weapons but also no first use of conventional weapons. I would urge strongly upon the Government that they emphasise their willingness, and I hope the willingness of the West as a whole, to declare positively that they are against the first use, not only of nuclear weapons, but also of conventional weapons, and to put it in the form of a treaty making it an absolute object of Government policy.
Secondly, there is the proposal for a nuclear freeze—that there should be a complete freeze on the present strength of nuclear weapons, their research, their development and their delivery systems. Again, the Government have said that they are against the proposal, no doubt because the West is stronger in nuclear weapons and the East stronger in conventional weapons. If the first proposal that I have made of a united declaration against the first use of any weapons was accepted, that argument would no longer stand. Again. I suggest very strongly indeed that the Government should reconsider their attitude to that proposal.
Thirdly, there is the proposal for nuclear-free zones in northern Europe, in central Europe and in south-eastern Europe. The proposal in the north has, I hope, been postponed only because of the defeat of the Labour Government in Norway and a less radical

1281
government in Denmark. The proposal in West Germany was an issue there in the last election. So far as south-east Europe is concerned, Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania are all in favour of the proposal, and only Turkey is against. Those proposals are now on the agenda of real politics. If they were established and, as proposed, corridors made between them, the whole pattern of Europe in relation to nuclear weapons would be changed. If the Government are seriously concerned about containing the danger of nuclear war, surely they should be supporting those proposals.
Why has the proposal of the Soviet Union that the whole of Europe should be free of nuclear weapons from the Atlantic to the Urals not been taken more seriously? First, sometimes on the Benches opposite there is expressed a disbelief in the sincerity of the Soviet Union putting forward that proposal. If they are not sincere, why not call their bluff? Why not, at the discussions at Geneva, put the Soviet Union to the test as to whether or not that proposal is serious?
Next, there is the proposal for the non-proliferation treaty, which has been signed and which has been in operation—a proposal by which the nuclear powers would not supply non-nuclear powers with nuclear weapons or attack them. There is now general cynicism about that proposal because the treaty includes a clause stating that the nuclear powers will reduce their nuclear weapons, and instead of doing so they have increased them immensely. If the Government wish to see the non-proliferation treaty carried out, I ask that they, with the other nuclear powers, should carry out their guarantee as well.
Next, there is the proposal for ending all nuclear weapons in this country and the American bases, which is termed "unilateralism". The Labour Party is now committed to that policy at the next election. Therefore, that policy is now on the agenda of real politics. If those proposals were to be carried out, the effect, not only in Europe but in the world, would be tremendous. One should realise today that this is not only a unilateralist proposal, but that the movement is becoming international and that in other countries as well the same demand is being made.
Lastly, I want to refer to the comprehensive disarmament programme which was endorsed by the first United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1978. That proposal is still alive. The United Nations has asked the conference at Geneva still to make proposals about it. Its proposals are that nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction should be destroyed in two periods of five years, that during that period there should be a planned reduction of conventional weapons, and that that should be followed by an indefinite period during which conventional weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction are destroyed, leading to general and complete disarmament.
A fourth proposal, which I particularly welcome, is that the billions which are now spent upon armaments should be transferred to ending poverty in the world by development. These are not just idealistic ideas; they are now being seriously considered. The United Nations General Assembly has asked that progress in implementation shall be reported next year, and in
1282
1986 there will be a third session in which these proposals will be discussed.
These are not just Utopian, impossible ideas; they reflect a growing opinion in the world which is becoming so powerful. It is strong here in Britain, but it is even stronger in Western Europe. The movement for nuclear freeze is sweeping America, and the Democratic Party has now guaranteed to support it. The Conference of the Non-Aligned Nations of the World, representing three-fifths of the population of the world, declared its first two objects as disarmament and development. As a result of the proposals which the Soviet Union are making, the whole atmosphere of the world on this matter is changing. My conviction is that within the next five years the movement for peace in the world will become so strong as to be able decisively to alter the policy of governments and even the nature of governments themselves.
It is in that belief that I take the view that, serious as the present threat is, if we can get through the next two or three years, there is the hope of ending nuclear weapons in the world and of beginning world disarmament.
6.56 p.m.
Lord MacLeod of Fuinary: My Lords, in the time at my disposal I want to say only two things. The first is about the challenge of the Gospel to all active Christians in the nuclear age, and the second is about the tragedy of Trident. First, the Christian's only answer to the dangers of holocaust is for our country to adopt the way of non-violence—the way of unilateralism—now. We are a Christian country in the sense that we cannot legislate in either this House, or in the other place, without opening with Christian prayer. Yet as soon as we mention unilateralism and non-violence, good Christian folk say, "But that is all very foolish and that is all very weak". They forget, surely, that the Gospel says:
"The foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men".
We have reached the age when the acceptance of that is the only Christian way. It is not pacifism.
The best defence correspondent that the London Times ever had was Sir Basil Liddell Hart. He was no pacifist, but when the nuclear age dawned he wrote:
"In a nuclear age the phrase 'pursuing victory' becomes totally absurd. Anyone who talks of 'winning the war' is a menace to his country and to all humanity".
He went on:
"To make non-violent resistance a national policy will be very difficult. The most important thing is to educate people and to convince them that it is a workable policy".
For centuries the Christian Church justified Christians taking part in war if the end justified the means. That is the origin of the phrase, "the just war". But it was no less than the late Pope, His Holiness Pope John, who said:
"It is impossible to conceive of a just war in a nuclear age".
Thus politically and theologically Basil Hart and Pope John declare that non-violence is the only answer left. In the Bible it is there in the words of St. Paul:
"The way of non-violence to them that perish is foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God for it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent'".

1283
Who are the wise? Who are the prudent? The legally-minded require a sign and the Greeks require wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, which to the legally-minded is a stumbling block and to the philosophers, sheer folly. But to them which are called, the non-violent crucified Christ is the wisdom and power of God because,
"The foolishness of God is wiser than man: and the weakness of God is stronger than man".
In a nuclear world non-violence is the only way for the active Christian.
Secondly, it is in the light of that that I would remind you of the tragedy of Trident. What is Trident? It is an American weapon system based on submarines. We have undertaken to buy four of these submarines. First, the four submarines are to be made in Britain, but the ammunition is to be stored in America where they are working out what happens inside the submarines. The size of the submarines is shattering. They are 500 feet long and they weigh 14,500 tonnes. They are not like the kind of submarine we visualise. On the submarine there will be missiles 43 feet long and 7 feet in circumference, and there will be eight warheads in each missile. Each warhead, if fired on a town, will carry the consequence of a bomb for that town ten times the size of the bomb used on Hiroshima.
There is also a new way of firing the missile. Each missile will rise into space for 600 miles, and then it will automatically release the warheads and they will go on for the hundreds of miles until they come to the point which has been chosen. The error as regards the distance and the error as regards the accuracy, are met by the fact that when these warheads, which have been fired independently from the missile in the air, hit a town, they will in fact be only 100 yards away from the place which was sighted. The "degree of error" in each explosion is only 100 yards. The biggest major difference that Trident will make will be that it ends the theory of deterrence—as has been several times referred to this evening—the theory of the arms race being for deterrence, because now there will be an immediate and single first strike.
It is in Scotland that these four submarines are going to be based. The Clyde is the place, and Scotland loathes the prospect, because the first strike method is equally the method that Russia may use, as has already been said, and they may aim first of all at the Clyde. Naturally, and rightly from their point of view, they will do so, and that will be the end. But we also hate it for lesser reasons. The tourist industry and all connected with tourism regret that that most popular area in Scotland for tourists is being inadequately worked and, for the sake of security, being cut in two. It is true that when we had only the smaller kind of weapons there were 290 acres which were disallowed for people to go on, but since the Trident came along they are working out that 2,900 acres of Scotland will be put out of business, and a well-known road will be put out of business, for security's sake.
On another issue, it is claimed that the new activities will at least lessen the unemployment situation in Scotland. But if you go into the details, which I have not time to do, it is the opposite of the truth. As one single instance, there were 4,000 men employed when
1284
we were making the armaments in Scotland, but these interior parts of the submarines are now going to be made in America, and as soon as Polaris is finished with there will be only 40 men working instead of 4,000. But come Trident, and these armaments will now be made in the United States.
The greatest horror is of course the cost. It may take some seven years before the new complex is completed, and the latest estimate of the cost will be £8,000 million—£8 billion! This can fairly be presented as £1,000 million a year added to the nation's expenses. In the present state of our finances this can only be raised by withholding cash in local and immediately needed peaceful places. For instance, we all know the need for council houses, and if we did not use this money for Trident we could build 300,000 houses. Worst of all, if we knew what the situation was in the third world—and we know that every 15 seconds somebody dies of starvation—and instead of using the money on Trident we used it in the third world, we would save thousands of lives of women and babes which are at the present moment being lost through hunger.
My last point is that there are in this country vast numbers who do not go deeply into the issues involved. They say simply, "The nuclear situation is appalling, but we must remember that Russia is atheist and the West is Christian, and if we do not do something now then Communism will take over from Christianity. So let us go on arming, and let us use Trident". But let us suppose, I am asking your Lordships finally, that we did this. Suppose we did use the first strike and in fact succeeded in hitting 16 towns killing thousands of people in each of those towns. Let us suppose that the world did not come to an end as a world.
Let us suppose that we recognisably, by attacking four different towns, were to kill something like 100,000 men, women and children. Suppose Russia then packed in and peace was declared on our behalf. Do you suppose that in that event any young Russian man, or any young Russian lady, would be such damned fools—and I intend the phrase "such damned fools"—as to even consider what Christianity was about, when in fact we had demonstrated to them that, in defence of Christianity, we had been prepared to murder 100,000 men, women and children? They would have nothing to do with it. No, non-violence is the only way and non-violence is the way of Christ.
May I finally suggest that if Britain continues to keep Trident then we should approach the right reverend Prelates who conduct the worship for us daily and ask them to consider the prayer that they use every day, which was used again today.
It reads:
"Prevent us o Lord in all our doings by thy most gracious favour and further us with thy continual help that in all our works (begun, continued and ended in thee) we may glorify thy holy name and by thy mercy attain everlasting life."
I say, with all respect, could the right reverend Prelates consider the possibility, as long as we are still with Trident, of releasing the use of that prayer?—because if Trident is in the midst that prayer is a nonsense.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney in the course of his speech

1285
expressed the fear that this country was becoming, under the present Government, in effect in the same relationship to America as the satellites of the Soviet Union are to the Soviet Union. It seems that his own action this afternoon in initiating this debate goes far to disprove that. Can we imagine in the Romanian, Polish, Czechoslovak or Bulgarian legislatures, either house of them, a debate being initiated in which honourable members proceeded to make attacks on the policy of the Soviet Union, such as my noble friend made on the policies of the United States and make similar attacks on the policies of their own governments? We know this cannot happen. I do not make this as a debating point because I think it is one of the most vital considerations.
When we compare NATO, on the one hand, and the Warsaw Pact, on the other, we are not simply comparing rival groups of powers. We are comparing also different systems of belief. Although one can make plenty of criticisms of some of the countries in the Atlantic Alliance, by and large the Atlantic Alliance is an alliance of free countries where we can have a debate like this, where we can express our opinions, and where, from time to time, we can change our governments. On the other side, in the Warsaw Pact countries, they cannot do that and it is considered to be an article of faith that they should not be allowed to do that.
These are vital differences and they are vital to the question of peace and war because a country that has no democratic rights is a more militarily dangerous country than one which has. It is possible, it is comparatively easy, for a dictatorship to supply its people with information about foreign countries, so arranged as to build up a certain way of feeling about those foreign countries. It is not challenged. There is no press that can challenge the picture it draws.
In this country we can all study many organs of the press, many channels of opinion and find different opinions expressed about all the countries in the world. It would not be easy for a British Government to weld the British people docilely and simply into an instrument for war. To get the British people into a situation where they would be prepared to wage a war it would have to be able to make its case with a great mass of argument. That is not true of dictator powers.
We ought not to forget in the whole of this argument that it is an argument, I would not say, as the noble Lord. Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, put it, between Christianity and atheism, but it is also an argument between people who believe in freedom and people who do not. That is of considerable importance. We should keep it in mind all the time.
I noticed too that my noble friend made more modest demands on disarmament than he has done before. He urged the Government first to realise the gravity of the situation. I hold no brief for the present Government, but I think I will give them credit for having done that. They have been aware of the frightfully dangerous world in which we live.
Secondly, he suggested an interesting proposal that we should have—I hope I have it right—a general conference of people of all parties and opinions on this subject. It would be something that has not been done before under Government auspices and I suppose one
1286
might try it. However, I must say that I wish it could be done on the other side of the Iron Curtain as well. It might produce some interesting results. But what would happen as soon as such a conference began? Inevitably the arguments about whether disarmament should be unilateral or multilateral would be bound to spring up. I could not follow my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney when he said that we must put them aside as out of date.
The moment we start to argue about the defence issue we come up against this proposition. Do you believe it to be right, as CND does, for this country to remove all nuclear weapons, British or American, from its own shores, not to make or to possess them and, finally, to break away from the North Atlantic Alliance? Those are serious propositions. One could not enter into a discussion on disarmament and foreign policy without that question being raised and it would have to be answered. The point I want to make is that, as long as it is considered a possibility that Britain might do that, we will get nowhere in international negotiations about disarmament. I have made this point before, but is is so true and I make no apology for raising it again.
As long as we give the Russians the impression that we are even likely to disarm ourselves unilaterally, why should they start making concessions in an international disarmament conference? If what they want us to fall into their lap, why should they exert themselves to get it? If, therefore, we are to have the kind of all-party conference that my noble friend has proposed, we ought surely to to decide that from the start we rule out this unilateral solution because it will lead us nowhere.
There is much else to be discussed, as has been apparent from the debate today. That has been part of its value. But among those who reject unilateralism there are a number of differences of opinion. The views expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and many others and one's views about first strike and what weapons it would be sensible to have, and so on, are topics that one might reasonably discuss, but it must be on the assumption that we shall not deprive this country of the power to defend itself.
I would particularly commend to the Government the point made by Lord Carver about the number of possibilities that seem to be opening in the disarmament field at present. I am among those, of whom there seem to be several in this House this afternoon, who do not take a pessimistic view about the prospects for world peace. I believe that recently there have been signs of a greater willingness on both sides to consider practical measures for disarmament. We would all of us like to see the Government making a more spirited approach and doing more to take a lead in NATO on this part of the question. That view all of us, whatever view we hold on the unilateral matter, would agree with.
Finally, I want to make the point that weapons do not go off by themselves. If we want to prevent the destruction of mankind that is really saying that we want to prevent the outbreak of war. If all the nuclear weapons disappeared overnight it is still possible for mankind to invent them all over again. Our first parents insisted on eating the fruit of the Tree of

1287
Knowledge and we have been paying for it ever since: or, to put it in the mythology of another nation, the demigod Prometheus, who brought down fire to man, was considered by some to be a benefactor, but he was punished for it because with fire came technology and with technology came weapons and all the other clevernesses for which mankind does not yet have a matching wisdom. That situation we are in, anyway. If we wage war, sooner or later we shall do it with the cleverest and most diabolical things that we can think of. The real problem therefore is the prevention of war itself, and that is a matter for foreign policy.
I would not venture now to try to repeat the speech that I made three weeks ago in the foreign policy debate. I shall make only one point that I made then. A general and broad rule is that, if you look over all the danger areas of the world—the Middle East, Cyprus. Africa, and all the rest—and if there is a firmly declared United Nations resolution on the topic, it should be the aim of British policy to use all its influence to get that resolution put into effect. It will not be easy. In some cases it will be impossible, as Britain by her own, single action cannot sway the whole counsel of the world. But that is broadly the way we should approach it if we want to get down to the job of making war less likely, which is, I think, the only way in which we can hope to make the holocaust improbable.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Milford: My Lords, when I first read the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on this debate, the word "approach" simply struck me with terror. So many people do not realise what position humanity is in. I wish that many outside people could have seen that phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins; I think that it might have woken them up to the reality of what is happening. But I am sure that the holocaust can be avoided—but not by the arms race deterrent or by any increases in more and more accurate and sophisticated weapons; it can be avoided by politics. Politics is the real answer to stopping this holocaust. We must find a political solution—not a solution with weapons—to what is happening in the world today; and it rests with the British Government and with the American Government as much as with the Soviet Union—or perhaps more—to find a political situation. That is the task that our Government should be holding as priority No. 1. Meanwhile, they should stop playing second fiddle to President Reagan, allowing us to be the launching pad for his missiles in any war that he may start. Let the British Government cease to underwrite every Reagan speech planning the cold war even more and more.
America and Britain must realise and acknowledge that the Soviet Union walked out of the conference recently because America sent, and the British Government welcomed, the cruise missile while that conference was on. I think that this justifies what the Greenham women have been doing about that cruise missile. Surely, that action of bringing in the cruise missile while the conference was on was an incredible affront to the Soviet Union. You cannot blame them for walking out. Every chance of a conference and meetings between East and West to discuss objectively and constructively how to rescue mankind from the
1288
prospect of a holocaust must be welcomed and supported wherever it crops up.
In September last, a meeting of scientists against nuclear arms was held at which were 31 top scientists from 14 countries, including 10 from the United Kingdom, five from the USA, and, alas! only one from the Soviet Union—and that was because the others who wanted to come from the Soviet Union had trouble with visas. Incidentally, that trouble was not from the Soviet authorities, but from the British authorities stopping them coming in. The agenda of that meeting, which lasted three days, included examination of the theory of deterrence. We hear in this House again and again the word "deterrence" and how we hide behind that word. Those scientists examined the theory of deterrence and the increased danger of war through new technology and more sophisticated and accurate weapons. We in this House have heard so much about deterrence, one of the chief arguments behind the need for an arms race.
"Deterrence", according to the dictionary, means "to prevent by fear". This surely leads to inherent instability, because new developments on one side lead to a state of inferiority on the other. That leads, again, to the arms race going a stage further. It has now been considered by President Reagan that a nuclear war can, in fact, be won—which leads him at all costs to seek superiority. This, again, leads to the arms race and increases instability. It also leads to the incentive for first strike and a quick nuclear attack.
The drive for nuclear deterrence is very dangerous, besides being a very heavy burden upon natural and world economies—which leads to new increases in tensions. But when it leads to the development and deployment of new, more accurate, types of nuclear weapons, as the Reagan administration are now doing, could not this force the Soviet Union to have to follow suit, to retaliate?—which means more and more of an arms race.
I am trying to express the point that the arms race is completely irrational for peace. Our only hope is, first, to stabilise the present situation, and then to deflate it. We must quickly reverse the present intensifying hostility and mistrust and seek negotiation and agreement wherever we can; we must freeze the armaments race to gain time to build confidence; we must work all out to improve relations and detente. Let us have more cultural exchange and co-operation wherever possible, set up joint international projects, and create more economic ties and trade between East and West. There are political aims to help destroy mistrust and hostility. America, and its unquestioning follower. Britain, must admit that the danger of a holocaust is absolutely real and could be even imminent, if they do not seek a political solution instead of arms, arms, arms! If they seek a political solution, the whole nation will solidly back them. Could we not take a lesson from Papandreou of Greece, who suggested that we rested for a few months to consider the situation calmly?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, it so happens that this debate coincides in time with the flurry of re-interest in the question as to whether the clergy should involve themselves in politics. I suggest that a reading of the

1289
Motion before your Lordships today is sufficient to repudiate anything of the nature of this opposition which has surfaced again, rather lamentably I think, for the Christian Church has been up to its eyes in questions of last things, Armageddons and Apocalyptics. It is sufficient, I think, just to mention this relationship of organised Christianity with these temporal matters to finish off in any necessary form this rehabilitation of what is nothing more than heresy. However, it is not on that point that I wish to speak. I share with my noble friend Lord MacLeod the pacifist position. I do not believe I need do more than say that I still hold it, and hold it with a fervour which seems to me to increase with the years.
What I would prefer to do is to ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a few comments on the moral philosophy which belongs to the Christian faith and which I believe has an immediate and radical application to the problems that have confronted your Lordships this afternoon and this evening. One of the effects of a secular age has been that more and more people fail to understand the reality of evil, whereas we have been convinced about it for long enough; it is the second strongest thing in the universe. We have taken the precaution also of recognising our moral philosophy that to personalise evil is the only way to make sense of it: that is why we deal with Satan and the Devil. However, it would be presumptuous of me to dilate upon that theme, except to say this: in the question as to whether a future war can be prevented, it is imperative, as I believe, to recognise that the failure of the Christians or the peace-makers to act is all that is necessary in order to secure the prevalence and the victory of evil. Evil is not inert: it is dynamic. And the dynamic evil of the arms race precludes, in my judgment, any comfortable thoughts that things are more stable than they were—I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, demolished that suggestion thoroughly—and, furthermore, that we are becoming more reasonable, because of course the whole process of warfare tends to destroy reason rather than to suggest it and to ventilate it.
Surely the evidence before your Lordships today is that we are in a more perilous position than ever before, and for a number of quite practical reasons that should be adduced, the first being that with the proliferation of arms, the likelihood of one of them exploding either by cause or by accident must necessarily increase. We have an unprecedented condition in which the world is becoming more dangerous every day and, inasmuch as evil feeds upon the inactivity of those who are required to produce some counter force, I believe that we are in greater peril than we have ever been. It is that which makes this particular Motion not only ominous but, I think, entirely relevant.
What I wish to do in a very short time is to say something about the way in which we can act in the condition in which we find ourselves. I would commend to your Lordships once again that whatever the merits of multilateral agreement, it falls short of a second requirement of moral philosophy. I believe that nothing can be called "good" unless it contains not only the question and the essence of collaboration but the essence of initiation. You cannot say that a deed is good if you are only prepared to accept it as
1290
good if other people are totally willing or comparatively willing to do the same thing. This is a question that continously makes me feel that we are on the wrong track if we hope that somehow, by some kind of multilateral agreement, we shall achieve the kind of peace-making programmes which will save us from the holocaust. It is not like that; and therefore I wish to suggest as practically as I can what, for me, is the outcome of the kind of question which is posed and the kind of issue which is raised so eloquently and so forcefully by my noble friend.
I would commend to this House that what is required at this moment is to break through the vicious circle of mutual distrust—the "cowboys and Indians" relationship between America and Russia and the attitude that you cannot trust the other man and so you have to be prepared for his perfidy. I believe that nothing can break into this circle now so efficiently and so immediately as some kind of initiative action on the part of this country, which might not be particularly dangerous with a ten-times overkill—that is a prudent addition to the argument—but which constitutes that moral value which otherwise I do not think is present in our negotiations with one another.
I would ask the Government whether they are not prepared to test out a reduction of armaments in certain fields; and I share with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, the view that it is just as imperative that this should be done in the field of non-nuclear weapons as well as in that of nuclear weapons. I would ask the Government whether they are not prepared to make this gesture. We have taken incomparable risks for war, over and over again. Would we be in any greater danger if prudence is part of our argument? Certainly we would be in greater consort with the moral principles if we were prepared to say that, whatever our fears and whatever the lack of liberty, shall we say? on the Eastern Front as compared with the so-called profferance of liberty in the world of America. If we were prepared so to act, might we not create a new spirit where that new spirit is already latent? I share with my noble friend Lord Brockway the recognition, which comes to me from various quarters, that the world is in a condition of ferment today as regards peace and war; but it is not the same as it was a few years ago. There are more and more people who are earnestly looking for an opportunity to express their desire for peace and their attempt and their desire to work for it.
As I have said, this is a risk; but I would return as I finish to the essence of what, for me, is the sort of message that the clergy ought to be offering and in many cases, thank God! are offering in this particular crisis. What is required, if we are to break this vicious circle, is for Christian people and others and for governments, and particularly this Government, to make a gesture which is unilateral and does not depend on whether the other fellow responds—which is, if you like, testing out what after all is the final commitment to our moral philosophy as we believe it: that all things work together for good to them who are prepared to love God and to do what He wants.
That is a faith. It is a faith which does not require me at this moment to go into the arguments which I have deployed time and time again in your Lordships'

1291
House for pacifism. But it does, I think, give a practical aspect to the problem of what you do to avoid the approach of a nuclear disaster, apocalyptically final. It gives me no comfort and it does this House surely no credit to think. "We are getting along pretty well so far, so let us not change direction." I believe that we need to change direction; and the way in which it can be done practically, and perhaps to begin with on a fairly modest scale, is to take the risk of practical, independent, unilateral disarmament and see what happens.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for again giving the House the opportunity of debating and considering the matters of grave importance which he has put before us. Although the title of this debate conjures up prospects of massive extermination, my noble friend has given us a ray of hope with his claim that he thought that inevitability had not yet been reached, although he thought that the holocaust was very close.
The Motion on the Order Paper calls our attention to the approach of the nuclear holocaust. It ends:
"and to move for Papers".
If the holocaust does come in our direction, I am not sure that moving for Papers will be of very much benefit to us. But the point is that tonight we have had a number of suggestions from all noble Lords who have taken part, which we hope the Government will consider. I intend to be very brief tonight because the most important speech is the one which we expect from the Minister—not in quantity but in quality—in the way he responds to the many ideas which have been put forward.
Apart from the brinkmanship with which we are faced, with the two major powers escalating nuclear weapons to terrifying proportions, there are the prospects that extermination could come by accident, and this point has been raised by noble Lords. The Korean airliner disaster, about which we still know very little, could have had a nuclear dimension which could have led to immediate reaction and escalation leading to who knows where; for, in the event of an emergency and the absence of knowledge of what is happening, fear can lead to panic with massive effects. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said about the sophistication of communications and so on, the world was terrified when the Korean airliner situation took place, because no one really knew what was happening, and we still have very little information even today.
Another danger is that coming from the use of nuclear weapons by smaller countries. My noble friend Lord Brockway has mentioned the non-proliferation treaty; and, after all, if the major powers have nuclear weapons why not the lesser powers, whose leaders are sometimes less predictable and who, in a desperate situation, may use them? I often think that the Falklands could have been a situation where, had the weapons been held by the Argentines, one does not know what they would have called for from the nuclear armoury at a desperate time. Unlike conventional weapons, which are selective and of limited use, the nuclear potential is far-ranging in its
1292
destruction, with prospects of nuclear retaliation and escalation leading to a major conflict if the major powers intervene.
The British Government have said that they reserve the right to the first use of nuclear weapons. But in the last debate on nuclear weapons, there was no denial from the noble Lord the Minister that General Rogers of NATO was wrong when he claimed that in an emergency we could be in a nuclear situation after a few days. That is the extent of the under-preparedness of the conventional role which would require us, according to NATO and the British Government, to go nuclear very soon, with frightening prospects.
The trouble is that Britain—rightly a member of the defensive alliance—is not in command of its own future. There was a debate on American bases in Britain on 3rd May 1983 and there was some argument about how many U.S. bases there are. This matter was raised again recently in Question Time, when a definition was called for about bases, installation sites and facilities, and also about the extent of the control and the power of the strategic weaponry which has passed from British control. It would be very helpful if the Minister was able to clarify some of these points, because there has been some doubt about the figures.
The Government remind us of the 1952 agreement regarding dual control, agreed when weapons were far less dangerous than they are today. The Government refuse to demand dual key, because they say the cost would be too high. But one wonders what will be the cost of life and resources if, by accident or by intent, an error is made which could have widespread and devastating consequences not only for Britain but for mankind.
We read in today's press that farmers have been considering life after the bomb. They were told that they would have to defend their grain stores with guns against hungry townspeople. The comments include the fact that livestock might survive an initial blast outside the immediate vicinity, but would soon die for want of food or water or from intestinal bleeding caused by radiation. If that is true of animals, it is certainly true of human beings; and one wonders what will be the consequences if we do not take action to ensure that the world does not go on escalating as it has in the past.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, who is sometimes thought to be implacable in his stand, has on several recent occasions, despite his strong views, sought to meet those who reject his case. There would be more hope for peace if the leaders of the great powers and our own Prime Minister were to seek to dispel the cold war attitude and to consider the merits of alternative proposals. I am sure that we are grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and others tonight, who have called for a lot of rethinking.
One of the worst prospects which may lead to trouble is for all of us to say that we have preset conditions and positions and we do not intend to move from them, because we are in a very fast changing situation. One of the most important points made by my noble friend was that the old arguments about unilateralism and multilateralism have no relevance in our present perils. How true that is, and we have to

1293
face a situation which changes almost daily. How true that is, also, when new opportunities appear above the horizon demanding fresh thinking and new initiatives.
A number of points have been put to the Minister tonight, including the need to get rid of parity. If we have enough weapons in the world to destroy it 10 times over, it will not be safer if we have enough to destroy it 11 or 12 times over. The logic is that you can still deter with far fewer weapons than we have now, so disarmament, probably a freeze, is one of the points which we need to consider in order to break the vicious circle. Finally, this independent thinking is vital, too, when the new Soviet leadership is settling in and is obviously having to consider future policies. It is certainly vital at a time when the United States has other considerations, and when attitudes there may be more inclined to the electoral sector than to world security. This is a vacuum which Britain can fill.
I believe that world peace is in a Russian roulette situation. We do not know which chamber is loaded to blow mankind to extinction. The only chambers which can ensure peace and mankind's survival are the conference chambers, and the East and the West must wake up to the dangers or mankind may not wake up at all. I believe that my noble friend has given us an opportunity to consider these matters afresh, and we hope that the Minister will respond suitably.
7.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I have listened with great interest this evening to the points that have been made in the course of this debate and, in particular, to the words of the noble Lord who opened it. I cannot help coming to the conclusion that the noble Lord is using the Motion to express his own well-known views. Nothing wrong in that, you may say. Others have also held that view. The late Lord Russell made similar predictions almost 25 years ago and tied them to calls for unilateral disarmament by Britain. Over the years since then to the present day the so called peace movement has waxed and waned, but its forecast of impending doom has remained the same. Without wishing to sound in any way complacent about the dangers of the nuclear age, I believe that this message is as unhelpful and misguided today as it was then. I shall try to explain why.
The Government need no reminding of how horrendous a nuclear war would be. That is why all our defence and disarmament efforts are geared towards the prevention of war—any war, nuclear or conventional. That is why, in common with every Administration, Conservative and Labour, since the end of World War II, we pursue a strategy of detterence. Deterrence may not be an attractive way of keeping the peace, but it has worked. We have enjoyed peace with freedom in western Europe for nearly 40 years, sometimes in the face of considerable difficulty, and it is my firm belief that we can continue to enjoy the peace we all cherish, provided that we maintain our resolve and do not allow ourselves to be panicked by forecasts of inevitable and impending nuclear holocaust, or seduced by the siren voices of the one-sided disarmers—the voices which tell us that all we need do to remove the threat of attack on this country is to cast away our nuclear arms into the ocean in a
1294
gesture of one-sided disarmament. There lies the road to disaster.
Anyway, since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 there has never been an occasion when the use of nuclear weapons has been remotely likely. The Cuban missile crisis demonstrated the need to prevent war happening by accident, misunderstanding or miscalculation. The super powers responded to this need by negotiating a series of measures to ensure that such an event never occurred.
In 1963 the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to establish the "Hot Line" direct communication link. This was a limited but practical step which has proved its worth. This facility was used during the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973 to prevent misunderstanding. In 1971 a further agreement was signed to improve the link, making use of the greater reliability made possible by advances in satellite communications techonology. Since last summer, the United States and the USSR have been discussing possible further improvements to their communication links, including the "Hot Line".
During the SALT talks the United States and the USSR reached a further "Agreement on measures to reduce the risk of outbreak of nuclear war". This covered three main areas: first, a pledge by both sides to take the measures each considers necessary to maintain and improve its organisational and technical safeguards against accidental or unauthorised use of the nuclear weapons; secondly, arrangements for immediate notification should a risk of nuclear war arise from such an incident, from detection of unidentified objects on early warning systems, or from any accidental, unauthorised or other unexplained incident involving a possible detonation of a nuclear weapon; and, thirdly, advanced notification of any planned missile launches beyond the territory of the launching party and in the direction of the other party.
In 1973, a further agreement on the prevention of nuclear war was reached between the United States and the USSR. The main areas covered by the agreement are the general conduct of both countries towards each other and towards third countries, and mutual consultation in the event of the risk of nuclear confrontation. Your Lordships may recall that the United Kingdom and France also have bilateral agreements with the USSR specifically intended to prevent the outbreak of accidental nuclear war, and have "hot lines" for communications.
I have dealt with these various agreements in some detail because it is frequently argued that accidental nuclear war is possible or even probable. These agreements have been carefully evolved to ensure that that is unlikely in the extreme. We hear a lot about computer errors causing false alerts, but people overlook the fact that there are rigorous cross-checks of all such data and, moreover, that any decision to use nuclear weapons would be taken only at the highest political level. They could never be used automatically in response to an early warning system alone. "Launch on Warning" is of course another fallacy used to scare people. I can say quite categorically that the NATO Alliance does not have a policy of launching nuclear weapons purely on early warning evidence, nor do we—or, for that matter, the Soviet Union—need any such policy. This is one of the many advantages of

1295
having strategic deterrent weapons at sea on submarines which are virtually invulnerable to attack.
Before moving on to answer other points which have been raised this evening, let me briefly deal with the other main argument deployed by the so-called peace movement as evidence that nuclear war is becoming more likely. This is the assertion that the deployment of increasingly accurate weapons makes possible a nuclear war-fighting strategy and that NATO is thereby aiming for a "first strike" capability. This is utter nonsense. We have made it consistently clear that no one stands to win a nuclear war. Our purpose is to deter any attack upon us, be it conventional or nuclear.
As to the second point, a "first strike" is one in which one side launches its weapons in a surprise attack to destroy all those of its opponents. The risk of undertaking such an attack on fixed land-based missiles would be massive. Any miscalculation or technical failure would result in catastrophic retaliation. But in addition must be considered mobile systems such as the 378 SS20s which the Soviet Union has so far deployed, and the very large submarine-based missile forces of both sides, which are virtually invulnerable to any pre-emptive attack. In these circumstances, any attempt at a "first strike" attack would bring not just national catastrophe but national suicide. Such an attack would be incompatible with NATO's defensive strategy. NATO therefore has no such capability, nor is it seeking it. The alliance has pledged never to use any of its weapons in Europe except in response to attack. NATO threatens no one.
May I turn now to some of the specific points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked me about the possibility of a no first use declaration. At the North Atlantic Council meeting in Paris in June, as at the summit in Bonn in 1982, each member of the alliance pledged that none of its weapons—that is, nuclear or conventional—would be used except in response to an attack. We must face the fact that the Russians have a preponderance of conventional forces. In deterring war of any kind NATO must ensure that the Russians do not come to believe that they could embark on war in Europe without the risk of escalation to nuclear war. This uncertainty makes for effective deterrence. This does not mean that NATO is committing itself to any decision in principle to use nuclear weapons first at any given stage of the conflict. It simply means that we think it would be wrong in the interests of preventing war to volunteer to renounce the option.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, also asked me about the position of the United Kingdom with regard to a nuclear freeze. But a freeze at INF, particularly at current levels, would be unacceptable, given the massive Soviet superiority in this type of weapon. At the strategic level, the United States Administration has made clear its desire to go well beyond mere limits of strategic systems at their current level and to make significant reductions. We support their efforts to achieve radical cuts in the existing strategic arsenals. A freeze would reduce the incentive for the Soviet Union to negotiate such cuts. It would also take a long time to negotiate, particularly the verification arrangements. Even then some elements of a freeze could not
1296
be adequately verified. The negotiations would distract attention away from the urgent task of negotiating reductions, which would be a far more effective way of maintaining peace.
The noble Lord asked me, too, about our general policy towards nuclear weapon-free zones. We support the creation of nuclear weapon-free zones where they would enhance security in a region, where all the states in the region agree and where nuclear weapons are not already a feature of the existing security arrangements in that region. We have demonstrated this by our support for the Latin-American nuclear weapon-free zone established by the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
The noble Lord also referred to the problems of proliferation. Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to further countries is essentially a political problem which must be tackled by diplomacy and international co-operation. There are now 121 parties to the 1968 non-proliferation treaty. International efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in recent years have concentrated on making the safeguard system of the International Atomic Energy Agency more effective. As the director of the agency has pointed out, there has been an impressive drop in the number of states acquiring overt nuclear weapons capability: three between 1945 and 1955, two between 1955 and 1965 and one in the period 1965 to 1975. but none between 1975 and 1982. But proliferation is more likely to occur in states which remain outside the NPT. The relatively few nuclear facilities which are not covered by IAEA safeguards agreements are in India, Israel and South Africa, none of which has become a party to the treaty.
I thought that the speech of my noble friend Lord Birdwood was quite excellent. I agree with almost every word of it. My noble friend has clearly studied the matter in considerable depth. I hope that he will contribute again, and soon, to our consideration of this topic.
I turn now to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who raised the question of improved conventional defence and referred to recent publications on the subject. This is a matter in which NATO Ministers take a great interest and which occupies a good deal of discussion time at NATO meetings. NATO's strategy of flexible response requires a balanced triad of forces and the strengthening of the conventional component is particularly urgent. The alliance is therefore examining ways to make the most effective use of available resources and of exploiting NATO's technological strength. This will include greater co-operation and co-ordination in defence planning, research and development and production, improved co-ordination of NATO infrastructure planning, examination of the potential offered by emerging technologies, and restriction on the transfer of military relevant technologies to the Warsaw Pact.
It is important to stress, however, that any changes in NATO's plans which emerge from the exploitation of new technology will be firmly rooted in the alliance's strategy of flexible response. The noble and gallant Lord will already be aware that the greater proportion of the United Kingdom's defence budget is devoted to conventional defence.

1297
The noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, had some harsh things to say about Trident. Trident is, in effect, a replacement for the ageing Polaris fleet. Like Polaris, it will be four boats, each with a maximum of 16 missiles. Trident has the capability to carry more warheads, but we have made it clear that we do not intend to use the full capability of the system.
The noble Lord referred also to the cost of the Trident programme. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House of Commons the other day, the latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme is now £8,729 million. This estimate was prepared as part of this year's re-costing of the defence programme on which further details are to be given in the 1984 Statement on the Defence Estimates.
Trident will on average absorb 3 per cent. of the total defence budget over the period of its procurement and 6 per cent. of the equipment budget. That was broadly the position when the decision to procure Trident was announced nearly four years ago; and 55 per cent. of the cost of the programme will be spent directly in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, suggested that Trident was to be a first strike weapon. I can assure the noble Lord that that is absolutely untrue. A first strike plays no part in our thinking on nuclear weapons and is quite inconsistent with our policy of deterrence based on the possession of a minimum force consistent with that purpose.
I agreed with a very great deal of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—hardly surprising coming from a man of such distinction and experience in these matters. He asked me in particular about some of the disarmament talks that are in progress and he ventured to suggest that all was not quite so gloomy as some other noble Lords had thought. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart. On MBFR, for example, we agree of course that those talks are very important. We must avoid all war—both conventional and nuclear. In the unlikely event of war in Europe, the conflict would probably begin with a conventional exchange and reductions in central Europe could therefore lessen tension. However, any reductions must begin from an agreed base and he verifiable. The West's consistent aim is to seek security at the lowest possible level of forces. The East has now returned to the negotiating table of its own accord but there is no need, I think, for the West to hurry its review and to reward the East for its timely return.
With regard to CDE—that is, the Conference on Disarmament in Europe taking place in Stockholm—to which the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, also referred, we hope that that conference will eventually succeed in fulfilling its mandate by agreeing specific verifiable CSBMs, as they are called, to improve confidence and security in Europe. But it is not an arms reduction forum and cannot substitute for the START, INF or MBFR talks—all of which we shall be glad to see resume on a bloc-to-bloc basis with the Warsaw Pact.
In CDE, with its 35 participating states—which are, all of Europe minus Albania but plus the United States and Canada—it will be difficult to achieve instant progress, especially if negotiations are slowed by
1298
exhortatory appeals for general treaties of peace. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom together with its allies will persist in pressing for specific, confidence-building measures which will make a real contribution to European peace.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, raised again the point about the number of United States military bases in this country. In fact, there are eight main operating bases—at Holy Loch, RAF Alconbury, RAF Bentwaters, RAF Fairford, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Upper Heyford, and RAF Woodbridge. More than 95 per cent. of United States forces personnel over here work at those bases and at the three standby deployment bases of RAF Sculthorpe, RAF Greenham Common, and RAF Wethersfield. Supporting the main bases are a number of operational support facilities, which brings the total number of bases and facilities to 64.
I have carefully reviewed the lists of 100 United States bases produced by journalists and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I can assure your Lordships that they are spurious. They contain the names of locations which have never been associated with the United States forces, or were used by them but have long since been handed back, or are facilities such as petrol pumps which discharge duty-free petrol. As I have told your Lordships before, I cannot be held responsible for figures given by Ministers of a previous Labour Administration.
As for the figure of 112 installations quoted by the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins of Putney, as being that given to the United States Congress in 1982, it may be helpful if I quote the relevant passage in full. Brigadier-General Fillmore said that there were,
"six major, seven large minor, and an additional 99 locations providing housing, storage, communications and operational support".
I stress the word "housing", as your Lordships will recall that I made it quite clear in my previous answer that the figure of about 60 U.S. bases and facilities which we have given did not include sites used solely for housing. I must confess to being at something of a loss to understand how the noble Lord can regard mere housing estates as military installations, but perhaps he was not aware of the precise picture. Your Lordships may feel that there is not much future to be had in counting storage sheds and radio aerials. The position is therefore as I have given it.
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the headquarters of the United States Air Force in this country. I would venture to suggest that the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Putney, Lord Milford and Lord Bishopston, about American attitudes and American bases here do a great injustice to the dedicated United States personnel who are here for our defence. These Americans are evidence of NATO's collective wish to respond together to aggression.
I hope that I have covered the main points raised in the course of our debate. I have explained at some length why the Government do not consider a nuclear war to be inevitable, impending or likely. NATO's deterrence policy has worked with conspicuous success for nearly 40 years in preventing any war in Europe—nuclear or conventional. I would emphasise the latter because no-one should be under any illusion that so-called conventional war is somehow

1299
acceptable and that nuclear war is not. The appalling scenes from the Iran-Iraq conflict we have seen on our television screens in recent weeks show how horrific non-nuclear conflict can be.
But while we can point to the success of our policies in preventing war, let no-one imagine that this Government are in any way complacent. The dawn of the nuclear age brought a new, terrifying force into international relations. With it came the need for governments of nuclear powers to show a greater restraint and responsibility than ever before in dealing with international tensions. As I said earlier, at least since the Cuban missile crisis, there has never been a moment when nuclear war has been at all likely.
We have learnt lessons from that crisis. Nevertheless, much remains to be done. There are too many nuclear weapons in the world, but we are doing all we can to reduce their number while preserving peace and secrurity at lower levels of armaments. For example, NATO has taken steps to reduce the number of shorter range warheads in Europe. Since 1979, 1,000 warheads have been withdrawn and in October 1983 we announced a programme to reduce the stockpile by a further 1,400. The Government and their NATO allies remain committed to the search for realistic, balanced and verifiable measures of multilateral disarmament.
In an ideal world it would be easy to secure peace simply by casting aside the weapons of war. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where we and our allies face a threat from a country which has consistently and openly stated its total hostility to our Western values and freedoms, and which over the years has built up a vast military machine far in excess of its requirements for defence. Moreover, the Soviet Union has demonstrated its willingness to use its military power to gain its ends whenever it thinks it can get away with it. The Western Alliance has no choice but to continue for the foreseeable future to pursue the policy of deterrence to ensure that the Soviet Union is never tempted to imagine it could successfully use its military strength or the threat of force against Western Europe.
No one denies that there are dangers in these levels of military forces but the alternative suggested by the so-called peace movement would be destabilising and fraught with much greater danger. We cannot afford to relax our vigilance and must continue to maintain sufficient defensive forces to deter attack. The first responsibility of any government is the peace, freedom and security of their people. This Government, like their predecessors, consider that the policies of deterrence and multilateral disarmament are the best means of carrying out that responsibility. They have succeeded for many years. This has been the longest period of peace in Europe in recent history. Provided we continue to pursue them we can ensure that the nuclear holocaust does not become a reality.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I stress the point that I made no remarks which were critical of the Americans here? The Minister must know that the demand for dual key control, which is a view held by the majority of people in this country, is a way of ensuring that there is dual control in the most effective way.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord has left me a matter of 10 minutes to reply to this debate, he himself having taken up 25 minutes. But I do not even intend to take advantage of the relative restraint displayed by the rest of the noble Lords here, even to the extent that I have available to me. However, there are one or two things which ought to be said.
One of them is that I am most appreciative of the support which I have received from noble friends on this side of the House. The other point is this. I even went so far, although I have learned not to expect too much from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, as to give him some indication before the debate that I would not seek to be controversial. His response to that has been somewhat regrettable. Instead of having a debate which sought to deal with fundamentals we have had from the noble Lord the tired old rehearsal of the position which we know the Government already hold.
We had the question of the number of bases. It was not my intention to raise that issue tonight, but as my noble friend did so it was perfectly proper for the noble Lord to respond. But his reply was entirely mistaken. The reality of the position is that both he and his noble friend ought to apo10gise for having described these figures as being false allegations and as having been thought up, whereas in fact, on the one hand, they are statements made in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown and, on the other, a statement made in exactly the same words by an American general. Therefore, to use this occasion, which, so far as most of us are concerned, sought to raise the issue up to the level which it demands, in order to knock down the arguments in that way, seems to me a matter which ought to be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House. It is debasing the level of the debate and has falsified what most of us sought to do.
Let me try with my final words to bring the debate back to what we ought to be talking about. As far as I am concerned, and without departing for one instance from the views which I deeply hold about this terribly dangerous question, it is my desire to go along with anybody who recognises the danger and wants to move away from it. For that reason I very much regret that the noble Lord's response to what was suggested by the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Carver, was as inadequate as it was. While giving some appearance of listening to what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, had said, at the end it was very clear that the noble Lord was not moving one inch. That is the sad state of affairs. It is my hope that although the debate has not achieved what I had hoped it would achieve, it will nevertheless be read elsewhere and the consequence will be that there may be some amelioration and some recognition by the Government of the danger we are in and some determination to move away from it; not to march blindly as the noble Lord appears determined to do. I cannot think that he has even read what has been said in the United States. I cannot believe that he has read the Congressional hearings. The American generals have made totally clear what their position is.
I do not want to put all the blame on one side. I have never wished to do that. But I ask the Government,

1301
through the noble Lord, to treat the situation with the seriousness it deserves and to consider the possibility that it might be desirable for the Government to move a little in their policy and even to go so far as to exercise just a wee bit of independence. As I said in my opening speech, the opportunity is here. The Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister is coming to this country next week. The Foreign Secretary is to visit Moscow. Those two actions will be of no value whatever if we merely go through the motions of repeating our known position on either side. It seems to me that we now have an opportunity—and it may be the final opportunity—to make some movement here and give some indication that we do have a strong desire for peace which we are prepared to carry out in action. I hope, therefore, that the Government will no longer go on repeating their position.
In this debate I have moved away from the position I hold. I have not uttered any of the fundamental beliefs which I possess on this issue in an attempt to try to find some half-way house and to make some movement. As far as I am concerned, that half-way house was enunciated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The Government would do well to consider what he said and to move a little in that direction. With those words I seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Straw and Stubble Burning Prohibition Bill [H.L.]
8.18 p.m.
Lord Alport: My lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Alport.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Licences]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 4, I have to say that if Amendment No. 4 were to be agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 5, 6 or 7. Amendment No. 4.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The agriculture Minister shall grant a licence in accordance with regulations made under this section of this Act to permit a person to set fire to straw or stubble on arable land.").
The noble Lord said: With permission. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 16, 17 and 26.
Amendment No. 8: Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) The agriculture Minister may withdraw a licence from any person convicted of an offence under the provisions of this Act or any local straw burning byelaws.").
Amendment No. 9: Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("() A licence granted under this section shall be subject to compliance with any conditions set out in the regulations made under section (Regulations) of this Act.").
Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 1 leave out ("A local authority") and insert ("The agriculture Minister").
Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("is") to end of line 3 and insert ("set out in the regulations made under section (Regulations) of this Act.").
Amendment No. 26: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:—
Regulations
("The agriculture Minister may by statutory instrument make regulations—

(a) prescribing conditions for the safe burning of straw, taking into account good agricultural practice and the protection of the environment;

(b) prescribing the fee to be charged under section 2(3) of this Act; and

(c) generally for carrying this Act into effect;

and regulations made under this section may make different provision for different cases.").
I gather that it may be convenient for the Committee also to discuss the other licensing amendments of my noble friends Lord Alport, Lord Mountgarret, Lord Ridley, Lord Ironside, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I am, of course, in your Lordships' hands, but I know that such an action would probably please the Chief Whip.
The purpose of the amendments to which I am speaking is to introduce a system of licensing for farmers who wish to burn straw or stubble, which I believe is exactly what my noble friend Lord Alport wants to do in his amendments. Despite rumours to the contrary, the National Farmers' Union is not against such a form of licence. The difference between our proposed licensing system and that of my noble friend is that ours would be a national scheme, administered by the Minister of Agriculture, and would coincide with the model by-law. I am convinced that if a satisfactory system is to be brought into operation it must be uniform from district to district or county to county and it must be seen to be fair between farmers and the public throughout the United Kingdom. Only a nationally operated scheme will do that.
I shall now explain my amendments in detail. Amendment No. 4 does two things. It makes the licensing authority the Minister of Agriculture instead of the district council, and it introduces the concept of regulations to burn. These regulations could provide a wider function than the by-laws. For instance, they could control burning next to the highway. I think that this would take care of the proposal in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Amendment No. 13. The regulations would also apply throughout the United Kingdom without further bureaucratic procedures. Also they could be changed by the Minister, if necessary, immediately.
Amendment No. 8 empowers the Minister to withdraw a licence from anyone who is convicted of an offence under the Act, which is a point that we have been struggling to achieve since the Criminal Justice Act last year. Amendment No. 9 provides a limitation on the conditions which may be applied to an individual licence. As I have already stated, these conditions would be determined by the Government instead of by individual councils. We envisage them being similar or even identical to the model by-law and they could replace the by-laws altogether. We believe that this would be far more effective than the system proposed by my noble friend Lord Alport.
Amendment No. 16 would ensure that the fee paid for a licence would be determined on a national basis, which I believe is a much more fair and practical method. My mind boggles at different rates of fee from field to field or even part of a field. Amendment No. 17 would make it clear that the licence fee would be determined by the Minister and published in regulations.
Finally, Amendment No. 26 would enable the Minister to make it all work by way of a statutory regulation. I believe that our method of introducing licensing for burning is superior and much more practical than the proposal of my noble friend. I hope that your Lordships will support us.
However, I make one final plea before your Lordships discuss the whole question of licences. According to the press, our Second Reading of this Bill was bad tempered. I suspect that, if it was, it was partly my fault, due to my perhaps bucolic and rather narrow minded objection to some noble Lords taking a view on straw burning opposite to my own. Having admitted my sin, I very much hope that we can discuss this question of licensing constructively—neither farmer- nor conservationist-bashing. As I understand it, we are all in favour of some form of licensing, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Belstead. But I am sure that if we can all agree, as always, he will be the first person to help us to help our industry with the problem. His ability to solve apparently insoluble differences was amply shown during the passage of the Agricultural Holdings Bill.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Alport will agree when I say that it is up to us to agree first before bothering my noble friend the Minister with our divided system of licensing. Let us try to agree for once not only for our own sakes, but for the sake of good relations between the farmer and the public. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I think that we all agree, together with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that nothing will be done properly to control straw burning unless there is a licensing system. The only point of disagreement may be who should run the system. I am afraid that I must disagree with the amendment to put that in the hands of the Minister. I do not think that the Minister would want it, but, as the noble Lord said, if such an amendment was passed, he would just have to accept it and make the best of a bad job.
I think that the licensing must be on a fairly local basis. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, shakes his head. I always try to visualise what would happen to me. As your Lordships all know, I farm in a built-up area. I have two not very large fields poking right down into the small hamlet of Bumbles Green. If I protested or wanted to appeal, there would be more chance of getting my local councillor to deal with the matter than one of the slowly contracting agricultural departments in the various counties. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, may say that that can be altered. As far as we can see, it cannot be altered for five years, much as we should like it to be. After all, it is local people, and particularly local councillors, who have raised the greatest objections to straw burning. It would satisfy
1304
them tremendously if they had some say in the licensing.
As regards the picture of the licensing, as I said on Second Reading, I should like to think that it would be almost automatic, other than in cases like my farm which had a field near a school, houses and one thing and another where there might have had to be some inspection and prohibition. But in general I should think licensing would be automatic. I thoroughly agree with the proposal in the amendment, which is also in the Bill, that the withdrawal of a licence for offences is a major penalty, I think far greater than a monetary one.
I do not want to delay the Committee further. My idea would be to make licensing automatic. I think that a farmer should apply for his licence, showing a map of his farm on whatever scale is required, and giving an indication of when he might be burning straw—say, from July to the end of October, or something like that. As I say, the licence would be almost automatic and nothing need be done unless the farmer broke the code or committed an offence.
I am not quite sure of the difference between Amendment No. 26 and the by-laws that councils will be prepared to incorporate in due course. I am not quite sure of the object of the amendment. But, with that, I shall be interested to hear what other noble Lords have to say, especially about where the licensing should be controlled from.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: It gives me genuine pain to have to question something that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has just said because the Committee may not be aware that for some 15 years he and I—if I may use the expression—"went steady" as pairs in the House of Commons in a system which is not used in this House. But, if I heard him aright, I think I heard him just now say that he supported a licensing system. Well, reading his speech on Second Reading, I do see that in column 207 of Hansard for 14th February he said:
"I am sorry that the noble Lord has so little faith in council by-laws. I believe that the by-laws must be tightened up. I agree with the noble Lord that we should go a step further. He suggested a system of licensing".
But at the end of his speech, in his peroration, he said the words:
"To sum up, we subscribe to the main principle of the Bill to control straw burning with codes and by-laws".
Farmers are great individualists and I am going to say, quite bluntly, to my noble friend Lord Stanley that I join with my noble friend on the Front Bench in being apprehensive about licensing. I am apprehensive about introducing a system. I thought that we had a fascinating debate last night, if only because I felt at one time that it took the form of a discussion at an Agricultural Society's meeting, the members of whom were more eminent than attend most Agricultural Society's meetings, if only because that discussion last night showed that, once again, the most practical of farmers can argue about differing experiences over identical practices. Two examples are incorporation and length of stubble. As I say, farmers are individualists and the only times that I have known farmers always to agree is in being anti-government, whichever government happens to be in office. Then they do come together.

1305
I should give my credentials before I say what I am going to say. I grow 300 acres of grain in Scotland and I have brought in 50 harvests now. I have been promoted from using the pitchfork, 50 years ago, to being in charge of the grain dryer now. I cannot say that I never burn straw—I do if bad weather forces me to do so and leaves no other way out. But I hate burning straw. I think it is ugly and it desecrates and defaces the beauty of the countryside in which I farm. It is equally hard on those who have washing out drying or who have just cleaned the windows of their homes. I shall never forget on a day late in October four years ago when the weather more or less forced me to pick that one and only day to set fire to a field of straw, when the friend who has a house upon my farm said to me, rather wearily, "Dear dear, dear! did you have to do it? We are having a wedding next week and I have only just had the windows cleaned". I said, "All right, have them cleaned again and send the bill to me".
I am lucky enough. I bale my oat and barley straw and sell it. I chop my wheat straw and plough it in. I have experienced none of the difficulties of incorporation that were aired last night, although my land varies from sand, on which I can grow carrots, to the heaviest of clay. I am glad to say that, despite this ploughing in of straw, my five-year average of yields has gone slowly but surely up. All this is very old-fashioned, just like my rotation of three years in corn and two years of grass. So I am far from being against working towards the end of burning stubble and straw. But, as so often happens—in fact it nearly always happens—it is over how one achieves the objective that one has one's worries.
I do not get the least bit thrilled with this idea of licences. You may ask why. I suppose it is because the word "licence" carries with it what I would describe as the inevitable sniff of bureaucracy—of planning. If local authorities—and I know that there is an amendment down on this to amend the granting of licences—were to issue the licences, then I suspect that it would he to the planning department that we would go.
Therefore, I wonder whether my noble friend, whose Bill this is, could clear my mind on what I think are some practical points. First of all, if I am to have a licence, when do I apply? Presumably well before harvest begins. Secondly, does he envisage my getting what I would describe as a blanket licence or shall I have to specify, well in advance, what field or fields I may have to burn? May I just point out that working on a rotation, as I do and many other farmers in Scotland do—I think rather more farmers up there than do in the South—the possible candidates for burning will vary every year. Thirdly, if I am refused a licence—in my view unreasonably—do I really appeal to the courts against what will basically be a decision by a local government officer, be he planning, environmental health or even—as has been suggested on Second Reading—on the fire service side?
Certainly my experience as a Minister in governments has been that it is surely more usual for an appeal of this kind to go to a Minister, not to the courts. That would not be so bad in Scotland, where my right honourable friend Mr. Younger is responsible for agriculture, planning, environmental
1306
health and the fire service; but I think it is not nearly so likely to be so swift a procedure in England as people seem to think, where several ministries would be involved.
I know a substantial number of your Lordships clearly favour licences being issued. The NFU, in their brief, have agreed but only if the system operates swiftly, both for applications and then for appeals. Until I hear my noble friend's reply, I am not convinced that that condition of swift action can be met. Nor when both my noble friend at the Ministry of Agriculture and every local authority in the country is being pressurised to reduce the numbers of its staff, am I at all optimistic about whoever is to issue licences not making this an excuse for obstructing that very laudable campaign of reducing staff numbers.
Finally, I should mention that my noble friend is applying his Bill, and my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is applying his amendment, to the whole of the United Kingdom: from the Isle of Wight to the Shetlands. Conditions vary so widely and problems differ so extensively that I really must ask both of them to what extent they have consulted all shades of opinion in Scotland, because it is highly unusual to have an agricultural measure which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom; in my experience agricultural legislation is almost invariably divided between England and Wales with a separate Bill for Scotland.
Quite frankly, I favour giving the by-laws a chance. To my mind they are pretty horrendous: the 25-acre limit on burning; the water tanks on site with equipment having to be moved from field to field and all the rest. But I am ready to be convinced otherwise.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I think the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that last night the Committee decided that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. If the noble Lord will read line five of the Bill which he has in his hand, he will see the words, "save as permitted by licence under this Act." Those words are now in the Bill. It would be out of order, in my submission, for anything to be said or done now which seeks to remove those words from Clause 1, which the Committee agreed last night shall stand part of the Bill.
I come straight to the question of administration. I deeply regret that we are likely to have Second Reading speeches on almost every amendment. I regret also that this Committee is much more like a committee of the Westminster branch of the National Farmers' Union than a Committee of your Lordships House. I am a person with no stubble to burn, no land to cultivate—only a sense of smell. I can savour the Sunday morning or Sunday afternoon stubble burning which I am happy to see will be prohibited under the new legislation. That is the only qualification I have for intruding in this debate. I really feel I am intruding because of the expertise going into these speeches on the other side of the Committee which is obviously far beyond my own experience.
Does anybody really think that from an administration point of view—about which I do know a little—the granting of licences by the Ministry of Agriculture is a serious proposition? I am surprised

1307
that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, thinks Whitehall will know best. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie referred to the greater knowledge of the environment of the area climatic conditions and the people in it, which would be better known by the local authority than the civil servants in Whitehall.
Really, the substance of what we are discussing—if I may respectfully say so now—is whether the licences are issued by the Ministry or by the local authority, and that is really all we are concerned with at this particular point. Most of the amendments linked to this amendment are subordinate to the main proposition. I submit, with great respect, that hostile as some people may be against local authorities, it is nothing compared with the hostility of a great many people to the centralisation of administration in Whitehall. One can see all the things which may go wrong in the issuing of licences from Whitehall with the obvious difficulties of those who are aggrieved by some mischance or other of getting a remedy in time.
On the general question, I will permit myself this observation: if all the farmers of Britain are to be allowed to set their fields alight, I do not think it is too harsh a condition that they should have a licence to do so.
Lord Alport: Perhaps it might be helpful if I were to answer some of the questions which have been put. I do not intend to interfere with the contributions which other noble Lords wish to make, but merely to try to be helpful and shorten some of the discussion we had last night.
I fully understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has moved his amendment. I think I understand the importance which he attaches to standardisation, and I think this is the view of the National Farmers' Union. I think possibly, there is a belief underlying the point of view of the National Farmers' Union that district councils—representing, as they do, the whole neighbourhood—will be less understanding of the farmers' point of view than the Ministry of Agriculture. But it is the whole neighbourhood—the villagers, the townsfolk, motorists, market gardeners, ramblers, holidaymakers seeking to enjoy the amenities of the countryside and builders (quite apart from conservationists and naturalists)—who are adversely affected by straw and stubble burning. The local authority is local; it knows the particular problems of the area it administers. The Ministry in Whitehall, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, only knows it at a distance and probably as a point on the map.
My noble friend's proposal represents what I feel, in principle, this Committee for the most part—certainly the opinion in the country—is against, which is the modern trend towards centralising power increasingly in Whitehall: to remove judgment in these matters from local bodies, although the problems involved are essentially local in their nature, as in this particular case. What is more, the Ministry has for more than a decade passed responsibility for controlling straw burning through the district councils and their bylaws. Now my noble friends wish to reverse this.
I should be astonished if my noble friend the Minister speaking on behalf of the Ministry would
1308
want his department to undertake this responsibility. But, of course, if he is willing to do so it would be a factor which we would all take into consideration. Let us look at this from the farmer's point of view; from his farm in, say, Northumberland, Norfolk, Kent or Cornwall. He would, under my noble friend's amendment—if it is passed—have to apply for a licence. If there are any queries, it will mean writing to or telephoning Whitehall: talking to some unidentifiable official who will not be familiar with his particular problem. Even if he is in touch with the representative within the county, the same position arises because he will be under the authority of the Ministry in Whitehall. He will have to wait for an answer, which may or may not be long delayed.
I live in a country district which has a highly efficient administration and which has a council where the farming community is fully represented. Any farmer can drive for 20 minutes to talk to any official of the council. His district councillor lives not far from him—perhaps four or five miles away. Council officers know where he lives and when issuing a licence will know his circumstances and his particular problems. If there is delay, he has the easiest recourse possible: either to the town hall or to his local councillor. What is more, not only would that give confidence to the farmer, but the fact that the administration of the licence is in local hands will give confidence to those who live in the area and who would like to feel that decisions in these sorts of matters are in the hands of the people who represent them in their local authorities.
The issue at this stage of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says, is not whether there should be a licensing system for straw and stubble burning. The National Farmers' Union accepts it in principle. So do the county councils, the district councils, and also, though I speak only for myself in Essex, the parish councils. The Royal Commission on Pollution accepts it in principle. So does the CPRE, the Countryside Commission, the Country Gentlemen's Association, the Society for Clean Air, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Ramblers' Association and, most important of all, the mass public opinion of villagers and townsfolk in country Britain. The issue that we have to decide is not whether there should be a licensing system, but who should issue the licences. Should it be the district councils or the Ministry of Agriculture?
In the Bill as drafted, the process of obtaining a licence would be as follows. The farmer would apply to the district council requesting the issue of a licence as soon as his decision was made as to the planting programme that he intended to follow. Here, I am trying to answer a number of points put by my noble friend in his speech. In making his application, the farmer would define the areas on his farm that he intended to devote to wheat, oats or barley. He would almost certainly show this on the farm map. His application, I imagine, would—and I think rightly—apply to the whole farm. A responsible farmer, in making his application, would, however, bear in mind the areas of his farm where, because they border, say, upon a housing estate or are close to a major highway, burning would be undesirable. He will

1309
always have the alternative of incorporation. My noble friend says that he normally practices that on his own farm and has done so for many years. Even though he excludes certain parts of his farm from his application for a licence for burning, that does not preclude him from using them for growing arable crops.
The licence would then be issued to him as a person. A person, I am informed, in this context, includes a corporation. Once a licence has been issued, in my view it should remain valid without the need to apply for a fresh licence annually, unless the farmer brings land not specified in his original application into arable use, or if the farm changes hands, in which case the new "person", whether owner or tenant, would have to obtain a fresh licence. This, I should have thought, would greatly reduce both the obligations on the farmer and the clerical and administrative work falling on the district council.
According to the Bill, when issuing the licence, the council would take into account, from its knowledge of the situation of the farm, any factors that make it desirable to vary the extent of the land that may be burnt. That is, for instance, as I have already said, if there is a motorway or a special conservation area, a neighbouring housing estate or vulnerable residential or public property, such as a hospital. There would also be specified the period for which the burning can take place. That must obviously be over a fairly expansive period of time. Here, the council, however, has the guidance of paragraph 2 of the by-laws. It would also impose other conditions, having regard to the by-laws.
Many councils, no doubt, will follow the by-laws in full, but others may consider that some of the by-laws are either irrelevant or impractical. The draft which your Lordships yesterday received from my noble friend seemed to me to cause a certain amount of concern among a number of noble Lords. But the decision as to what are the conditions will be made locally by an authority that is representative of all sections of the public, on which the farming interest also is fully represented.
I do not think that a licensing system such as I have outlined will be onerous to either the local authority or the individual farmer. I think that it will be practical and fair. The enforcement of the conditions will depend primarily on the sanction that an offender may have his licence withdrawn. That is a much more effective sanction than the fear of a fine, whatever size that fine may be. I do no think that it can be so effectively administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, and I wonder whether it can be administered by that Ministry at all. If my noble friend's amendment is agreed, I am sure that all the fears that many of your Lordships have about bureaucracy will be realised.
I would, however, give my noble friend this undertaking. If he thinks that it would be right, then following consultation, I shall introduce at a later stage an amendment, in the form of a schedule, if appropriate, defining in greater detail both the procedure regarding applying the licence and the conditions which would be normal within a licence. That will enable there to be some form of standardisation, which is what the amendment really intends to achieve. I must say that I hope that my noble friend
1310
will withdraw his amendment. We shall have, or may have, an opportunity later to consider whether the licensing authority shall be the county council or the district council. I must confess, however, that if my noble friend decides to press his amendment, I think that the decision should be made by your Lordships in the Lobby.
The Earl of Onslow: I should first like to say to my noble friend Lord Stanley how much those of us who have perhaps not agreed with him on earlier occasions appreciate his speech. It shows that the difference between us is not quite so great as may have previously appeared. One of the points worth making is to ask whether the Ministry of Agriculture is equipped to carry out the licensing system. I would suggest that it is probably not. It is rather like asking whether the Department of Trade is the right organisation to administer health and safety at work, or whether the Ministry of Agriculture should run health and safety at work on farms. I would suggest that this is probably not the right way. The Ministry of Agriculture is one of the finest promoting ministries. It knows exactly what it wants to do. Some of us do not always agree with it 100 per cent. But it knows exactly what it wants to do. It would possibly be dangerous to leave environmental control in the hands of the promoting Ministry.
The county councils, in their brief, liked the idea of the local fire authority having a major say in the licensing system. That makes sense. Firemen know more than anyone else about fires. That sounds simple, but it is true. The other point worth mentioning is that there are such enormous regional variations that it might not be reasonable in big grain areas to control burning to within 25 acres, whereas in some other areas it might be reasonable and sensible to control the burning within an area much smaller than 25 acres. If guidelines were set down by the Ministry, or regulations, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Alport, that might produce conformity. Local authorities would be able to take into account local conditions. That is a better way to proceed. I hope that my noble friend Lord Stanley will not press his amendment for the reasons given extremely ably by my noble friend Lord Alport, and also for the few additional reasons that I have given.
9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Stodart applied his arguments to the procedures for licensing, and therefore of course my noble friend's speech fell most certainly within the scope of Clause 2, with which we are now dealing, and within the scope of this particular amendment. I am bound to say to your Lordships that I very strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Stodart that the licensing system gives one cause for some very distinct reservations. It is, by definition, bureaucratic and I do wonder whether it could possibly be said to be easier or cheaper to enforce than by-laws, and indeed whether it may be more effective.
I listened to my noble friend Lord Alport, in answer to my noble friend Lord Stodart, explaining how the licensing system would work. As I understood my

1311
noble friend Lord Alport, the licence would be given to the person. To raise just one question—if that is really so and that peson then does not burn as he should and he is disqualified—what is to stop him asking someone else to apply in his stead? It is true that he will have been guilty, but so is the man who is disqualified from driving a car, yet he may ask or employ someone else to drive him. I think that this sort of issue raises questions which would really need to be answered if a licensing system were to be introduced.
However, my reservations go wider than that. The Government published the new model by-laws yesterday. They are very strict and they are designed to meet the problems of last summer. I do not for one minute say to your Lordships' Committee that we believe that they are absolutely right. That would be an extremely rash thing to say, but we have done our best and we have consulted very widely indeed. I was very interested that my noble friend Lord Stodart again queried the consultation which had preceeded the introduction of this Bill. It is for those broader reasons that I very much regret that this Bill has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Alport.
As to the amendment—yes, the Ministry of Agriculture would indeed have difficulties in having this responsibility thrust upon them. I think that we would have to deal with it from our divisional offices, which cover a wide area. Last week I went to Guildford, which is one of the three divisional offices for the South-Eastern area. That division covers an enormous area, including the Isle of Wight, going west to Winchester and east towards the Kent border. For that reason almost alone, if for no other, there would be very great difficulty in having a responsibility of this sort placed upon the Ministry. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having seized this opportunity to make it clear why, on behalf of the Government, I have reservations on the way in which licensing would be administered.
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to take my erstwhile pair in another place to task because I do not see anything inconsistent in what I said on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, brought driving licences into the picture. He will know that one has to buy a driving licence, that one has a Highway Code to tell one how to do so, and then there are the laws which one must obey. That is exactly the same picture as the one I put forward. Perhaps the noble Lord would think that over in due course. I do not think that I made myself clear on why I did not understand Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. Nowhere in the amendments does it suggest that we should leave out subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 2. I simply thought that Amendment No. 26 was trying to replace those subsections, but nowhere does it suggest that they should be omitted. That is the point that I was trying to make.
Viscount Mountgarret: I was very sorry to hear what my noble friend Lord Belstead had to say about not being very keen on the local Ministry of Agriculture possibly having the duty of issuing licences, as would be required by this amendment in the name of my
1312
noble friend Lord Stanley. I am not sure that it would be a tremendously onerous duty. Already the local Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for issuing licences to those people who wish to burn moorland out of season or, as it is called in Scotland, "muir burn". If one wishes to burn moorland in England after 31st March one has to apply for a licence, and one applies to the local Ministry of Agriculture. It is probably more logical that if hill farmers apply for licence to burn moorland, it would be sensible for lowland farmers to apply to the local Ministry as well.
I should have thought that this could go some way towards meeting what my noble friends Lord Alport and Lord Stodart had to say about local people knowing what local farmers wish to do. I should have thought that there is no one better qualified in knowing what local farmers want to do than the local Ministry of Agriculture—after all, its officials are supposed to be qualified and knowledgeable in matters of agriculture—rather than councillors who need to have a wider understanding of their activities. For those reasons, I think that my noble friend's amendment should be greeted with a little more enthusiasm. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Belstead would take that point on board.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to take up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. He made the point that a form should be filled in giving details of all the fields which the farmer intends to burn over the period. Of course, during this Government's term of office, the Minister has done his best—and very effectively—to reduce the number of forms that everyone has to fill in—and here is one that has been introduced. As we know, farmers plough up fields which were previously down to grass. Therefore, assuming that a farmer practises some form of arable crop rotation, having filled in one form, he will have to fill a new form in every year.
Lord Alport: Perhaps I may correct my noble friend. I may not have made it as clear as I should, or perhaps he did not hear what I said. But I thought that I said quite clearly in my speech that once the original application had been made—and in all probability made on behalf of the farm—that would continue for so long as it was necessary. Therefore there would not be the troubles for the farmers which my noble friend anticipates.
Lord Gisborough: I appreciate that. The point I am making is that under that particular form he would have to restrict his arable land to that land that he put in on the form. Much of it might be grass in one year and then become arable in subsequent years. Then there is the question of the council permits. Councils vary enormously. Many councils have a number of agriculturally orientated councillors who know what they are doing. But now with the larger districts many agricultural districts are covered by totally town councils who have not the faintest idea, and want to know less, about what agriculture does, and in some cases have an actual antipathy towards agriculture.
Then there is the question of the matter of giving the permission itself. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret mentioned the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to

1313
the burning of heather. It might be perfectly safe to agree to a burning tomorrow, or the next day, and by the time the permission gets back to the farmer—which might be for the next fortnight or whatever the conditions might be—the weather may have completely changed and it might be completely dangerous. Therefore, it is worthless.
The Earl of Onslow: As I understood it, the licence is granted not just for one day. A licence is granted almost forever until it is taken away. You can get the licence, as I understand the Bill, in October of the year before your harvest, and that lasts the farm, or the farmer, until he has the licence either taken away from him or the whole system of licensing is withdrawn, which is possible under the Bill.
Lord Gisborough: Perhaps that serves the case. Then we come to the by-laws, which are the most absurd by-laws I have ever read. Every paragraph is nonsense. According to the NFU brief that I have, while they have agreed to the matter of having by-laws, there is no mention of them having agreed in any way to any particular by-laws, and I cannot believe that they would agree to one single paragraph that has been written. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned that the farmers' interests would be represented on the local authority. Would he be kind enough to tell me on what assembly within local government the farmers are represented alongside the district councillors?
Lord Alport: As my noble friend has asked that question, I would say that farmers get elected to local authorities. They are represented on district councils themselves, and they are the people who will look after the interests of farmers and their neighbours.
Lord Burton: I have listened with great interest to this debate. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here for the Second Reading, but I am surprised that this Bill ever got a Second Reading. It seems to be fraught with difficulties. I do not like straw burning, so I have seldom done it. I must say it has been done occasionally. I would rather see the stubble left as long as possible to give some cover for the partridges.
I have however done much heather burning—or muir burning, whichever you like to call it. I also realise the need for straw burning in certain circumstances. However, it is clear that this Bill has only been introduced because so many errors have been made and there has been so much bad straw burning—hedges burnt, and every kind of thing—and therefore it looks as though some sort of restriction is required.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and my noble friend Lord Alport seem to be lucky with their district councils; but this situation certainly does not apply in a great many districts. Indeed, in Scotland our district councils have rather a different function from those in England. Of course we have no county councils—to which the noble Lord referred—in Scotland. If this Bill is to proceed, perhaps for a start at the Report stage we might delete Scotland from the Bill.
The situation is different in Scotland anyway from East Anglia, and it is only on a few occasions that we
1314
have suitable weather for burning. I know about two years ago there was some suitable weather in the southern part of Scotland, and unfortunately there may well have been some need for some sort of control. However, it was also suggested that the fire brigade might be the suitable body for advising on this aspect.
From many cases of bitter experience when hill fires have become out of control, I have found that nearly all the training of the fire brigades is for dealing with fires in buildings, and they are not experienced with coping with hill fires. I had a great deal of difficulty with our own local fire brigade in getting them to get proper boots to go on the hill. They insisted on having plain, leather-soled boots and the firemen slipped back two paces for every one they went up.
Furthermore, the Bill does not seem to have taken into consideration which way the wind is blowing. Surely you cannot give a licence any time ahead when the wind in one direction will be suitable and perhaps in two or three other directions would not be suitable. It is fraught with difficulties. Perhaps the Minister can tell us, now the Bill has had its Second Reading, how he would grant licences. He does not like his own officials doing it. Does he then say that it is right that district councils should do it? I do not think he really answered that.
The Earl of Caithness: As my name is to this amendment I should like to make one point: that is whether it will he quicker to have the licence done by the Ministry or by the local authority. I think it would be longer with the local authority because one would have to wait for an answer from a committee rather than from a delegated person. I do not think the local authority would delegate the power to one person, when it came to a question that has aroused so much public interest.
I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley not to press this amendment. I would also say to my noble friend Lord Alport that I hope we can take all the amendments relating to licensing away and discuss them because we are in a muddle. I do not like licences, but if that is the way we have to go let us, for goodness' sake, try to get agreement. If all noble Lords would not press any of their amendments on licences to a division perhaps we can make some progress between now and the next stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): Does the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Yes, I do wish to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Viscount said: This also is another amendment on the same theme, the issue of licences. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Alport will be good enough to consider the short points I should like to make. With permission of the Committee, I should like to speak also to my Amendments Nos. 7, to No. 9 and No. 12.

1315
Amendment No. 7: Page 1. line 14, at end insert ("if it is satisfied that the applicant will have special regard to potential danger and inconvenience to the public and conservation of the countryside when carrying out such operations.").
Amendment No. 9: [Printed earlier: col. 1301.]
Amendment No. 12: Page I. line 22, at end insert ("and shall have regard to the provisions of the "model byelaws" authorised by the Secretary of State for adoption by local authorities.").
I see that Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 are somewhat consequential on the purpose behind Amendment No. 5.
I am asking that my noble friend might consider that the licensing authority, whoever that may be when it has been discussed, will have a requirement in the Bill that a licence "shall" be issued, rather than "may" be issued. They are two very different things. If a local authority did not have any farming inclinations, or there were people on the authority who favoured farming but were totally opposed for very understandable reasons to the burning of straw or stubble, it could refuse to issue the licence notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend has Amendment No. 23 down which refers in some measure to this.
It might be relevant if I referred to another Act of Parliament in relation to the issue of firearms certificates: that is in relation to Section 27(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. I know that my noble friend Lord Onslow is finding difficulty in keeping in his seat at the moment.
The Earl of Onslow: Balloons!
Viscount Mountgarret: It is a fact that this section of the Firearms Act provides that if a chief constable is satisfied that an applicant for a certificate has good reasons to possess one and he has no grounds for supposing that the applicant should not have one, for whatever reason under the sun, he is required to issue that certificate. In this case there is no question of "may". It is a question of "shall". The same criteria might perhaps apply to the issuing of licences for straw burning, provided—I emphasise the word "provided"—that certain safeguards are observed.
My Amendment No. 7, my noble friend's Amendment No. 9, and indeed the amendment of my noble friend Lord Alport, Amendment No. 12, refer to certain safeguards. Perhaps between now and Report stage there might be some measure of agreement between incorporating the word "shall", provided that the licensing authority is satisfied that the applicant has good reason and is prepared to observe the various conditions that may be imposed.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Alport: Perhaps I may answer this straight away, because I have given consideration to this amendment which goes, as my noble friend has said, with Amendment No. 7. The meaning of it is that the local authority or the authority granting the licence would only grant a licence if the farmer satisfied the authority that he would have special regard to the potential danger and inconvenience and has indicated satisfactorily that the measures he proposed to take to protect the environment, the convenience and safety of the public were sufficient for the local authority's purposes.
1316
This will place a heavy burden on the individual farmer. It will also give great power and impose great responsibility on the licensing officials of the local authority. The farmer will, in effect, have to prove his entitlement to a licence when he makes his application. However satisfied he may be that the precautions he will take will satisfy the local authority, there is no certainty that the licence will be issued to him.
Under the present wording of the Bill, with the amendment I have proposed, the farmer has to make an application for a licence to the local authority which then issues the licence, subject to conditions which are set out in the licence and with which the farmer is bound to comply. If for any reason, as my noble friend knows, the local authority refuses to issue the licence, then the farmer, under Amendment No. 23, has the right to appeal. I think that process is fair to the farmer. It enables him to carry out his burning programme with a clear idea of what his obligations are to the public and avoids his having the responsibility of proving, before he gets the licence, that he is a fit and proper person to have one. I think the onus should be on the local authority to show reasons why it refuses to issue a licence, rather than for the farmer to show that he is entitled to obtain one.
My Amendment No. 23 ensures that the licence will not be unreasonably withheld from any applicant. If, as a result of any administrative failure or any prejudice on the part of the local authority, the farmer has recourse not to a magistrates' court but, as I suggested in the Bill, to a county court which is a civil court and a forum for local appeal, I think that this is fair and right, and I hope that it reassures my noble friend. But I am quite prepared to consider the anxieties which lie behind this amendment to ensure that the farmer gets a fair deal as far as the licensing authority is concerned; and, if there is any way in which at the next stage that can be achieved, then I should like to consider it and discuss it with him.
Viscount Mountgarret: May I say that I am grateful to my noble friend. He has referred to Amendment No. 23 and therefore, with permission, I should like to do so also. I do not think that it is really very satisfactory for a farmer to be in a position of wondering what will happen if he has his application for a licence refused. There is no use his saying that he can go to a court and apply to a Crown court. I think that it would cost the minimum of £2,000 or £3,000 to apply to a Crown court. And if you apply to a Crown court I think you have to be represented by a barrister, although I see my noble friend Lord Onslow shaking his head; so that I may be mistaken. Nonetheless, the process of applying to the Crown court must take a certain amount of time, and meanwhile his straw or stubble is being left unburned, unbaled, unused and un-everything.
I am not sure that this is quite the tidiest way of doing it and I hope that it will be possible to incorporate the requirement that the licensing authority shall issue a licence unless it has good reason to suppose that the applicant is not a suitable person to have it. I agree that my wording of Amendment No. 7 is probably not ideal. It was tabled before I had the opportunity of seeing the proposed model by-laws. Something like

1317
that perhaps could be incorporated between now and Report stage. Those are the points that I wish to make.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My noble friend I think has said that an appeal would go to the county court. Can he tell me to which court in Scotland he would send it?
Lord Alport: I have not considered this. I have no doubt that if one of my noble friends from Scotland cares to put down an amendment at Report stage to
1318
signify the exact court in Scotland to which it should go—and I imagine it would be to the sheriff court—that is something on which I would have to take advice, but it would be an amendment which can be made at a later stage.
Viscount Mountgarret: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("or derived from").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment. It is consequential on Amendment No. 2, which was agreed yesterday.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not moved.]
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("() The applicant shall—

(a) specify the arable land to which the licence will apply:

(b) speciify the periods during which he wishes to burn straw or stubble; and

(c) indicate what measures he proposes to take in regard to the protection of the environment and the convenience and safety of the public.")

The noble Viscount said: Again, the purpose of this amendment is part and parcel of how licences might be issued. I would venture to suggest that perhaps in this respect the Bill as drafted has got the cart a little before the horse. The Bill as it stands requires the issuing authority to tell the farmer to what area the licence will apply, the period during which straw may be burnt and so on. I would have thought that it might be better if the applicant himself were to put specifications to the authority who is to issue the licence. For instance, surely it would be better if the applicant were to state the area he wishes to burn on and the periods during which he wishes to burn: that would presumably be a blank period, for example, two months during August and September.
Referring to paragraph (c), this was drafted before I had advance knowledge of the proposals in the model by-laws, but perhaps we could reconsider this aspect between now and the Report stage. Perhaps there should be an undertaking that one would abide by the provisions of the by-laws or what-you-will. However, basically I think it would be better if the applicant were to make the indication rather than be dictated to by the licensing authorities. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: I must inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call amendments 11 to 14 inclusive.
Lord Gisborough: Here again we have the position of a district, which may well be an urban district, knowing very little of farming and it is in a very different situation from the countryside district where farming is part and parcel of its general work. I should like to support this amendment because I think we may get a lot of problems in the urban districts where people do not know what they are talking about.
Lord Alport: Perhaps I could say on this that I do not think there is very much between my noble friend and I as regards paragraphs (a) and (b). When I spoke to a previous amendment I said that the application for a licence would have to specify the arable land, which indeed might be the whole farm, and to obtain a licence on behalf of that, so that would happen
1320
automatically. He has also to specify the period for which the straw is to be burnt, and that again is taken more or less for granted so far as the Bill is concerned. If it is necessary, when we reach a later stage, to specify this within some schedule or additional section of the Bill, I should be happy to talk it over with my noble friend. The only thing I would not agree with is that one should indicate the measures one proposes to take. I think these measures in fact should be the ones that are laid down by local authorities either in by-laws or as special conditions they may wish to attach to the licence. I hope my noble friend will withdraw this.
Viscount Hampden: I should like to support this amendment. I realise that when I spoke on Second Reading I failed to declare an interest. Unlike my noble friends on my right, who are experienced farmers, I am a farmer with an "L" plate on. I got involved in the industry only 18 months ago when one of my tenant farmers went bust. I think it is very important to realise that farming is not so profitable as we are led to believe from some of these debates. I have had to burn not only straw but docks, couch grass and other horrible weeds.
I support this amendment, because where I burn stubble and straw is on very unstable ground, which I do not think I can do anything else with. It is also next door to a SSSI, which also belongs to myself with a public footpath going through. So I am very careful about what we do there. But I very much appreciate that I and my partner, who is a much more experienced farmer than I am, can suggest to the district council, the county council or the ministry—whoever gives the licence—the protection that we are giving to the public in this matter. So I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I appeal to the noble Viscount not to press this amendment at this stage? It really is, to a certain extent, connected with the amendment which he has already withdrawn, No. 5, and Amendment No. 7, which was not moved. If this amendment were pressed to a Division, we would not—unless it was defeated—be able to discuss the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and to have the very important discussion which we must have on the model by-laws. It would be most inconvenient if that were to happen, and I should have thought it was for the convenience of the Committee that we should proceed to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. Perhaps, if the noble Viscount wishes to do so, he could return to his amendment at a later stage.
Viscount Mountgarret: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that he need not appeal to me too much about not pressing this amendment. We are having a very useful preliminary canter around the field on the whole system of licensing, and I am very grateful for the way in which my noble friend Lord Alport is accepting some of the points that are being made. It seems clear that there is a measure of support. I would say in my defence on paragraph (c), that I myself do not want that in. I put it in only in order to try to satisfy the original drafting of my noble friend Lord Alport. I am trying to meet him. So I hope that

1321
between now and Report stage, having given this matter a good airing, there will be a broad measure of agreement on the whole subject of issuing licences, and that we shall then get along very nicely at Report stage. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("having regard to") and insert ("for")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11 and this goes directly with Amendment No. 12.
Amendment No. 12 [Printed earlier: col. 1315.]
When the Bill was first prepared and considered by your Lordships' House, I was not aware of the form which the model by-laws would take. We have now seen the model by-laws and some of my noble friends have taken considerable exception to them. However, what I felt was that there must be some standardisation, and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley. There must be some indication in the Bill as to the kind of basic conditions which a council should attach to any licence. It seemed to me that it would be right, therefore, knowing that the model by-laws were about to be agreed and issued by the Ministry as I understood it, to make a reference to the model by-laws at this point.
Your Lordships will notice that Amendment No. 12, as it stands, states:
"shall have regard to the provisions of the 'model byelaws'."
That does not mean that they may follow them slavishly. As I said earlier, most of them would probably take the model by-laws in full and attach them to the licence, but it is not necessary, according to this amendment, that they should do so. However, I do not think that this is the occasion for having a discussion on the model by-laws. I should like to hear any comments that any noble Lord should like to make. But I would consider withdrawing this amendment if it was the view of my noble friend Lord Stanley and others that they would like to consider this point further and come back to it at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I welcome the remarks about trying to have some standardisation in the regulations that my noble friend has indicated he will discuss. I think the answer is that between now and Report we can get together and achieve some form of standardisation. The new model by-laws are so severe that I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Alport, would consider withdrawing his Bill and accepting the model by-laws.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I intervene at this stage and, if it is convenient to the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 13: At end insert ("and such byelaws shall include provision for safeguarding residential property and highways.")
The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, is here, and at this juncture he may wish to speak to Amendment No. 14.
1322
The fact is entirely contrary to the way in which the noble Lord who has just spoken has put it. He regards the by-laws as being so severe as to be unacceptable. They are not, in my opinion, sufficiently strict, especially having regard to residential property and highways and, in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, having regard to
"animals, buildings [other than residential buildings] and plant growth on property adjacent to the arable land specified in the licence, as well as … rights of way and wayleaves".
I was extremely grateful for a copy of the by-laws which the Minister very kindly sent to me as well as to others who are interested in the subject. I am glad that the noble Lords who have spoken so far welcome the fact that there will be central guidance to local authorities. Surely that is a great improvement. When I looked at the by-laws, I was very happy to see that one of the matters which concerned me—residential property—is safeguarded. On the other hand, carefully though I have read the by-laws—perhaps, by inadvertence, I have missed something—I see that there is no reference to highways. This is a matter of the very gravest concern. As we all know, there was a death on the Great North Road last summer in the most horrible circumstances, due to straw and stubble burning—I do not know which; perhaps it was due to a combination of the two.
We are concerned here not merely, as the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, has been concerned, quite properly, with the burning and maiming of animals in horrible circumstances; we are concerned with human beings on the highways who have been not just burned to death but who have been terrified and frightened. I have here a letter from somebody who was involved in just these circumstances. I should like to quote from it, if I may, just in case farmers are complacent about what happened last summer. It says:
"I was driving in a well spaced queue of cars and saw a plume of smoke about a quarter of a mile away which I thought was well away from the road. In fact, with no warning and on a straight bit of road, we were plunged first into smoke and then into extremely dense smoke so dark I could not see in front of the car's bonnet, and naturally we all ran into each other. And someone in front had stopped. We were going very slowly as the first lot of smoke had slowed us. The hedge was burning briskly to my left and most people were abandoning their cars, and, indeed, it seemed folly to stay in. So I got out. Smuts were falling on the car and through the sunshine roof. I ran down the road to try to stop the cars coming as they could not see what was happening. I found someone who telephoned the police, the fire engines"—
and so on. The story ended happily; there were no deaths. But men, women and children were terrified that the petrol tanks were going to explode. They were scrambling over barbed wire fences, scratching themselves. They were extremely frightened and in terror of their lives. That is the kind of incident which has occurred.
I know that some of these incidents have arisen not as a result of straw and stubble burning but as a result of sparks which have set light to standing crops. That is no excuse for not taking extra care when burning straw and stubble. If it happens, as one must accept that it does happen, either by spontaneous combustion or due to the fact that farm machinery sends out a spark which causes a crop to catch alight, that itself is danger enough to the general public, and it causes the authorities to send fire engines, ambulances and so on

1323
to rescue those who may be on the highway when such an incident occurs. But if added to that hazard—which is already happening in a hot summer—one additionally burns straw and stubble without due care and attention, and without sufficient safeguards in respect of highways and other places where the public are legitimately adjacent to farms where burning is carried out, then there is no question but that something must be done to protect the public.
For those reasons, I very much welcome the by-laws and hope that they will be strengthened along the lines I have indicated, and also along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has indicated by his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that we will not get into a long debate about the model by-laws, because my noble friend Lord Alport is going to withdraw his amendment and we can discuss this aspect in detail. As I understand it, the reason why highways are not covered in the by-laws is that they are already protected by statute; they are protected by the Highways Act 1980, and a by-law cannot duplicate what is already in statute.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Ironside: I should first like to apologise to the Committee for not being here when my noble friend Lord Alport was speaking, but I should like to intervene at this stage to speak about my own amendment, Amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 14: At end insert—
("and such by-laws shall make provision for safeguarding persons, animals, buildings and plant growth on property adjacent to the arable land specified in the licence, as well as for safeguarding the use of highways, rights of way and wayleaves where they pass through the licensed land or are adjacent to it.")
This is essentially a precursor to that amendment and Clause 2 covers the licence to burn. Call it matchbox farming if you like, but it does mean that a licensee possesses skill and is qualified, and that is how people see it. But to my mind, a licence is no more than permission to spread fire, and an open fire at that. Skill is not needed for this, but restraint is needed. It is difficult to exercise restraint when one has acres of space at one's disposal. While the model by-laws define the methodology of burning and are desirable, they do not go far enough in defining the objects of protection. They need to be slightly more specific.
Combustion is one of the most violent chemical rections short of explosion that we know of. Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Gisborough mentioned the fact that a bale of straw did explode. The circumstances were, I think, arguable between him and my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, but nevertheless we have to realise the seriousness of combustion. Once it is started, it is difficult to control. That is surely where the skills lie in fire fighting, and that is why qualified men are needed in the fire service. It is very much easier to light a fire than to put it out, and we do not want to place onto the fire services a greater burden than they already bear in dealing with many accidental and urban incidents. The extra burden of man-made, countryside fires would be really unacceptable within the present availability of resources.
Clause 2(2)(c) specifies conditions which may be imposed, and I believe that the inclusion of the model by-laws reinforces the purpose of the clause. But to my mind there are omissions, and I have endeavoured to cover them in my own amendment. I have seen the new draft which my noble friend Lord Belstead circulated just yesterday. I think there is a need to have regard, first, for objects generally—either animal, vegetable or mineral—and, secondly, to the rights of way in the various forms they occur. There are people to safeguard on the adjacent property, where occupied and unoccupied buildings exist, with residences and other possessions. There are gardens and other amenities to think about, as well as horticultural enterprises. Frequently, there are animals around, and animals are intensely frightened of fire and smoke. They panic—and horses panic very easily.
The wording of my amendment embraces all these matters, whereas the objects in the model by-laws as they stand at the moment are rather limited. There are no references in the model by-laws to safeguarding the use of highways or other rights of way, some of which may pass through or over the licensed land. In the case of wayleaves, for example, impregnated poles carry high voltage electric supply lines and they are at risk. Well, I see that the new model by-laws make reference to telegraph poles, but, as I understand it, telegraph poles do not involve wayleaves; it is the electricity poles that do that. I have therefore endeavoured to cover these public interests in the second part of my amendment.
The model by-laws are very flexible instruments of government. Some people would say that they are too flexible. But I think that in this case the guidelines for them need to be incorporated into the framework of the Bill in Clause 2. I believe that my amendment does that, and I would be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on these points which I have raised in my amendment.
Lord Alport: I did not withdraw my amendment immediately because I was anxious that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and my noble friend Lord Ironside should have the opportunity of airing the views that are represented by their amendments to this Bill. But we should not be led away further on to discussing model by-laws. There will no doubt be an opportunity of doing that in due course—at any rate, I hope that will be the case. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Lord does that, may we not hear the views of the noble Lord the Minister on the model by-laws?
Lord Alport: That is entirely a matter for the Minister, but I think I must say that I have moved the withdrawal of my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord, Lord Alport, wish to move Amendment No. 12?
Lord Alport: No, not moved.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wonder whether I may move Amendment No. 12, solely for the purpose of eliciting a reply from the Minister about the remarks which have been made regarding model by-laws. I beg to move.
Lord Alport: I am present in this Committee. It is my amendment and I have not moved it. Therefore it is not moved.
The Deputy Chairman: Therefore, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 to the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: With respect to the noble Baroness in the Chair, I believe that the amendment is in the possession of the Committee and it is competent for any noble Lord to move the amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
The Deputy Chairman: With that advice I think I must accept the amendment proposed, page 1, line 22, at the end insert the words on the Marshalled List.
[Printed earlier: col. 1315.]
Lord Belstead: Rather paradoxically, though it is not my Bill and I am replying to amendments which are not my amendments, perhaps with the leave of my noble friend, I may say a word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Ironside, and confine my remarks entirely to the two subsequent amendments.
The model by-laws provide protection to certain vulnerable objects, such as residential property, hedgerows, trees, standing crops, and buildings or structures constructed largely of inflammable materials, by requiring farmers to construct appropriately sized firebreaks between those objects and the area to be burnt. The safety of persons and livestock is, we believe, best assured by adequate measures to prevent fires from getting out of control. The by-laws endeavour to do this by limiting the area which can be burnt at any one time and by requiring the supervision of each fire by at least two people with suitable fire-fighting equipment to hand. That is the way we have tried to meet the point made by my noble friend Lord Ironside about the safety of animals and people.
I should add that the NFU code, I think for many years, has contained clear advice to farmers that before starting to burn they should contact the neighbours. If a neighbour has animals which might be frightened by burning, obviously one would try to ensure that that would not happen by consulting the neighbour about the direction of the wind and generally seeing whether it would be acceptable.
As regards the very important point put by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, may I just add to what my noble friend Lord Caithness said. Protection for roads and road users is provided in the highways legislation, and we were advised that tougher provisions could not therefore be legally incorporated in the by-laws. Nevertheless, we have received many representations along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said. These representations have been brought to the attention of the Department of Transport, which is now looking into the scope for
1326
tightening up the existing powers in highways legislation.
If I may just return to my noble friend Lord Ironside before I finish, I suggest that straw burning represents a very temporary inconvenience to those who use rights of way. Although I should like to look carefully at what my noble friend has said, I think that so far as that is concerned we have the balance of the by-laws about right.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, wish to move his amendment to the amendment? The amendments to the amendment, strictly speaking, ought to be taken first, I think.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I think that we are speaking to Amendment No. 12:
"Page 1, line 22, at end insert",
the words on the Marshalled List. That Question has been put, and the Minister has very courteously replied. I am very happy to have elicited that reply. If it is the wish of the Committee, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, does not think that I was in any way being discourteous to him. Had I not moved the amendment, I could not have elicited this response from the Minister, and that was my sole purpose in wishing to move it. My amendment depends on his amendment, and that was the only way in which I could have elicited this reply. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, wish to speak?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has a right to move an amendment to Amendment No. 12 if he wishes.
Lord Ironside: In view of what my noble friend Lord Belstead has said about my amendment, I think I am happy to withdraw it at this stage, but I should like to study what he has said in detail and, if necessary, raise the whole matter again at the Report stage. One particular thing that he said worried me. In the model by-laws he requires the fire fighting services to be informed when burning is to take place, but no mention is made of informing neighbours or owners of adjacent land.
Lord John-Mackie: May I elicit from the Minister, or from someone, what one can do about the model by-laws if one disagrees with them? I take it that they will be sent to local councils, and it is up to the local councils to decide whether to accept or amend them. Is there any other way? Can we discuss them here? As far as I can see, we can discuss them if we put down an amendment, but not otherwise. I think that it is rather important that there should be some method.
Lord Alport: May I appeal to the Front Bench, or to whoever is responsible for this matter. I specifically did not withdraw the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, then moved it on my behalf, and the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has spoken to it. As far as I understand it, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has not been moved. Therefore I hope that

1327
the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will now withdraw the amendment so that the Committee can get on with the rest of the Bill. I think that there are other occasions when the model by-laws will be debatable in this House and it will be much more appropriate to debate them then. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has a Question after this business and I hope that he will have an opportunity to deal with it sometime either today or tomorrow. But perhaps the noble Lord will now withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Yes, indeed. If I may, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(2A) A local authority may withdraw a licence from any person convicted of an offence under the provisions of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I move very briefly Amendment No. 15. It is to enable the local authority to withdraw a licence from any person convicted of an offence under the provisions of this Act. My noble friends will notice that it is very much in the same form and has much the same purpose as their Amendment No. 8. It is something which is important and I know that the National Farmers' Union and others who are concerned, feel that it is important that the authority should have the right to withdraw the licence as a sanction to ensure the observance of any conditions with which the licence is issued. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: The problem here is that a farmer would almost certainly undertake burning and, as far as he could, obey the regulations or the by-laws, which are drawn up so absurdly that they would not do much good anyhow. So it could well be that even in obeying those by-laws, he might have an accident or something might go wrong. In fact, that almost certainly would happen. For that he would appear before a court, and for that offence he could be fined £1,000. Now, it is proposed that he should be punished twice. I thought you could only be punished once for an offence, not twice. If, having been fined, he then gets his licence withdrawn, not only is he punished twice, but the following year he cannot take advantage of the lesson that he learned the previous year and be more careful because he is not allowed to burn at all and he has no way of getting rid of his straw, and the situation is hopeless.
Viscount Mountgarret: I cannot let that pass without comment. I think my noble friend Lord Gisborough was going too far. The fundamental fact of the matter is by my Amendment No. 7, which we have already discussed, if someone shows himself to be unreliable and not responsible enough to observe either the model by-laws or NFU code or whatever, not only does he get a thumping good fine, but he is also prohibited from burning. I support my noble friend Lord Alport's amendment entirely.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: I think we are all unanimous on this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("(4A) The Secretary of State may order direct that after 31st December 1988 no further licences shall be issued and that all licences issued before that date shall be withdrawn.
(4B) No order shall be made under subsection (4A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. In the Bill as it is at the present moment, the banning of stubble and straw burning would take place at the end of five years: that is, on 1st January 1989. But at the Second reading I promised that I would consider introducing an amendment which altered that in some respects. The reason I did so was because I was impressed by the arguments which were raised during that debate about my forecast, and the forecast which I have seen on many other occasions in the farming press, that by the end of four or five years, the necessity for straw and stubble burning will have ceased.
Your Lordships' attention no doubt will have been drawn to the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. You will remember that on page 15 the Royal Commission says as follows:
"We therefore recommend that the Government should announce the introduction of a legislative ban on straw burning on stubble fields to take effect in five years' time. The legislation should be introduced now and come into effect on a prescribed date without the need for subsequent statutory instruments or commencement orders."
That is a categorical statement which represents the Bill as it presently stands. The Committee will also probably have noticed that the chairman of the Cereals Committee of the National Farmers' Union forecast not very long ago that there would be a ban on straw and stubble burning in five to 10 years' time. The amendment which I now move provides that the Secretary of State has power by order to direct that after 31st December 1988 no further licences shall be issued and all licences shall be withdrawn. He will have the power to do that, but he will not be able to do it unless he has previously placed a draft of the order before Parliament and it has been approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That means that in four or five years' time after the passing of this Bill the Secretary of State shall have the power to ban, but it will be at the discretion not only of the Secretary of State of the day but of the Parliament of the day as to whether that ban is to be put into effect. This gives flexibility to the Bill which I think is desirable.
I think it is important also to remember one of the arguments which the Royal Commission introduced. The argument was that in order to ensure progress of the development of alternative uses of straw, or the machinery for incorporating straw in the land, it is important there should be some indication to industry and those who are going to invest in research and development in this subject that it is worth their while to put their money towards the particular purpose.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept this amendment. I know very well that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is opposed to a ban. This is a matter which can be considered if this Bill goes from your Lordships' House to another place, and the decision can be made there. I am very anxious to persuade the Committee to accept this amendment so that it can be included in the Bill at this stage and subsequently be considered in another place. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: There seems to be a desire for speeches to be as short as possible, but I should like to point out that I did not arrange the business of the House, and I feel one should not be gagged in discussing this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, said "affirmative resolution" although it is not in his amendment. I should like to suggest that the words "affirmative resolution" must be in the amendment.
Lord Burton: I question whether this amendment is sound. The Minister of State for Agriculture has no jurisdiction in Scotland. As I understand it, this Bill applies to the whole of Great Britain. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Lord, Lord Alport, could answer that problem, and if his amendment is invalid perhaps he would withdraw it.
Lord Alport: I should be unwilling to withdraw it, but I will give an undertaking to my noble friend that at the next stage any amendments which are necessary to ensure the Bill does apply to Scotland will be introduced.
10.4 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: This is one amendment which I cannot accept, and I hope my noble friends will support me. I do not think it is going to cure the problem. There are two really important points to take into consideration: weather conditions have already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston. There are going to be circumstances in which one will need to burn, particularly the further north one goes in this country. Where you have a late harvest and in order to get the ground ready to accept the winter oilseed rape or winter corn, the only way to get rid of the straw will be to burn it. Therefore, there is always going to be a need to burn it.
I do not think that by banning the burning of straw, you will actually stop the problem. Fire officers throughout the country are generally opposed to the county councils' advice that it should be banned. They are most concerned. In 1981, 94 per cent. of the fires that caused problems for fire brigades were caused accidentally or maliciously. If my memory serves me correctly, 1,442 fires were caused in that way. By banning the burning of straw and stubble, you will not solve the problem of my noble friend Lord Gisborough's stubble that automatically ignites. You will not solve the problem of the rogue bale of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, rolling across the fields in the wind. In fact, you will cause more problems. There will not be ploughed headlands. There will not be the protection of residential property. There will not be the protection of hedges.
1330
Who will get the blame? It will be the farmers, because they have not taken precautions. The farmers will say that they do not need to take precautions because they are banned from burning. I believe that many more problems will be caused because no action will be taken to minimise the damage. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will be withdrawn. It is a crucial amendment. The noble Lord has to see, I hope, the force of the argument that says that we have to maintain all the protections that the model by-laws require of farmers. If that is taken away, we shall really have trouble in six years' time.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I express some surprise following upon the point made by my noble friend Lord Burton about the legislation applying to Scotland. It is not so long ago that, in reply to other amendments, my noble friend Lord Alport reeled off a considerable catalogue of bodies, from the Ramblers' Association to the Countryside Commission, that had been consulted. I am slightly surprised that he rather airily says in reply to my noble friend that he will incorporate at the next stage of the Bill a measure that will include Scotland. Has he consulted any organisations in Scotland? Has he had any representations from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland? I asked him this question at the beginning, and I got no reply.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend Lord Alport has referred to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. I think that I should make the point that in announcing the issue of the new by-laws yesterday my right honourable friend said that he believed that the new rules would work and would prevent a recurrence of the problems experienced last summer. But my right honourable friend said:
"If farmers do not respect them, the Government will have no option hut to take even stronger measures".
This shows that my right honourable friend is being sensible and also that we have due humility in the Ministry of Agriculture. We do not believe, necessarily, that we have all the answers; but we are doing our best and at least we have consulted widely. I say that just to put the record straight as to the position of my right honourable friend.
So far as this amendment is concerned, I welcome the deletion of the provision for a ban on straw burning from 31st December 1988, but its replacement by a power for the Secretary of State to impose a ban from that date is still objectionable to the Government. It was my noble friend Lord Caithness who put his finger on the crucial point. If there were to be a ban and there were miles and miles of inflammable material lying around the countryside it would mean that the dangers to everyone were very great. With respect to my noble friend Lord Alport, he simply has not explained how there will be sufficient outlets for all the surplus straw when we start to get into the time span that he talks about, when he gives power for an order to he made for a ban.
In saying that I should like to make it quite clear that very large sums of money are being spent on research and development at the moment—£2 million. It is not for want of technology that there are not outlets. But

1331
if we are talking about straw for feed, straw for fuel or straw for substances like paper or board, it is necessary to get the straw onto the market in large quantities, at a price which people wish to pay for it. This is the difficulty at the present time.
If the Committee were to agree to this amendment, my noble friend would be taking a very great risk with the environment and, indeed, with the livelihoods of farmers after 1988. I would ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Alport will pay even more attention to what my noble friend Lord Belstead has just said. On Second Reading my noble friend urged my noble friend Lord Alport to withdraw the Bill in its entirety, for the very good reasons that were represented then. Yet again these reasons have been given. I hope that my noble friend will take note of them.
It must be quite wrong to consider legislating now for something that might happen in five years' time, before we have even given the by-laws, or other measures which may be taken, a chance to utilise surplus straw, which I know is the situation at the moment. It is quite inappropriate to allow this amendment to go through at the present time.
Lord Alport: Perhaps I should point out to my noble friend the Minister and to others that the amendment says:
"The Secretary of State may by order direct …"
That does not make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to issue the order. He is entitled to do so if by that time what I had forecast and what I think is more than likely to happen will have happened. But if it has not, there is no obligation at all on the Secretary of State to issue the order. This amendment is intended to give some reassurance.
I must say to my noble friends who represent the farming interests here that they must bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Ironside have said about the interests of the other members of the community. They should remember what the chairman of the Arable Cereals Committee of the NFU has said: that there will be a ban in five to 10 years'. They should remember what the Royal Commission has said: that it definitely wants a ban in five years' time. If this is not included in the Bill, I can assure noble Lords that there will be increasing agitation for an immediate ban.
Perhaps I may give the farming interests this advice because, as I said on Second Reading, this Bill is not antagonistic at all towards the farming interests. This is a security measure. At the worst let us suppose that the agitation is as great as it may well be. The farming industry will have four years for the development of research and for investment to take place to ensure that by the beginning of 1989 the ban can be brought in. But if by that time the Secretary of State of the day and Parliament decide that it is not in the interests of the country or of the farming industry that this should be done, under this amendment there is no compulsion that a ban should be brought in. So I must say to my noble friends that, in the interests of the
1332
farming industry and of the community generally, this provision is essential to the Bill and therefore I shall not be able to withdraw it. If it is opposed, we shall have to decide it in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thought that I was naive, but my noble friend is being too naive when he says that the Minister "may". He knows as well as I do that if this amendment is included in the Bill, in 1989 my noble friend the Minister will be put under tremendous pressure to do this. He will receive advice from all to do it. It is tying his hands now in advance for doing something, and it would expose him to intolerable pressure.
I would correct the other point made by my noble friend on the late chairman of the National Farmers' Union. He is misquoting him; he did not say that. I will make one other point to my noble friend about the Royal Commission. They have made a remark—and I have no doubt he has read it carefully—and have devoted 210 pages to the subject of straw burning. In these pages it is stated:
"The ill effects of straw burning are tangible and immediate."
And again:
"Unlike the putative effects of low level cumulative pollution the impact of straw burning is immediate."
I regret to say that the Royal Commission seem to have based their recommendation on hearsay evidence. For instance:
"They took their evidence on numerous reports in national and local newspapers."
A scientific Royal Commission taking hearsay advice from the press seems strange to me. They also based their recommendation on the Countryside Commission who, in their report, totally failed to suggest an alternative method of disposal, which in my opinion reflects little credit on them.
I cannot fail to note that the vast majority of those who sit on the Royal Commission have never had to do a day's work with their hands for their living. I believe their decision in this matter, and this matter alone, lacks common sense, and their conclusion is not supported by the facts in their report. However, both the Royal Commission and my noble friend Lord Alport state that a total ban in five years would concentrate the mind on getting rid of surplus straw. I do not agree at all. But if it did, I will suggest some of the ways it might concentrate the mind, and I do not think your Lordships, let alone the public, would appreciate some of them.
It might make us put the 6 million tonnes on the road for Wales or the West Country in July and August. It might make us chop and incorporate. Recent work suggests that incorporation means cutting under two centimetres long. In fact, preferably dust. A good wind such as caused the trouble last year would drive this dust everywhere. And what about farmer's lung? Has anybody thought about this? Has anybody done research? I would not even wish farmer's lung on my noble friend Lord Alport. It is a terrible disease, and I do not want to see that wandering around.
When your Lordships' sub-committee on science and technology asked the Ministry of Agriculture two weeks ago whether any research had been done on

1333
straw disposal, the answer was yes, but that the problem was mainly economic. That certainly is so. It does not pay me to carry by free straw from my Oxford farm to my Anglesey one, because of the carriage. The cost of disposing of the United Kingdom's surplus straw other than by burning could be between £40 million and £100 million a year. This money will have to come from somewhere. If your Lordships insist on a ban I wonder whether the ordinary citizen really wants to make this sacrifice, for, like it or not, this money has to come from somewhere, and it comes out of the gross national product, and will not be available for other uses such as hospitals, pensioners and schools. I trust that my noble friend will think clearly and withdraw this amendment.
10.19 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: What the noble Lord is attempting is to undo the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not surprising that on this subject almost every speech and every amendment sparks something off. It certainly sparked something off in the noble Lord a moment ago. Where we have got into a mess is that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others, to the deletion a moment or two ago of subsection (4) on page 2. By the deletion of subsection (4) on page 2 the ban has been taken out of the Bill. It has not been taken out of the Title but it has been taken out of the Bill.
Therefore, it is desirable to replace subsection (4) by something else relating to the termination of the right to burn. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, has just moved the amendment which is to replace the deletion of subsection (4). I do not know whether he was wise to have agreed to the deletion of subsection (4) until he had agreement from the triple alliance on the other side of the Committee to the amendment he is proposing to put in its place.
Lord Alport: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. There was no agreement, and there has been no agreement, with my noble friends on this. I forecast that I would take this action when I wound up on Second Reading of this Bill. It was clear to me that this was an amendment which, in the circumstances, was a wise one. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has just said that the amendment, in his belief, means that the Minister will introduce the ban in four years' time. He is worried about that. The noble Lord says that possibly he will not, but in fact I feel strongly that this is the sort of amendment which is fair both to the farmers and to the rest of the community.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is clear then that the moment he indicated that he was willing to wheel out the bandwagon, the triple alliance climbed on to it. They were going to make quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, deleted subsection (4).
The practical point now is, what do we do with subsection (4) out of the Bill and opposition to the proposed Amendment No. 20? I humbly suggest to the Committee that to avoid a quarrel over this we should agree to the insertion of Amendment No. 20, with the
1334
assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and a clear understanding in the Committee that something has to be done regarding the time factor here. The terminal date is involved. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, has probably overlooked that whereas he had a terminal date in the Bill he has now removed that for uncertainty about the terminal date.
There is some sympathy to be given the farmer who may say: "Where am I now? If you tell me at the end of five years that there will be a total ban, whether I agree with it or not, I do know where I am; but now I do not because at the end of the five years the Minister may decide to go on or he may give notice by order that he will do it after six years." There is some difficulty in the farming industry not knowing where it stands.
If there is no terminal date then the Bill has lost a good deal of its force. But it could probably be overcome. If a terminal date is to be given then there should be proper notice of it. The industry should be given time to adjust itself to the determination of a terminal date at any point in time when the Minister may resolve upon that. I am sure that there is a form of words that could be inserted in the Bill to make it clear—if I have not made it clear—that when the Minister comes to fix a terminal date he will have to give a reasonable period of years' notice of it. That would mean that the Minister could not act without the industry having proper notice, the length of which could be stipulated in the clause. I throw it out as a possible help to overcome this difficulty.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said. I much regret that the original provision has been, almost inadvertently, deleted from the Bill. I ventured to agree at an earlier stage of the Bill with Dr. Johnson that if a man is under sentence of death it concentrates his mind wonderfully. I was glad to see a short time afterwards that much the same sentiment was put into the Royal Commission's report at page 15 where, after the words quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, not merely was it the Royal Commission's recommendation that this should take effect in five years' time, but it was also the recommendation of the Countryside Commission and the National Society for Clean Air. They went on to say this:
"Once there is this assurance that the practice will have to be discontinued, the industries concerned will be able to make the necessary investment to develop ways for the profitable use of the surplus straw (an example of the concept of technology forcing,"
—and "technology forcing" is only another way of saying "concentrating the mind wonderfully"—
"which the United States and Japanese regulatory authorities claim to follow).
The Royal Commission then go on to say that the appropriate technology might have export potential, and they therefore recommend to the Government that greater priority should be given to research and development on alternative uses of straw in the immediate future. This all points to a definite date.
Lord Gisborough: There is no doubt or argument that straw can be dealt with in many ways. The

1335
problem at the moment is that the cost of carrying it is prohibitive. That is the whole point. It does not matter whether there are things you can do with straw or not; you cannot get it economically to the factory.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, with great respect. When I put my Motion down, I was told it would probably come on at 8 o'clock. It is now 10.25 p.m. Is there any chance of the noble Lord postponing the rest of this stage until a later occasion?
Lord Alport: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Earl. The debates on the Straw Burning Bill have taken place between 11.30 p.m. and 2 o'clock in the morning on the first occasion and between 10 p.m. and 12.30 p.m. on the second occasion. In those circumstances, we are accustomed to rather late sittings on this Bill. I apologise to the noble Earl. I only hope to be able to terminate our proceedings as soon as possible. We are nearly at the end and then the noble Earl will have the opportunity to introduce his Motion.
However, I should like to say that I would consider the helpful suggestion that Lord Houghton has made about the terminal date for licences and ensuring that the industry has sufficient warning between the introduction of the order and its coming into effect. Then it would be over a period of not only one year or two years but perhaps more. I should like to consider that at a later stage. I intend to ask your Lordships to decide this in the Lobbies if that is necessary.
Lord Belstead: I hope that noble Lords will now decide. May I make it clear—and I speak with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—that the Government do not find the suggestion he has made helpful. I repeat that we do not believe that we have found all the answers. We have a proper humility in these matters. My right honourable friend has recognised that we have to look to see how we go and perhaps have to take even stronger measures. For the moment, with some very strong measures being laid before the farming community and the public generally in the by-laws, I think that this particular part of the Bill is extremely unhelpful. It would not be made any more helpful by the suggestion that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Therefore, the Government are against Amendment No. 20.
10.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alport, L. [Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tryon, L.

Ironside, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

1336

NOT-CONTENTS

Mountgarret, V. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54 I declare the Question not decided and that further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned. The House will now resume.

The Prison Service
10.37 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the time has come for a new look at the future of the prison service.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I had any doubts about the wisdom of the Rules of the House, I am confirmed in my view that they are very profound and true. I rise to ask a Question which, in the eyes of quite a number of people—most of them not here, but some are—is of very far-reaching significance, not necessarily today but tomorrow; that is, the whole matter of the role of the prison officers. In case there is any misunderstanding, I should not like to prevent anybody from speaking about prisoners tonight, whom we have often discussed and will discuss again. But I am talking about the prison service in its widest sense. I shall be dealing mainly with the uniformed prison officers who number more than 20,000. But, again, if anybody wishes to say more about the governor grades it will be very much in order under the heading of the Question.
I ought just to say that, going by the journal of the prison officers, there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about the relationship with the governor grades. On some other occasion we ought to debate that relationship and possibly investigate the whole question of whether the service ought to be unified. But that I shall not go into tonight. I am concerned with the question of whether a more constructive role can he offered to members of the prison service, referring, in my own case, primarily to the members of the uniformed branch.
We should remember that their numbers are large, and I am glad to say that they will increase considerably in the near future. They are doing a difficult job, which certainly has to be done, and they are doing it with honest zeal—though there are no doubt weak vessels among them—yet they are curiously isolated and neglected in public discussion.
This idea of giving them a more constructive role has been around for a considerable time. When I opened the first debate on prisons in this House in 1955, nearly 30 years ago—I understand that one of the closest advisers of the Minister was born in 1955, so it was a long time ago—I wound up my peroration with a rather prolonged argument, but my peroration tonight will be brief. The argument was that in future prison officers should become more like social workers—not just turnkeys—and that the old idea that they were there simply to bung them in and lock them up should be abandoned.
I said that 30 years ago and better men than I have said it since. However, I cannot see that any progress

1337
in this direction has been made in the last 30 years. In some ways there has been some advance; in others, retrogression. In some ways, the role of prison officers was concentrated more on security in that period than it had been in earlier days. It may have been partly the result of the enormous increase in crime which has so understandably alarmed the public. But there have been other unfortunate happenings.
The Mountbatten Report, which was generally conceded by all who are interested in prisons to be a disaster, was carried out—I was, I am sorry to say, a member of the Cabinet which ordered that inquiry—in a state of considerable alarm and completed within a very few months. Since then Ministers of the various parties must take the responsibility for it. But the result has been a much greater emphasis on security. I shall give only one example of the unfortunate results of putting security first, of saying that at all costs we must make sure that nobody escapes.
Nearly four years ago the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington (who regrets that he cannot be here tonight) initiated a debate in your Lordships' House on the appalling overcrowding in Brixton Prison. Several of us who took part in the debate at that time went to investigate matters there. We had long talks with the governor and we paid tributes, which are on record in Hansard, to that same governor. We regarded him as one of the most enlightened governors in our experience. Soon afterwards there was an escape from Brixton. More than one prisoner escaped. What happened to this one, enlightened governor? He came unstuck. He was moved away from his position. He had committed the unpardonable sin of having allowed a prisoner under his aegis to escape. That is what happens if you place such great emphasis on security.
I do not intend, as I told the noble Lord, to dwell tonight on the condition of prisoners. We have done that often enough, and no doubt we shall do it often enough in the future. However, let me give another small example of where this mania for security leads us. Many years ago in this House the women's wing in Durham Prison was called by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, "a living tomb". It was regarded as too horrible, too claustrophic altogether for male prisoners—even the most dangerous and unattractive male prisoners. So in the end it was turned over to women. In this women's wing at Durham, which has been referred to before and which no doubt will be referred to again, there were, when I last heard, three Category A women prisoners who, it was thought, required very secure conditions, and 33 women prisoners of other categories who did not. Therefore for the sake of making sure that the three Category A women did not escape, these conditions, condemned by every kind of inquiry and investigator, were imposed upon all 36. That is just another example of what I mean when I say that in the 30 years since I first ventilated the idea of prison officers resembling social workers we have, if anything, moved the other way.
In November 1978 the May Committee was set up after what was called a long period of deteriorating industrial relations. Once again, as in the case of the Mountbatten Committee, they were expected to report much too quickly. They took a good deal longer
1338
than the Mountbatten Committee, and it would be churlish to deny that the May Committee worked with great dedication and produced a report which contained many valuable items. But as regards the topic of the debate today—the role of the prison officer—they were profoundly disappointing. They were, by common consent, pretty feeble.
There are 11 chapters in the main report. One is devoted to the role of officer and governor grades—their recruitment and training. I will not summarise what it has to say because any noble Lord who is interested can read the report—although he will find very little there. So the May Committee did not really help us in respect of the subject we are discussing tonight.
Those who are in charge of the present training of prison officers at the prison officers' training school at Wakefield, which I visited recently, are certainly keenly concerned in the question of how wide a role can be provided. It would not be true to say that no one is doing anything and that no progress is being made. I am only saying that it is a case of making one step forward and one step back. At any rate, there are some steps forward.
One could take the example of Wakefield Prison (and I am not speaking now of the training school), which I also visited the other day. There, two prison officers are attached to the eight probation officers who undertake welfare work inside the prison. In a case such as that (and I have no doubt there are other examples) an effort is being made to link the prison officers with the probation officers. Still, the task and burden of welfare inside the prison falls on probation officers; in other words, it falls outside the prison service.
I repeat that no one can seriously deny that the role of the prison officer today is no more constructive than it was 25 or 30 years ago. There are, of course, a good many social workers of one sort or another in the prisons, such as probation officers, educationists, and so on. But so far as the prison service itself is concerned, I am sure that the position has not advanced.
The time is right, if I may say so respectfully to the noble Lord the Minister, for a clear pronouncement by him on behalf of the Home Secretary. I hope that it will not merely be a reaffirmation of what has been said by Ministers of different parties—including, of course, my own—at different times, and about which a certain scepticism has developed. If the noble Lord can only say what has been said before, I venture to think that he might shorten his speech. At any rate, I do not believe there would be much point in simply saying what has been said already by Ministers of all parties. The time has come when the prison officers—for whom I know the noble Lord has a great regard—are not going to be satisfied with just that.
I am sorry to say that certain utterances of the present Home Secretary have given a widespread impression throughout the prison service (and I am speaking of what quite a few prison officers have said to me) that he, the Home Secretary, sees prison officers as little more than gaolers whose sole duty is to protect the general public by stricter control of the prison population. I am not saying that such is the Home

1339
Secretary's attitude; I hope it is not. As I once remarked before in your Lordships' House, the Home Secretary is a very intelligent man and I do not believe that such can be the attitude of a very highly intelligent man, However, it would be wrong of me to disguise the views of quite a number of prison officers on this matter.
For example, when the Home Secretary has said—and we have discussed this point before and will discuss it again—that probation should not be extended, except in very rare cases, to those who have been convicted of violence and are serving more than five years' imprisonment, the assumption appears to be that those prisoners will become extemely violent and that relations in the prisons may become very unpleasant; and that it is the job of the prison officers to sit on them and keep them down. This is a very widespread impression and so I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to say something quite forthcoming on behalf of himself and the Home Secretary.
For the first time in my experience the prison officers, collectively speaking, seem anxious to break out of their isolation and make closer contact with the public outside—including politicians like ourselves. Their general secretary, who is known to many of us here, is certainly a live wire—and in that respect, he is by no means alone.
Officials of the Prison Officers' Association, to whom I have spoken recently have expressed themselves as fed up with their public image. They are inclined to blame the media; but whoever is to blame they do recognise that their public image is not one which they wish to possess in any way at all. Two local officials recently said to me:
"At the best we are presented as men in charge of animals, but quite often as animals in charge of animals."
That is not how they see their rôle. They are not saying that the Home Secretary or the Home Office see them in that light. But that is how they say they are made to appear in public. There is much force in that comment.
I am sure they agree that they themselves are not by any means devoid of all responsibility for this unhappy situation. A former governor said to me the other day about prison officers in general—and I do not know whether they would consider this to be fair comment—that they are taught not to speak to strangers. He said that the habit is inculcated early and is hard to eradicate. I will give an illustration of how that strikes me.
Many noble Lords here tonight, or who have been present on other occasions, visit individual prisoners from time to time. They will usually have constructive talks with the governor or assistant governor about the prisoner being visited. But how often will any noble Lord or other visitors find prison officers who will discuss a prisoner? There may be occasions in the case of a senior prison officer when that will happen, but ordinarily a prison officer would think that to be unwise; and unwise not only to discuss a prisoner with me but with any noble Lords or noble Baronesses who I see around me. The prison officers have learnt—or think they have learnt—that it is better to keep their
1340
mouths shut when there are strangers about. I think that is unfortunate. It produces a barrier between prison officers and the general public, particularly between them and those who take an interest in penal matters and who could be of use to prison officers in helping them to perform the services they themselves wish to perform.
One of the first steps that I should like to see taken—it may sound a small step but I would be interested to hear the answer, although I do not expect the noble Lord to be prepared to answer tonight—is to encourage prison officers to talk quite freely to visitors instead of closing their lips as soon as they see somebody like ourselves or any visitor entering the prison. That is the way that prison governors, social workers including probation officers, chaplains and educationists behave; but, in my experience, hardly ever prison officers.
Before I close I should like to deal with a wider and more controversial issue. Generally speaking, prison officers would probably like to see the withdrawal, or the substantial withdrawal, of the probation officers from the prisons. On this issue the probation officers are by no means unanimous, but an agreement has been reached between the Prison Officers' Association —an agreement of which I am sure the noble Lord is in any case aware, but which I call to his attention —and the National Association of Probation Officers. The agreement is that prison officers should undertake the welfare work in penal institutions. It is agreed that at the same time there should continue to be a probation officer presence for liaison purposes, but that the main welfare work in the prisons should in future be undertaken by prison officers. It can indeed be urged that an independent presence of some kind—that is, of probation officers who are outside the prison service—is necessary if the prisons are to remain as humane—or, should I say, even as humane—as they are today because they do not suffer from an excess of humanity.
I am told by senior probation officers that the prime loyalty of probation officers is to the individual; the prime loyalty of the prison officers is to the institution. That is putting it simply, and I would think that must be about right as matters stand. But that leads to the conclusion that, if probation officers are to be withdrawn, except for this presence or liaison role, a new humanitarian emphasis must be introduced into the whole training philosophy. I have been told, although I have not had time to check this, that in Norway prison officers are trained for two years, which is roughly the period for which probation officers are trained. That is compared with two months in this country. I just give that as an example of how the whole approach to training can be totally different from and much more thorough than it is here.
The great argument for prison officers taking over the welfare role is that only in this way will welfare be treated as part of the role of the prison officer instead of as a specialised job outside his scope. In other words, until prison officers are made responsible for welfare, they will never be encouraged to take a proper interest in it.
I do not for one moment think that the probation service would suffer if probation officers withdrew from the prisons, except for their welfare role. There

1341
are perhaps 500 probation officers in prisons and more than 5,000 altogether. The probation officers serving in prisons form less than 10 per cent. of the whole. Like many other noble Lords—and I have often said this in the House—I should like to see a major expansion of the probation service, which is indispensable if alternatives to prison are to be adequately developed. Therefore, I do not fear the effects of any such change on the probation service.
Is it safe to make this change? I have become convinced that the change could and should be in the interests of prisoners, and in the long run, therefore, in the interests of our national community, but whether it would in practice be in the interests of prisoners is slightly more speculative. I consider that this is a direction in which we ought to move, but the last state would be worse than the first—and I want to emphasise that—unless the Home Secretary of the day and his successors really believed in the vision of a prison service that could honestly be described as a caring service. If they did not, they had better let the thing alone.
I believe that the time has come when the service itself is ready for a new inspiration. I withdraw none of the criticisms that I have made of the policies being pursued by the Home Secretary. If I may say so with respect, I believe that he is a man of much imagination. There is nothing in what I am suggesting which is in any way incompatible with his overriding desire to protect the public.
I am confident that beyond question the change would be in the interests of the prison officers themselves, who are a highly deserving body of men and women and who have been for too long cut off from the general life of the nation, who have for too long been cheated of their true fulfilment as human beings and who would at last be enabled to pursue a profoundly satisfying vocation.
10.58 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, in view of the late hour I intend to encapsulate my remarks within a very few minutes. The noble Earl is to be congratulated once again on raising this subject in a form different from that in which he normally raises it. I would say immediately that the answer to the Question which he has asked must be in the affirmative. One would have wished that the Government were prepared now to have a new look at the future of the penal system. After all, the prison service is there simply to serve the penal system.
It is right that we should recollect that in 1895, I think it was, the Gladstone committee or commission reported on the prison system and suggested that it should have two objectives—rehabilitation and deterrence. It is right to say that we have tried to run the same system a century later when at least one of those two objectives seems to me to have gone completely out of the window. Therefore the time is really ripe for a new look at the whole of the penal system in this country.
It seems to me that since the War, because of the great changes in and the speed of technological
1342
development, and I suppose the great social changes that have taken place, there has been a relentless pressure on the old Victorian prison system, and we have not really thought out what we are going to do because of the enormous social problems which have arisen, giving rise to the enormous increase in recorded crime. It seems to me—and I have always believed this—that when I started at the Bar, the prison service was very much happier than it subsequently became. I personally greatly regret the setting up of the Prison Department of the Home Office and the abolition of the old independent body of the Prison Commission.
With the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I would quite like to see the development of an amalgamation within the Home Office, to start with, of the Probation and After Care Department with the Prison Department. At least that would be a first step. But, quite apart from that, I think there is and has been for years now, a general feeling of unease among the rank and file in the prison service. There is a general feeling of distrust of their general staff. I have felt this many, many times when talking to prison doctors, when talking to prison officers. If one goes into a prison or a remand centre, one is always impressed by the bad conditions that exist. Of course, the prison itself is only the fabric for the penal system, but when you go in, the holes in the linoleum, the shabby uniforms, virtually everything, is directed to an undermining of the morale of the prison system.
In my experience in talking to a number of people in the prison system who have had much more experience inside, as prisoners, prison officers, doctors, prison governors and so on, I have formed the conclusion—after a lifetime of experience at the Bar, at least—that the average prison officer is an ordinary, decent chap doing a very difficult job, very often under impossible conditions. That is the truth of the matter. It is terribly difficult for a prison officer to maintain morale and a constructive attitude to life, given the conditions under which he is asked to work. He has the general feeling that he is underestimated, that he is not appreciated in any way. It is so easy for sophisticated people to condemn him, but none of them would do his job because, very often, quite apart from the ordinary service he renders in prisons, often he has to deal with very difficult, inadequate, and sometimes impossible people, in addition to his normal duties. I think there has been a general failure, as it were, to take steps to uplift the morale of prison officers.
I think it is right that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, should raise this Question at the present time because it seems to me, for example, that the abolition in 1980 of the Advisory Council on the Penal System was a definitely retrograde step. One needs to see that kind of advisory committee restored, and indeed its remit enlarged with independent people from all walks of life drawn on to it. I believe that the time is long overdue for a complete new look, not only at the penal system but at the prison service.
All I need say further at this hour is that I think the noble Earl has rendered a considerable service in raising this subject. This service is in many ways the Cinderella of the social services, and it is high time that the prison service was given an uplift in the kind of direction outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
11.4 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I have been engaged this day in two debates in your Lordships' House which have one issue in common: just as I believe that war is unjustifiable, so, finally, do I believe that the prison system is irremediable. Therefore I take an absolute view of the prison system. Though I recognise the difference, that whereas Clausewitz regards war as a continuation of policy, we are confronted with policy as the very essence of the prison system as it now prevails.
I should make one other comment before I endeavour to follow the theme which has been adumbrated by my noble friend Lord Longford: it is that there have been great and important changes since I was a prison chaplain at Pentonville more than 50 years ago—and I must say that at the moment it seems even further off than that. During those years there have been very great changes, most of which have been for the better. They have not, however, in my judgment removed the fundamental objection to the prison system: that it is based on imperfect and, in many cases, fallacious assumptions about human nature or human behaviour.
If I apply myself—as I intend to do very briefly—to the particular matter of prison officers, let me introduce what I have to say with one or two very simple illustrations. The first is that when you remove from any prisoner the element of hope—even at the end of a very long tunnel—you have done something which. I believe, permanently impairs, if not tends to destroy, elements in his personality which are worth keeping, and if lost are impossible to revive.
Secondly, it is an abomination to put prisoners together in cells—sometimes two and sometimes three. And I should ask the Minister: what has been done (since this matter has been raised very often) to provide that strangers who, in most cases, are likely from proximity to contaminate one another rather than help one another, are not encased in premises intended in the 19th century for the occupation of one delinquent, and now quite often during the day-time they are occupied by three—the incarceration of six prisoners in a cell in remand prisons—which means that they are probably within those cells for 23½ hours out of 24?
Thirdly, it has no doubt come to the notice of the Minister that there have been at least four comments by coroners over the last three years that suicides in prisons or in the precincts of police stations have, in fact, been due to what has in every case been described as a lack of care.
That brings me to what my noble friend Lord Longford has been saying. I regard as imperative an opportunity of providing within the prison service a kind of category of fellowship as well as of jurisdiction that belongs to the prison staff if the kind of personal environment in a prison is going to be reformative or even worthwhile. So long as a prison officer is regarded as no more than a turnkey and a guardian, then I believe there is a very grave danger that the prisoner in our gaols—and very often in our remand prisons—is likely to find a personal environment which does nothing to encourage him and everything to deter him from a proper appreciation of the kind of punishment
1344
which, under other circumstances, he might be likely to accept as proper and sensible.
I do not agree—according to my own information—that it would be suitable to remove the probation officers from the prisons and leave the welfare entirely in the hands of the prison staff. What I suggest is that there ought to be a very much deeper and more realistic co-operation between the prison staff and the visitors; not only the visitors who are the probation officers but the prison visitors themselves. I should like to put in a commercial for prison visitors. I regard them as being among the most hopeful elements in the prison system today.
I believe there could be a fellowship set up on very practical lines in which the dignity of the prison service could be regarded as a first condition of employment, and it would be to the immense advantage generally of the whole welfare of prisons—while they still exist—that there should be within the prison those who, in the immediate and regular contacts with the prisoner, are likely to be his friend and co-operate with him in remedial exercise of one kind or another. In that regard, although the prison system itself is unremediable in principle, I believe that in the interim the raising of the status of the prison officer, giving him a sense of the dignity of his job and being prepared to pay a lot more to train him not only in custodial responsibilities but also in administrative, friendly and co-operative ministries, would do a great deal to relieve what many prison officers I know, and many probation officers I have met, regard as a thoroughly unsatisfactory and most disheartening system.
I commend most heartily the intention behind the Question that has been so well proposed by my noble friend. I believe that there is a demand now, as never before, that the dignity and status of the prison officer should be far more that of the probation officer or visitor. In that regard, co-operation between those three faculties would provide something that could at least ennoble a situation that otherwise continues to be degraded.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to make a contribution to this important debate and to declare an interest in that I have long had an association with the Prison Officers' Association. A debate on the prison service will of course range far and wide. As my noble friend Lord Longford, says—and I congratulate him on providing this opportunity for a debate—we are here to consider changes in our prisons that could benefit the prisoners, be of value to society and at the same time to highlight the crucial role to be played by the prison service in bringing this about. From my conversations with members of the Prison Officers' Association, I can say that they certainly subscribe to the view that the time has now arrived when a more positive and a wider and more constructive role should be perceived for those who serve society as prison officers.
All of us know that dramatic and significant change will not happen overnight. It is not expected to happen overnight. The Minister is fully entitled to claim steady, even substantial, progress towards fulfilling

1345
objectives which at one time seemed far off. The current prison building and major renovation programme is a case very much in point. The acceptance by Government that there should be an increase in numbers in the prison service—I have heard the figure of a further 5,000 by 1988 mentioned—must be a cause of satisfaction not only to the Government and prison officers but also to society within and without the prison walls.
As a Member of another place exercising my duties on behalf of my constituents, I have had cause to visit many prisons. In my time, I have visited every prison in London and some outside. I have never left any prison without feeling that society is indebted to prison officers performing their duties in difficult circumstances and with difficult people. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Longford remind us of the hopes of 30 years ago that he and others voiced—the aspiration that prison officers would become less merely turn-keys and more social rehabilitation orientated. If the past 30 years have been years of disillusion for my noble friend—he instanced his reaons for his distress—surely, we are obliged to reflect tonight on what have perhaps been some lost opportunities but to seize other new opportunities.
I have no reason to doubt that the Minister will not subscribe to the desire that prison officers fulfil a wider rôle than has hitherto been their lot. I am mindful of the pressures upon him and his ministerial colleagues. He deals in dreadful situations often with dreadful people. He grapples often with a legacy of need of quite daunting proportions. I believe that substantial progress is being made but that much more remains to be done. Let me put forward some thoughts which I assure the Minister are designed to be constructive.
Crucial to the quality and therefore the effectiveness of any service is the calibre of recruits and the appropriateness of their training. If we are to recognise a changing perception by society of what we hope will be achieved within our prisons, if we recognise that the nature of society has changed, that the nature of crime is changing and that the treatment of prisoners requires review, surely we need to scrutinise most carefully the thoroughness of the training given to prospective prison officers.
I know that the Minister will be familiar with the consultative document, Management Structure in Prison Department Establishments, and with the response to that document by the Prison Officers' Association. In paragraph 19 that document states:
"The prison officer is a key figure in the effective functioning of establishments. The relationships between prison officer and inmate is central to the prison process. One of the most important tasks of prison management is to support as well as supervise the prison officer in his relationship with inmates".
I fully appreciate that the consultative document and the observations of such organisations as the Prison Officers' Association are still being considered. But nowhere in that response does the disquiet of prison officers manifest itself more strongly than in the paragraphs dealing with training. On the Justice May inquiry into the United Kingdom prison services chaired by Mr. Justice May, the prison department
1346
document says:
"The May Report did not envisage any major changes in recruitment or training".
I want the Minister to tell the House that he does indeed envisage some changes—they may or may not be major. But he will have read the view of the Prison Officers' Association on page 23 of their observations that:
"The present training of prison officers is totally inadequate. This has been the view of the Association for a number of years".
Whether the Minister would go that far is doubtful; but he will have read with care the references to improvements in training and recruitment which are felt by the Prison Officers' Association to be needed to meet the conditions of the remainder of the 20th century.
If the total prison officer complement is to be increased by 5,000 over the next five years, and allowing for retirements over the same period, there will arise a situation in 1988 when up to one-third of all prison officers will be comparatively new. Therefore, I should like to reinforce the case for a closer look at recruitment and training for the prison service by reminding the Minister of the proposals, with which he will be all too familiar—namely, those put to him by the Prison Officers' Association.
The first is that the period of initial training be doubled from four to eight weeks, and that principal training officers should be better fitted to perform their task. Secondly, that the emphasis at the officer training school should be on management. Thirdly, that recruits should be attached to a parent officer for the probationary period, and not be placed on the authorised staffing figures until completion of the probationary period. Fourthly, that during the probationary period, recruits should have attachment to such bodies and professions as the probation service, mental hospitals, courts, psychology departments, et cetera. Fifthly, that they should return to the training school for two weeks at the end of their probationary period for re-assessment and confirmation of their appointment. Sixthly, that all prison officers should have training periods at the training school every five years. Seventhly, that five O levels should he the minimum educational standard for recruitment.
As is often the case, I may well be told tonight by the Minister that some great progress has been made on some of those matters, and of course I shall he delighted and grateful to be told that. We all know that, despite the current programmes of expenditure, even more financial resources are needed if we are to improve present conditions in our prisons. If we want the prison service to provide the inmate population with more human services, to deal with problems and crises arising from the deprivation of liberty, to help prepare prisoners for release and a return to their families and the community, we need to provide greater job satisfaction for prison officers. I do not underestimate enormity of the task or the resources required. By initiating this debate, the noble Earl has rendered a great service to us all—the Government, the prison service, prisoners, their families and society.
Some of us listened to a debate held last week, on 15th March, on the Hennessy Report relating to the

1347
breakout from the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland last September. The Minister who will reply to this debate tonight took part in it.That debate is no part of this one save that when speaking about the Northern Ireland prison service the Minister said (at col. 961 of Hansard):
"They have an extraordinarily difficult job to do, and we must not ignore the impact of their work on their daily lives."
He went on to say in col. 962:
"In spite of great difficulty, the vast majority of members of the prison service carry out their difficult tasks with thoroughness, determination and no small degree of courage, whether they are governors or prison officers. So I take this opportunity to repeat for the Government the tribute to them, and to assure them and noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government stand ready to give them every support in maintaining the highest standards of performance, which must be in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland."
I can assure the Minister that those words were deeply appreciated by members of the prison service and of the Prison Officers' Association with whom I have spoken since that debate. This debate is designed to be constructive. I hope that my few words will help the Minister to appreciate that a wider rôle for that self-same prison service will serve us all and serve us all well.
11.22 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, all noble Lords will agree, I think, on all sides of the House on the desirability of enhancing the prison service to enable it to be successful in reformative education. But the question is whether it is possible. I am a little puzzled because the prison service, if it chose to use them, has unrivalled resources. The expense, we all know, is way in excess of what is available to the headmasters of the most expensive schools, but in addition to that there is absolute control over the inmates which the headmaster and the teaching service do not have. I think the reason for it is, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, that the prison officers are not equipped for, and not even allowed to carry out, this function, though they want to.
In the Scandinavian countries the training of a prison officer is largely intended to enable him to be a probation officer. If we did that, it would produce a better officer and a man who would value his job, because it is a human fact that if you believe in the dignity of a job, the man will try to deserve it, and if you believe the man to be below average, he will eventually prove you to be right. Prison officers do not look at themselves as being in a good or honourable profession, and it is not their fault. We cannot have good schools without competent and good teachers, and we cannot have a prison which carries out the function of reform without having good prison officers.
In addition to that, we ought—as I have said before in this House—to look abroad to see what they do. The churches and the chaplains play a much bigger role in other countries. Is there a good reason why that is not so in this country? After all, there is a great deal at stake because most prisoners spend only a small part of their lives in prison and have to return to society for a much longer period, and either they come out improved, or they become a danger. Of course it
1348
would have to be a gradual process, and one would have to select for training prison officers who would be suitable for this probationary and reformative role. One would also probably have to select carefully the prisoners who are suitable and of a type who could be reformed. We should not forget that not everybody who breaks the law or commits a crime is necessarily a criminal for ever.
I should like to come to the point that my noble friend Lord Soper made. If one cuts out hope one has destroyed the man at a cost to him and also at a cost to society when he comes out. We have abolished physical capital punishment, but I think that destroying hope is almost capital punishment of the soul. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, will not be surprised if I ask him again, what happened to the study of the Dutch penal system? Perhaps he can tell us now. They do it so much better than we do.
11.26 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the gratitude of what remains of this House at this hour, and the sympathy of the House, should go to my noble friend Lord Longford for two reasons: first, because we should express our gratitude to him for once more raising a matter which is of the utmost importance to us, namely, that of the state of our prisons and the reform of our prisons and the part that prison officers ought to play. Secondly, our sympathy should go to him because this debate is taking place at such a late hour when it deserves a greater attendance and to be reported elsewhere.
At once I disclose an interest to your Lordships. I am the senior partner of a firm of solicitors that has acted for the Prison Officers' Association for many years. Having made the disclosure of that interest, at once I proceed, with your Lordships' permission, to an attempt to sum up some of the main points which I believe your Lordships would want to have considered by the noble Lord the Minister.
The noble Earl has permitted me to go a little wider than his own speech in relation to prison officers. It is a tragedy that we have dealt piecemeal with a very broad subject. We have looked at the question of the overcrowding of prisons and we have looked at the prisons themselves. We have looked at the Crown Courts—Beeching did that. We have not looked at the magistrates' courts, I think I am right in saying, although Beeching recommended that we should, since the Roche Committee reported in 1944. We have looked separately at the police. We have looked separately at the probation service—a service to which I want to pay my deep tribute, and a very sincere tribute, because there is not the slightest doubt that in the whole of the structure of prison work, the reformation of convicts and so on, the service plays a terrifically important part.
We have done all this piecemeal. Just to show your Lordships by a quick example why it is tragic that we have done it piecemeal and why, possibly, there should be some inquiry with a broad review of the whole situation, let me quote again the example of the remand prisoner. We have spoken about it before. At any one time there are about 7,000 remand prisoners who have not as yet been convicted of any crime.

1349
There they are in prison. We have talked about that and we have talked in terms of lessening that number.
There has been no inquiry, for example, into why it is that remands take so long. It is not the question of whether prisoners should be sent into custody during a remand period. Some of us who in the past have been practitioners in the criminal courts, or who may be so at present, know perfectly well that the greater percentage of applications for remand come from the police who are prosecuting and not from defendants. Nobody has inquired into whether or not the police are acting properly when they prosecute, whether they are acting promptly when they prosecute—and this is going to be very much a matter of concern when we have got a new prosecuting service, as we understand, coming into existence. No such inquiry has been made to link up the question of police procedure with what happens in the magistrates' courts, which has not been inquired into since 1944, and then what happens in regard to entry into prison. I would urge upon the Government the need for the broadest possible inquiry covering the whole range of those who prosecute, the courts that try and the prisons themselves.
If I may, I will turn for a moment to what my noble friend Lord Longford said was the main theme of his own address to your Lordships when so eloquently introducing this debate. I follow my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and I say this. There is no point in paying tributes, worthy though I am sure they are and eloquently expressed, as I am sure they will be, to the prison service and what they do and how much society should appreciate what they do. They themselves are asking for a more responsible, creative role. My noble friend Lord Graham read out what they have themselves urged upon the Secretary of State, that there should be a restructuring of the whole role of the prison officer.
It is not very often that we get a trade union or an association begging that there should be a standard of recruitment, a pretty high standard requiring five O-levels, before one can become a recruit to a service. That is not the normal run of trade union representation. But there they are, urging it upon the Secretary of State because they want to see a better type of recruit coming into the service, one who is able to take on these greater responsibilities. I hope that in what is a review of management structure in prison department establishments the Secretary of State, aided as he is so ably by the noble Lord the Minister whom we are proud to have with us in this House, will take these recommendations, these pleas, of the prison officers very much to heart.
I end as I began in this winding-up speech on behalf of the Opposition by saying this. It is perfectly true that the Secretary of State has put forward a programme for building new prisons. It is perfectly true that he deserves credit for it. It is perfectly true that he has taken away, to a very large extent, if not completely —or it may be completely so at this moment—this dreadful business of prisoners in cells in police stations. That, at least, has gone. But what my noble friend Lord Longford has said about two and three in prison cells is still going on. I beg of the noble Lord the Minister that when he is looking at the whole of building structure to realise, as I believe he does, that buildings are one thing and human beings are another.
1350
There is an opportunity here by re-structuring, looking after the recruitment and training of prison officers and giving them more responsibility, to put new men into the new buildings. That will go a long way, I believe, towards helping to solve some of the problems that we have got with our prisons. I also hope that the noble Lord the Minister will take seriously a plea for some sort of inquiry going through the broad review that I asked for at the very outset of my remarks.
11.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, your Lordships have been patient in waiting for this debate and concise in contributing to it. I shall try to reply in kind, but we are on important matters. In asking this Question, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has made it clear that the concern which he wished to exercise tonight is almost exclusively with the future rôle within the prison service of prison officers. That is a large and crucial subject in itself; and he was kind enough to give me notice yesterday that this would be the focus of his interest tonight. I am always grateful to noble Lords for an indication of their concern ahead of a debate, as it sometimes helps me to give them a fuller answer than I otherwise could, and on other occasions allows me to discard material which I find interesting but by which they would be perhaps a little bored. I have therefore taken the opportunity to curtail somewhat what I had intended to say, and I think your Lordships will be relieved.
In particular, I am able to confirm only briefly and as the context of his concern, rather than as I had earlier supposed, as its main subject, what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary sees as the future of the prison service as a whole. I think it is proper to refer to this, however, particularly in view of the direction of the interest indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in his short but highly relevant speech.
This is the context within which prison officers work, and it makes a very great deal of difference to them whether their charges are held two or three together in single Victorian cells or in ones and twos in modern cells designed for the purpose. It makes a very great deal of difference to them also whether they themselves are sufficiently numerous to discharge all the proper functions of the service or only some of them. If the demands of court productions and visits soak up almost the whole of available manpower, none is left for escorting prisoners to workshops and education classes—let alone for the humane and important functions in which the noble Earl has so close an interest.
That can account for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, finds the service a good deal less happy, as he put it, than it used to be. Prison officers, after all, share to a large extent the conditions of their charges. The prisoners' living conditions are the prison officers' working conditions; and therefore it really is relevant that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has taken, and continues to take, not just one new look but a whole series of new looks at an increasing range of activities and functions in which the prison service is involved and at the physical context in which it

1351
conducts them. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, is clear that the impact on prisoners of the physical circumstances of their custody is close and important.
The impact on this aspect of affairs of my right honourable friend, added to that of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, has been dramatic, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for generously acknowledging this. The programmes which they have between them set rolling are on course to provide additional modern places for 6,600 prisoners in new prisons, and for 4,000 additional places in existing prisons by the end of 1991. Provision on that impressive scale, at a cost of £250 million, for the new prisons alone will enable us both to cope with the projected increase to 49,000 of the prison population—and I break here to say that this is a projection and not a prediction, and projections change—and will enable us to scrap some of the worst and most irremediable accommodation altogether.
The other leg of the programmes—if programmes do have legs, but perhaps they only have pages—will provide an additional 5,500 prison staff by the end of 1988; and 5,000 of these will be uniformed officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has also acknowlegded that. Buildings and staff do not comprise a prison service of their own. Buildings, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, are one thing; human beings are another. My right honourable friend was no more content than the noble Earl would have been to let matters rest at the point—the much more promising point—to which the action I mentioned had brought them. He addressed himself also to another question: security and control. Here there is a constant need for balance. Too much and you have a system that is both repressive and expensive—and I suspect that is how the noble Earl sees the system that we now have. Too little and you save nothing, because your prisoners eventually will not or escape. That is another extreme which we are anxious to avoid. The proper balance changes both for historic reasons and as a result of decisions. My right honourable friend's recent decisions on parole, for instance, have meant both that there will be some 2,000 fewer minor offenders in custody from next July, and that there will be perhaps 250 additional serious and violent offenders.
My right honourable friend therefore decided to take a new look also at arrangements for ensuring and preserving control and to give this a greater priority within the Home Office. The prison department's control review committee has been making a thorough and professional study of these matters and will make recommendations to my right honourable friend shortly. He has also initiated a new look at the whole system for adjudications on alleged breaches of prison discipline. The departmental committee, which is to study this very difficult and sensitive subject, will be chaired by Mr. Peter Prior. My right honourable friend hopes that it will report within 12 months, and I rather expect that the noble Earl will have a Question on it on the Order Paper on the very next day.
These are only some of the initiatives which my right honourable friend has taken, and a few of the inquisitions he has held. He is constantly, as I have said, looking at different aspects of the service and to all of them he brings a fresh and a perceptive eye. I
1352
now turn to the interest, and it is a very proper interest, and a central one, of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in the involvement of prison staff in the welfare, development and rehabilitation of prisoners. Much of this is, of course, embraced by the probation function within the prison service. So let me start by saying that nearly 500 probation officers are at present seconded to the service at a cost, in 1983–84, of some £7 million. They bring with them specific skills, and specific contacts outside the prison service, which it would be very difficult indeed to match from within it.
Their training is directed in a way, and to an extent, to which the training of prison officers cannot so readily be directed to the problems which face offending individuals when they return to a society which they often see as hostile and threatening. They are familiar both with the formal structures and with the informal arrangements within which they can find assistance and support; and they are familiar with the working of their own service in the field to which the prisoner is to return. Their counsel and support is invaluable therefore—both to the prisoners and to the prison officers who look after them. The noble Earl is concerned that prison officers should take a hand themselves in that sort of work.
If your Lordships will be more patient than I should wish you to be as a matter of course, I shall dilate on that. It seems that inexplicably I have to rely on my memory. We have in recent years expanded a scheme to involve prison officers in this side of the work in a number of prisons. We have done this over several years and the results of it are encouraging. It is not imposed on prison officers. These are voluntary schemes on which I can now be a fraction more forthcoming. The 1977 social work in prison scheme is the one to which I refer; and 1977 was the year of the launch, not the year of the experiment. The scheme's primary purpose was to encourage co-operative effort by both services to enable prison officers to play a fuller part in welfare work and to overcome the mutual suspicion and animosity.
Governors and chief probation officers, in consultation with their staffs, were invited to prepare jointly a plan for the reorganisation of welfare work to suit the needs of the particular prison. Initially, five prisons were involved. As the scheme encouraged local reappraisal of working methods and agreed change and development, it was recognised that progress in developing social work in prisons and in other establishments would be slow. Moreover, resource constraints meant that governors, when planning their schemes, had to rely on existing manpower—a theme to which we shall no doubt constantly return. Continuing manpower constraints have meant that progress has been slower than originally expected. But that is not to say that no progress has been made at all. Three further establishments are participating in official social work in prison schemes, and others have developed their own schemes with staff of both services participating in shared working.
I ought to add as a footnote something about what is now being done in most young offender establishments, following the bringing into force on 24th May 1983 of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Here, most seconded probation staff now fulfil a liaison role. It is prison staff who are responsible for the day-to-day

1353
case work with trainees and for liaison with probation and other outside agencies. This is a move wholly in the direction which the noble Earl seeks. Many establishments also run flourishing personal officer schemes, some of which I have been able to see and which I find very encouraging. The probation officer gives professional support, advice and training to prison staff, facilitates liaison with outside agencies and is there as a direct social work resource for trainees with especially difficult problems. That means he will help. Our experience is that this system is generally working very well.
From what I have said, I hope it is clear that in the prison service we value very highly indeed the work of seconded probation officers of all grades. It must also be clear that that work does not necessarily have to take from prison officers, or other prison staff, the chance to provide support and counsel to prisoners. That is already an integral part of the work of a wide range of prison staff, including prison officers. Work of this kind gives a fulfilling dimension to their jobs and helps them to establish constructive relationships with prisoners—which will, incidentally, benefit the whole tone of the institution in which they serve. That is a point which will be well taken by the noble Lord, Lord Kagan.
We therefore take very seriously the thrice expressed view of the National Association of Probation Officers, that seconded probation officers should by stages be withdrawn from the prison service. One cannot, and we shall not, dismiss either lightly or out of hand the views of a professional body about the work of its members. I note, however, that contrary views were expressed from within the profession on the three occasions when these resolutions were debated.
We do not develop our policies in this area in isolation. A steering group is at present reviewing the role of probation officers in adult prison establishments. There is a representative of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation on that steering group and the group is keeping in close touch with interested staff associations. As it happens, the group will shortly meet both the National Association of Probation Officers and the Prison Officers' Association to discuss with them the progress of their review.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, will also be interested to know that they have commissioned from Professor Jepson research into ways in which schemes have been developed to engage prison officers more directly in responding to prisoners' social and welfare needs. The results of this research will be available for discussion in November of this year by representatives of the Home Office and both services, together with representatives of the interested staff associations. I hope therefore that noble Lords see that we do not try to railroad the prison service into policies. We consult them on issues of this kind.
On the basis of this very thorough programme of research and consultation, a statement will be prepared for consideration by the Prisons Board on how best the functions and tasks in this area of work should be carried out in the future, and how it should be shared between probation officers working in prisons and other prison staff. I have no doubt that that statement, when it is produced, will deal with all
1354
the issues related to defining roles and tasks, including the question of training.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords. I just want to catch up. Who is going to look into the question of training? The noble Lord did tell us, but I was not quite sure what it was he said.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the process I am describing is not the only process, but it leads to training by one of several routes. This is the process by which the department, through a consultative group, including a representative of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and in consultation with the Prison Officers' Association and the National Association of Probation Officers, is both studying what is going on in the field and consulting those who work in the field, and has commissioned research into what is going on in the field. When it has digested all that information, it will place it before the Prisons Board, who will also be concerned in the matter of how to train people for any changes which may arise in the treatment of this subject. Training itself is, of course, a subject for review—and that review also will come before the Prisons Board.
This will also mark a further departure from the concept of a prison officer's work which the noble Earl described as the "bung 'em in and lock 'em up approach". I have to add that it will not mark a departure from the Government's view that security is of overriding importance. The prison service is the servant of the courts. The courts place prisoners in custody for the protection of society as well as for the punishment of offenders; and if the service fails in containment, it cannot fulfil any of the other functions which the noble Earl would like to see it perform. That is not to say, I hasten to add, that we do not value very highly the quality of humaneness in prison staff. I will return in a moment to the subject of how the prison staff see themselves and how we see them.
The tone of a profession is much influenced by the career it offers new entrants. The career offered by the prison service is a challenging one for which the entrant is initially prepared by a course lasting three months. The first month is spent in observation and acclimatisation in a prison service establishment. This is followed by a two-month residential course at an officer training school. The course is designed to give the new officer instruction in his basic duties and make him familiar with the demands of his post. It is currently being evaluated, and we intend to introduce a new programme in the autumn. The views your Lordships have expressed on this subject tonight will be taken into account during that review.
Further training occurs as the officer advances through his career, and specific courses are taken if he pursues a particular specialism, such as that of dog handler or hospital officer. It is important to ensure that training meets the operational objectives of the service. The time devoted to training has of course to be set alongside other demands—particularly operational demands—and we are always looking at the ways in which training may be made more effective. One constraint is the availability of staff for essential tasks other than training.

1355
One of the strengths of the prison service is provided by the opportunity it gives to those who start out as prison officers to go on to become prison governors. Prison officers are encouraged to enter the governor grades. They can do so by way of the Civil Service Open Competition in which they compete with other, outside candidates—or through the Civil Service Limited Competition, which is confined to the prison officer grades. Candidates for this competition are required to undertake a series of tests and interviews lasting three days. Final selection is made after considering reports on the candidates.
At the last count we had 152 in the service who had been promoted from prison officer to governor grades. Nor need an ambitious or gifted individual stop there. On promotion from Governor Ito assistant controller, members of the service enter the unified grading system introduced in the Civil Service on 1st January this year. They then have the promotion opportunities of an assistant secretary. Those entering the service as prison officers therefore have the opportunity to rise to its highest levels. On reaching assistant controller level, moreover, they are in the open structure of the Civil Service with a considerable increase in the career options open to them.
May I now pause to pick up one or two points. The noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, made an exceedingly interesting contribution, the whole of which was of value to those who wish to reflect on the prison service in this country and I shall read it with great interest. He touched on one subject which gives me a great deal of distress; and that is the subject of suicides in prison. I make it a rule that the news of a suicide in prison is brought to my desk at the earliest possible moment after it is discovered. I always follow up these inquiries whenever there is any shadow of doubt as to whether the event was avoidable. All I can say is that I share the noble Lord's concern and he will, I think, know that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons has been asked to carry out a study of suicides in prison. The results will be published and his report is expected soon. That arose from the concern which my now noble friend and I, and others, felt about this some time ago and it is shared also by my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made a notable speech which had a special appeal to me since it started with a generous recognition of the difficulties which the Government have been facing, the steady progress they have been making in the face of them, and concluded in a similar vein. It is rare for me to hear that sort of sound in the Chamber and it is almost unique that I should hear it coming from that direction, so it is a moment that I savoured and shall long remember. He also made it clear to your Lordships that prison officers are very much alert to what is going on in the service and are thoroughly committed to their work. I shall return to them in a moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, began by restricting his comments to the social work aspects of the prison service, if I can so describe them. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, briefly broadened this to the prison service as a whole and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, extended the consideration, again very briefly, to the
1356
whole penal system and corners of the criminal justice system as well. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary does in fact have a strategy which covers the whole field and if he was here I dare say he would be tempted to reply in kind because it is a powerful strategy. I hope perhaps on another occasion I may be more forthcoming on it, but in view of the late hour and the length of my speech I ought to remain within the confines of what we are principally discussing. That brings me back to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the picture he gave of the alert, responsible and dedicated prison officer service as I recognise it.
I must say I was a little shocked by what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said about the way in which prison officers of his acquaintance believe they are seen by the public and by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Kagan—I am sure he does not share the view he described—that prison officers felt that they were not in a good and honourable job. I think we must recognise that they are engaged in a profession that is essential to the continuation of an ordered society; a profession without which the rest of us simply could not manage. It is always difficult, often frustrating and sometimes very dangerous. They deserve our respect and from me and from Her Majesty's Government they certainly have it in full measure. We are not silent in our appreciation and my noble friend Lady Trumpington has a speech, made in your Lordships' House expressing her own high regard for them, printed in their own magazine so they must be aware that we do have a high regard for them and that it is not limited to Ministers with direct responsibility.
They do not all live isolated lives shunned by society. We meet them in our churches and they are involved in many forms of good work outside the prison walls. It is to me one of the saving delights of an otherwise somewhat remorseless responsibility that I have that I find in it people of a humanity and charity which burns undaunted in the face of the great difficulties of the material with which they are working in the form of disturbed people in difficult conditions, shortage of resources, lack of sanitation, over-work, excessive reliance on overtime, and the rest of it. All these are aspects of a job upon which the initiatives by my right honourable friend and his noble predecessor will bear very strongly indeed over the next few years. I think that we shall look back on these years with more satisfaction than we can now feel, as the foundations are laid for a better future.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, invited me implicitly to repeat what I said in an earlier debate on another prison service. This I willingly do. The Government recognise the valuable and indispensable services of the prison service. In that I have to include all ranks, not only prison officers but governors and also the civil servants who stand behind them. They are in a constant state of tension with the conditions for which they are responsible. The vast majority of them bring to that a patience and a humanity which I personally should find it hard to equal. There are others; but we are careful in recruitment, and we are able to be more careful in recruitment now with a very high level of applications indeed for every job. It is much higher than it has been

1357
in the past. I am aware, as are those who advise me and those who run the service, of the danger of those who may go in for the wrong motives.
I have now come to the stage of the evening when I am in danger of mounting a hobby-horse, but your Lordships would not wish me to do that, except to ride away. I have tried to give the noble Earl a satisfactory Answer to his Question and to address myself principally to his view of the prison service. Much of it I find attractive. I believe that when our prison officers have more time to spend on prisoners and to treat them not as a commodity to be stored but as individuals to be brought out of themselves and restored to society—when we have more time from the increased resources—the noble Earl will be no less persistent in his questioning, but in this area at least he will have a little less concern than he now does.

Food Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, and ordered to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  SOCIAL SERVICES: CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
  SOCIAL SERVICES: CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
  SCHOOLS: INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT
  SCHOOLS: INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT
  AGRICULTURAL LAND: TAXATION
  AGRICULTURAL LAND: TAXATION
  WIDOWED PERSONS: FINANCIAL PROVISION
  WIDOWED PERSONS: FINANCIAL PROVISION
  BLIND PERSONS: SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
  BLIND PERSONS: SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
  RETIRED PERSONS: EMIGRATION
  RETIRED PERSONS: EMIGRATION
  RETIREMENT PENSIONS: PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH CANADA
  RETIREMENT PENSIONS: PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH CANADA
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
  SACEUR: RESPONSIBILITY OUTSIDE NATO AREA
  SACEUR: RESPONSIBILITY OUTSIDE NATO AREA