Sitting of 21 November 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Enfield, Southgate, in the room of the hon. Sir Anthony George Berry, deceased.—[Mr. Cope.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (UIG PIER, SKYE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    BL (Privatisation)
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further plans he has to privatise parts of BL.
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): Further privatisation of BL will be one of the matters dealt with in the company's 1985 corporate plan, which I expect to receive shortly.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend accept that the original merger into British Leyland, inspired by the then Labour Government, has been at the heart of BL's problems over these long years? Does he also accept that it will be denationalised only if the individual companies are returned to the private sector? With respect, may I ask my hon. Friend and his Department to show a little more speed, following the successful flotation of Jaguar, in returning some of the remaining parts, such as Unipart and Land Rover, to the private sector so that they can prosper better than they do now?
    Mr. Lamont: I agree that if all the different businesses which today comprise BL had not been drawn together, we might not face many of the severe problems that we have. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the successful privatisation of Jaguar, which we want to follow up with more privatisation. Plans are being prepared for the privatisation of Unipart. The board is also looking at firm plans, which will be put to the Government, for the privatisation of other parts of BL. Our objective is that all the parts of BL should be returned to the private sector.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Government are forced down that highly irresponsible route, will far more consideration be given to the issue price of the shares? Did the Government read the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the sale of public assets on previous occasions? If so, why are British Telecom shares selling at a premium of 20 per cent. in the City today? What will the Government do to stop that?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to the privatisation of BL.
    Mr. Lamont: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for directing the hon. Gentleman to make his points more relevant.
    It is easy to comment on the share price of Jaguar after the event. At the time of the flotation many people wondered whether that price had been pitched correctly, precisely because the stock market had gone through a shaky period. I believe that it was pitched correctly, and it was a successful flotation. The hon. Gentleman is worried because the Jaguar stock market price has risen further. The Labour party gets glummer and glummer as things get better and better.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give the House some idea of the progress being made by British Leyland towards the privatisation of the bus and truck division? As there is still no likely prospect of that division being disposed of as a whole, will my hon. Friend assure us that vigorous efforts will be made to dispose of parts of the division to the private sector? Does he recognise that as willing buyers, even for loss-making parts of British Leyland businesses, are available in the private sector it is not good enough to wait until BL comes up with its own proposals for privatisation'? There is considerable impatience—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough.
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend has written to me on several occasions about the parts of British Leyland where some changes—[Interruption.] That is perfectly proper. My hon. Friend is rightly looking for people who can help us in our policy of privatisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement some months ago backing the British Leyland board's plan for Leyland Vehicles and saying that we endorsed that strategy. As we have endorsed that strategy, we are not inclined to sell individual bits within the trucks business. We have committed ourselves to the pursuit of that plan. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we have told the board of British Leyland that privatisation is the objective, arid the board is preparing firm plans for that.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is not the most important objective that British Leyland should return to its position as the most substantial volume producer of cars in this country? Does the Minister agree that if the company is to do that it will have to beat the competition from overseas and that, whether British Leyland is in the private sector or in the public sector, that strategy is the most important factor? What are the Government doing to help BL to achieve that objective?
    Mr. Lamont: That is always the line of the SDP whether a company is in public or private ownership. We do not agree with that. We believe that a company has a better chance of being competitive and efficient and of creating jobs if it is in the private sector. We intend to return all the parts of British Leyland to the private sector.
    Mr. Williams: A few moments ago the Minister said that he accepted that the mergers were at the heart of the problems facing British Leyland. Is it not a fact that those mergers took place when the companies were in private hands? On the Minister's basic doctrinal point, if private enterprise is so self-evidently successful and public ownership is so self-evidently undesirable, why did Ministers allow the Bank of England to take over Johnson Matthey?
    Mr. Lamont: As I recall, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation were much involved in some of the operations which brought the different parts of British Leyland together. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) cannot disclaim responsibility by claiming that it happened without Government influence. Governments were involved in creating the monolith of British Leyland. It comprises many different businesses, and the problems that they face are often markedly different.

    Industrial Strategy
    Mr. Moynihanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department intends to review the extent of its financial intervention in industry and the current direction of industrial strategy in its support of investment programmes towards light industry, services and information technology.
    The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): Last week, on 12 November, I announced a review of the Department's support for industrial research and development to be completed within five months. The White Paper "Regional Industrial Development", published last December, announced our review of support for investment in the assisted areas, the results of which are due to be announced shortly. The White Paper made it clear we intend greater parity of treatment between manufacturing and service industries and to pay special attention to the needs of small firms. Other schemes of assistance are kept under regular review, not least in the context of the annual expenditure survey.
    Mr. Moynihan: I regret the recent moratorium, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is a reflection of the greater liquidity of British industry, and will he confirm that pump priming is of vital importance to any industrial strategy, and particularly to our industrial strategy at the present time?
    Mr. Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend. Pump priming is an excellent way of describing the Government's approach in these matters. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that the need for the moratorium on the support for innovation programmes has been occasioned entirely by the improving liquidity in British industry, which is causing companies to bring forward research and development proposals.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister make a statement on the recent National Economic Development Council report on information technology? Does he recognise that that industry will have 1,500 fewer graduates than it needs this year and 5,000 fewer than it will need in 1988? Is the Minister aware that the deficit in information technology goods will reach £800 million this year? What action will he take to ensure that this key strategic industry is encouraged in Britain?
    Mr. Pattie: I have read the report and discussed it with some of those who compiled it. The Government have already made their views clear. We believe that although there is a problem, the tone of the report is possibly unreasonably pessimistic. We are not complacent. The report possibly over-exaggerates the difficulties to have an effect.
    Mr. Stokes: When supporting the new industries, will my hon. Friend not forget the basic industries, such as the manufacturing and engineering industries in the midlands? Is he aware that what they want is not intervention but a fair crack of the whip?
    Mr. Pattie: I am sure that as long as my hon. Friend is in the House those industries will have a fair crack of the whip.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Minister realise that a written parliamentary answer is a furtive way of announcing a major change in Government policy? Does he appreciate that it is ridiuculous for the Government to introduce schemes for research and development support and then suddenly to withdraw them? Is he aware that that causes unfairness and uncertainty? Is that not a riduculous way to organise a relationship between Government and industry and to encourage the modernisation of important industries?
    Mr. Pattie: No, it is not. The right hon. Gentleman will remember from his days as Secretary of State for Trade that demand-led schemes may have to be stopped quickly for the simple and obvious reason that, if they are not stopped, many additional applications will be made in the intervening period.

    Paper and Board Industry
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current prospects for the United Kingdom paper and board industry.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I am pleased to see that the industry's production in 1984 is running well ahead of production in 1983. The industry's prospects should be helped by the growth in United Kingdom output next year, foreseen by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement last week.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in the paper and board industry and other energy-intensive industries about the possibility of too high an increase in industrial energy prices, particularly electricity? Will my hon. Friend pass on that expression of concern to his colleagues at the Department of Energy?
    Mr. Lamont: I shall draw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's attention to those comments. Prices for next year are a matter for the industries themselves. The external financing limits that have been announced are consistent with price increases at about the rate of inflation. My hon. Friend is familiar with the industry and he will know that coal accounts for 28 per cent. of the industry's energy consumption. What happens in the coal mines, the cost of coal and the consequences of the dispute are important for the industry.
    Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that the National Association of Paper Merchants has referred to

    283
    the first half of this year as a period of profitless prosperity? Is he aware that even the soft tissue industry is suffering? What steps will the Government take to prevent more closures of paper mills?
    Mr. Lamont: Production so far is 8 per cent. higher than it was a year ago. Between 1979 and 1983 the Government gave the industry regional assistance of over £130 million and selective assistance of about £25 million.
    The hon. Gentleman believes that people do not have confidence in the industry. I draw his attention to new investment. Thomas Tait and Son has a £22 million project to install a new fine paper machine near Aberdeen. Bowater has a £12 million project to increase capacity at Kemsley. Major projects from overseas are taking place. Consolidated Bathurst of Canada and UPM of Finland are investing here. When their mills are in production, the United Kingdom should be the second largest newsprint producer in the European Community. That does not indicate a lack of confidence.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: What does the Minister think will be the effect on the paper and board industry of the imposition of VAT on books and newspapers?
    Mr. Lamont: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am having consultations with representatives of the industry.

    Basildon (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Amessasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about his visit to Basildon.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): My right hon. Friend has not visited Basildon recently, but I am looking forward to doing so this Friday at my hon. Friend's invitation.
    Mr. Amess: We very much look forward to my right hon. Friend's visit on Friday. Is he aware of the increasing importance of Basildon as a growing centre of industry and commerce, as demonstrated by Essex county council holding its first business and industry exhibition in the area and the arrival of Access in the town, with 1,180 jobs, and of the substantial Alders department store?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the whole House will join him in welcoming rate-capping on Basildon, which will make it even more attractive to industry, as the burden of rates will be reduced. Indeed, there are signs that Basildon will become almost as attractive as Southend.
    Mr. Marlow: When my right hon. Friend visits Basildon, will he go into a branch of a clearing bank and get a British Telecom offer for sale document, from which he will notice that the clearing banks will take £3·25 for every £100 of shares taken by shareholders? Will he do something to prevent the clearing banks from taking that money?
    Mr. Channon: With respect to my hon. Friend, his question raises an issue which is not directly relevant to the question asked by our hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

    Tourism
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the reorganisation of the tourism infrastructure in England.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The rationalisation of the activities of the BTA and the ETB is now at an advanced stage. Mr. Duncan Bluck assumed the chairmanship of the ETB on 1 November. The majority of BTA and ETB staff are due to move to shared premises at Thames Tower, Hammersmith, on 2 January 1985. From that date all common services functions will be provided by a single organisational structure under the joint responsibility of the two chief executives. Some 60 per cent. of the boards' employees will be engaged in the merged common services organisation.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and give a warm welcome to the progress that has been made so far. Does he agree that the eventual aim should be to reinvigorate and strengthen the regional boards in England, with the objective of giving them powers and responsibilities akin to those of the successful boards in Wales and Scotland? Does he also agree that, to achieve that objective, it would be sensible to consider the redrawing of the boundaries of the boards, and perhaps reducing them in number, but not to make them conterminous with the economic development areas?
    Mr. Lamont: I shall consider my hon. Friend's point about the boundaries of the tourist boards. I agree that the objective should be to decentralise tourism, and I would like the regional tourist boards to do more. I have had a series of meetings with the chairman of the regional tourist boards to discuss precisely how that might be done. We are looking at a scheme whereby the ETB and the regional tourist boards would carry out joint promotion. That is the direction in which we wish to go.
    Mr. Heffer: As the Government have more or less destroyed the industrial base of Merseyside, and as the future is clearly laid down in relation to tourism, will the Minister talk to the person responsible to ensure that tourism is developed on Mersyside, which has great potential?
    Mr. Lamont: Many people apart from the Government have done a great deal of harm to industry on Merseyside. I agree that there is great potential for toursim on Merseyside. The support given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the international garden festival— which was opposed by some Opposition Members—gave a tremendous fillip to the city. I shall certainly hold further talks, because I believe that the potential of Merseyside is considerable.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Fallonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to announce the Government's conclusions on the report of the Matthews committee on the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    Mr. Channon: Sir Peter Matthews and his colleagues produced an excellent report, for which the Government were grateful. I fully share the committee's view that changes are needed to make ECGD more businesslike and

    285
    commercial, but I have desired that such changes do not require the Department to be turned into a public corporation, as the committee recommends.
    I have therefore put in hand a further quick review to investigate the scope for change within the present departmental framework to give effect to the Matthews committee's underlying objectives. The terms of reference for the review have been placed in the Library.
    I have also asked ECGD to discuss with the private sector the scope for increasing private sector involvement in support of United Kingdom exports, without detriment to ECGD's own risk portfolio.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also asked the Treasury and the Bank of England to examine with other interested parties the idea of a private sector export bank.
    Mr. Fallon: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those changes will make ECGD staff and management more businesslike? When does he expect the review to be completed? Who will undertake that review?
    Mr. Channon: The intention is to make the staff and management more businesslike. The review team will consist of management consultants from Coopers and Lybrand, together with representatives from the Treasury, the Manpower and Personnel Office and the ECGD. I hope that it will be a quick review. I think it will take about four months to complete.
    Mr. Wilson: I very much welcome the latter part of the Minister's answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the fact that United Kingdom exports have increased by only about 4 per cent. during the past five years? That is a disgracefully low figure compared with the increase in other European countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for a renewed thrust by the Government to help small exporters to go abroad and sell their wares, thus creating employment?
    Mr. Channon: I am strongly in favour of encouraging small exporters to get into the market for the first time. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said, although I am not sure that I accept his figure. I believe that our export performance is reasonably satisfactory.
    Mr. Wilson: No.
    Mr. Channon: I believe that it is. I shall do everything that I can to encourage people along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Dorrell: In considering the future of the ECGD and other public support to British exporters, will my right hon. Friend take special care to ensure that the support we give to our exporters is not only as good as the support available in competitor countries but, where possible, better?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. From discussions that I have had with British exporters, I have formed the strong impression that, compared with the other credit agencies, they feel that the ECGD and the British Overseas Trade Board give a good service to British exporters.

    Multi-fibre Arrangement
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give an indication of the timetable for preparations for the forthcoming negotiations on a new multi-fibre arrangement.
    Mr. Channon: The multi-fibre arrangement extends until 31 July 1986, and it is by that date that agreement on any successor regime must be reached. By July 1985, however, the textile committee of GATT has to consider whether the arrangement should be extended, modified or discontinued.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware that there is concern among British textile employers and trade unions about the fact that the Government are not representing the interests of British textiles with the same vigour as the Governments of our competitors represent their interests? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make a clear declaration that the British Government fully appreciate the crucial importance of any new MFA in helping British textiles to overcome unfair overseas competition?
    Mr. Channon: We certainly appreciate the important contribution which the textile and clothing industries make to the British economy. It is far too soon to come to a decision on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement. We shall have a special report on that matter and we hope to publish the report in early December. There is another question on the Order Paper about the multi-fibre arrangement. I shall be happy to have the views of the industry and the House on the report.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not too soon to come to an agreement that a new multi-fibre arrangement is essential if the expansion of the clothing and textile industry is to continue? The industry has just begun to recover. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the uncertainty of a future MFA or a successor to the current MFA, irreparable damage would be done to an industry which could do more than any other to solve the unemployment problem?
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I think he represents a view which is widely shared in the House and in the industry. I believe that we should await that report before deciding on its conclusions.
    Mr. James Lamond: Should the Minister not consider the fact that at present China is ploughing ahead with its plan to develop its textile industry, with the object of exporting as much as Europe's entire output? Should not that aspect be looked at urgently?
    Mr. Channon: Yes. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This year an agreement on textiles was made between China and the Community. I believe that the agreement was reasonably well received by the textile industry. Much effort went into trying to make it a satisfactory arrangement. These are difficult and important issues, which we all want to consider carefully. I take note of the views of the House.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the multi-fibre arrangement was intended as a transitional measure to enable Britain's textile industry to adjust to new trading conditions? In pursuit of our free trade principles, will he ensure that the arrangement ends when it was expected to end, in 1986? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Channon: It is not surprising that there are different views in different quarters of the House, and when the times comes we shall see where the different views lie. It is clear that there are differing views on the virtues of the arrangement. I can confirm that when the arrangement was made it was never intended to be a permanent measure. We should await Professor Silberston's report on the international textile and clothing trades, which will be available next month. When it is available we shall be able to take a balanced view on the issues that surround it.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister of State pay particular attention to the representations that are being made to him on the MFA by the Scottish Knitwear Council and others? Is he aware of the importance of some continued assistance and protection under the MFA for the hosiery industry in the border area of Scotland? Will he give us an assurance that there will be an early debate in the House on the subject as soon as the Silberston report is available?
    Mr. Channon: The arranging of a debate is not a matter for me, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The representations made by the Scottish knitwear industry will be taken fully into account, as will all the representations that are made to the Department. The hon. Gentleman's constituents were among those whom we did our utmost to help in the EEC-China agreement, which I hope and believe is satisfactory.
    Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite a succession of MFAs, many tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, especially in the knitwear and hosiery industries, which will never be restored? Will he assure the House that when he enters into negotiations for a new MFA there will be strict terms for third country imports?
    Mr. Channon: Before we decide the exact terms of a new MFA, if that is what it is to be, we should study the evidence—[Interruption.] I am not saying anything new to the House. We must await the report of Professor Silberston and then the House will have an opportunity to decide how it would like the Government to proceed in the negotiations when the arrangement expires. There are some encouraging signs that the textile and clothing industries are now doing better, and I am sure that the House welcomes that.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that to imply that there might not be a new arrangement, but some other device, will cause a great deal of worry throughout the textile and clothing industries? Surely the Minister should be able to tell the House that the Government's objective will be to obtain a new arrangement which caters for the problems of the British industry, without having to await the report of any professor?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that there will be any worry in the textile and clothing industries unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes around stirring it up. My right hon. Friend and I are in touch with the industries continually and there is no worry within them. No decision has been taken on what protection beyond 1986 might be appropriate for the British industry. I have made that plain in my original answer and in answers to supplementary questions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being
    288
    only too typical in trying to distort my answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr).

    Post Office Closures
    Mr. Wareingasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the Post Office's proposals on post office closures; what percentage has been unfavourable; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pattie: We have received many representations, all unfavourable, about the Post Office's proposals. We have explained to those who have written that proposals to close particular offices are an operational matter for the Post Office, and the Government have no power to intervene.
    Mr. Wareing: The Minister's answer was what I thought it would be. Is he aware that 775 retired pensioners in my constituency will lose the services of the Maiden lane sub-post office? On the whole these people do not own a car, nor do they have a bank account. Commercial criteria are not sufficient for dealing with these problems. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that there is further consultation with those in the area and in other areas? Will he ensure also that there is a stay of execution until there is proper consultation between the Post Office and those whom the Post Office is there to serve?
    Mr. Pattie: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman attended a meeting with the chairman of the north-west region of the Post Office, to which other hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies were invited. I understand that the chairman undertook to review the Maiden lane matter and to report back urgently. However, I must repeat that particular closures are operational matters for the Post Office. The criteria are long standing and have operated for many years. The criteria for the distances between post offices in urban areas have operated for a long time.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that because the Post Office is a nationalised monopoly it is far from operating for the convenience of its consumers? Why cannot more competition be introduced? For example, why cannot postage stamps be sold more widely than in post offices, thus avoiding many of the difficulties caused by the closure of sub-post offices?
    Mr. Pattie: I note what my hon. Friend says. I think he will accept that at present, with the Post Office counter service under stress because of the strike at the Department of Health and Social Security office, I would not wish to entertain such suggestions.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was disappointing? He seems to have no understanding of the real difficulties that will be caused to pensioners and many others. Examples in my constituency are the Old Trafford and Moss lane post offices. There is a feeling that the Post Office has not given adequate consideration to people's needs in those areas. Will the Minister consider the matter once again?
    Mr. Pattie: It is not for me to consider the matter once again. The hon. Gentleman should see the chairman of the Post Office. I am sure that the chairman would be happy

    289
    to see him. He should make representations to the chairman on what is an operational matter for the Post Office Board.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the post office is nearly always the focal point of any village? Despite what he has already said, will he use his undoubted influence and residual powers to impress on the Post Office Board that the more post offices are retained in villages, the less chance there is that the villages will wither away?
    Mr. Pattie: The exchanges in the House will be noted by the chairman of the Post Office, and I am glad to add what my hon. Friend describes as my "residual powers" to bring the matter further to the attention of the chairman.
    Mr. Williams: In his initial reply the Minister mentioned the deep concern of the public. Will he confirm that that concern is expressed particularly on behalf of pensioners and the disabled? He said that he had no powers to stop the Post Office doing what it intends to do, but will he, in his sponsoring role, immediately consult the chairman of the Post Office and express his concern, or are he and the Government utterly insensitive to the needs of the least mobile groups in our society?
    Mr. Pattie: Of course, that is not so. I have had frequent discussions with the chairman of the Post Office Board on that and other matters. The closure programme has been halted, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, because of the additional difficulties caused by the DHSS dispute at Newcastle.

    European Community (Trading Restrictions)
    Mr. Alan Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made on the removal of restrictions on trade in services within the Community.
    Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friends and I continue to press in the Council for the liberalisation of services in the Community. Progress so far has been disappointingly slow, but we shall continue to press the case as hard as possible.
    Mr. Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts, but does he agree that one of the principal reasons why the economic strength of the United States of America has outstripped that of Europe is that for the past 200 years the United States has been a common market? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the way forward for Europe lies not in increased expenditure and bureaucracy but in removing the internal barriers to a true common market so that, for example, in future, Frenchmen, Germans and Italians will be able to buy British insurance, as we can buy theirs?
    Mr. Channon: Absolutely I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The issue goes far wider than just the point about insurance raised by my hon. Friend. It is a major priority for the British Government and the British people that the Community should function as an internal market, as a real market, so that British goods and services can flow freely. We would therefore save vast sums of money that are wasted at present. The insurance situation is disappointing at present. We are continuing to press other Community Governments and there are cases pending. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the matter.
    Mr. Gould: To say that progress is disappointingly slow is a gross understatement. It has been outrageously and unacceptably slow. At a time when our trade in manufactured goods is running at an annual deficit of £10,000 million, is it not time that the Minister insisted that we have the opportunity to trade in those areas in which there is at least some chance of making good that deficit?
    Mr. Channon: With respect, that is a bit rich from an hon. Member whose party opposed the Common Market at almost every stage. It is monstrous for the hon. Gentleman to imply that if he had been in office he would have made the Common Market work better. The whole world knows that that is absolute rot.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Freemanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further steps he proposes to take to encourage the level of research and development expenditure by the private sector.
    Mr. Pattie: As I announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) on 12 November, my Department is carrying out a review of our support for industrial research and development. The review will be completed within five months, when I shall announce the conclusions.
    Mr. Freeman: Will my hon. Friend discuss with his colleagues in the Government the merits of requiring a fixed minimum of the Government's research and development budget to be spent through small firms? Is he aware that that is the practice under federal law in the United States and is still the practice of the Ministry of Defence in this country? Does he agree that small firms are the engines of growth and job creation and are often more innovative than large firms in research and development?
    Mr. Pattie: I agree that there is much to commend small firms. On a point of detail, however, unless things have changed dramatically in the seven weeks since I left the Ministry of Defence, there is no positive discrimination in favour of small companies, according to rules. I remain unconvinced that the cause of small firms would be enhanced by an almost legislative framework positively requiring that funds go to smaller companies. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend raises an important question and I shall be happy to discuss it further with him.
    Dr. McDonald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that the future for jobs lies in high technology rather than with the Chancellor's view that the future lies in the low technology sector? If so, will he give priority to encouraging research and development in high technology and, especially, information technology?
    Mr. Pattie: I think that the answer lies with both my right hon. Friends.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that expenditure on research and development—I emphasise development as well as research— in both the private sector and the public sector falls lamentably short of that of our major industrial competitors in Germany, Japan and America? Are the Government worried about that, and if so what are they doing about it?
    Mr. Pattie: The total spending on research and development in the United Kingdom is quite considerable, but it is a matter of some anxiety whether all of it is focused and organised in the best possible way. The Ministry of Defence, of course, has a sizeable share of that spending.
    Mr. Forman: Does my hon. Friend accept that research and development expenditure in the private sector can be greatly assisted by an intelligent public procurement policy?
    Mr. Pattie: Yes, and that is exactly the policy that we seek to follow.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that it is no use just coming to the Dispatch Box and voicing anxiety about the Government's grossly distorted spending on research and development for defence purposes? Is he aware that Government support for research and development in non-aerospace and non-defence related industries is under half that of our major competitors? What does he intend to do to rectify that?
    Mr. Pattie: The proportion of the overall research budget spent for military purposes is similar to that which prevailed under the Labour Government. Precisely the same considerations obtain. We shall endeavour to ensure that efforts in research, advanced research and pre-competitive research such as the Alvey programme are properly focused, co-ordinated and organised. That is the real answer.

    European Community (Frontier Posts)
    Mr. Maudeasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in establishing a common opening time for adjacent frontier posts in the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Channon: I am glad to say all member states have agreed to implement the frontier facilitation directive from 1 January 1985. This requires customs posts at all major frontier crossings to be opened for a common core time of 10 hours every working day.
    Mr. Maude: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving that result. Can he assure the House that this will end the frustration suffered by both holidaymakers and hauliers because of the difficulties that they have encountered in getting through customs posts within EEC?
    Mr. Channon: The change will affect hauliers in particular. Lorries will be able to get through much more quickly. In the past it has sometimes happened that a lorry has passed one border post and found that the next frontier was closed. The total cost to industry of frontier crossings in the Community is currently about £500 million. The directive will bring about a useful reduction, and it is to be welcomed.

    Debt Crises (Credit)
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is in a position to authorise more credit for those countries which are successfully emerging from their debt crises.
    Mr. Channon: I hope to be able to announce shortly that, for debtor countries which are rescheduling their debts, the Export Credits Guarantee Department will, in
    292
    appropriate cases, maintain cover or resume it at an earlier stage than hitherto to support credit for goods which would contribute to the economic recovery of the debtor country.
    Mr. Yeo: While it is essential to avoid providing irresponsible credit, which would only increase the risk of future defaults by developing countries, is it not very much in the interests of British exporters that adequate credit be provided to countries which are taking steps to emerge from their debt crisis?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. We have such considerations in mind, and I hope shortly to be able to announce to the House in further detail what we propose to do. Both the considerations that my hon. Friend has mentioned are important. We must avoid further irresponsible lending which would put our credit insurers at greater risk, but we must also encourage British exporters by giving adequate credit in markets which are recovering.
    Mr. Silvester: Bearing in mind the Minister's earlier remarks about the Export Credits Guarantee Department, will he confirm that he intends, not to impose a profit target on the department, but to maintain the objective of breaking even, taking one year with another?
    Mr. Channon: The intention is to retain the target of breaking even. It is always difficult to achieve both our targets, because the second target is to promote British exports, and so the two are very often in contradiction
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the question is about debt crises.
    Mr. John Smith: I welcome the Minister's remarks about the action that the ECGD will take in relation to certain countries with a debt crisis. Has not the time come for the Government, in association with other Western Governments, to take a much more imaginative eacl in trying to find an international solution to the problem of the debtor countries? We need a much more imaginative approach than the Government have been prepared to display so far in international forums.
    Mr. Channon: I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He raises very wide considerations which are mainly within the province of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall certainly ensure that they are conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

    Middle East (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Coombsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the recent visit to the middle east by the Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
    Mr. Channon: I visited Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to reinforce British business efforts there. In Saudi Arabia, for some of the time, I was accompanied by a team of senior British business men. These markets account for British exports worth over £2 billion a year. The Ministers whom I met are keen to see an expanding trade relationship with Britain. These are markets which we must pursue vigorously.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the middle east remains a most important area for British trade? Is he satisfied that the quality of the help given by

    293
    the Government to traders in that area is as high as it could be, and are there any new initiatives in that area about which he can inform us?
    Mr. Channon: The middle east is indeed an extremely important market for the United Kingdom, and business men seem to be satisfied with what the Government are doing to help. I believe that the credit arrangements are reasonably satisfactory. When I went to Iraq I was able to announce a further line of credit of some £250 million to £300 million, which, combined with the credit that we offered last year, will afford British exporters the opportunity to export up to £600 million to what I believe to be a very important market.

    Aircraft and Shipbuilding (Nationalisation Compensation)
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government intend to pay any further sums for compensation to former owners of aircraft and shipbuilding assets nationalised under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977.
    Mr. Pattie: No, Sir. The Government's policy remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry on 7 August 1980.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that earlier this year the European Commission of Human Rights decided that all seven cases that it had considered were admissible to the Strasbourg court? Is it still the view of his Department, as expressed by the then Secretary of State, that compensation terms payable under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 were in many cases grossly unfair? Should not a Conservative Government be more concerned with property rights and preserving them than with worrying about a little bit of legislation which will be required to right this wrong?
    Mr. Pattie: The Commission found that there had been no breach of the United Kingdom's obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights' first protocol and it has referred the matter to the court for an authoritative further ruling. I recognise my hon. Friend's anxiety on this matter. This is an important issue, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps I might quote, I hope not too extensively, what my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State said on 7 August 1980:
    "We recognise that some previous owners and many members of this House and of the public believe that the terms of compensation imposed by the 1977 Act were grossly unfair to some of the companies and we share this view. We have explored every possibility to right the injustice done by the previous Government, but to our very great regret we have concluded that amending legislation to establish new compensation terms retrospectively would be unjust to the many people who sold shares on the basis of the previous terms."—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 290.]

    British Steel Corporation
    Mr. Hickmetasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take into account the effect of the coal strike upon the British Steel Corporation's target of achieving viability by December 1985 when considering the future capital investment programme and external financing limits of the corporation.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Steel Corporation's half year figures show that despite the National Union of Mineworkers' attempt to sabotage BSC at a cost of £100 million, much of which has been incurred in my constituency, the corporation has nevertheless shown a significant improvement in its competitive and productive performance? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when fixing external financing limits, that the cost of the miners' strike should not be paid for by a cut in the corporation's capital investment programme? Moreover, if the corporation is to maintain and sustain viability, it is essential that, at tomorrow's meeting of the European Council of Ministers, my hon. Friend presses for an increase in the quota share in real terms and percentage terms for BSC. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance in that regard?
    Mr. Lamont: I can assure my hon. Friend that at tomorrow's meeting of the Steel Council I shall press the problems about quotas to which he has referred. I had a meeting with BSC yesterday to agree the line that we will take. The signs are that the EFL will need to be increased once the strike is over. When the additional costs are known, we shall consider the matter. The real danger associated with cutting investment and in closing plants comes not from the Government but from Opposition Members who have supported the miners' strike. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is remarkable that BSC is making as much steel—in some cases more steel—than before the miners' strike. That is a remarkable tribute to the determination and courage of those who work in BSC.
    Mr. Ewing: In regard to the capital investment programme, will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that when the programme is decided Ravenscraig will receive its fair share? When is the Minister likely to make a decision about the much-needed investment for the renewal of coke ovens at Ravenscraig?
    Mr. Lamont: A decision on the latter point depends considerably on the end of the miners' strike. As we have told the House, and agreed with the chairman of BSC, we cannot draw up a sensible plan until we know precisely what the position is as regards the miners' strike. I cannot give any guarantees about anything, but the hon. Gentleman knows that, with regard to Ravenscraig, which is of great interest, circumstances are exactly as they have always been stated to the House.
    Mr. Caborn: Is the miners' strike the reason for not announcing the Government's proposals for Phoenix II? If not, will the Minister say what are the reasons for the delay?
    Mr. Lamont: The miners' strike is not the reason. I know that this matter is of great interest to the hon. Member, but only in the past few days have we received final proposals from the companies involved. We are studying them now.
    Mr. John Smith: Following the Minister's answer in relation to investment in Ravenscraig, is he aware of the worry that has arisen from the fact that documents have been published showing that the British Steel Corporation does not intend to find the finance to replace the coke ovens at Ravenscraig, without which it is hard to envisage a viable future for the plant? Does he agree that it is highly desirable that the investment is found for the coke ovens as an essential part of the continuation of the plant?
    Mr. Lamont: I have read press reports about those documents and know that some hon. Members have discussed them with the chairman of the corporation. Those proposals have not been put to us, and the position is as I described it.

    Post Office
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in setting financial performance targets for the Post Office, he takes account of its social responsibility to provide necessary services and facilities to the community.
    Mr. Pattie: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not a matter of regret that, while some Crown Post Offices, such as the one in Newark, have queues stretching into the street and that it takes almost 40 minutes to buy a book of stamps, there are proposals to close sub-post offices? Is it not a fact that the elderly and the handicapped rely on sub-post offices? Should it not be a matter of social policy that they are retained, or are those people to join the ever-burgeoning queues outside Crown post offices?
    Mr. Pattie: As I said in my earlier answer, the queues in post offices and sub-post offices will have affected almost every hon. Member, and I am no exception in that regard. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the Post Office Corporation, which led him to decide that there should be this moratorium on any further closures, certainly while the Department of Health and Social Security dispute continues.
    I repeat to the House that the criteria under which the Post Office Corporation has long operated have been re-examined, especially the operation of the "one mile apart" criterion for post offices in urban areas. As I said in my first answer, post offices supply social needs, and we are satisfied that the Post Office Board has been able to balance the financial and managerial criteria with those of social need.
    Mr. Fatchett: When the Minister replied to his hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), was he saying that he had taken into account the Post Offices' social responsibilities in setting financial targets? Is it not also the case that the Minister has a responsibility to take account of the interests of, for example, the elderly in my constituency who will lose the service of a valued sub-post office? Is it not the case that his earlier answers were simply an exercise in handwashing and show that he is not prepared to meet the Government's responsibilities to look after those who depend on the services of the Post Office?
    Mr. Pattie: That is not the case. The Government's responsibilities are to set the financial framework and to make certain that the Post Office is aware of its social responsibilities. How the Post Office meets those needs in relation to one sub-post office or another is a matter entirely for the Post Office Board.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the arbitrary way in which post offices and sub-post offices are closed has a detrimental effect on the elderly and the disabled? His residual power must cover that point. Will he press the matter with the Post Office?
    Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend will be aware that representations made either by post or in the House are drawn to the attention of the chairman of the Post Office. I am certain that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted in that quarter.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister accept that it is the Government's own financial targets that are the underlying cause of the programme of closures of sub-post offices? Does he also accept that most people recognise that that is the case, and that closure has much more to do with sharing the misery doled out by the Government than the rationalisation programme of post offices? In view of the deep public anxiety about the long and short-term future of the Post Office, will the Minister use his best influence to ensure that the matter is debated on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Pattie: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would know by now that what is debated on the Floor of the House is not a matter for me. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard what he has just said. The hon. Gentleman asserted that it is the setting of the Government's targets that has caused this. That is not the case, because the Post Office, like all state-owned undertakings, needs a framework of proper commercial and managerial efficiency within which it can operate—the same as any other undertaking.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the consultation procedure which is always supposed to follow a proposed post office closure is seen by the public as no more than a device for handling a decision which has been taken and will not be changed?
    Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend is making an assertion about what the public may think. The Post Office chairman and his board colleagues take seriously the consultation process, although the events may not always turn out as my hon. Friend's constituents may wish.

UNESCO (United Kingdom Membership)
3.30 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
"the decision regarding the United Kingdom's membership of UNESCO."
This subject is clearly a matter that falls squarely within the criteria of the Standing Order. There is no doubt that the decision whether to remain a member of the organisation is specific and within the Government's responsibility. It is difficult to over-stress the importance of the decision, which will be a clear signal of our foreign policy orientation—whether we respect the views of the Commonwealth, our European partners and the Third world generally, or whether we are, indeed, the Trojan horse of the United States of America—Mr. Reagan's poodle— in our external relations. Other examples abound— Grenada, the law of the sea signature and general policy towards central America.
It is common knowledge that Mrs. Jean Gerard, the United States Ambassador to UNESCO, has been lobbying hard for European support for the United States position, including a visit to the Prime Minister. Hence the emergency meeting last Thursday of all the heads of mission of the Commonwealth countries in London and the crisis letter to the Foreign Secretary which resulted; the fact that those same heads of mission will be raising the matter with the Foreign Secretary when they meet him at 5 o'clock this afternoon; and that yesterday in Brussels our European partners made it clear to the Foreign Office that they will not follow our lead.
Our European partners acknowledge that there are substantial faults within the organisation, but, essentially, they press for reform from within and fear that the reform movement will be stalled if we withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must make out a case as to why this matter is urgent, specific and important and not go into the detail of the speech that he might make if the application were granted.
Mr. Anderson: Of course, I do not go into the merits of the matter, Mr. Speaker. I was repeating the views of our European partners. Having touched upon the specific nature of the request and the importance of the matter, I deal finally with the urgency. Apart from today's meeting of the Foreign Secretary and the high commissioners of Commonwealth countries in London, it is clear that the Government are on the brink of a decision. Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister's fiery and hostile response to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Before reaching a decision of this importance, the Government should provide an opportunity for the House to express a view.
In short, the House should have an opportunity to pull the Government back from an impulsive, defeatist, incompetent and wrong decision—from what we believe to be a historic error.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely
"the decision regarding the United Kingdom's membership of UNESCO".
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

UNESCO (United Kingdom Membership)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Andy Stewart

  Mr. Tom Cox

  Mr. A. J. Beith

Orders of the Day

  Civil Aviation Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short Bill with three very limited purposes. I had expected that it would even be non-controversial. However, one of its purposes has aroused considerable controversy and it might be best if I discuss the other two issues briefly and spend most of my time on the question of limiting air transport movements. I fear that that involves taking the clauses back to front.
  Clause 5 provides for the writing down of the Civil Aviation Authority's debt to the national loans fund by the difference between the proceeds from the sale of its Scottish aerodromes and their book values. This will be less than £6 million. The Government transferred the aerodromes to the CAA in 1972, when they were valued, not at market values, but at higher figures based on the assumption that the CAA would continue to own and operate them and that losses would be met by subsidies. The CAA has continued to value them, and subsequent investment, on this basis, depreciating them over their estimated useful lives. As a result the current book values are substantially higher than the probable net proceeds.
  Faster depreciation would have produced book values closer to market worth, but this would have meant larger deficits and subsidies. lh view of this close relationship between book values and subsidies, the write down amounts to a rationalisation of the subsidy. New operators will buy the aerodromes at market values and will thus have lower financing costs and require smaller subsidies.
  Mr. Stephen Ross rose—
  Mr. Alfred Morris rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I shall be happy to give way to both the right hon. Member and the hon. Member.
  Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave and widespread disquiet about the timing of the Bill? It is seen as a softener for a decision on Stansted, on which I hope he will say a word. Is he also aware of the concern that it further prevents a comprehensive review of airports policy? Is it not time that there was an end to ad hoc policy making?
  Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am now talking about later clauses in the Bill, which I wish to dispose of quickly before coming to the main burden of the legislation. I shall answer his points then.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman bring us up to date on how far he has got with the sale of CAA airports in Scotland? Are there any buyers? Is it true that the British Airports Authority wishes to buy Sumburgh?
  Mr. Ridley: There are various possibilities. It is possible that some of these airports may be sold before the
  300
  Bill becomes law. A provision to cater for that possibility is contained in the Bill. There is a considerable amount of interest, though no deals have been done so far.
  In addition, we expect that the privatisation of the Scottish airports will bring savings from efficiency improvements. We expect that new operators will reappraise the way in which aerodromes meet the needs of the remote communities which they serve, and meet those needs at lower costs. In some cases it may be possible for the aerodromes to be operated without subsidy.
  Clauses 3 and 4 cover the second issue. In its past licensing decisions the CAA has frequently been able to take full account of airports considerations. Recently its decisions have reflected the impending imposition of the limit on air transport movements at Heathrow, but the 1982 Act made it difficult for the authority to take the effective use of airports into account when it regarded that as inconsistent with its other duties under the Act.
  Clause 4(1)(b) amends section 68(1) of the 1982 Act so that the CAA is given a clear duty, along with its others, to secure the most effective use of airports in the United Kingdom, rather than, as is currently the case, simply being required to have regard to that. Clause 4(1)(c) places a fresh duty on the CAA to facilitate, in its licensing decisions, compliance with any limits imposed on air transport movements under clauses 1 and 2.
  Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend knows my views about the Bill, so I shall not weary him with them, but I direct his attention to clause 3. Are we to assume that the reference to
  "effective use of aerodromes within the United Kingdom"
  means just those at present owned by the CAA, or will it apply to those which it might acquire in the future?
  Mr. Ridley: I have not had an opportunity to check this, but I think that it refers to aerodromes owned by the British Airports Authority—not the CAA—and not to any others.
  Clause 3 gives me reserve power to direct the CAA in cases where I believe that airports policy considerations should be given greater weight in a licensing decision. At present I cannot do so.
  Clauses 1 and 2 provide me with powers to limit aircraft movements at aerodromes. These powers are needed in relation to our current problem at Heathrow, and it is in respect of Heathrow that I currently seek to justify them.
  I cannot go further in defining airports policy, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked me to do, because, as we are all aware, we await the inspector's report on the future of Stansted and the decisions which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I will have to take upon that. Following that report, those decisions will determine airports policy and the future provision of airport capacity in south-east England.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: If we are awaiting the outcome of this inquiry into Stansted, why did my right hon. Friend not await it before introducing the Bill?
  Mr. Ridley: If my hon. Friend will allow me to complete my remarks, he will discover that I shall be answering his question in the course of them.
  These decisions will be major and important ones, but they are decisions for the future, and the Bill does not

  301
  affect them in the least. It will be necessary to have the powers in the Bill to control movements at Heathrow, whatever decision is taken about the future of Stansted.
  I wish to emphasise that. Whatever long-term decisions are taken about airport capacity in the south-east, it will be necessary to have powers to limit the take-offs and landings of aircraft at Heathrow in the near future. In 1979 the Government gave a pledge that air transport movements at Heathrow would be limited to 275,000 movements a year. We would be wrong to go back on that pledge, first, because those who live around Heathrow expect us to honour it. It seems straightforward to me that a pledge should be honoured. It is they who have suffered the noise and disturbance and we are right to seek to limit it for their sakes.
  Secondly, we have given evidence to the inspector at the Stansted inquiry that we intend to impose the limit. To fail to do so would be to prejudice that inquiry. If we did not proceed with the limit, that would contradict the evidence that we put forward to the inspector.
  Mr. Robert McCrindle rose—
  Mr. Ridley: Let me put the argument first and then I shall give way.
  That could lead to the reopening of the inquiry and a further substantial delay before a decision is taken. That would not be in anybody's interest.
  There is no deep-seated plot here to box ourselves into a position where we have to develop Stansted. We have made it clear since 1979 that that limit would be imposed on environmental grounds. The House has known that since 1979. The Government have repeatedly told the House that they intend to implement the limit. We published a consultation document in July this year which made it clear that we intended to do so. There can be no question of a plot. We have been entirely open about this ever since 1979.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the undertaking on the movements at Heathrow was endorsed on 22 February 1984 in Hansard, at column 948, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), said that it would be in response to my speech that the undertaking would be honoured. That was as recently as 1984, not 1979.
  Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that when a Government give a firm and unequivocal pledge of that sort it behoves them to seek to implement it by presenting legislation to the House. Those of my hon. Friends who differ from that must think of the consequences to those hon. Members who live and represent seats around Heathrow. They would have to explain a breach of that pledge to their constituents.
  Mr. Rob Hayward: My right hon. Friend says that the House has always known that the pledge has been given, but the pledge was not given to the House. The then Secretary of State for Trade said on 17 December 1979:
  "The details of this decision are being announced separately today and will include certain restrictions".
  The announcement was actually made in a press notice. It was never made to the House.
  Mr. Ridley: That does not alter the nature of the pledge.
  Mr. McCrindle rose—
  Mr. Ridley: We had better have a surgery.
  Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some hon. Members would concede that an undertaking has been given? Some of us would equally concede that that undertaking was repeated to the Stansted inspector. Will he, in turn, concede that there was an additional part to the undertaking that there should be a review? Why, rather than press ahead with the legislation now, should we not have the review, and if the situation remains as it was, by all means proceed with the legislation?
  Mr. Ridley: I was coming to that point, but I shall give my hon. Friend the answer now, because it is important. At the time that the pledge was given in response to a planning decision it was stated that it was known that quieter aircraft would come in at the beginning of 1986 and that the limit was fixed at 275,000—I paraphrase—on the basis that those quieter aircraft would be in place at that time. That was the situation that was contemplated when the limit was first set. The review clearly related to the situation after some experience of the limit had been achieved. Nothing has changed that since then.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Churchill rose—
  Mr. Ridley: I have given way several times and I should like to continue.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that there can be a point of order about the fact that the Minister is not giving way. The Minister gives way as he wishes; I cannot intervene in that.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is for you and not for the Minister. The Secretary of State has given way eight times to Conservative Back Benchers. Surely courtesy requires that he should give way at least once to an Opposition Back Bencher.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not the arbiter of courtesy.
  Mr. Ridley: We were not able to fit the Bill into last year's crowded Session. We must have the scheme in place before next June, when the international scheduling conference of IATA will meet to allocate slots at about 50 of the world's most important airports. Without the information about the scheme in the Bill, the conference will not be able to do its job properly. If we work back from June, the time scale requires us to get the Bill started now.
  Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I think that I should be allowed to make some points. I shall give way to my hon. Friend later.
  Even if I broke the Government's pledge to implement the limit of 275,000 air traffic movements at Heathrow, that would not make the Stansted application and inquiry go away. I do not say that we propose to do that, but, either way, we need the powers.
  Our commitment on 275,000 ATMs does not constrain the Stansted inspector in any way. If he wishes, he can

  303
  quarrel with our pledge and recommend a higher or lower limit. Many who have given evidence to the inquiry have urged him to do so. I have no idea what he will say, because I have not received his report, but he is not constrained in his recommendations. We shall have to take any recommendations that he makes into account when reaching our decision.
  However, as I have said, there are further reasons for the powers in the Bill. Heathrow is running out of runway capacity. Even if there were no environmental limit, there would still be a physical limit on its capacity. I am sure that hon. Members with greater knowledge than I will argue that it is possible to accommodate, say, 330,000 movements, but the House should note that there are already 20,000 movements—positioning flights, air taxi and business aviation flights—which are excluded from the limit, but which take up physical capacity.
  Hon. Members seem to hope that the problem at Heathrow will somehow just go away. I must tell them that it will not. There are already limits at the peak times of the year and the peak times of the day. The growth of traffic is such that it will not be long before there are problems with annual capacity. In addition, it will not be too long before Gatwick also runs into capacity problems. Therefore, we must have powers to limit movements at airports in general and at Heathrow in particular.
  Mr. Churchill: Where does the arbitrary figure of 275,000 come from? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Los Angeles airport handles 165,000 more movements than his intended limit and that O'Hare airport at Chicago handles 205,000 movements above his intended limit?
  Mr. Ridley: The number comes from the pledge given by the Government to people living near Heathrow that that would he the limit. I am not responsible for what happens in Chicago. I do not know the conditions there and it is nothing to do with me. When the Government have given a pledge, it is not right for my hon. Friend to say, now that it does not seem to suit his purpose, "Go back on your pledge. Sweep it away."
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Secretary of State keeps to his 275,000 movement limit, what protection will he give to small regional airports, such as Carlisle airport, which will, in effect, close if they lose their access to Heathrow? Unless those airports can retain that movement of traffic, there will be no future for them. The right hon. Gentleman should be outlining the methods that he will use to secure the future of airports such as that at Carlisle.
  Mr. Ridley: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If he had been more patient he would have heard me explain how the interests of such airlines will be protected. I have no quarrel with his basic premise.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I shall, but then I shall proceed without interruption.
  Mr. Wells: My right hon. Friend has been patient. I agree that the Government must seek to keep their pledge and I commend my right hon. Friend for doing that. The Stansted inquiry and the possible opening of a fifth terminal implies that the limit can be extended, lifted or increased. Will the Secretary of State have power to
  304
  increase that limit if the Stansted inquiry results in the Government accepting a recommendation to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow?
  Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend about the two hypotheses. If the inquiry results in the suggestion that there should be an alteration in the limit, and if the Government agree with that., it will be possible under the Bill to lift the limit. The House would then have to judge whether the Government were entitled to change their mind and go back on their pledge. The Bill contains powers for the limit to be set at any level needed. The limit is not specified in the Bill.
  It is clear that hon. Members want to look beyond this minor, technical Bill to consider airports policy in a wider context. I cannot contribute to the debate, because if I express my views that will prejudice my position when I eventually have to make a decision on the Stansted report. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that.
  The Government have accepted legal advice that it will be necessary to publish the inspector's report on Star sled before privatising British Airways early in 1985. We have not yet received the report, but when we do we intend to publish it, although there will be a short delay while it is being printed.
  The House will wish to express its view and to discuss the major issue of airports policy in general when it has seen the report. This will be a major departure from normal practice in relation to a plar.ning inquiry. The House has always accepted that such reports should be published at the same time as a Minister's decisions. We propose early publication in this case because of the relationship with the British Airways prospectus. For the reason that I have given, this is an exceptional case and will not create a precedent for planning or any other inquiries. Ministers will listen, no doubt with rapt attention, to the views of the House, but their lips will be sealed, because they must not prejudice their eventual decision.
  Such issues are for the future. I must deal with the unglamorous Bill and the need to control an excess of demand over supply at a particular airport. Whatever the decision resulting from the Stansted and Heathrow fifth terminal inquiry, we need the powers in the Bill, whether we are to limit movements at Heathrow to 275,000 a year, or whether we are to limit movements only to the physical capacity of the airport. I repeat that we are committed to impose the environmental limit, and I hope that nobody is seriously suggesting that we should break that commitment.
  It will be suggested that we should review the limit before it is imposed. It has been pointed out that the decision letter on BAA's application to build terminal 4 at Heathrow, which committed the Government to the air transport movement limit, mentioned that the limit would be subject to review and that aircraft are now much quieter than when the commitment was made in 1979. However, the Government set the limit in the full knowledge that noisier aircraft would be banned in 1986. So the fact that noise levels have fallen in line with expectations, as airlines have re-equipped with quieter aircraft in preparation for the forthcoming bans, was anticipated and is not an argument for scrapping or reviewing the limit now.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I remind my right hon. Friend that when the so-called pledge was

  305
  made the Government undertook that the limitation on air transport movements would be subject to review in the light of progress on the prohibition of noisier aircraft and the introduction of quieter aircraft. No review has yet been undertaken. Why are the Government only halfheartedly carrying out their pledge? Is it not strange that just at the time when T4 is coming into operation, with all the additional passenger-handling capacity, and when the statutory noise regulations have been imposed, an arbitrary limit should be imposed on bases which are already out of date?
  Mr. Ridley: I answered that question once directly to my right hon. Friend and then again a few moments ago. I shall answer it a third time, because I do not want to be accused of a lack of patience. At the time that the pledge was given, in response to a planning inquiry—which, which, therefore, makes it a matter of some status before the present Stansted inquiry—it was based on the knowledge that aircraft would be quieter and on the fact that any review should be after there had been some experience of the operation of the limit. Those circumstances have not yet occurred.
  All sorts of changes may be made to what is appropriate for the future in the light of the Stansted report, because of decisions by the House or because of who knows what. However, at this time we need the power to impose whatever limit may be necessary—whether an environmental or physical limit—and I have said that many times. Nothing that has happened so far causes us to review the limit at this time.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way on a technical point? I assure him that I shall not intervene again.
  Mr. Ridley: Very well.
  Mr. Steen: Why is the 275,000 movement limit so important to my right hon. Friend when there are 20,500 additional movements—the general aviation movements—of which 15,000 are of noisy jets? Some of them are noisier than many of the quiet aircraft now flying into Heathrow. How can my righ hon. Friend exclude 15,000 noisy jets?
  Mr. Ridley: I have already answered that point. I have been tolerant of hon. Members asking questions about matters to which I am about to come, and I hope to be equally tolerant towards those who ask questions about something that I have said.
  The figures quoted by my hon. Friend make the figures worse, not better. They mean that on top of the existing 275,000 there are already another 20,500 movements which contribute to the noise and disturbance around Heathrow. That means that the tolerable limit set at 275,000 may be more onerous on the inhabitants of that area, as some of my hon. Friends have already said. However, all those facts were known when the pledge was given.
  I want to say a word about how the limit might be implemented. We issued a consultation document in July about how it should be done. We indicated then that the Government favoured the maximum use of pricing mechanisms to limit demand, although some regulatory action might be needed. One option might be to raise
  306
  landing fees, on the assumption that the airlines prepared to pay the most for slots would be those that would make the most productive use of them. However, we believe that landing charges would have to be more than doubled to produce a significant reduction in demand, since they form a relatively small proportion of an airline's operating costs. That would be very hard on small airlines and commuter airlines, which have a part to play. Another method, which would have the advantage of matching supply and demand exactly, would be to auction take-off and landing slots. A futher possibility would be to allocate slots to existing users of them and then allow airlines to trade slots among themselves.
  A number of measures for excluding or restricting services were also described in the document. Small aircraft below a certain seating capacity might, for instance, be excluded. Another possibility was the exclusion of all cargo services. An alternative to excluding categories of traffic was the exclusion of services to particular destinations. The consultation document suggested that the most suitable services for transfer would be those with a low interlining content and which, therefore, carry a high proportion of passengers who, unless their destination or point of departure is close to Heathrow, could generally use another London airport without any serious loss of convenience.
  Another option—which was favoured by a number of those responding to the consultation document—would be to restrict the number of daily flights on the densest routes. In doing that, passengers' interlining opportunities at Heathrow would be substantially preserved while other London airports would stand to gain services to some of the most important domestic and European destinations.
  I have received a large number of responses from airlines, airport authorities, amenity groups and other interested organisations. Strangely, in view of the great interest in the Bill, there has been virtually no response from hon. Members. I very much want to hear their views. I hope that this debate will be an opportunity for them to express their views. I have reached no decisions on which measures might be employed to implement the limit.
  The powers in the Bill will enable me to adopt any of the measures outlined above. As I said, I want to hear the views of the House on these matters. The particular measures which will need to be taken will depend on the size of the excess demand. We clearly would not wish to take measures which would restrict demand unless it is necessary to do so. Our perception of the likely excess demand changes over time. At present it seems likely that, with the discontinuation of the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link, air transport movements will be only slightly above the limit by the time it is introduced next year.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend pay special heed to the views of the smaller regional airports such as Humberside, to which landing slots are precious? They are concerned that if the BAA is allowed to consider commercial criteria alone the small airlines—some of which have only 36-seat aircraft—will be frozen out.
  Mr. Ridley: I have already responded to that point, which was made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I have more to say on that matter, but would like to do so in my own time.

  307
  The Bill provides for the BAA to prepare a scheme for the implementation of the limit. In directing the BAA to prepare a scheme I shall tell it the features that I want it to incorporate if the scheme is to receive my approval, as it must do under the Bill. I shall have a power of veto. I shall want to lay down firm guidelines quite soon, in the light of the consultations, the views of hon. Members and of my obligations under international air service agreements.
  Although airlines must realise that the limit means that they will not be able to operate every service they might want to, I shall also want to ensure that those which are established at Heathrow have a fair and equal opportunity to operate there to the extent that the environmental limit allows. Every effort will be made to ensure that within the constraints of the limit Heathrow is used as effectively and as commercially as possible, that it continues to serve the domestic market and is compatible with our wish to promote competition on domestic services, while not changing Heathrow's importance as an international hub airport of great importance to the economy. It must remain available to people wishing to visit London as well as retain its position as the world's busiest international airport.
  I expect to be able before the House rises for the Christmas recess to tell BAA the features I would expect it to incorporate in a scheme. My aim would be to announce this before the House considers the Bill on Third Reading. Full details of the scheme need to be known by the time of the IATA scheduling conference next June at which the detailed allocation of slots—not only at Heathrow but at some 50 busy airports throughout the world—takes place.
  Mr. Peter Fry: May I make what I hope is a helpful suggestion—perhaps the first this afternoon from Conservative Back Benchers? When my right hon. Friend comes to give those instructions to BAA, will he include, as a possibility, the use of short take-off aircraft—which have considerably added to the capacity of many United States airports—on smaller runways at an angle to the larger ones? The aircraft which would use those runways are quiet and should not cause any environmental disturbance.
  Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend said. One must be careful to ensure that no proposal will require a new planning consent. We all know that when planning consents are required for airport development the process takes some time and generates a certain amount of interest, if not controversy, in the House and elsewhere.
  I hope that I have been able to assure the House that the Bill seeks to impose a limit at Heathrow and to give me the power to do so. The Bill seeks to do nothing else in the first two clauses, and is not connected with Stansted or the furture of airports' policy. The House will have an opportunity to debate those matters when, as is now inevitable, the Stansted inspectors' report is laid in the Vote Office for perusal by the House. I am sure that hon. Members' views on the wider matters that were raised will be most interesting, and we shall listen to them with the greatest care. In the meanwhile, I hope that the House will give the Bill its Second Reading
  4.12 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not truly extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Transport should come here today to seek to dismiss an important measure as a minor piece of legislation of technical quality? It is interesting to note that, although this is only a slim Bill, the Secretary of State may find that he has created a Frankenstein's monster, because Conservative Members as well as the Opposition have understood one thing that he has not wanted to make plain. At the heart of this measure there is a basic inconsistency. The right hon. Gentleman is making major changes that strike at the heart of the airline industry, and that has considerable implications, beyond the simple enabling measure that the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe we are debating.
  The reality is that this is a panic measure. It has been created by the Government's policies. The sudden decision to solve the capacity problems of Heathrow without proper thought will plainly not take account of either the Stansted report—a report which I would have assumed even this Secretary of State would have waited for—or, for example, the Scottish lowlands airports consultation, both of which measures will have a great effect, provided this legislation is allowed to go ahead.
  The reality is that the Conservative Government's deregulations are a direct contradiction of their attempts to put limits on movements at Heathrow. There is a capacity problem, and there would have been a capacity problem at Heathrow irrespective, because the airport has existed for a long time. This measure will pre-empt the Government's statements on Prestwick and the inspectors' report on Stansted. At the same time, the privatisation of British Airways is still undecided. It was interesting to note that the IFS report this week seemed to put even more question marks over that matter.
  This is an extraordinarily bad time to bring forward a piece of legislation of this kind. That the Government are legislating now seems to be a sign of their desperation in the face of their mismanagement. The Government have still not decided their attitude towards regional airlines or regional airports. After the deregulation measures, one would have assumed that there would have been more understanding of their problems, but this Bill could reverse the whole of that policy.
  Is British Airways to be the only really large airline in the United Kingdom? If not, how is it that, on the one hand, the Government say they want at least two major airlines but, on the other hand, they seek to create difficulties in the form of aircraft movements? Let us be clear about this—nothing affects the viability of airlines as much as the control of airports policy. That policy is fundamental to everything that happens to any airline—independent or state.
  The Government's response to the CAA review implied that they wanted only one big airline, but now the Government keep talking about competition. British Caledonian still does not know whether it is expected to compete in the same league as British Airways; yet, if that is the intention, it is clear that there will have to be a considerable change in the situation at Gatwick. Exactly what do the Government have in mind—provided, of course, they have reached any kind of clear decision? If British Caledonian is to compete equally with British Airways, why is British Caledonian not to have a second

  309
  Gatwick runway? It is true that that possibility was blocked when the second terminal was agreed, but in 1982 the Government took decisions which apparently made it impossible for Gatwick to go ahead in the way that would be necessary were it to form an alternative hub.
  Are the limits proposed at present meant to apply for a certain limited period? If I were involved in the aircraft industry, I should be worried about the commitment of the Secretary of State to pledges. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman says, "We have to do this, because we gave this pledge as a Government a considerable time ago," and, on the other hand, he appears to say, "Well, of course, it may be that we shall have to alter the pledge at some point in the future".
  Gatwick currently has 12·5 million passengers, compared with Heathrow's 26·5 million. Gatwick officially has a capacity of 25 million, once the second terminal is built. Since Heathrow has two runways and will soon have four terminals, and its capacity is probably only 31·8 million, it seems difficult to accept that the claims for Gatwick are accurate. Without a second runway, British Caledonian can hope for little more than to move British Airways out of Gatwick without improving its own facilities. Moving out the 6·7 million non-scheduled or charter passengers would give a great deal more room to British Caledonian. Neither of those options has been discussed in any sense in the speech by the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman says to the House, "I could do this, or I might do that. Of course, I cannot make it clear what I am going to do, because I shall be the one who takes the final decision." That is an outrageous way to treat the House of Commons. The Secretary of State should have thought of that before he brought forward this piece of legislation.
  There are three crises in relation to airports in the southeast, and this Bill is so general that it would close any one of those airports to a major airline. The Secretary of State is taking enormous powers but he has not made that clear. He was astonishingly cavalier in the way in which he suggested that the Bill is a minor measure. However, he is seeking to limit aircraft numbers and he must know that aircraft movements represent the most important factor. There is no sense in the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward. It is not a competition policy, it is not especially efficient and it will not serve the environmental needs of anyone who is most affected.
  Regional airports are relevant to what happens in the south-east. The right hon. Gentleman must know that if he were to bring forward a sensible and planned policy on regional airport expansion he would begin to deal immediately with some of the problems at airports in the south-east. I am told by the Manchester International Airport authority that if the Government were to move 5,500 aircraft movements immediately to Manchester the pressure at Heathrow would be relieved without delay. If further movements were agreed by the Government, the right hon. Gentleman would have a breathing space in which to decide what he wants to do about airports in the south-east. It is clear that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends are far less concerned about environmental consequences at Heathrow than the Stansted airport inquiry. It is extraordinarily arbitrary of him to have taken a decision before the inspectors' report.
  310
  I should like to see regional airports developed in relation to domestic airlines. Heathrow is suffering especially from congestion because the Government's policy of deregulation has increased the number of domestic flights by about 5 per cent. I should like them to begin to offer genuine planned advancement for regional airports without suggesting that the issue will be solved by privatisation. Irrespective of who controls the airports, the problem of aircraft movements will not be satisfied by the arbitrary sale of the assets of basic and important facilities.
  It is interesting that the Government do not attempt in the Bill to give the British Airports Authority the means to obtain money to produce an efficient airport service. Unlike authorities in other countries, the BAA funds itself from charges which it raises. Sometimes the moneys come from franchises but they come largely from charges. It is clear from the Secretary of State's remarks about the Bill that it is his view that some of the charges may have to double. This is certainly planning of a sort. In fact, it is planning by the purse. It is important that we should understand exactly why the Bill is necessary and what its effects will be.
  We are changing the legislation on air transport movements because of the limit at Heathrow of 275,000 air traffic movements per annum. However, there are already 270,000 movements, with only three terminals. By the mid-1990s, the capacity is bound to fall because larger aeroplanes will need more room when landing. Noise and vibration limitations following the 1982 legislation apply to Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted. It is obvious that action on capacity is needed now.
  If the Government are genuine, they will allow development at Stansted to go ahead. If we limit movements at Heathrow, we shall do nothing to develop facilities at the regional airports. By definition, we are expecting the extra movements to take place at Stansted airport and it is clear that Stansted cannot cope now. The Government have been caught on the hop as a result of their own policies.
  Despite the Bill's narrow origins, the Government have reacted by giving themselves the widest possible powers. They are so wide that they will allow them to control individual airlines through detailed control of airports policy. They are giving themselves an enabling measure to allow them to think of ad hoc solutions to the mess that they have created.
  Clause 1 will insert two new sections into the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It gives the power to increase by number but not by percentages. This means that, as soon as the upper numbers are reached, there will be increasing pressure to increase the number rather than the percentage. The definitions are absurd. Section 75A(2) would allow a limit
  "by reference to any matters or circumstances whatever."
  What could be more precise parliamentary drafting than that? In future the Secretary of State will be able to decide limits by reference to
  "any matters or circumstances whatever."
  The power is boundless.
  Section 75B(2) means that, if the BAA is privatised, any private operator will be subject to the same level of control as the BAA is now. Is that what the Conservative party means by freedom? The section is likely to cause some interesting situations to develop in future. The

  311
  authority feels that there is no need for the limitation rule to apply outside the south-east. It says that there are no capacity problems elsewhere.
  I use Manchester airport frequently and it is efficient. It is developing extremely well. That is one reason why the Secretary of State wants to sell it. The problem at Manchester and at other regional airports is that there is too much capacity and they need extra movements brought to them. The new section 75B(3) appears to give powers to the CAA to decide whether to enforce limits which will imply that the Government may have reversed their decision on the ninth recommendation in the CAA's review of airline competition. The CAA will be able to act more specifically in the interests of policy.
  When we read clause 2, we begin to realise that some of the other provisions in the Bill are as important as those in the proposed new sections. Clause 2(2)(b) provides for special charges. It is important that these charges are further defined. There is no clarity in what is intended. Clause 2(3)(a)(i) provides for charges to vary for equal rights. The Secretary of State explained that many of these decisions will have to be pushed through before the IATA conference next year. He did not explain that clause 2(3)(a) breaks article 70 of the air navigation order, which stems from article 14 of the Chicago convention. Therefore, international negotiations are required before clause 2(3)(a) can be put into effect.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Where in the Bill is there a reference to the selling of Manchester airport?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I did not suggest that the proposal was to be found in the Bill. However, for the past three weeks, the newspapers have been carrying what I can only describe as inspired leaks. As the Secretary of State so rarely clarifies his transport policy, it is not entirely surprising that we rely on what we read in the newspapers. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see more privatisation. He would like airports such as Manchester to be handed over to anyone who feels that he can get the cash together to buy them. The reason is simple. It is that Manchester is efficient. It is that Manchester has a large local authority input. It is that the Secretary of State has a basic, dogmatic and fundamental objection to any sort of state service. That is why the absurdity of the Bill is so clear. On the one hand, the Secretary of State says that he will use state powers to limit the movements at Heathrow and on the other he says that the Government are giving people a great deal more freedom.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Lady knows that I do not support the Bill. She referred to things that are not in it. She talked about the privatisation of BAA. Am I being imaginative or unfair in suggesting that one of the attractions of the Bill for the Government, presumably, is that by taking the powers that make Heathrow more or less a dead duck for growth, increasing the attractions of Stansted and making the argument for Stansted stronger for BAA, there is a useful by-product for the Treasury of making BAA a more profitable animal when it is sold?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being unfair. I am sure that he is exactly right in his interpretation of events. It is wise that the House should understand the implications, which are far-reaching. This is not a simple Bill; it will affect airports
  312
  and aircraft policies, not only things such as the privatisation of BAA, but every other aspect of airport policy for many years to come.
  In Committee I shall ask the Minister exactly what is meant by some of the wording in the Bill, because it appears that the money that will be raised will not go to the airports themselves, but In effect will be an extra tax. Will the extra cash that is generated go to the Chancellor or to the airports?
  We must be clear that the sale of slots will have a direct effect on every airline that has to participate. The large airlines could buy out the competition, so it would be rationing by the purse. It would solve the problems of the small domestic airlines taking up space because they would be totally squeezed out. The idea that there is free competition is not only bizarre, but totally unacceptable.
  Innumerable questions are raised by the Bill and there are few answers. The Secretary of State sought to confuse rather than clarify the issue. Today he should have made it clear that in rushing the Bill before the House, before major and relevant decisions have been taken elsewhere, he is seeking to block basic decisions that relate to airports not only in the south-east but throughout Great Britain. The Secretary of State's hon. Friends have taken that point quickly. There is no justification for the Bill, with its wide powers and arbitrary provision for major decisions to be taken without consultation, as far as I can gather, unless the Secretary of State has boxed himself into such a tight corner that he can no longer go ahead with the things that he regards as his policy.
  It is true that Heathrow is close to its top limit. but the Secretary of State knew that. Does he genuinely imagine that we think that his pledge will stand for all time? If that is his view, why has he not come to the House today with the Stansted inspector's report? Why has he not been prepared to talk about what the CAA and BAA wanted? Why has he not made it clear where the interests of the general public lie? Nowhere in his speech was there any sign that he wanted an expanding, efficient and far-reaching revision of aircraft and airports policy.
  It is a disgrace that the House should be asked to accept this extraordinarily opaque piece of legislation. We are no clearer about the Bill now than we were when the Secretary of State stood up. I shall ask my colleagues to vote against it because it is a totally unsatisfactory piece of legislation. The Secretary of State may find that, if his hon. Friends are genuinely concerned, many of them will join me in the Lobby. That would show their commitment to their constituents' interests, which I am sure they will be delighted to demonstrate.
  4.35 pm
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) started her speech by saying that she thought that the Bill was a panic measure. I venture to suggest that she forgot or did not know that several of us, including myself, have been pressing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for years to bring it forward. We hoped that he would bring it forward sooner, but he has done so now. There is no question of panic.
  I should like to explain why I and several other Conservative Members have been pressing my right hon. Friend. The House probably knows that I represent the constituency of Spelthorne, but perhaps, because the name Spelthorne appears on no map, some hon. Members do not

  313
  know where it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] The northern boundary of my constituency runs straight through the middle of Heathrow airport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I do not know why my hon. Friends say "Ah." I was chosen to speak for my constituents, and I propose to do so.
  Many of my constituents live south of the airport, and are not much disturbed by the noise, but a great many live to the west, in places such as Staines, which I have no doubt is known to many hon. Members. Others live in places such as Stanwell, Stanwell Moor, Poyle and Colnbrook—names that I suppose no one knows. Nevertheless, tens of thousands of people live there, many for a very long time—and certainly before Heathrow was the place that it is now.
  If one lives—I do not suppose anyone here does—within a furlong or so of the western end of the runway at Heathrow, one knows that it is a different place from anywhere else. Aircraft thunder at hundreds of feet over one's head, using full power to take off or, alternatively, using less power, but with a different and just as penetrating noise, to land. I freely agree that successive Governments have been good about providing grants and so on for double glazing. Double glazing is all very well, but it is not much use in the summer when one has to have the windows open, because it is too hot to sit indoors with all the windows shut, or when one is working or sitting in the garden, if one is lucky enough to have a garden. Generally, when aircraft go over one's head using the power that I have described, one has to stop saying whatever it is one is saying. I would have had to stop speaking twice since I began my speech.
  We talk about 275,000 aircraft movements a year. Let us work out what it means. It means 753 aircraft movements a day. If a day is confined to the hours of 6 am to 11 pm, that means 44 aircraft movements an hour. Certainly half the number of aircraft will be landing and the other half will be taking off, so if one lives at one end of the runway one hears only half that number. That is 22 aircraft an hour going over one's head, causing one to stop speaking every three minutes of every day throughout the year—weekdays, weekends, public holidays, Christmas day, every day. Of course, it does not work out precisely like that, but it means that at certain times of the day, particularly in the summer when double glazing is no use, one has an aircraft over one's head probably every two minutes.
  Understandably,. my constituents have been pressing for years for less noise. I have been doing what I can on their behalf to ensure that that happens. How can there be less noise? There are only two ways—quieter aeroplanes or fewer of them, or both. With regard to quieter aeroplanes, it is undeniable that the present generation of aeroplanes is quieter than the one that it is replacing. However, anyone who has stood underneath a 747 at full load that is taking off knows that it still makes a great deal of noise.
  We hope that as the years go by the noise will diminish. It should be remembered that my constituents, and others, have suffered increasing noise for about 37 years. The most effective relief would be a reduction in the number of aircraft movements. The number of movements at Heathrow has increased year by year. It reached a peak of about 280,000 in 1979–80. It then diminished, mainly due
  314
  to the recession, and my constituents were pleased at that small reduction. The total then began to climb again and is just reaching 275,000, which is as high as it has ever been, with the exception of that one peak year. That being so, there is no question of the Bill making life easier and better for my constituents. It will merely stop things getting worse.
  We have to recognise that there is a limit to what it is reasonable to expect people to suffer for our convenience. Many of the people whom I represent work at the airport, but many do not. All, however, are entitled to an assurance that the problem that they have suffered and with which they have lived and brought up their children will not get any worse. The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to impose the limit that he mentioned, which is roughly the current level of activity. We have been pressing for that limit for many years, and the Government committed themselves to it several years ago.
  It will be noted that my comments have nothing to do with terminal 4, terminal 5, Stansted, Gatwick or anything else. I am referring to a limit on the amount of noise and disturbance at Heathrow. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing a Bill which will enable him to impose and enforce that limit. I can only speak for my constituents, who will certainly be pleased, but I am sure that the constituents of a number of my hon. Friends will feel the same.
  Dr. Glyn: I endorse all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) has said. With the possible exception of his constituency, my area is by far the worst affected by aircraft noise. I congratulate him on the work that he has done in leading the fight for a number of years. I remind him that as recently as 22 February 1984, in response to my speech, the Minister endorsed the restriction to 275,000 movements. That is reported at column 948 of the Official Report. It is thus no idle promise. It was made in 1979 and endorsed earlier this year.
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I know that his constituents suffer as much as mine. I am not entitled to speak for other Members' constituents, but my conversations with Members who represent surrounding areas suggest that they will be as pleased as I. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take some comfort from that support from Members who know what they are talking about. I hope that the Bill will go through, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing it forward.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) on bravely stating the difficulties faced by their constituents, but I have other fish to fry. I believe that this measure should be called the Promotion of Stansted Bill, strongly influenced by Mr. Norman Payne and the BAA.
  On the last aviation Bill I gave the Secretary of State a friendly warning, and I do so again today. On that occasion, the Secretary of State got into a rather complicated situation. The Prime Minister said that British Airways should be privatised, so Lord King was told to reorganise the corporation, under instructions from the Cabinet and directly responsible to the Secretary of State

  315
  for Transport. In the meantime, the Secretary of State had a rush of blood to the head and decided that he wanted competition, so he instructed the CAA to produce a document on competition.
  The interim report that was produced should have alerted the right hon. Gentleman to the dangers ahead, but he carried on and a document duly appeared in which the only element of competition was in the title. The CAA reported that there was no competition. The Secretary of State was then in a serious dilemma. British Airways said that he was doing the wrong thing—I note that the right hon. Gentleman has now left the Chamber—and he was warned that privatisation of British Airways would have ruinous consequences. At that time, there was a peculiar atmosphere in the House. With certain exceptions, Back Benchers on both sides agreed that British Airways was getting a raw deal and that the CAA had produced a highly embarrassing report. As a result, the Secretary of State was forced to back-track.
  The reason for that preamble is simple. The Secretary of State has not learnt his lesson. He is doing the same thing all over again. He says that we are waiting for reviews—he is always waiting for Godot, a report, a review or something or other. Currently, he is waiting for reviews on the fifth terminal and the inspectors' report on Stansted, but he wishes to make decisions in advance. As a consequence, he is likely once again to find himself in an extremely difficult position. The Cabinet will be heaving and sighing. There will be special meetings and big discussions about whether this should be done to British Airways or BCal, whether we should go ahead with Stansted or the fifth terminal and what the legislation has done. Complete turmoil will be created.
  I advise the Government to withdraw the Bill until its implications have been carefully considered in the light of the reviews that the Government themselves have requested. What is the use of calling for a review and legislating in advance of it? It is bureaucracy gone mad. It is a good way to keep civil servants in employment. Perhaps that is the object of the exercise.
  In my day, an aircraft coming in to land was told to "stay at angels 35, skating 152, angels 35, turn 6". Shortly afterwards it would be "skating 152, angels 3", and so on, and down the line one came—unless there was a panic on, in which case one reached for the Very pistol, fired a red and belted in quick. Alternatively, if one had time, one went to the lame duck aerodrome at Manston. Those were the choices. Things have improved since then, thank God. In my day, it was two minutes in one direction, change course, two minutes in another direction and two minutes later one had a wind speed and direction. Nowadays the skipper simply presses a button and has it in an instant.
  I say all that for this reason. People have not realised the rate at which aircraft movements can now be handled. The figure of 275,000 is based on safety, not environmental considerations. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead have my sympathy, but I believe that the rate of landings at Heathrow can safely be increased quite substantially. If that causes hardship to the people living there, we have an obligation to pay them adequate and realistic compensation. They should not have to suffer 100,000 movements per annum of the kind that have been described. Even that is too much. Something must be done to improve their lot. However, what we must do is to organise the landings safely and increase their number.
  316
  I declare an interest. I am the hon. Member for Eccles. I therefore have an interest in Manchester airport—a deep and abiding interest. During our last debate on aviation, I was very critical of the report of the Civil Aviation Authority. On this occasion, I should make it clear that I believe the CAA to be the best judge of matters concerned with the handling of aircraft in the air
  Mr. Bill Walker: But not the only judge.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Not the only judge, but better than the Secretary of State. If a judgment is to be made about the safety of landings, it must be made not by the Secretary of State but by someone with high professional skills.
  Whether or not we like the idea of developing Stansted airport, we have to acknowledge that it will be a long time before Stansted is a real international airport. Why does the Secretary of State not consider the potential of the regions? The regions are sick and tired of the Government sucking wealth into the south-east. Some of the gravy should go to the north-east, the north-west and Scotland. More movements should be directed to the north. I think that the British Airports Authority has a standard print-out which is permanently set up. It runs as follows: "If we do not have the third London airport at Stansted, it is Schiphol which will benefit." That will be the end of the world.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I will give way for an old friend.
  Mr. Jessel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for describing me in that way. The hon. Gentleman and I have served for 12 years as joint secretaries of the Indo-British parliamentary group.
  We all believe that more traffic should go to Manchester, and that it would be a good thing to help the north in that way. Why, therefore, does the hon. Gentleman not agree to limit the number of flights at Heathrow?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The reason is straightforward. It is that there will be no movements in this area unless the number is stepped up at Heathrow for a while. That is the justification for the Bill. The Bill is about building an international airport at Stansted. As a Welshman, my heart beats at the thought that Twickenham is at last supporting the Welsh and the north-west—the Welsh for their rugby facilities, and the north-west for its aircraft handling facilities at Manchester.
  We need more traffic in the north, for this reason. This country has produced three new aircraft which are very important in connection with regional airports. There is the HS146 and the Super 748, and we are about to produce the ATP. Those are the ideal aircraft for hub and spoke activities. [Interruption.] I was choosing the aircraft which I knew about.
  If Manchester and Birmingham have the chance to develop hub and spoke activities, there are distinct possibilities of increasing the amount of international movement from those airports. I do not accept the BAA' s preoccupation with building another airport in the southeast.
  Mr. Adley: They are empire builders.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I must not comment on that. The BAA may well be an empire builder. However, we have airports such as Manchester and Birmingham which are

  317
  ready for expansion and capable of absorbing much of the pressure from which the south-east is now suffering. The Secretary of State should comment on that fact.
  Another factor should be borne in mind. There is a tendency nowadays for aircraft flying international routes to land at smaller airports. For example, British Airways planes sometimes land at Brisbane and then do a quiet leg back to Sydney before taking off back to Hong Kong. That is a reasonably cheap option. It is possible that Qantas, flying to Frankfurt or Schiphol, will be prepared to go on to Manchester occasionally, thus helping Manchester to achieve international status.
  As much as everything else in the Bill, I dislike the fact that we are to limit movements by price. Only one factor should limit the number of movements—not money, but safety.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for announcing that we are to have a debate on Stansted after we receive the inspector's report. Many of us who represent constituencies in the north have fought for that over the past few months. It is essential that the House should have some say about the report before any decision is reached.
  Having said that, I shall not say much else that will please the Government Front Bench. I join the chorus of protest from both sides of the House about the speed with which the Bill has been presented. It was printed on 9 November, and on 21 November we are debating its Second Reading. The Minister knows all too well that many hon. Members are suspicious—our suspicions have already been voiced today—about what lies behind the Bill.
  The Bill imposes a limit on air traffic movements at Heathrow. I do not oppose that, but it will affect the development of regional airports and the expansion of Stansted. We have been told that the inspector's report on Stansted should appear at about the end of the month. I do not see why the Bill could not have waited, at least until the report had been published.
  Those of us who represent northern constituencies have fought for some time for a better deal for provincial airports. Some of us fear that the Bill may be the thin end of the wedge, giving the green light to a massive expansion at Stansted. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) rightly paid great tribute to Manchester international airport, as did the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Many of us are very proud of the achievements of that airport. We constantly draw attention here and elsewhere to the glories of Manchester international airport, but we often feel that the true significance and potential of the airport is still not properly understood in some quarters.
  Manchester international airport is not a little airstrip with a few huts. It is this country's only international gateway airport for long distance flights, apart from London and Prestwick. It handles about 5 million passengers a year, and it is still growing. It makes a substantial profit, with no cross-subsidisation and under the most rigorous accounting criteria. It has a catchment
  318
  area of about 20 million people, and that area includes much of the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry. It already services 40 British and foreign airlines.
  Manchester international airport is a substantial enterprise and a major asset. It is a potential generator of jobs, trade and prosperity, all of which the north-west needs. In spite of that major potential and the permission that the Government graciously grant us to be able to spend our own profits or the borrowings that are negotiated by Manchester airport on the strength of its profits—the Government then claiming credit for there being more money to develop the airport—I am convinced that Manchester is still being held up by this Government, as it has been by previous Governments. I am speaking of specific opportunities that are being offered to Manchester airport by airlines and that are being blocked by the Government.
  Mr. Adley: By way of confirmation, has my hon. Friend also read clause 3 of this little Bill which contains a proposal which is to be tacked on to section 6(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982? What my hon. Friend is saying is confirmed by section 6(2)(a) to (e), as it refers to national security, relations with the United Kingdom, obligations on the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's membership of international organisations. Paragraphs (a) to (e) concern national security or international obligations and paragraph (f) concerns noise, vibration and pollution. The Bill sticks in paragraph (h), which is absolutely irrelevant to the rest, as it says:
  "in order to secure the most effective use of aerodromes within the United Kingdom".
  The Bill will therefore enable traffic rights or anything else to be taken away from Manchester or other airports without defining what "most effective use" means.
  Mr. Montgomery: My hon. Friend has made a fascinating speech, but I am grateful to him as he has reinforced my point.
  With few exceptions, the interests of Manchester international airport have been subordinated to the interests of the state-owned British Airways, the state-owned British Airports Authority and the south-east of England by successive Governments. However, I have noticed a slight change in the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote a letter to the leader of Manchester city council on 14 September in which he said:
  "When I come to make up my mind"
  on the Civil Aviation Authority recommendations
  "I will do so on the basis of what is best for the airline travellers in the North-West, people whose interests seem to have been overlooked recently."
  I would have said that it has been much longer than "recently". My right hon. Friend was absolutely right and I congratulate him on seeing the truth. I only hope that he will now build on those words by giving us action on the basis of those excellent sentiments.
  The second encouraging sign came in the White Paper on airline competition policy. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the splendid and refreshing principles that are unambiguously enshrined in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that White Paper. Paragraph 2 says:
  "Airlines are complex businesses, using advanced technology and sophisticated communications and marketing. But the only reason they exist is to carry people and goods. The pattern of services and the fares charged should be decided by the market. The best test of what people want is what they will pay for. Those airlines which provide the right service profitably at the lowest

  319
  price should thrive. But they should be continuously open to challenge by competitors. The barriers to new services and airlines who can provide a safe and reliable service should be lowered."
  Paragraph 3 says:
  "Historically, most sectors of air transport have been heavily regulated and protected by the State. That is still so in many overseas countries and the Government has to take account of that in its bilateral relations. Regulation is clearly needed in the case of safety where high standards must be maintained; the case for regulating the commercial activities of airlines is much less clear. The Government will move as far and fast as it can from the world of regulations to one where airlines compete for the customer's attention. In doing so it will release the energies of an industry whose growth since the second world war has enriched the lives of many."
  Nothing could be clearer or more welcome.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that the Government. who espouse the views of which he so heartily approves, have recently refused an application by Singapore Airlines to fly into Manchester international airport?
  Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my speech. I shall have much to say about that. I do not think that what I shall say will displease the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he might even shout, "Hear, hear."
  Mr. Snape: I should not go that far.
  Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman should be a little more adventurous and do it this time.
  In a letter to the leader of Manchester city council, my right hon. Friend put it in writing that passengers using Manchester airport, and therefore Manchester airport itself, have not always had a fair crack of the whip.
  Secondly, we had it in writing in October that in aviation matters, given proper safety standards, competition and freedom of choice for the passenger are not the only but paramount criteria in deciding policy.
  The third thing that gave me some encouragement was my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport's visit to Manchester airport last week. I have to declare an interest. My wife is a member of the Manchester airport committee, so if I do not say nice things about the airport in the House I am in terrible trouble when I go home. I am told that the questions he asked and his initial responses to officials at the airport left a strong impression that he might prove to be more liberal minded and less bound by the traditional restrictive regulatory protectionist policies of the past.
  The principles that the Government have enunciated are therefore clear and, I believe, correct. However, practise has been very different from principle. We have a Secretary of State preaching competition and freedom of choice while the Department seems to practice old-fashioned protectionism.
  One of the consequences of the Bill would be the diversion of flights to Stansted. That would involve considerable expansion at Stansted. The expansion would have to be paid for. Once that happened, the British Airports Authority would want even greater revenue from Stansted. There would therefore be a knock-on and spiralling effect of further expansion at Stansted. That is the danger for Manchester and other provincial airports.
  Another effect of the Bill, which the hon. Member for Eccles mentioned, is that traffic movement limitations at Heathrow, combined with the high cost of peak slots as
  320
  envisaged in clause 2, will create problems in the provision of sufficient slots at Heathrow for flights from provincial airports. I wonder how the Bill will affect passengers who use the shuttle from Manchester to Heathrow and then continue abroad. Will the Bill make interlining by passengers from Manchester more difficult?
  I sould have thought that the answer to all this—it would be welcome to Manchester and take much pressure away from Heathrow— is to allow Manchester international airport to have more international flights. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) drew attention to that. Two airlines have recently said that they would like to fly to Manchester. The first is Malaysian Airline System and the second is Singapore Airlines. At the moment, Malaysian Airline System flies four times a week each way between Kuala Lumpur and Heathrow. It wants to increase the number of flights to perhaps seven a week. Primarily, it wants to increase its frequency to Heathrow, but it said three months ago that it would be interested in taking in Manchester. We should have preferred it to fly direct to Manchester, but that is a matter for negotiation. The essential fact is that we have here an efficient and well-run world airline that wants to fly to the United Kingdom and is prepared to fly to Manchester and to grant equal reciprocal rights to British airlines. It would create more jobs in Manchester, give passengers more freedom of choice and give more encouragement to industry and commerce in the northwest, yet the Government have refused the Malaysian application.
  The case of Singapore Airlines is even worse. Apparently it cabled the Department of Transport on 25 September saying essentially two things. First, Singapore Airlines wanted to fly direct three times a week each way between Singapore and Manchester. Secondly, it would be happy if, in straightforward competition, a British airline, whether British Airways, or British Caledonian, or another, wanted to fly the same route. It was and remains a wonderful opportunity for Manchester, because it fulfils exactly the principles of competition and the increase of passenger choice which the Secretary of State holds so dear.
  Mr. McCrindle: Considering all that my hon. Friend said about the desirability of opening up Manchester to various airlines, does he agree that one of the effects of doing so would be to add competition to British Airways on routes between Heathrow and Australia? Does he agree that that might conceivably be a reason why Manchester is not being favoured for additional services?
  Mr. Montgomery: A good airline should not be worried about fair competition. It should be prepared to compete with another airline fairly. During the recent battle over the CAA report, one of the points constantly made by British Airways was that it did not fear competition, provided that it was fair. That is precisely in line with the liberalising of flight policies, which the Secretary of State has been promoting domestically, within the European Community and especially Holland. It would promote more jobs in the north-west, which we need, and genuine and psychological encouragement to industry and commerce there, and ease pressure on traffic movements at Heathrow, which is the central point of the Bill. Despite those substantial benefits, the Department of

  321
  Transport refused the application. The House may ask why an offer which conforms exactly to the Secretary of State's beliefs should have been rejected by the Department.
  The Department of Transport says that there are not enough potential passengers to justify more flights. That is a bit of an old chestnut. If Singapore Airlines, which may be in the top half dozen most efficient airlines in the world, thinks that it makes commercial sense to fly to Manchester, who in the Department of Transport thinks he knows better? That general argument of the Department was spectacularly knocked on the head by the fact that when the Glasgow to London monopoly route of British Airways was opened to competition from British Midland two years ago, the number of passengers increased by 30 per cent., prices fell and service improved.
  The next shop-soiled argument against accepting the Singapore Airlines offer is that that airline is subsidised by the Singapore Government and therefore would present unfair competition. I understand that that is completely untrue—that Singapore Airlines is not subsidised. The matter can be easily settled, because the accountants for Singapore Airlines happen to be the same as those used by British Airways. It would be simple and proper, with the agreement of Singapore Airlines, to ask them to say whether it is subsidised.
  The next argument against Singapore Airlines and Malaysian Airlines System is that extra flights are not allowed for in existing agreements. In that case, agreements can be changed. If the British Government agree, no one else will disagree.
  Another argument is that if Singapore Airlines or Malaysian Airlines System flies to Manchester, it may damage the present Qantas services from Australia by siphoning off passengers. No one is more aware of that than the people running Manchester airport. If they decide that the risk is worth taking and that the new services will mean more business, they do not want the Department of Transport telling them that it knows what is best for the people of Manchester.
  The Department of Transport seems to fear that if Singapore Airlines or Malaysian Airlines System is allowed to fly more frequently to the United Kingdom, and especially to Manchester, it might hurt British Airways. I cannot see why British Airways should fear fair competition from such airlines.
  British Airways, under Lord King, has made enormous improvements and smartened up its domestic and European flights enormously—I congratulate it on that—but some of its long-distance flights have not been improved. Part of the reason for that is that about five years ago, before Lord King became chairman, British Airways concluded a pay and conditions deal with its cabin crew, which restricted the number of cabin crew to 13—unlucky for some. Other airlines, such as Malaysian Airlines System and Singapore Airlines, and, for that matter, British Caledonian, have a considerably higher ratio of cabin crew to passengers and, therefore, offer more attentive services. Malaysian Airlines System has 18 cabin crew on its flights. Of course, cabin crew numbers and conditions are matters for British Airways, but it is intolerable that less-than-the-best service standards by British Airways should result in Manchester airport and passengers in its catchment area suffering.
  322
  Manchester is keen to get new traffic from across the Atlantic as well as from the far east. We are delighted that British Airways has announced that from next year it will fly to the United States from Manchester. There is however, an additional point. Although the Minister, in his reply to an Adjournment debate recently, said that Manchester airport was specifically mentioned in the Bermuda 2 aviation agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States, he did not say that Manchester was mentioned only as a point of origination for a British airline and not as a point of destination for an American airline. We should like to see the latter added to the agreement.
  It would greatly help Manchester to attract an American airline to fly from the United States to Manchester if my hon. Friend, when he replies, will say that the Government will look sympathetically at and be glad to receive an application from an American airline to fly to Manchester. That would bring great pleasure to the people responsible for running Manchester international airport.
  Finally, nothing in the Bill gives serious consideration to encouraging greater use of non-London airports when restricting airport capacity at Heathrow. I am unhappy that money which is raised by the auctioning of slots should accrue to the British Airports Authority general reserve and, consequently, facilitate the development of Stansted. Indeed, I disapprove of that. I do not like the idea of BAA developing its own airports with excess profits at Heathrow, without regard to a national airports policy. The Bill does not do much to benefit Manchester. It concentrates on the south-east and makes the development of Stansted more likely. Therefore, I cannot support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Stephen Ross: So far we have had a good lobby for Manchester. As I believe that undertakings should be fulfilled, I can hardly object to the part of the Bill which proposes a limit on air transport movements at Heathrow when terminal 4 comes into operation. The undertaking was given in December 1979 and has been repeated since. However, life has moved on since then. We now have larger and quieter planes, and still more are promised. Moreover, the limit which we are being asked to accept in the Bill conflicts with the evidence given to the Select Committee on Transport, of which I am a member, by Mr. Hewson, chairman of the Heathrow scheduling committee, only last summer.
  On 5 June 1983 Mr. Hewson said:
  "all my discussions with the Deputy Director of the Department of Operational Research and Analysis of the CAA, who is the acknowledged expert in such matters, indicates that the ultimate capacity in terms of total movements as opposed to ATMs, is unquestionably around 330,000 movements. It could be as high as 350,000. He has said the rock bottom minimum, assuming all pessimistic assumptions would be 300,000. The theoretical maximum is 420,000."
  He was then asked:
  "Does that include small aircraft and feeder services?"
  He said:
  "Movements of every description."
  He was then asked:
  "And helicopters, short landings and take-offs?",
  to which he replied:
  "He was talking about runway capacity. Therefore it technically excludes helicopters."

  323
  He was asked whether he would agree with that evidence and he said, "Yes." He was questioned again and asked, "Would you?" He said:
  "Undoubtedly … I am quite sure that the scenario from the noise point of view that was envisaged at the time of the Terminal 4 Inquiry is quite different nowadays."
  That is all to be found on page 457 of the minutes of evidence, volume II of the Transport Committee report.
  The first page of the Secretary of State's consultation document states:
  "The Government accepted that there should be a limit and in its decision approving the development of Terminal 4 prescribed a limit of 275,000 ATMs, set close to what was then estimated to be the capacity of the runways. The announcement of the limit which was to come into effect from the opening of Terminal 4"—
  we are talking about a date in October next year—
  "mentioned that it would be reviewed in the light of progress on the prohibition of noisier aircraft and the introduction of quieter aircraft."
  The consultation document puts into question whether 275,000 is the limit for all time or whether it can be increased in the near future. On page 3 the proposed approach is mentioned. It states:
  "The facilities at Heathrow (runways, terminals, parking areas and other infrastructure) should be used as effectively as possible; as much freedom as possible should be left to the preferences of passengers and the commercial judgment of the airlines. … compatibility with the Government's desire to encourage competition in the provision of domestic services"
  must be taken into account and
  "Heathrow's importance as an international 'hub' airport should be maintained by minimising the restriction on interlining opportunities; and insofar as intervention is required, the range of services available at Gatwick should be increased, so that it can develop similarly as an international hub."
  The Bill seems to be somewhat controversial if all those comments are taken into account. Moreover, we have had firm promises for some considerable time that there is to be no second runway at Gatwick. That was an undertaking given to Surrey and Sussex county councils and by the Secretary of State recently. That effectively limits the traffic at Gatwick, so we are told, to 25 million passengers. I accept what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. That sounds a high figure, and I suspect that it will be somewhat less than that.
  One begins to suspect that the Bill is a preliminary to an announcement about Stansted. That should have come first. The Secretary of State's whole civil aviation policy is in disarray. He should have held this measure back until we had had time to see the inspectors' report and debate it in the House. It is only fair to say that his airline policy is in complete conflict with his public transport policies and the White Paper on buses. Everything seems to take second place to the privatisation of British Airways. Even President Reagan has been cajoled into falling into line, such is the fear that he has of meeting the Prime Minister. The power of Lord King and the Treasury seems to know no bounds.
  Competition among our airlines is now a travesty. The Secretary of State was right to set up the CAA inquiry. It is a tragedy that he did not accept the report's recommendations. They seem to have been borne out by the report which we have had recently on British Airways' efficiency.
  The Bill places a limit on slots and provides for the possibility of auctions. That must inevitably lead to a rise in charges, which are already high enough. Fortunately, in a recent press release, the British Airports Authority
  324
  said that it thought that the use of quotas was the fairest answer to Heathrow's capacity problems. I hope that it will not be overruled on that by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of a limit of 275,000 flights a year through Heathrow, or is he sitting on the fence as usual?
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman wants to send a press release around Richmond and Twickenham, which I gather he did at the last two elections, about my being in favour of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. I am not in favour of that at this time and I have never said as much. I am opposed to the massive extension of Stansted. If he will be patient, I shall outline what I am in favour of. I know that in Richmond and Barnes there were only 75 votes between the Liberal candidate and the present Member.
  How do increasing costs and the possibility of auctions, which will price out many of the smaller operators, help them and the regional airports? I am in favour of the expansion of our regional airports. I support everything that has been said about Manchester.
  Why has the Secretary of State turned down the People Express application to go into Stansted? Why has he refused, as was repeated several times by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), the Singapore Airlines' application to go to Manchester? What is to happen to the Highland Express application to use Prestwick, because it could be the saviour of that international airport? If he believes in freedom and free competition, what is wrong with someone using Prestwick?
  It is only fair—I accept the question that has been put to me—to put on record what I believe should be the alternative to what the Secretary of State is proposing. First, I believe that we should proceed with a STOL port, in docklands, which has been recommended by an inspector. That decision has not yet been taken. It is not in the hands of the Secretary of State for Transport. The Secretary of State for the Environment will decide. Quiet aircraft will be used—for example, the Dash 7 and the Twin Otter. Such an airport would take some pressure off the other London airports.
  I hope that we will encourage, in every way that we can, greater use of our regional airports, not just Manchester, but Birmingham, Newcastle, Leeds and probably Cardiff. Those regional airports must have ready access to Heathrow and Gatwick at least unless they can establish hubs of their own. I suspect that Manchester is about the only regional airport that can do that.
  Mr. George Foulkes: I suppose that when the hon. Gentleman talks about the only regional airport that can do that he means in England and does not exclude the possibility of Prestwick expanding in that way.
  Mr. Ross: I do not exclude Prestwick. I have been to all these airfields, and Prestwick is a lovely airport. However, there is the challenge of Glasgow and the fact that British Midland, which could operate out of Prestwick, has turned it down.
  It may well be Manchester that we are talking about, but if a company can establish itself at Prestwick.. as People Express did in Newark, New Jersey, I wish it well, and I see no reason why that should not happen. I make one proviso, however. Public transport services into those

  325
  airfields must be improved. There must be a rail link into Prestwick and into Manchester. That can be done, and it need not be too expensive.
  We should proceed with the disposal of Farnborough. I am talking about the airfield, not about the research establishment. That has been on the cards for a long time. It should be used as a business executive airfield. Some of the small aircraft which go into Heathrow at the moment could probably use Farnborough.
  I would allow limited expansion of Stansted. I believe that 2 million to 3 million passengers at Stansted would be acceptable. There are 500,000 passengers using it now. That has increased from 250,000. It was almost up to 1 million at one time. I cannot see how that limited expansion would conflict with the request from People Express to use that airport. If it can make a go of it, why not let it do so? When the Government talk so much about competition, I cannot understand why there is this restriction on these new routes. We can only assume that it is all to do with the privatisation of British Airways.
  I asked the Secretary of State what the present position was about the sale of the CAA airports. I should be surprised, but I should be delighted to learn, that there are private buyers for these airfields. I suspect that there will not be. I do not know who will buy Benbecula. At the moment, Sumburgh is losing money. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to hand these airfields over to the British Airports Authority for it to operate them if there are no buyers? If so, how can the BAA finance them if it cannot use cross-subsidisation? Is the right hon. Gentleman expecting the local authorities to take part? If he is, he had better have a word—I must be careful heie, because the Secretary of State for Scotland is just as tough on local authorities as the Secretary of State for the Environment— with the responsible Ministers, because the local authorities have no cash. The idea that something like £6 million will come in from these airports may be pie in the sky. We shall watch that with interest, because if the Secretary of State manages to dig up buyers for those airfields he will be a magician.
  Mr. Ridley: The figure of £6 million is the maximum that might be written off under the Bill. It is not the value of the airports.
  Mr. Ross: I am grateful for that clarification. I believe that the Bill is premature, but I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is honouring a pledge. We must give him credit for that. However, this pledge was probably mistakenly given. Almost certainly the Bill will be unfair to the smaller operators, whom in his heart of hearts the Secretary of State must want to help. It will not be particularly helpful to our regional airports, and in my view it is unrealistic in respect of the CAA airports. For those reasons, we should vote against the Bill tonight.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I take part in this debate out of a strong constituency interest, as the airport at Heathrow provides the greatest source of employment for my constituents. I also take part as the re-elected chairman of the Conservative party's parliamentary aviation committee, whose remit is to
  326
  maximise the opportunities for British civil air transport with the aim of benefiting the economy and the travelling public.
  I hope that this also is entirely the objective of my right hon. Friend, because to be candid this measure seems inimical to the interest of British civil air transport. I am sure that hon. Members will have noticed how critical and sceptical was the questioning of my hon. Friend during his opening remarks. That was entirely justified, because I believe the measure to be premature and ill-considered. I do not even believe that it is necessary. It has been parachuted into our legislative programme for this Session. There was no mention of such a Bill in the Gracious Speech, and if we were surprised by the absence of such a measure in the Gracious Speech it was because there was no mention of any proposal to denationalise or privatise the British Airports Authority either. That was in our manifesto. Its absence caused me to smell a rat.
  The Secretary of State enjoins us not to be too Machiavellian and not to adduce links and connections where none exist, particularly any connection there may be with the decision which the Government will have to reach, sooner rather than later, about whether to approve the development of Stansted as proposed by the BAA.
  It would be foolish and wrong to suppose that the obtaining of legislative powers to permit the Government to carry through what they regard as a pledge to impose a limit of 275,000 air traffic movements a year for Heathrow would not have a relevance to the Stansted issue. It most certainly and manifestly must, because, as the number of ATMs is already creeping up towards that limit, and as Lord Trefgarne expects it to be exceeded some time towards the end of this year or next, if such a limit is imposed aircraft will have to be shunted out of Heathrow. If those aircraft serve the London area, they can be shunted to Gatwick, or alternatively they will be shunted to Stansted.
  It is noteworthy and instructive for the House to bear in mind that no airline—with perhaps the sole exception of British Caledonian, which has its own interests as Gatwick is its hub airport—favours this measure. I said that the Bill should benefit British civil air transport, but if the airlines are against it, who are its friends? I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) is a friend, and without wishing to pre-empt his remarks, I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is also favourably disposed towards it. However, among those of us who take a serious professional interest in these affairs, I doubt whether anyone favours it.
  I must declare a further interest. Before I was returned to this House I was a chief flying instructor of a flying school at Stansted and acted as a sales manager for an air charter operation out of Stansted. I therefore know the airport well, and I am also professionally familiar with the south-eastern airports. I did what I thought to be the only reasonable and right thing and made a submission not only to the T5 inquiry, both written and oral, but also to the consultative process which my right hon. Friend initiated to consider the so-called pledge of 275,000 movements a year.
  We must look at that pledge fully and the context within which it was made. Apart from noting the limit in the press statement of 17 December 1979, we should also bear in mind that the second part of the relevant paragraph states:

  327
  "The Secretaries of State have noted that the inspector's proposed limitation was substantially below Heathrow's runway capacity and could thus prevent the effective use of the airport's resources at a time when the London airports are likely to be under considerable pressure".
  That summarises the position exactly. By this measure we are effectively inhibiting the development of Heathrow, which is a national asset of immeasurable price, value and worth. It is a huge national investment and will be an even larger one when terminal 4 comes into service. How paradoxical, perplexing and strange that, just when this additional capacity is available— in which we all invested as the BAA built it— we should prevent additional air transport movements into Heathrow!
  The so-called rationale was noise, but, as the serious specialists will know well, noise is a very different issue from what it was when we had the big debates about Maplin. We may still carry our battle scars, but we recall those debates. We won then and I predict that we shall win again over Stansted. It shall not be developed to phase 1 as predicted, because I do not believe that there is parliamentary support for that development.
  With quieter aircraft coming into service, the whole rationale for basing an airports policy on noise criteria has altered and dramatically changed. It will change even further when we have the statutory imposition of a ban on noisier aircraft from 1 January 1986.
  I ask the Secretary of State to think again. The submissions that I have received are heartrending. I do not want to over-egg the pudding, but I have received a letter from the chairman of British Midland, the domestic airline of the year for the second time, in which he states:
  "We are faced with very real hardship if there is an implementation of any unnatural restriction on air transport movements at Heathrow."
  He ends by saying:
  "the capacity of the runways and the terminals are far greater by virtue of improved technical and working practices than the British Airports Authority were prepared to concede. Indeed, the Civil Aviation Authority have now determined that the capacity, on equipment currently available and not allowing for any improvements which may subsequently take place, is now 330,000 air transport movements per annum. If implemented, this latter figure could see the problem through for at least five/ seven years."
  I do not dissent from that view. It was, in short, the view of all the private sector independent carriers operating into Heathrow—not only British Midland but Air UK, Dan Air, Manx Airlines, Air Ecosse and Brymon. These are the independent carriers that the CAA's policy of enhancing competition, especially among domestic services, has encouraged to go to Heathrow. The travelling public has benefited. Those in the provinces have benefited. It would be crazy if these enterprising people among the private sector carriers, which the Conservative party is supposed to be encouraging, were the first to be victimised, as they would be if the British Airports Authority had its way. The BAA is the chosen instrument of the Bill because it will be imposing the limit, athough ultimately it will have to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State.
  I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the BAA's press statement of 19 October:
  "A quota on domestic flights into Heathrow Airport would be the fairest way of dealing with the difficult problem"—
  it is difficult in the eyes of the BAA—
  "of restricting air transport movements to 275,000 a year."
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why Genair, the small
  328
  company operating from, amongst other places, Blackpool airport to Heathrow, was put out of business was that its slot into Heathrow was removed and as a result it lost a great deal of business and eventually went under? Does not that enhance my hon. Friend's argument?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am sure that it does, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  Lest the House should think that I am less than fair-minded and that I am obsessed with the independent carriers, I quote a letter from the managing director of British Airways of 25 October, long before the Bill appeared even in print. He gives four reasons why he suggested on behalf of British Airways that a limit of 275,000 air transport movements was not in the interests of BA:
  "(i) There would be no difference discernible to the public in aircraft noise around Heathrow if unrestricted ATMs were permitted. (ii) The proposed, arbitrary limit would 'waste' Heathrow's runway capacity by holding operations below the level of 330,000 ATMs—recently assessed by the CAA as a wholly practicable level. (iii) The ATM limit is incompatible with HMG's airline competition policy. (iv) There is insufficient capacity at Gatwick to absorb an artificially created overflow of movements from Heathrow."
  I thought, and I hope that it is still the case, that the first objective of our Government's policy was to facilitate the privatisation of British Airways. How remarkably strange and what perverted logic it is that, just before flotation, the Government introduce a measure that could hobble and inhibit British Airways. That is extraordinary, and it is another reason why we should not give the Bill a Second Reading.
  The British Airports Authority itself has doubts. It might be instructive if I quoted from a letter from the director of Heathrow airport, a man known to me arid a man of the highest professional competence. He said:
  "The BAA was not consulted at all during the drafting of the Bill. As a result we have a number of major concerns. For example, the Bill provides for schemes including 'special charges to be payable by operators.' This would include slot auctions which we do not believe to be an appropriate solution to Heathrow's capacity problem. Such a scheme might permit, for example, the large airlines to act in a predatory manner, which would not be in the best interests of the air traveller."
  I know that there is no mechanism in the Bill for imposing a limit, but that is a deficiency in the Bill. It means in effect that we are writing a blank cheque. We do not know the mechanism, and that is a fundamental deficiency which should have been rectified.
  With the best of intentions, my right hon. Friend and his team have sought to justify the Bill on grounds of noise. I hope that I have demonstrated that the grounds of noise have been overtaken by events. British Airways has conducted a careful scientific assessment of the levels of noise disturbance to communities around the airport which can be anticipated at various levels of air transport movements a year.
  I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is no longer in his place, because the outcome of the survey is extremely interesting. I see the present figure for Staines, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. The noise and nuisance index for 1980 is 37. With 275,000 ATMs it is 29 in 1986, after the noise ban That is considerably lower. With 330,000 ATMs a year, the figure would be only 31 after 1986 when the new noise regulations come into force. So even with the 330,000 air transport movements a year which the CAA believes in its professional competence to be possible within the current

  329
  constraints of Heathrow airport, and with existing air traffic control equipment, the noise level would be very substantially lower.
  This is an unworthy Bill. It has not been thought through. It pre-empts the decisions ultimately to be made about Stansted and terminal 5. It is damaging to the interests of my constituents and those who work in the civil air transport industry not only in Heathrow but perhaps further afield. For those reasons, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Second Reading.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am glad to be called immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who put forward a most succinct general argument against the Bill. Obviously I speak in the sense of defending the interests of my constituents. Most right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that. However, I remind them, as I did a previous House of Commons in an airports debate, that the core of my beliefs, such as they are, about airports matters was formed when I was Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich and never dreamt that in a few years I might be the Member for Saffron Walden.
  I hope that the House will accept that I have never adopted an "Anywhere but in my patch" approach to the resolution of the airports problem. I have always tried to find an objective way out of the problems which I hope can combine the protection of the interests of my constituents with the factual problems facing the civil air transport industry. I have never attempted to duck the need argument, to the extent that it has been proved.
  Apart from being the Member of Parliament who represents Stansted, I try to remember that, in the Burkean sense, I am also a Member of Parliament. In conjunction with my constituency interests, I have to try to adopt an objective approach.
  Today is not the day for discussing the details of airports policy. However, it may be that the only compliment that I can pay my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that I am grateful for his announcement today assuring the House that the inspector's report will be published and that there will be a debate in the House before the decision is taken. We have sought that, and we are most grateful for it. We did not expect otherwise, did we?
  It is not so much the Bill's contents but its timing and effect that I want to deal with today. The rush with which it has appeared before us is unseemly. I am uneasy in my mind that civil aviation policy is being formed at the charge. A consultation document was published in the summer, but there has been no debate. A White Paper was published during the parliamentary recess but there has been no debate. There was no intimation in the Gracious Speech, but a few days ago, that the Bill would come before us, yet here we are being asked to assent to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has so justly described as a blank cheque. It is very suspicious indeed.
  In representing the interests of my constituents in Saffron Walden and the surrounding area, I have tried all along to say to the Government that I cannot in the end deny the possibility that they may wish to come to a conclusion on airports policy which my constituents find
  330
  hostile to their interests. Naturally, I hope that that will not happen, but I recognise it as a possibility. Because of that, I have tried to tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they should have the greatest care in the way that they handle the approach to that final decision. There is a lot of suspicion and there are many ruffled feathers in the Saffron Walden area. That is not, necessarily because people believe in plots but because Stansted has the uncanny capacity to keep reappearing as an issue, whether it is because civil servants thrust it before Ministers with such determination or because Ministers find themselves independently persuaded. It keeps coming back. People suspect that there is a determination somehow in the machinery of Government that it should happen. Therefore, the handling of the matter is important. To avoid political difficulties among the Government's friends, it should be beyond reproach.
  I thought that that point had been well accepted, but then the Bill came along. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that he cannot see any connection between clause 1 and Stansted or the general airports problem. I find that difficult to understand. I do not doubt my right hon. Friend's personal sincerity for one moment—let that be clear. But did no one suggest to my right hon. Friend or to his right hon. Friends that someone might see a connection between the Bill and the resolution of the airports policy? That possibility is utterly fantastic. I can only say that the Government were extraordinarily badly advised.
  When policy was initiated I was given assurances about the nature of the inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), when he was Leader of the House, said of the inspector's inquiry:
  " I expect that he will wish to examine relevant alternatives to … Stansted."-[Official Report 18 December 1979; Vol., c. 391.]
  On 21 February 1980, Mr. John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Trade, said:
  " I must make it clear that the Government will reach their final decision only in the light of the inspector's recommendation. In 1980 I can simply set out clearly the constraints which surround our choice of action and then provide through this wide-ranging public inquiry the opportunity for the widest expression of views. The final decision must come at the end of that process."—[Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol., c. 696.]
  The inspector was most concerned about exactly what all that meant to him. In the meantime, the words and reassurances that I was receiving were becoming ever more generous and coming from ever more authoritative sources. The last word I took to be that of the Prime Minister who, in a letter to me in 1980, said:
  "The inspector brings an open mind to the issues and has the benefit of hearing all relevant evidence presented and tested in cross-examination. I can assure you that, when the inspector has reported to me, the representations made and his conclusions on them will be carefully considered, and there will be no question of treating any particular alternative proposal as out of the question because it conflicts with Government policy as put to the inquiry."
  Mr. Michael Barnes QC, representing the Government's point of view, addressed the inspector on the second day of the inquiry in the following terms: He said:
  "I wish, at this stage, to comment on the Government's view of the status of its policies and their relevance to the Inquiry. The Government's view may be stated as follows. The issues which are before this Inquiry are so wide ranging that it would be nonsensical to assert that because an issue has been the subject of a statement of Government policy that issue cannot be open to question at the Inquiry."
  He went on later to say:

  331
  "They"—
  the Government—
  "see the prime purpose of the Inquiry as being for all parties to deploy their argument and evidence and to enable all aspects of the issues and proposals to be considered in detail. It is only in the light of your recommendations that the Government will reach its final decision."
  That perplexed the inspector a little, and on the 13th day Mr. Michael Barnes had to return to assist the inspector. He said:
  "You will have the benefit of all the evidence being advanced and tested before you and you are in a position to judge afresh and independently the arguments advanced. The Government does not ask you to take any matter for granted and, within the normal rules which apply to these inquiries, does not seek to confine your consideration to any particular areas."
  He went on:
  "No argument which may be advanced to these inquiries will be ruled out from proper consideration by the Government merely because it runs counter to some aspect of Government policy. The decision on each of the three called-in applications is in no sense a foregone conclusion. The Government has done and will do everything within its power to ensure that the inquiries are as full and wide ranging as it has promised."
  I do not want to weary my hon. Friends, nor my right hon. Friend, but the quotations could go on. Mr. Harris from the Department of Trade was also closely questioned by the inspector. The clear implication was that all those matters were sub judice within the inquiry. Even as recently as 24 November 1983, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said:
  "I can assure you that the Government will not be influenced by the outside lobbying of any of the parties. What will matter to us is the Inspector's report on the evidence which was actually presented to the inquiries, which was properly tested by examination and cross-examination."
  The point that I am trying to make, I hope not at wearisome length, is that from all that was said and made clear to me, and then to the inspector at the inquiry, no one could have imagined that the 275,000 ATM limit was anything other than one of the factors in the inquiry. Her Majesty's Ministers assure us that they are in a quasi-judicial position in relation to that inquiry. I should have no more imagined that a Bill would have been brought forward today to implement the immediate expansion of Stansted than that there would be a Bill to impose the 275,000 ATM limit at Heathrow.
  If in the light of that the Government say that they never realised that there was a connection, I can only say that my hon. Friends see the connection and my constituents will all too clearly see the connection. If the 275,000 ATM limit is imposed by the Government using the machinery of the Bill, the prospects of having a fair and free decision on Stansted become negligible. That is what is at issue. That is why hon. Members are concerned tonight. I am astonished that my right hon. Friend and the Government cannot see that.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: My hon. Friend properly and forcefully put the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in a quasi-judicial position and therefore cannot reply to the debate on Stansted airport. In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that the most decent, proper and sensible thing for our right hon. Friend to do would be to give the House a free vote on the matter?
  Mr. Haselhurst: My hon. Friend's support is valuable and I hope that the Government will weigh his words.
  332
  The Secretary of State advanced in his defence the argument that if he did not have the Bill he would put himself in legal difficulties with the inquiry inspector. He suggested that the inquiry might have to be reopened. I do not follow that argument and I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any evidence for that claim. In the light of the quotations that I have given from exchanges at the inquiry, I do not believe that that argument stands up.
  If we are being asked to believe that that is the Government's legal opinion, I remind them of another legal opinion that, until a short time ago, they assured us could not be overturned. We were told that it was impossible for the inspector's report on Stansted to be published before the Government made their decision. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction told me in a letter of 17 February this year:
  "I cannot accept your suggestion that in the case of Stansted/T5 the report should be published before a decision is made."
  When I asked my hon. Friend about that, he told me that his decision was the result of the overriding legal opinion given to the Government. Happily, the Government have found another legal opinion that has enabled them to make an announcement today. I strongly recommend that they consult their lawyers again and I hope that they will not find it necessary to reopen the inquiry simply because they do not implement the 275,000 ATMs limit at Heathrow.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said that he had to act in this way to honour a pledge. I do not say to hon. Friends who have different constituency interests that I am careless of those interests, but a pledge is a pledge is a pledge and it does not help the reputation of the Government if they appear to be picking and choosing between pledges. Why does this pledge have to be honoured at this time? I do not deny that at the end of the inquiry process the pledge might be implemented, but why now? Why this pledge? Why not the other pledges given by the Government?
  When I was asked to justify to my constituents the fact that the Stansted issue could be raised again, I was taken on one side by Ministers—arm around the shoulders—and advised, "It's the constitutional point, old boy." I was told that the Government could not be bound by previous decisions and that they had to look at everything afresh.
  I told my constituents that it was a hard decision, but that there would be a public inquiry at which everything would be tested. Now that same Government ask me to tell my constituents that some pledges from the past can be retrieved and regarded as part of the Holy Grail. That is unacceptable. If circumstances have changed for the people of Stansted, they have changed for everybody.
  I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) feel strongly about the pledge that they were given, but I ask them to accept that pledges were also given to the people of Stansted, and not once, but twice. They were told in 1967 that the development of Stansted would be an environtental catastrophe. What has changed? The late John Davies said in 1971 that the development of an inland airport would do "irreversible damage" to large tracts of countryside. People take these matters seriously and they are entitled to some consistency from the Government.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is putting himself in the position of Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass". Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone:

  333
  "When I use a word,"—
  in this case the word might be "pledge"—
  "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
  The Government are not helping themselves if they are trying to defend their honour in respect of one pledge while denying their probity in terms of their whole approach to this difficult and complicated matter.
  The Bill is not necessary, it is not necessary now, it is not fair and it will prejudice the outcome of the Stansted inquiry. The Government may get their Bill, but they will not do so with my help. I fear that they will sour the atmosphere in which we shall have to address ourselves to the substantive matters behind the Bill.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes:After that tremendous, rousing speech by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), it would be churlish of me not to congratulate him and many other Conservative Members on their spirited and almost unanimous opposition to the Bill. We look forward to seeing them in our lobby.
  I noticed that the new chairman of the 1922 Committee was here earlier assiduously doing his job of listening to views, but I fear that, in spite of all the spirited and knowledgeable opposition of conservative Members, the Government will not withdraw the Bill. However, perhaps hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden will have assured themselves of a place on the Standing Committee where they can find other ways of ensuring the Bill does not get anywhere.
  I wish to talk about Prestwick airport, Scotland's international airport and our transatlantic gateway. However, I should like first to mention airports policy in general.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was generous in describing the Secretary of State's airports policy as being in disarray. I served on the Standing Committees on every civil aviation Bill in the previous Parliament and I know that, under the present Secretary of State, airports policy in the United Kingdom has degenerated from confusion into total chaos.
  First, confusion was created because of the rivalry between the options of a fifth terminal at Heathrow and the development of Stansted. On top of that we have seen piled the additional uncertainty of the proposed privatisation of the BAA, the crazy suggestion that CAA airports in the Highlands and Islands might be sold and the unbelievable decision to set up another review of Scottish lowland airports policy.
  I think that I can fairly claim to be an unbiased observer of the rivalry between the Stansted development and the fifth terminal at Heathrow. My eccentric view is that I am against both. I do not want a fifth terminal or more development at Stansted. I want all the efforts and resources of the BAA put into regional airports and Scottish airports, and more direct flights from those airports.
  With that unbiased view, I find it incredible that the Secretary of State cannot understand that there is a direct link between the Bill and the Stansted inquiry. Surely one of the most material pieces of information at the inquiry would be an Act prescribing a statutory limit on the number of aircraft movements at Heathrow.
  334
  The proposed privatisation of the BAA is unbelievable. I disagree with the privatisation of British Airways, but I can at least understand the motivation behind it—competition between BA and British Midland and British Caledonian and so on. However, I find it impossible to understand the logic behind the privatisation of airports.
  I live in Ayr. If I did not like the way in which Glasgow airport was run, would I choose to go to Manchester to fly to London? It is unrealistic to talk about such competition. I do not understand why an additional factor should be introduced to cause such confusion.
  The Civil Aviation Authority proposal to sell off the highlands airports stretches credulity to impossible lengths. Even some Scottish Conservative Members find it difficult to understand what is behind the proposal. Only one highlands airport has ever made a profit. The others provide a vital lifeline for the highlands and islands. The suggestion is that a private operator should take them over and receive a subsidy from the Scottish Office. That will result in not a totally private operation but a subsidised service. The Secretary of State will tell us that he has had a large number of inquiries about the privatisation of the highlands and islands airports. I should be surprised if any of them materialised into real interest. Such airports cannot be run at a profit. Operators will be interested only in the subsidy from the Scottish Office.
  The Government's airports policy is in chaos. I was deeply concerned when the Scottish lowlands airports review was established, but I was not surprised. There was no need for such a review. It was begun only because British Midland was rightly refused permission to fly transatlantic services into Glasgow airport. The review was set up as a sop to British Midland. I found that deeply offensive. It is also deeply offensive when officials at the Department of Transport say that the review must be completed within a particular time because they cannot keep Mr. Bishop waiting. For my part, Mr. Bishop can be kept waiting for as long as it takes to complete the review. The fact that he is having difficulties with his accounts and in keeping the airline running is none of our business.
  The problem has been investigated by previous Governments. The present Government have rightly reaffirmed that Prestwick should remain Scotland's transatlantic gateway. Prestwick has tremendous facilities. A huge investment has been made in it. If the airport were closed, that major capital investment would be abandoned. Prestwick has a superb fuelling facility which is available at no other Scottish airport. Because of its underground tanks, aircraft can be refuelled efficiently and speedily. At Glasgow airport 12 separate tankers are needed to refuel a 747.
  Prestwick has road and rail connections. They need to be improved, but when the A77 missing link with the A8 is built there will be a direct dual carriageway connection between Prestwick airport and central Scotland's motorway network. Prestwick also has a rail link. All that is needed is a railway station at Prestwick airport similar to that at Gatwick. Many people are fed up with Prestwick being given second best. Prestwick receives nothing like the investment of airports south of the border.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the charter airlines which fly thousands of people across the Atlantic to Scotland prefer Prestwick to Glasgow because of its superior terminal and refuelling facilities which are more effective and more efficient?
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is a user of Prestwick airport and knows about aviation. His views are particularly welcome. The hon. Gentleman knows that Prestwick also has a magnificent fog-free record. Only the other week 747s were diverted from Heathrow, which was fog-bound, to Prestwick. When the Queen returned from Canada and the United States there was some question about whether her aircraft should be diverted to Prestwick because of weather problems at Heathrow.
  Mr. Bishop would like Glasgow to be used instead of Prestwick, but that is unacceptable not just to the people of Ayrshire, who are worried about employment and want Prestwick to be developed, but to the people living around Glasgow who are affected by noise. They are worried about noisy aircraft passing over a heavily populated area 24 hours a day. Prestwick's main flightpath is over the sea. A subsidiary flightpath is over the countryside.
  To convert either Glasgow or Edinburgh airports to take transatlantic aircraft would mean spending £50 million or more— money which could be spent in better ways. That sum should not be spent because the facilities already exist at Prestwick.
  Some say that having three airports in the Scottish lowlands does not make sense. If we were starting from scratch, we would not build three airports in the Scottish lowlands, but we are not starting with a clean sheet. Three airports already exist. Glasgow and Edinburgh make a profit. Prestwick used to make a profit, but it is now losing small amounts. It could still make a profit. If we can sustain three profitable airports, we should do so. The situation in the Republic of Ireland is similar.
  If Prestwick airport were closed, the British Aerospace project there would be put in jeopardy. Jetstreams are being sold to small commuter airlines throughout the world. Jetstream production is a success. If the runway is not open to civil aviation, British Aerospace will have to pay for it to remain open. It could not do that commercially.
  Two recent events which should have influenced the Government make the review nonsensical. The first is the decision by the Government to establish one of the few new freeports at Prestwick. The success of the freeport depends on the airport being a 24-hour-a-day transatlantic gateway. If there is a question mark over the future of Prestwick airport as a passenger airport, the whole future of the freeport will be in jeopardy. It would be crazy for the Department of Transport to put in jeopardy a decision taken by the Treasury to establish a freeport at Prestwick. It would also be catastrophic for the area.
  The second influencing factor is the decision by Highland Express not only to apply for a licence to fly from Maastricht airport in Holland to Prestwick from Stansted to Prestwick and on from Prestwick to North America—to both Canada and the United States—but to show its confidence in the future of Prestwick and its belief that it is a great airport by deciding to establish its headquarters there.
  Prestwick is a popular airport with the airlines. Both Air Canada and North West Orient like it and would move only very reluctantly if British Midland's application is successful. It wants to stay at Prestwick. British Emerald Airlines has applied for permission to fly out of Prestwick, and British Airways Charter wants to fly out of Prestwick.
  I hope that the Highland Express application will be considered quickly and sympathetically. We would be
  336
  extremely concerned if it were refused. I know that the hon. Member for Altrincharri and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) was concerned about the refusal of the application by Singapore Airlines to fly to Manchester. With the regrettable exception of British Midland, which has commercial and internal reasons for not wanting to fly out of Prestwick, the other airlines are anxious to ensure that Prestwick is developed. It would be crazy to decide other than to keep Prestwick as Scotland's transatlantic gateway.
  Clause 1 limits the movements at Heathrow. It has a contradictory effect for Scottish airports. We want the Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen services into Heathrow to be continued. However, we do not want them to be developed as feeders for the European and long-haul flights out of Heathrow. That would take away from the potential for direct flights from Scottish airports, both transatlantic and to Europe. We are in a cleft stick.
  It was surprising to hear Conservative Members say in a spirited way that they could not support the Bill. It is perhaps less surprising to the House to hear that I, too, cannot support the Bill. I urge not only my hon. Friends but Conservative Members to vote against the Bill if they are genuinely concerned about its effect on regional and Scottish airports.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), the chairman of the aviation committee, I had an interest in aviation before coming to the House and I am still involved in it. Obviously, I am concerned about the future of the aviation industry. We cannot look at the airports in isolation and not realise the impact that the Bill will have.
  Like the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I have been involved for many years in attempts to find a more rational approach to aviation in Scotland. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not find all aspects of the Bill unacceptable.
  I see nothing illogical in the Government's policy to sell the civil aviation airfields in Scotland, and nothing illogical in their being purchased by local authorities. In future, subsidies should come from the Scottish Office. It is a sensible way to handle the matter. Where social responsibilities are involved, the Scottish Office, which has such immense power and responsibility, should be concerned about such a vital part of our infrastructure.
  I look forward to the day when the airfields will be operated for the benefit of the people by the people. I have been concerned for some time that the Civil Aviation Authority has closed some of the runways at some of the airports that will be sold. Anyone who has attempted a cross-wind landing in the Western Isles will know how fraught it is if the runway that allows one to land into wind has been closed. It means a cross-wind landing, sometimes with winds gusting at 30 or 40 knots.
  The majority of dissent about the Bill centres on Heathrow. I cannot understand how anyone can think that an arbitrary figure for the number of take-offs and landings can be set at any given point in time, and then must last for ever. The changes in technology and the continuing improvements mean that safety, which is the paramount factor, can be incorporated into the new techniques. Therefore, many more aircraft will be able to take off and land in future.

  337
  When I began to fly, the separation for aircraft was minimal. It might surprise hon. Members to know that I flew Tiger Moths. Forty or 50 aircraft would operate off a small grass airfield. There were no modern aids, and the air traffic controller was assisted only by a Very pistol and a light. With those two delightful pieces of equipment, he managed to keep the aircraft flying safely. We moved on into the age of the piston aircraft that flew passengers immediately post-war. In those days, Prestwick was the favourite airport in the United Kingdom. Anyone who has attempted to land an aircraft with passengers on board in some of the appalling conditions at airfields in Britain, knows that it is better to land at Prestwick. Of course, that airfield is on the great circle route, which means that it is closer to North America than airports in the south.
  Heathrow is a massive public airport, where there is tremendous investment. We should be imprudent if we did not enjoy the maximum number of take-offs and landings possible with modern safety standards. We are a long way short of that, and the arbitrary figure is a long way short of that.
  The encouraging aspect of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I understood him quite clearly—was that he and his Department would make the decision. It will not be made by a quango. Hon. Members who have heard me talk about quangos, in which we invest so much power, will know that I am no great lover of them. It is important that decisons should be made in the House if they affect such vital matters as whether to increase the number of take-offs and landings at Heathrow. I was grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he is prepared to review that aspect of the Bill, so I will give him my support, even if reluctantly.
  My support is reluctant because I have listened carefully to the speeches of my hon. Friends who serve on the aviation committee. I wholly agree with much of what they said. However, I want the Scottish airport problem to be dealt with.
  We must recognise that at some stage the Government will wish to privatise the British Airports Authority, although this measure was not included in the Gracious Speech. I am in favour of that move. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the most sensible and logical way of privatising that authority, assuming that the southern airports will be privatised as one trading bloc, would be to privatise the Scottish airports as one trading bloc. It would be possible to have a holding company with two trading companies underneath. The trading company for Scotland should be chaired by a Scot and the people involved in its running should be Scots. I would like more and more of these vital and important decisions to be taken by Scots. Some of the decisions that must be taken will be difficult. Individuals will be called upon to make unpalatable decisions. That is another reason why I believe they should be made by Scots. That point does not in any way weaken the case for privatisation.
  Mr. John Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much better if Scots who were elected by Scots within a Scottish assembly made the decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Walker: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I refuse to accept that idea. I have never thought that the things I wanted to do for Scotland in this
  338
  unitary Parliament were in any way prevented. In fact, the opposite is true. One gets much more done in this unitary Parliament, so Scotland benefits substantially. I have never believed that it was sensible to break up this marvellous unitary system that we enjoy. It would be criminal and stupid to do so. I hope that no one ever thinks that my suggestion that decisions affecting Scottish local authorities should be made in Scotland contradicts my views about this unitary Parliament and the way we do things here.
  It will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to hear that I should be happy to chair any future inquiry into aircraft noise, just as I chaired an inquiry into noise problems in my right hon. Friend's constituency where the airfield posed problems to the constituents. The Ministry of Defence invited me to chair that inquiry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that we came up with a solution that satisfied those who complained and everyone else. I am confident that the same can be done if this matter is approached sensibly and reasonably. I think my hon. Friends feel that way.
  There are differences between the noise footprints of modern jet aircraft and previous aircraft. No one should doubt that there is technical evidence, showing that modern aircraft are quieter and that the noise problems are fewer. Decisions on the use of runway facilities and capital investment in our airports should not be taken arbitrarily by putting limits on movement that have nothing to do with the primary criterion, which is safety and nothing else.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: If this enabling legislation is passed without any amendment, two principles of Conservative policy as enshrined in the manifesto and the Gracious Speech—denationalisation and support of private enterprise—could fly headlong into each other. The Bill must be viewed against the background of 18 months' debate about the privatisation of British Airways which resulted in a win for British Airways, a £17 million consolation prize for British Caledonian and a kick in the groin for the independents.
  This debate provides an important opportunity to assess the Government's commitment to private enterprise. I speak for Air UK Ltd., Manx Airlines Ltd., Brymon Airways, Dan Air Services Ltd. and Air Ecosse, and I must declare an interest in British Midland Airways Ltd. Those are all British-based independent airlines linking the provinces with Heathrow and all have remarkable growth records.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the long list of airlines for which he is speaking. I shall not ask him how much he is paid for doing that. Was the hon. Gentleman not elected to represent in Parliament the interests of the electors of South Hams?
  Mr. Steen: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have managed to do that as well. As he knows, South Hams has Plymouth airport within its curtilage.
  Because the private airlines believed that the Government would pursue their open skies policy, during the past 10 years they have sunk investment into aircraft and personnel. They have relied on the Government to provide the climate within which private aviation and enterprise could flourish with the minimum of rules and regulations. I am afraid that it looks as though those

  339
  airlines are being proved wrong. The Government are intervening in more aviation matters than any previous Administration did, and this Bill is another example of that.
  The Bill contains the ingredients which could distort opportunity for the independents. They are already prevented from flying out of Heathrow to Europe in competition with British Airways. They are prevented from flying from Heathrow internationally in competition with BA, and now there is a real danger that they will be weakened domestically. The Bill, if enacted without any amendment, could erode the viability of the independents, which will be left wide open to predatory action by airlines such as the national flag carrier, which has a good track record for doing just that. The legislation will prevent the independents from operating on profitable routes and so cross-subsidising the marginally profitable routes in this country. The independents are, therefore, facing legislation which, unless positive discrimination is shown at Heathrow, could mean their decline and ultimate demise, leading to redundancy of aircraft and staff.
  This enabling Bill gives enormous additional unrestricted and unfettered powers to the British Airports Authority. It gives unrestricted powers to the CAA, with more rules and regulations and more red tape. In effect, the Bill introduces a new tier into the aviation machinery. Just when the Government wish to take away one tier of machinery in local government, they want to put another tier into the aviation machinery. The only proviso is that the Secretary of State has the last word.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that he can take this hydra-headed quango into his domain. I am sure that he is just the St. George to take that action, but will his successors be able to do that as well? The British Airports Authority has already spoken out against domestic flights. It is one of those hydra-headed monsters, and it has suggested a quota specifically angled at domestic flights as an answer to Heathrow's problems, seemingly oblivious of or uninterested in the fact that this dramatic growth area is bringing new life and wealth to our ailing regions.
  Let us look at British Midland Airways' achievement—a company which I perhaps know best—and consider, for example, the transformation of the Anglo-Scottish trunk routes. The competition that British Midland has provided has increased the traffic by 20 per cent. and provided lower fares and far better service for the consumer. Both British Airways and British Midland have benefited. British Airways abandoned its Heathrow lead route on the basis that it would never be profitable. British Midland has turned that round, so much so that next March it will introduce a jet on that service.
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Steen: No, I shall not give way. I must get on.
  One of the difficulties which the Government face is that they have to rely on information that is given to them by the British Airports Authority. The authority said that the maximum capacity at Heathrow in 1979 was 275,000 air traffic movements. It says now that the figure is wrong in 1984 and that it is 350,000. Since 1979 there have been technological advances which have improved landings, turn-rounds and take-off speeds. These improvements mean that many more aircraft can be handled safely. The authority says that technically there could be 440,000 air
  340
  traffic movements a year. It is agreed that there could be 71 movements for 17 hours of the day every hour times 365 days. The maximum capacity of Heathrow is nearer 440,000 ATMs than 275,000.
  On the basis of the authority's figures, the Government pledged themselves in December 1979 to limit air traffic movements to 275,000 when the fourth London terminal was opened. The figure seems to have been plucked. out of the air. There is no reason why it should have been adopted, save that the Government said, when they agreed to 275,000 ATMs, that it created a balance between the utilisation of runways and terminal buildings and the noise nuisance to local residents.
  It is the noise element which makes the Government believe that they cannot go back on their pledge, yet millions of pounds have been spent by the airlines since 1979 on reducing their noise profiles. Most of the aircraft that are handled at Heathrow have a noise factor that is lower than that of the aircraft that were operating in 1979. The case is so powerful that one wonders why the Government are considering introducing legislation that is based on out-of-date figures and ignoring quieter aircraft. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will explain whether the limit of 275,000 ATMs has been fixed because of noise, and would be so fixed even if the noise issue was not in question and planes were silent.
  The authority argues that as the growth of movements has been in the domestic sector—59,920 in 1979 to an estimated 76,400 this year—it will be appropriate for reductions to take place in the domestic sector. Is my hon. Friend aware of the make-up of the 76,000 movements? Is he aware that 23,000 of them consist of the shuttle flights of British Airways? Is he aware also that 10 per cent. of the shuttle flights are back-up services? If we add to the shuttle flights the other British Airways services, we find that they account for 40 per cent. of all domestic flights. That means that 40 per cent. of domestic flights are operated by British Airways.
  The number of domestic flights has risen artificially as British Airways has tried to drive out its principal domestic competitors. If there is to be a reduction in the number of domestic flights, will my hon. Friend discriminate positively in favour of the private independents, rather than merely reducing each airline's quota pro rata?
  Mr. Snape: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman must earn the fee that he receives from British Midland. However, it will not do for him and other Conservative Members to profess to espouse the principle of competition except when it has an effect on their direct commercial interests. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is outrageous. He knows full well that it would not be accepted even by the present Secretary of State, with his well-known eccentricities.
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman does the independent sector a disservice. If 40 per cent. of domestic movements are by British Airways and there is a pro rata reduction for each airline, some of the independent airlines will not he able to continue. If that were to happen, they would be unable fully to utilise their aircraft. In effect, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to kill off the independent airlines to ensure the survival of British Airways.
  The Minister must discriminate in favour of the independent airlines if they are to survive. How does the

  341
  limit need to be imposed on domestic airlines, and why? At present, 275,000 ATMs excludes 20,500 which are part of the general aviation pattern. They were excluded from the 275,000 in the 1979 inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the 20,500 had been excluded. Is he aware that 72 per cent. of movements—14,897—were made by private jets? Those aircraft were taking up slots and using the runways when they could have been used by scheduled services. The BAA was at pains to say that the slots could not be used by scheduled services. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will explain why they cannot be used by scheduled services.
  As the noise nuisance to the environment is at the heart of the debate, perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the authority for full details of general aviation movements during the past year and the noise profiles of the aircraft involved. He might have an uncomfortable surprise when he learns that many private jets have a noisier footprint than the aircraft used for scheduled domestic services.
  The Brymon Dash 7 flies from Plymouth to Heathrow and it is one of the quietest aircraft now in operation. Indeed, it is far quieter than any private jet. If domestic growth is curtailed in favour of private jets, the Government will be favouring the international playboy and the middle east potentate. Is he aware that Adnan Khashoggi flies pretty regularly in a private jet with a noise profile two and a half times greater than that of the Short 360, which carries 36 business men to and from Birmingham five times a day, linking the national exhibition centre with our national airport? Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will not follow the authority's recommendation of curbing the growth of domestic flights, which have created and sustained jobs and introduced new prosperity?
  If the limit of 275,000 ATMs is, in effect, a noise limit, there can be no case for favouring rich men's private jets over scheduled domestic flights which link the capital with provincial cities and whose continued operation is vital to the revival of regional economies. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say, "Leave it to me and I will fix it." He has not fixed it up till now. The independent airlines have not been given any public money and none of their debts has been written off. They have not been given any preferential routes, unlike British Caledonian. They are now being told that they will have to reduce their flights or take punishment at Heathrow. Having won through and secured an arrangement whereby they can fly alongside the national carrier, they find that their movements may be curtailed, and with that their profitability. Private independent airlines cannot absorb under-utilisation of aircraft and a reduction in flights.
  There is a suggestion that airlines could be moved from Heathrow to Gatwick, Luton or Stansted. In no way are airlines like the pieces on a Monopoly board. They cannot be moved from Park lane to Bond street. It is like saying that British Rail should re-route train journeys from Manchester to Euston to Manchester to Waterloo, over the bridge. There is no way that that could work.
  The future of the independent airlines is extremely precarious. They are operating an extremely high-risk business. They can survive through their own ingenuity and imaginative management, but they will not do so if they are expected to survive in a market distorted by Government legislation.
  342
  My message to the Government is that they must be aware of the likely consequences of their actions. British Airways will be privatised; British Caledonian has been saved. It would be an indictment of our party and our country if the six independent airlines which fly to Heathrow went into decline or, worse, out of business.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My point of order is about something that came to light this afternoon via a press release from the Government. Can you advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how, at this late stage, I can apply for a debate on the fact that the Government have issued a press release to say that they will withhold £1 of supplementary benefit from families of striking miners in Britain? I should like to question the Government on why that was done, and why it was not in the normal circumstances. Why was it not done in last week's autumn statement? I should like you to make a judgment on that and see whether we can immediately have a debate in the House on this urgent matter regarding the suffering of miners' wives and families.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to support strongly the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] This is an extremely serious matter. It has been sneaked out without being brought properly to the attention of hon. Members and in a manner specifically designed to rule out debate by the House. I am told that the press release was made at about 5.30 pm. The first that we knew about it was on the radio. Neither the press release nor the written answer is yet in the House of Commons Library.
  It is perfectly clear that the information has been given in that way to ensure that the matter is not debated. I understand that the measure is to be implemented under the very unusual device of a Privy Council order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I believe that that is almost without precedent. I understand that it is for implementation on Monday, at the very shortest possible notice.
  I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the measure has clearly been long contemplated by the Government. Mention of it was omitted from the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services on the uprating in July and, much more recently, from the Chancellor's statement only last week. It is clearly extremely provocative that it has been introduced in the middle of the strike. The reason for its timing can only be conjectured, but it is difficult to believe that it is not connected with the end of the Christmas bonus offer that is being made to miners. In view of the manner of its introduction, its provocative nature and the way in which the Government have designed it to prevent proper debate and a proper vote by the House, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect the rights of the Opposition and Back Benchers, and to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House at 10 o'clock tonight to make a full statement of his intentions and to justify the means that he has chosen to introduce this highly provocative measure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I realise that the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who have raised this

  343
  matter, feel strongly about it, but I am sure that they and the House will recognise that it is not a point of order on which I can help them. However, I am sure that what has been said has been heard and that both hon. Members will use their ingenuity to raise the matter on another appropriate occasion.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, the points raised concern the Chair more than the Opposition. I put that to you with the point in mind. The Chair is there to protect the rights of Parliament. Whatever political controversy may be raised and whatever depth of feeling there may be—and I share it—at a decision to take £1 a week out of the mouths of people on strike, this is a parliamentary matter, in that you must know very well that arrangements for financial statements are always made in the House. It would be unprecedented for a major statement involving £7 million a year to be made through a written answer. Further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, if the Government have chosen to use a Privy Council mechanism for that purpose, they are using the Royal Prerogative to prevent a parliamentary debate.
  With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is a matter for you. It is not for those engaged in the controversy. You are here to protect the House. I respectfully invite you to ask Mr. Speaker to consider the matter, because it is for Mr. Speaker and the House. Only when that aspect is dealt with is it a matter of controversy within a debate. I ask you to give careful consideration to it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have no power to alter the business of the House, but he will know equally that there is a well-established procedure in the House for drawing attention to matters that any right hon. or hon. Member feels are urgent—that is, by writing to Mr. Speaker. That is the correct procedure to be followed.
  Mr. Benn: Further to the point of order. I am sorry to come back to the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot have made myself clear. The Chair is there to protect the House. This issue is about the rights of Parliament in respect of financial legislation. As you know very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, until quite recently Mr. Speaker left the Chair during the Budget debate because he was thought of as a King's man. That is why he was not there. We have now changed the rules.
  With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you speak as if this was a matter of political controversy that should be raised through the normal procedure by which political controversy is brought to the Floor. My point is that it is your concern, and yours primarily and alone, to see that the prerogative is not used to allow the Government to deny a debate on a matter of major financial concern which, incidentally and very importantly, will affect 140,000 families at this time of the year.
  I beg you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consult on that point because I believe that if Mr. Speaker is brought into the matter now it will be seen to be a parliamentary matter, not only a matter of indignation at the Government's meanness in the way that they have announced the measure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no power to interrupt the
  344
  debate. However, I have advised him that if he feels that there is an urgent matter to be debated, the correct procedure is to write a note to Mr. Speaker, who will of course consider it.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: I have good news for my hon. Friend the Minister in that the tone of my contribution will be considerably less strident than that of some of my hon. Friends. The bad news is that the content of my remarks will be as critical of the Bill as any contribution so far.
  My concern about the Bill stems from three sources. First, I do not believe that the undertaking of 1979 needs to be implemented now without a further review of developments in relation to aircraft noise. Secondly, I do not believe that it would be sensible to implement the measures outlined in the Bill in advance of other developments in airport policy, decisions on which are known to be imminent. The third source of discontent is the mechanism for implementing the limit which lies at the heart of the legislation.
  In my view, this measure is anti-customer and anti-small-airline. I believe that I am the first Member to refer in this debate to that very important person, the customer. In my opinion, any artificial limit at Heathrow would be wrong. First, it is not good for British Airways. A common strand in all the dissent expressed by Conservative Members today has been that we wish British Airways well as it approaches privatisation and we want it to be in a position to maximise its opportunities. The corporation's own opposition to limiting air traffic movements at Heathrow must make it clear to the Government that the limit cannot be in the interests of British Airways. To that extent, one aspect of the Government's aviation policy flies in the face of another.
  I declare an interest as a consultant to British Caledonian— [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will contain himself, I shall be happy to answer interventions. British Caledonian has no direct interest in the limit on movements at Heathrow, but it has a considerable indirect interest, as I shall explain later.
  A decision at this time is not necessary because the undertaking of 1979, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State placed great emphasis today, included the promise that there would be a review of the situation. We understood that that would take place before the undertaking was implemented. My question to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has the unenviable task of replying to the debate, is quite simple: why does the limit have to be imposed without the review first being carried out? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to be saying that the legislation must be passed and air traffic movements limited now and that only when the legislation was in operation would he fulfil the second part of the undertaking and carry out the review. That sounds suspiciously like the grand old Duke of York marching his men—in this case, those who live around Heathrow—to the top of the hill, only to run the risk of having to march them down again. He does not deny that a review was part of the undertaking. Surely it is infinitely preferable that that review should be undertaken in advance of any decision to impose the limit which lies at the heart of the legislation.

  345
  I am concerned that this measure is not in the interests of the customer who wishes to travel from Heathrow. First, a substantial reduction in flights is almost inevitable. Just as terminal 4 is about to open, giving the impression that there is to be more comfort and opportunity for flights from Heathrow, the limit will prevent that improvement. Secondly, the operators forced to transfer from Heathrow will be mainly small airlines— and small domestic airlines at that. If foreign airlines are told that they must stop using Heathrow, there will be threats of retaliation. Any reduction in air traffic movements at Heathrow will thus have to fall almost entirely on British domestic airlines. Those airlines will clearly suffer most.
  Even more insulting to the domestic airlines is the fact that they will be pushed out, at least in part, by the price mechanism. Such a policy sits oddly on the shoulders of a Government who are at pains to say that they believe in free enterprise and competition as it is precisely the practitioners of free enterprise and competition who are likely to be the victims of this legislation. It is also against the interests of the customer in that the flights most likely to be affected are those serving provincial centres. At the moment business men can fly from a provincial airport to Heathrow and on to a foreign destination. The legislation will prevent that, at least to some extent.
  If those airlines are forced to leave Heathrow, where will they go? Will they go to Stansted? Surely it would be wise for the Government to wait for the very short period involved before the report on Stansted is received so that they know whether the alternative destination is to be Stansted. The other possibility is Gatwick, but the only runway there is already close to capacity at peak hours. Moreover, the Government's competition policy outlined in the White Paper of 5 October envisaged the use of Gatwick for the development of new services. I wonder whether the Minister recalls the lip service paid in the summer and early autumn to the great advantages of "dual designation" in terms of competition among British airlines. If those services are to be expanded at Gatwick, how can that airport cope with surplus movements transferred from Heathrow?
  How will the Secretary of State decide which flights can no longer go into Heathrow? Will he require British Airways to transfer any of its services? There would certainly be strong opposition from British Airways if he tried to do that. Moreover, according to the recent White Paper, British Airways is to be permitted to transfer back to Heathrow some of the services that it now flies from Gatwick. That being so, British Airways will clearly not be the victim. Foreign airlines will not be asked to transfer from Heathrow because of the threat of retaliation. Therefore, it must be the domestic airlines. If I have missed something and there is some other way of achieving the objectives set out in the Bill, I hope that the Minister will explain it when he winds up the debate.
  We do not know the mechanism whereby the legislation will be implemented. In effect, we are asked to take the Secretary of State on trust. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber as I should like him to know that, despite all this criticism, I am really rather well disposed towards him. In personal terms, I think that he is a very agreeable man.
  Mr. Snape: That is more a comment on his judgment than on his kindness.
  Mr. McCrindle: I am sure that the Secretary of State will pay suitable attention to the respective remarks of the hon. Gentleman and myself.
  We are asked to take all this on trust. In an ideal world, we might well do just that. The Secretary of State, however, having given full approval to an investigation by the Civil Aviation Authority into the future of British aviation, did not quite carry through that policy. I think that most people would concede that the White Paper which eventually emerged was a pale imitation of what the CAA had originally proposed. I doubt whether we can take it on trust as we are being asked to do.
  I might be asked: what has changed since 1979? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take my answer on board. Runway separation standards for aircraft have changed. Forecasts of the maximum capacity of runways have been raised, so that the latest estimate for Heathrow is now 330,000 movements per year. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that figure is correct? Does he agree that only a review such as the one I am calling for will show whether the figure is correct or not?
  I readily endorse all measures to restrict the noise nuisance around Heathrow, but some consideration must also be given to the national economic requirements of millions of passengers and cargo shippers. If the Government agree with me about that, they must also agree that hasty action would be wrong.
  Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend blithely mentioned a figure of 330,000 movements a year—about 900 a day. How can he expect people living near the airport to tolerate that situation?
  Mr. McCrindle: With respect, my hon. Friend has listened to only part of what I said. I made it clear that I understand the difficulties of his constituents, but I pointed out that standards have changed to some degree since 1979 because of the improvement in the design of aircraft and the reduction in the amount of noise emitted. The suggestion that 330,000 is a more appropriate figure is not mine; it was made by people who approach these matters from an infinitely more specialised and technical standpoint. Should we not be imposing tougher restrictions on noise rather than on movements? I feel that, in his assiduous defence of his constituents, my hon. Friend sometimes confuses those two matters. They must be kept in separate compartments. Have we been using the wrong yardstick? If so, it would be folly to pass the legislation and to tie our hands for a long time ahead.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I say only that the proposals in the Bill are unnecessary, because, first, the emphasis should be on noise control rather than the control of air traffic movements. Secondly, a full-scale review should be undertaken before restrictions are imposed. Thirdly, the Government should dovetail their policy on air traffic movements with the decision which follows the appearance of the Stansted report. Fourthly, I point out that the pledge can be honoured without resorting to rushed legislation. The Bill is unnecessary, untimely, and opposed to the interests of the small airline and the consumer. The Government should rethink their policy.
  7.14 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Unlike the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) I have no particular interest which I should declare. I do not speak for "Air Wales", Air UK, Dan Air or any other company.
  The Secretary of State has said that he is taking powers to limit landings and take-offs at Heathrow. I am in favour of that, because for the past five years I have had to use Heathrow two or three times a week, although I live only 10 minutes away from a regional airport with excellent facilities, except flights to most European cities.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no deep-seated plot to box ourselves in over Stansted. In my view, there should be no development at Stansted and no further development at Heathrow. Heathrow cannot cope with the level of traffic which it handles at present. Those who have to use it frequently find it an unpleasant airport. Most services in this country suffer from the problem of over-centralisation. That is especially true in the case of air transport. Air traffic demand has remained overwhelmingly concentrated on four airports in the London area— Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. Those airports account for about two thirds of all terminal passengers using airports in the United Kingdom. Heathrow alone handles about half the total number of terminal passengers and over 60 per cent. of the international passengers using airports in Great Britain.
  Outside the south-east, the problem has been one of over-provision of airport capacity and an inability to generate traffic. If there is ever to be an efficient use of the country's resources and an encouragement of the development of viable air services in the regions, we need to reassess and rationalise the future role of the regional airports. The only White Paper on air transport published in recent years appeared in 1978. According to the White Paper, the consultations that took place at that time confirmed what some Conservative Members have said today—that
  "of all the problems associated with airports, the disturbance caused by aircraft noise remains the most serious".
  The consultations also
  "reaffirmed the particular severity of the problem around Heathrow."
  The White Paper states:
  "By 1990 the number of people affected around Heathrow is forecast to decline to less than 300,000".
  That decline would be brought about mainly by the development of quieter aircraft. However, the White Paper warned:
  "even so the problem will still be greater at Heathrow than elsewhere in the country."
  Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Lady aware that that assessment of the number of people affected is based on the noise and number index, which is under review as the formula of the measure of aircraft noise? Many people question the assumptions on which that formula is based. The review may lead to the devising of a different formula, which might produce different figures.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Until that review takes place, the figures that I have quoted will stand. I shall be interested to hear the results of the review when they are published.
  The transfer to other regions of some part of the growth in air traffic which might otherwise take place in the southeast would have two main benefits. It would help to relieve pressure on resources in the south-east, and it would
  348
  contribute to the Government's regional development policies— such as they are. Unfortunately, there are further disincentives to an expansion in the number of flights using regional airports. For example, there are the charges levied by the CAA on carriers using small regional airports. Those charges are sometimes four times as high as those levied at the main airports. We should try to equalise the charges.
  Air traffic could be decentralised to airports such as Cardiff and Bristol. Those airports both handle a similar volume and type of traffic. They concentrate mainly on charter services, scheduled domestic flights and a few international scheduled services. It appears that south Wales, the Bristol conurbation and the south-west of England in general could sustain only one category B regional airport. However, there is a significant difference between the facilities obtainable at the two airports. Furthermore, expansion of traffic at Cardiff would support the Government's regional development policies since the airport is in a development area, and close to a special development area. In south Wales and the south-west of England, the catchment areas of the various airports are small. Cardiff airport, with its modern but under-utilised facilities, should develop as the category B airport in this area.
  I was disappointed in a reply given by a Minister last week. When I reminded him of the policy in the White Paper, he said that policy and investment were two different things. As that policy has apparently not been changed, it should be backed up by Government investment.
  As a result of Labour Government policy, Cardiff airport was designated the airport for the south-west region and £5 million was spent on bringing it up to international standard. It would require a vast amount of money to bring Bristol airport up to the same standard and the money would be wasted as Cardiff airport already meets the area's needs. Moreover, Bristol airport is 200 ft higher than Cardiff and is therefore more likely to be out of operation because of bad weather or fog. Indeed, it is frequently out of operation for those reasons.
  Cardiff-airport is fully operational to a high standard. It plays a role in the economic viability of south Wales which cannot be ignored and it could help in the regeneration of the region. When industrialists look for suitable sites, they always impress on us the importance of good airport facilities. Although we have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the United Kingdom, we do not have such facilities providing for international flights. If Bristol were designated the south-west region's airport, a great deal of money would have to be spent to bring it up scratch and its use would affect the viability of Cardiff airport and the regeneration of the south Wales economy.
  As in many other matters, it is vital that there should be further decentralisation of airport provision. Unlike other countries, we still concentrate the bulk of our air traffic in the London and south-east region. If we had Scottish and Welsh assemblies, I am sure that those two bodies would have implemented a vigorous air transport policy. Unfortunately, the Government seem unready and unlikely to do that.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: East Midlands airport lies in my constituency, and several domestic airlines operate from it. I cannot help asking what there is in the Bill for domestic airlines such as British Midland. Such airlines already feel that the Government have let them down. The one opportunity which the Government had to provide real competition arose from the Civil Aviation Authority report of 1984, but the opportunity was lost in the scramble to privatise British Airways. Indeed, the opportunity turned into a cosy conspiracy, just as I foresaw, in which the two giants shared the spoils. The true independence of domestic airlines has not been enhanced and now we see from the British Airports Authority report and the Bill that the number of movements is to be limited.
  What does the future hold for the domestic airlines? I cannot think that the Bill gives them much room for manouevre among the national airlines, as so many of the decisions emanate from the Foreign Office rather than from any other Department. Moreover, British Airways, like a petulant child, appears to be able to make a demand, and the Government just give in. There is no room for domestic airlines to expand. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, Heathrow is vital for independent domestic airlines. Already a domestic airline has lost its slot into Heathrow, and that was the end of the company. Gatwick would be hopeless for domestic airlines, and Stansted would be even worse.
  Another consideration is the business executive using non-scheduled flights. I do not agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said about that because, in addition to the 275,000 scheduled movements, there are 20,000 non-scheduled movements of executive jets and the like. They pose no threat to anyone. They wait patiently for a gap in air space to enable them to land or take off. There is a maximum of 37 movements an hour into Heathrow. I can vouch for the patience of nonscheduled airlines, having sat for 35 minutes yesterday waiting to take off. Such flights are important, as business men have to travel all over the country. Time is often vital to them and they fly to many minor airports where scheduled airlines do not go. It is therefore crucial that they should continue to enjoy the service.
  Field Aviation Services, which handles 60 per cent. of non-scheduled movements, has invested a great deal of money in its jet centre at Heathrow on the assumption that non-scheduled aircraft will be able to continue operating at present levels. It is not asking for any more movements, but it wants no fewer. It has done well and should be left alone. Such airlines cause no trouble and are of great benefit to everyone.
  I cannot see that the Bill helps domestic independent airlines, and I therefore shall not be able to support it. I shall not vote against the Bill receiving a Second Reading, but I shall certainly not vote in favour of its doing so. I should like domestic airlines to be given much more protection.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I am the hon. Member with Heathrow on his patch. Despite what has been said about it, Heathrow is the world's major international airport, and I hope that it stays that way.
  I must be honest and say that I am suspicious about what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. It
  350
  will take some convincing to persuade me that the Stansted inquiry does not lie behind the Bill. Nor do I accept the argument about the pledge. Too many Governments have made pledges and been only too keen to renege on them when it is convenient to do so. It is nonsense that we must stay with the pledge.
  My right hon. Friend said that the figures could increase anyway. Even if it were necessary to maintain the 275,000 flights limit, we do not have to rely on giving the Secretary of State extra powers which he can use when he chooses, especially when he does not have to tell us why or when he will use them. How will he use those powers? Will they affect domestic or international movements? It is not good enough that we have not been told.
  Some background information about Heathrow is necessary. Estimated air traffic movements for 1984 show 195,000 international movements, which is 73 per cent. of all movements, and 70,000 domestic movements, which is 26·5 per cent. About 12,000 of those domestic movements, or 18 per cent., relate to aircraft with a maximum passenger load of about 40, and they are not always full. Aircraft with a maximum of 60 passengers represent 18,000, or 26 per cent., of all domestic movements. Aircraft with a maximum of 80 passengers account for 21,000, or 41 per cent., of domestic movements.
  I do not believe that there should be a limit. There should be completely unfettered movement in and out of Heathrow. However, if we must have a limit, it is crazy to suggest positive discrimination for domestic flights. By definition, that means that there will be less freedom for international aircraft. Government interference will cause more problems than it will solve. My right hon. Friend should not seek any powers under the Bill.
  I suggested to my right hon. Friend how there could be a limit without imposing legal constraints. I told him of four options which he could consider before he made his decision. He told me in response to each of those options that he did not have the necessary powers and that the Bill was therefore essential to make a limit. The Civil Aviation Act 1982, in section 68(1)(b), states that the Civil Aviation Authority shall have regard,
  "to the need to secure the most effective use of airports within the United Kingdom."
  Under that general power the CAA could, if it so wished, reduce the ATMs of smaller aircraft— for example, aircraft which carry between 40 and 80 passengers. The Secretary of State could act on that without taking additional powers under the Bill.
  Section 68 also applies to the reduction of domestic movements as international demand increases. Such an approach allows for a more flexible reaction than simply banning all small domestic movements, which will still have an impact.
  My most important suggestion was to extend the ban on night flights without interfering with domestic movements—indeed, while allowing them to increase. Section 78(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 gives the Secretary of State power to adjust the times of airport use. If we extend the ban at Heathrow from 11.30 pm to 11 pm and ban all night flights, we should at the same time have no restrictions on day-time flights. That would be to the benefit of all international airlines and some domestic airlines. I cannot see why that cannot be done. There would be an environmental advantage.

  351
  Many people living in and around my constituency are more worried about test-bed activities at night than about movements during the day. Five or 10 extra movements in an hour may make such a small difference that people will not notice it. That is a reasonable proposition. My right hon. Friend should consider it and could bring it into operation without taking new powers under the Bill.
  We can use the price mechanism to reduce domestic ATMs. The British Airports Authority already has powers to introduce landing charges. I hope that in future the House will discuss the monopoly powers of the BAA. The way it treats its concessionaires at airports needs to be fully discussed in the House and made known to the public. It is no wonder that the BAA can make such large profits when it uses and abuses those who want to ply their normal trade in the airports' precincts.
  At present the cost of landing an aeroplane is weight-based, and smaller aircraft pay much less than larger ones. A Shorts 360 pays about £80 to land and a B747 pays about £552. Both aircraft use the scarce resources of the runway and runway time. Why should they not pay the same price—the market price—to use them? Why should bigger aircraft pay more than smaller aircraft for using the same facilities for perhaps the same time? A flat rate landing fee would be fairer and reduce some of the domestic demand, which will please those who feel that it is necessary for it to be limited, although, as I said earlier, I do not. Landing fees on average account for only 5 per cent. of the costs. My right hon. Friend told me that the impact would be marginal. For smaller domestic flights over short distances the landing cost could be increased to 10 per cent. of the cost. The effect would then be greater than he suggested.
  I thought that the Government believed in market forces. It is completely wrong for them to suggest that market forces could not work in this case. I am aware that some of my hon. Friends take a different view about domestic flights, but, as Heathrow is in my constituency, I know that the international aspect of the airport is of paramount importance. If we do not have the limitation suggested in the Bill and allow movements to increase, which my colleagues say can be done and which some hon. Members believe should be done, there is no reason why the international aspects of and the domestic feed into Heathrow should not continue side by side. The night ban would be a reasonable compromise with the environmentalists.
  There is no justification for the Bill. Given my right hon. Friend's attitude, I have no choice but to vote against it. He is asking us for a blank cheque, but he has not told us why he wants it. I cannot believe that he is so naive as to enter the Chamber and say—as he said—that he is surprised at the interest or the potential outcry about the matter. How could he be surprised if he had been advised? He has an array of advisers. Are they all so naive that they could not anticipate our feelings? They must have known that the Bill would have an impact and that hon. Members would see the connection between the Secretary of State's actions and the Stansted inquiry.
  It may be, as was suggested, that my right hon. Friend has a cavalier attitude, or that that was an aside to make us laugh, but I cannot believe that either. If he thinks he can lead us like sheep through the Division Lobby, he has got it wrong. The Government's policy on civil aviation is a dog's breakfast. I do not know where it is going or why, and I do not believe that the Secretary of State knows either. There is no unity in the Government's approach to
  352
  civil aviation. The sooner the Government consider the entire picture instead of picking up bits and pieces, the better for everyone.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Graham Bright: The Civil Aviation Bill is one of the shortest and, apparently, most straightforward measures which we shall consider this Session. Its provisions are simple, and the motives which prompted the Government to introduce it have been explained. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has shown his determination to consider the environmental commitment at Heathrow, and we understand that.
  The powers sought in the Bill are extremely important. They have important implications for the major air transport policy decisions which must be taken shortly. The Government must determine whether extra passenger handling capacity is to be provided in the London area, and, if so, where it should be located. Is there to be a fifth terminal at Heathrow, another runway at Gatwick, or a major expansion at Stansted in Essex? What is to happen to services in the regional and Scottish airports?
  Any of the developments which have been canvassed in the south-east will affect the distribution of air traffic services throughout the United Kingdom for decades to come. A decision on this issue will go a long way towards resolving the form in which the airports are owned by the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority. Some local authority airports may be transferred to the private sector. Because the Bill deals directly with the distribution of air traffic, all those matters inevitably arise for consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and I produced a booklet some three years ago called "Airports U.K.". It set out, I believe for the first time, an overall airports policy for the United Kingdom. With the Bill, I believe a policy is encroaching upon us almost by default. I accept that the Government have been committed to limiting air traffic movements at Heathrow to 275,000 a year since the decision to build a fourth terminal was taken. The growth in the number of domestic services since 1979 plainly meant that pressure to enforce the limit would soon arise. I fully appreciate the environmental considerations which the Government have had to bear in mind.
  Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the inspector reporting on the fourth terminal recommended a limit of 260,000, and yet the Government went above that to 275,000?
  Mr. Bright: I believe that the Government did the right thing. It is possible to go even higher, as I shall explain. Those are not the only considerations. The runways at Heathrow appear to be capable of taking up to 330,000 air traffic movements each year. That was the consensus of the evidence given recently to the Select Committee on Transport.
  Furthermore, the new noise regulations, in effect from January 1986, and the replacement of aircraft such as the B707 and the DC8 by the wide-bodied quiet jets means that by 1990 a drop of 85 per cent.— that is an incredible figure—in the number of people affected by noise intrusion will have occurred. Leaving aside the question of whether quiet, small aircraft such as the Dash

  353
  7 and Short 330 should be counted at all— I do not think they should be; I believe that we can slot them in as they have done so successfully at the Washington national airport—there is no doubt that Heathrow's true capacity will be under-utilised and the noise problem will be substantially alleviated, whatever the limit.
  The difficulty is that throughout the public inquiry into the proposed expansion of Stansted airport and, more recently, in its evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, the BAA has consistently argued that a limit of 275,000 ATMs a year at Heathrow rules out the development of a fifth terminal there. If that is so—I know that the major airlines, including British Airways, dispute that— the House will be closing one of the options before it has had a proper chance to consider it. It is vital to know the Government's view on that matter.
  The BAA believes that no runway development at Gatwick is practicable and therefore Stansted's expansion is inevitable. I look to my right hon. Friend for a categorical assurance that the limit he is proposing for Heathrow does not preclude the development of a fifth terminal there.
  Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the movements at Heathrow are increased from 275,000 to 295,000—an increase of 20,000—that is only 0·03 of the NNI?
  Mr. Bright: I am aware of that. If my hon. Friend had been listening he would have heard me say that towards 1990 there will be a substantial lowering of that figure, even with an increase of up to 330,000.
  The House must be able to discuss these issues freely in the future. That is important. It would be intolerable to find that Stansted's expansion was the only available option as a result of decisions that we had taken under clause 1. It has been official policy for some years to prevent new international services being introduced at Heathrow. For the London area, they must go to Gatwick. Differential landing charges at the two airports are meant to encourage the process of transfer, just as the much lower charges at Stansted are intended to stimulate the movement of charter services from Gatwick to the Essex airport. Clauses 1 and 2 will undoubtedly buttress that policy by obliging many of the new and competitive domestic services—they are competitive—to leave Heathrow. The policy at least has the merit of consistency.
  What has been overlooked, however, is that Heathrow's range of international services and its interlining facilities have given it a monopoly in the United Kingdom's airport system. Gatwick's network is far too restricted to offer domestic airlines any alternative. The major international airlines have the resources and protection of their countries' air service agreements to ensure that they will be relatively unaffected by the overall limitation of air movements at Heathrow or by the allocation system suggested in clause 2. It will be mainly our domestic carriers, whose movements at Heathrow have grown so dramatically over the past five years as a result of increased competition, which will be forced to move to Gatwick. Their development will be hindered because Gatwick's network of international scheduled services is so much poorer. That is a high price to pay for adjusting our pattern of air traffic distribution to suit the BAA.
  354
  The policy ignores the fact that there is a fourth airport situated in my constituency of Luton, South which already plays an important role in the London system. There are four times as many passengers going through Luton airport as Stansted. We have a nice new terminal, and we make a profit. We have the capacity now to handle up to 5 million passengers a year. With new access and additional terminals and landing facilities, which could be constructed at a fraction of the cost of the proposed Stansted development, we could take up to 10 million passengers a year.
  Luton airport, having escaped a takeover by the BAA in the 1970s, is now having to resist the heavily subsidised incentives offered by the BAA to attract traffic away to Stansted. There is nothing fair about that competition. It exists because the BAA can cover its losses at Stansted and offer cut-price landing and apron charges by cross-subsidisation from Heathrow. Airlines and passengers are over-charged for the services which they receive at Heathrow to cover the losses at Stansted and in Scotland and to enable the financial targets set for the authority to be met. The BAA's strategy involves discrimination against the one south-eastern airport of any appreciable size which it does not own—Luton—which undermines entirely its claim to be the disinterested guardian of the national or even the south-eastern interest in airports policy.
  For that reason, I am worried about the method of allocating air movements outlined in clause 2. It opens up the possibility that the monopoly element in the BAA's revenues at Heathrow will be even more vigorously exploited. The only rationale for that would be to fund a major investment programme of the kind necessary for the development of Stansted. The fact that air traffic movements will be below their technical limit, and that it is proposed to auction them, suggests strongly that airlines and passengers using Heathrow are to be milked once again. The penalty will be paid at Luton, Manchester and elsewhere in Great Britain. The existing discrimination by the BAA against Luton is unacceptable. If Stansted is chosen for major development, Luton will have to face the prospect of closure. About 7,500 jobs are dependent upon it.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise why anxiety about the pattern of air traffic distribution runs deeply. The powers which he now seeks will have to be exercised to accommodate decisions on the future expansion of our passenger handling facilities. That is why I ask him for clear and unequivocal assurances that none of those issues has yet been settled. It is also the reason why the House needs to be extremely careful before accepting a mechanism which would increase the BAA's power to exploit passengers and airlines using Heathrow to fund the development of other airports.
  Those points must be clarified before our support can be given tonight. Provided that we have those assurances, we can debate the major policy issues freely when they arise, without binding commitments. Nothing else will be fair to the House and the country.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I apologise for not being present for the whole of the debate. Unfortunately, I had

  355
  to attend a Select Committee meeting, and I am sure that Conservative Members will appreciate the difficulties of being in two places at once.
  Those parts of the debate to which I have listened have been interesting. We have heard fierce and severe criticism of the Government from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) will forgive me if I do not comment on his remarks, but I recognise the validity of many of the points he made. Many of them are parallel to the points which would be put forward in respect of many other airports outside the south-east.
  The Government's present airports policy is one of almost total confusion and lack of consistency. We recently debated the CAA report and we now have an airline policy almost by default. However, that has not been integrated in the context of an airports policy. Even at this stage we should be considering such integration. It is important to recognise the need for a consistent airports policy, but that will not arise through piecemeal measures such as this Bill.
  The Bill kicks into touch the possibility of a proper review of airports policy on a national basis. In any case, whatever the Government's airports policy is, it is undoubtedly contentious. It is almost exclusively concerned with the south-east and almost totally ignores regional airports such as Manchester international. The status of that airport seems to have diminished considerably from the days when it was given gateway recognition. It is as if the Government now see it as almost irrelevant to their airports policy.
  We in the regions deeply resent the marginalisation that has taken place in this respect, and should like to know how airports such as Manchester figure in these plans, given the worries arising from the Bill.
  The Secretary of State said that this was an innocuous measure which we should not fear. He told us that it was merely the delivery of a commitment made some time ago in connection with Heathrow airport. But the Bill is not innocuous. It is extremely dangerous, particularly for airports other than Heathrow and Stansted.
  I personally would not argue against the principle of a limit on the number of movements at Heathrow. There may well be ways of defining such limits, but that should be done in the context of an overall review of airports policy. By doing so, such limits would take account of the national interest and the need for an airports policy. Such limits should also have regard to operating a technical capacity within air transportation during the last five or six years. The limit of 275,000 movements for Heathrow was established in 1978, and the CAA is now on record as stating that in any case it could be increased to 330,000 movements to maintain consistency. But seemingly there is no recognition of that.
  The fact that no limit is written into the Bill makes some of us suspicious. We do not know what limits the Secretary of State in his wisdom might set or operate. Our great fear is that the Bill is an attempt to use the limits as a way of justifying Stansted in advance of the inspector's report—the simple argument being that with Heathrow limited it is necessary to expand Stansted to allow any adequate flow of air traffic.
  We welcome the announcement that there will be a debate on Stansted. I deeply regret that that debate will be purely consultative and that the House will be unable to make a decision, given that the development of Stansted is so contentious. There is a fear that limits may be reduced
  356
  at an early stage to justify Stansted and that once Stansted is established they will be lifted. That will allow Heathrow to expand even further—a move that would be grossly detrimental, if not disastrous, for the regional airports, particularly Manchester international.
  Many hon. Members from the north-west are also suspicious of the activities of the BAA. We have all seen the sweeteners from the BAA, such as car parking passes and so on, as well as the publicity justifying its advocacy of Stansted. However, none of this has been concerned with the real worries of Manchester. Consequently, most of us in the Manchester region feel that the BAA is hostile to Manchester international airport on the ground—perhaps logical— that the BAA does not control that airport, which is a successful example of municipal enterprise.
  The BAA will shortly be privatised. Given its hostility to Manchester, we are naturally concerned that its major objective will be to make money. To make the maximum amount of money, the BAA might simply decide to give preference to the large international carriers at Heathrow—a decision which will have a number of detrimental consequences for the regions, and specifically for Manchester.
  Whether that advantage is given to the international airlines, either by a quota system or price system, it will inevitably be disastrous for the smaller regional airports which, for example, depend on the Carlisle-Heathrow service as their main service. That service could be killed off because the regional airports will not be able to operate on price or other grounds.
  Although Manchester airport is big enough to withstand such a decision, even it would be seriously and detrimentally affected. If more space at Heathrow were given for international services, there would be less incentive for the international airlines to go to Manchester. Much as I regret it, I appreciate that Heathrow is more attractive to the international airlines.
  The Secretary of State has recently spoken about Manchester being allowed to expand its international routes if the international carriers are at the same time prepared to forgo services from Heathrow. Naturally, we know that no international carrier will give up a service from Heathrow in order to have a service from Manchester. I regret it as a Mancunian, but recognise that that would be the reality. Therefore, an expanding Heathrow would mean less capacity to develop international services from Manchester airport, and that would be bad for the travelling public within the Manchester catchment area.
  The BAA's development of Heathrow for international services would either squeeze out the shuttle service from Manchester to Heathrow or increase the cost. An increase in cost is more likely, thereby establishing a poll tax on those who wish to travel from Manchester to Heathrow. That again would not be in the interests of the public in that area.
  All hon. Members will be aware that the recent CAA report on airline competition was contentious. We saw especially the way in which the report had to be overridden by the Secretary of State as a result of the pressure from right hon. and hon. Members who felt that the CAA had made a mess of it. Yet, with this Bill, once again we intend to trust the CAA with powers, granted with some regulation by the Secretary of State, which in the past the House has been unhappy to see the authority exercise.

  357
  Those who come from the Greater Manchester area are suspicious and deeply unhappy about the Bill. We argue that from Manchester's point of view and from that of the air travelling public's need of an overall national airports policy we want to see a positive decision to transfer airlines to Manchester before any decision is made about airports policy. The Bill sabotages both a proper review of airports policy overall and any arguments in favour of the transfer of those routes.
  The justification has been made before today of the ability of Manchester airport to generate additional services which could and should be given to Manchester. I have details of the 5,500 additional movements at Heathrow which could be saved. Their transfer would allow Manchester to carry to 24 destinations, many of which it is unable to offer at present. It would also involve domestic savings at Heathrow. It is in the interests of relieving the present congestion at Heathrow and the future development of Heathrow for Manchester to be given the additional services.
  We know that the market exists. The minimal surveys which simply look at the travelling public who already go by domestic airlines to Heathrow and then travel on to other destinations are sufficient to justify the existence of direct services from Manchester. We also know from previous experience that when new services have been introduced from Manchester, such as the Qantas service to Australia, the estimates have been exceeded four times over because the market has proved to be massively bigger than the original estimates.
  Should the Secretary of State allow airports policy to develop in the anarchic way that it seems to be going at the moment, the result will be the further development of services between Manchester and Amsterdam which at the moment are totally unregulated. The result is that Amsterdam will become Manchester's international airport and not Heathrow. That is worrying from the national point of view, but Manchester would be forced into accepting that if the Secretary of State was not prepared to reconsider the Bill and the need for a global review of airports policy.
  We urge right hon. and hon. Members who have grave doubts about the Bill to vote against it to ensure that we have an adequate debate on Stansted and a proper review of our airports policy.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Perhaps I can help the House. I am anxious to call those hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate and trying to catch my eye. I appeal for brief speeches from those hon. Members whom I am able to call.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and assure him that, although he has not been present for the entire debate,· his remarks were consistent with those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  In my innocence I thought that one way of improving my chances of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be to say that I was opposed to the Government's
  358
  proposals. In this case that has proved to be somewhat counter-productive. Yet it must be almost unique that in such a debate only two hon. Members have spoken in support of the measure. However the voting goes at the end of the debate, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will have got the message.
  I make one remark in support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is somewhat short of support. The Government have been accused of a lack of consistency in their airports policy. I assure the House that that is not the case, because the Government do not have and never had an airports policy. That is why I was obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) for drawing attention to the document "Airports U.K.", compiled by us, which we felt might give the Government a few ideas. I am afraid that it is out of print, but copies are still available at £2·50.
  I am pleased to say that some of the recommendations in that document have been picked up and are now Government policy. Possibly the most prominent suggestion was the one that the British Airports Authority should be denationalised. I, too, noticed the absence of that undertaking in the Queen's Speech, but it is in the manifesto upon which we were elected in 1983. I hope that that omission will be put right at a later date.
  I do not want to cover ground already gone over by my hon. Friends, but I endorse what they have said in summarising my view of the Bill, that it is unpopular, premature and unnecessary. I have a certain sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in having stirred up this hornets' nest when he felt that it was an innocuous measure and also for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, making his first appearance as a Government spokesman on a Bill, who no doubt thought that he had an easy measure on which to cut his teeth but has got stuck with a very tough nut.
  This has happened because the Government are a bit out of touch. There has been no shortage of messages from Back Benchers over the last four years that the drift of Government policy on airports was in the wrong direction. There have been endless early-day motions, Adjournment debates, letters to Ministers and pamphlets from hon. Members and people outside the House. Consistently the Government have failed to recognise the message. It may be, of course, that we change our Ministers too frequently. That is always an accusation that can be made of any Government. The minute that a Minister begins to develop knowledge of and expertise in a subject— shipping, overland transport and civil aviation are technical subjects—he is moved to another job.
  It may be that we missed the opportunity to say more about airports during our debates on civil aviation in the summer. Perhaps we were diverted by the battle between British Airways and the private operators about licences and routes. However, that accusation cannot be levelled at my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Haselhurst), who has always made very spirited speeches on airports policy. Although he represents Saffron Walden, the constituency containing Stansted, his speeches have not by any means been parochial. An hon. Member who speaks about his airport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South did, is not being parochial. All the speeches made by hon. Members in this debate have taken the wider view.
  When we debate our airports policy we are discussing not just parochial matters, but the overall policy for our

  359
  civil aviation industry. It is not our airports which are at stake. What is at stake is the future of our civil aviation industry if we fail to get our airports policy right.
  Civil aviation is a success story. It contributes tremendously to our balance of payments. It is the one industry in which Britain is highly successful. Yet the Government are doing their best to kick the ball through their own goal. It is the one industry that we should be doing everything to support.
  I am a little sceptical when I see the White Paper on airline competition policy prepared by the Department of Transport—it came out rather late during the recess and should have been published before the House rose for the summer so that it could have been debated—in which our airports policy comes in as a bit of an afterthought in paragraph 32. It is the last point made before the conclusion. In its White Paper the Department of Transport says:
  "The Civil Aviation Authority recommended that the Government review its airports policy particularly in order to give airlines more opportunities of using Heathrow for domestic services."
  That is a bit of an understatement because in its final report the CAA made recommendation No. 7:
  "The Government should look again at the possibility of increasing available capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick".
  That could not be a firmer recommendation. Yet the Government already seem to be diluting that in their White Paper. That is not wise or consistent.
  There has been much talk about the so-called pledge on movements at Heathrow. The paragraph from the White Paper on airports policy, part of which I have already quoted, says:
  "The Government has reaffirmed the intention announced in 1979 to impose an annual limit for environmental reasons on air transport movements at Heathrow, when Terminal 4 comes into operation next year."
  Terminal 4 does not come into operation until October or November, so I cannot see what the hurry is.
  Nevertheless, it is debatable whether that limit is a real pledge. It is much more a planning condition that was made at the time by the then Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment. It was cooked up as a sweetner for the opponents of terminal 4 which became a condition for the planning consent. I do not accept that the Government are honouring a pledge in bringing forward this enabling measure, which is all it is.
  We are for ever making the point that one Administration cannot bind a successor. That is a constitutional point. Yet there is a much more important principle at stake in the legislation, which is that one does not set up a public inquiry and then prejudge its outcome. That is pointless.
  Hon. Members have also referred to the privatisation of British Airways, but no one has mentioned it in detail. We have just had the prospectus for the sale of British Telecom's shares. Some of us were interested in its length. If the privatisation of British Airways proceeds, and if that happens before the Government have passed judgment on the results of the Eyre inquiry, the findings of that inquiry, which will amount to 2,500 pages or more, will have to be attached to the prospectus. Therefore, the privatisation of British Airways looks at the moment as though it will carry with it the longest prospectus in City history. That is another good reason for not proceeding with this measure.
  360
  The only limit on movements at Heathrow should be that required for safety purposes rather than some arbitrary figure. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies he will tell us how the figure of 275,000 ATMs was arrived at. Perhaps he will also let us have his views on the figure put forward by the CAA that the physical limit at Heathrow is 330,000 ATMs. There is a wide discrepancy. Incidentally, that figure is also confirmed by a further CAA report entitled "Runway capacity at major airports", published last September. It is based on the 38 million passengers who will pass through Heathrow once terminal 4 is in operation.
  Mr. Wilkinson: With air transport movements being only fractionally under the 275,000 limit, how is it possible for there to be about. 25 million passengers a year going through Heathrow now when the CAA is supposing that 38 million should be going through when terminal 4 comes into operation? Does it imagine that the Government will do the sensible thing and not have an arbitary limit of 275,000 ATMs a year?
  Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will answer that question when he sums up. It is an interesting one.
  It has been suggested that if the limit is imposed Heathrow services will easily be able to transfer to Gatwick. Paragraph 31 of the CAA report, "Airline competition policy", produced in the summer, says:
  "While transfers of one sort or another from Heathrow to Gatwick would, if carefully selected, contribute to the development of the Gatwick hub and of the scheduled airlines based there, they would also accelerate the time at which the single Gatwick runway reached its capacity. An increase of 28,000 movements over the 1983 level would take the overall movement level up to the runway capacity."
  There again, we are hoist with a planning condition on which, in order to obtain planning consent for the second terminal at Gatwick, some sort of undertaking was given that there would not be a second runway. That is a good example of planners deciding that such conditions should be applied. As as ex-planner, I can say that one is consistently living with the mistakes of previous planners. If they are wrong, particularly when circumstances alter, there is every reason for changing them.
  My main reason for disquiet about the Bill is that it prejudges the decision on Stansted, which, it would appear, is the only place capable of accommodating future growth. But Stansted will not be ready until the 1990s—no doubt, well into the 1990s. Nor, for that matter, will terminal 5 be ready. Opinions vary as to the precise date, depending which camp one is in. Therefore, it would be wrong and impractical to impose an arbitrary limit on Heathrow instead of allowing the airport's business to expand to its natural capacity, thus obtaining a proper return on the resources already invested there.
  Where will the flights go? If they cannot go to Heathrow or Gatwick, and Stansted has not been developed, they will go to the continent. There is no way that they will start using regional airports in the United Kingdom. They will go to Schiphol and Frankfurt. I am afraid that Heathrow is the only place that can take, certainly in the short term, the additional demand that we expect and it should be allowed to do so.
  Two other factors have been mentioned, and they both relate to what have been described as the changed circumstances. The first is noise, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will take into account

  361
  the relevance of quieter aircraft. But when planning consent for terminal 4 was granted, the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment promised that there would be a review in the light of the prohibition on noisy aircraft in January 1986. That is the date on which the prohibition applies to both United Kingdom and American aircraft. It does not apply to European continental aircraft and others until 1988 or beyond. I would argue that those are changed circumstances.
  Equally important is the change in size. We must take account of the growth in size of airliners and the number of passengers they carry. In 1980 the average number of passengers per flight into Heathrow was 109. With four terminals at Heathrow that is a throughput of 38 million passengers. The total number of movements required would be 348,000. That is clearly far too many. They could not be physically accommodated. But by 1990 the average number of passengers from aircraft is estimated to be 193 and that would require only 196,000 movements. That illustrates not only the scope but the need for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Otherwise, we shall not get a proper return from the investment that has already been made in runway capacity at Heathrow and all the other facilities. It would be a direct breach of clause 3 that the Secretary of State wants to see made law.
  Clause 3 provides that the Secretary of State may give directions to the CAA
  "to secure the most effective use of aerodromes within the United Kingdom".
  How will Stansted look then? We shall have a lot of spare runway capacity and we would need the fifth terminal at Heathrow simply to get up to the 275,000 movements limit.
  As for the so-called mechanism, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that this is not a CAA scheme and that it will not be a BAA scheme. He says that the mechanism will be his scheme and that he will do his best to discriminate in favour of British domestic carriers.
  However, most movements are international and are subject to bilateral agreements with other countries. My right hon. Friend has already shown his determination to get to grips with the bilaterals and to come to terms with foreign operators. However, if he starts pushing around foreign operators at Heathrow, he will get some dusty answers. What will Lufthansa and Air France say if they are told that they cannot operate flights into Heathrow? I suggest that our own operators, rather than the foreigners, will get the push.
  Therefore, the imposition of a limit of 275,000 movements would be to the benefit of foreign carriers, at the cost of our airlines and particularly the domestic operators—the operators which my right hon. Friend has professed to support and the businesses which our new civil aviation competition policy is designed to help.
  I ask the Government to use the time between now and the Committee stage to rethink some of the provisions of the Bill. The Government will get the Second Reading, but I warn them that there will be a long time between now and the enactment of the Bill and that they should remember that the Maplin Bill was defeated as late as Report. The Secretary of State has time to think again. I hope that he will do so and that he will take on board the comments made in the debate and, in particular, note the consistency of opposition to the Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal for extreme brevity, because otherwise it will be impossible for me to call all the hon. Members whom I should like to call.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is a great pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who is a former chairman of the parliamentary aviation committee. I am the tail-end Charlie as secretary of the committee and the final committee member to speak in the debate.
  We all agree that 1984 is likely to go down as one of the most fateful years for the United Kingdom civil aviation industry. Many of us believe that the White Paper on airline competition represented a lost opportunity to create a framework for the industry into the 21st century. Many comments have been made about the effect of that on the independent operators.
  We are embarked on what must be the final round of crucial debates on airports policy. Perhaps we should bear in mind that Lady Bracknell might have said that to lose one opportunity may be regarded as misfortune, but that to lose another would look like carelessness.
  The debate on airline competition was heavily circumscribed by the apparent pledge by Sir John Nott, in a private letter, that British Airways would not be required to divest itself of routes before privatisation. In a similar manner, our freedom of action over airports policy is to be curtailed by the Bill and by the pledge that there will be no second runway at Gatwick.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), who spoke with such eloquence and impartiality in taking the wider view, despite his special interest in the matter, can justifiably claim that his constituents have the right to feel that they have also received a pledge.
  Airline and airport policies are areas which call for long-term planning and for the widest possible debate. About 40 million people use London's airports, yet no one wants a runway at the end of his back garden. I must say to my right hon. Friend that if the Government are to deliver on all the pledges given in haste and without the approval of the House, there is little point in Parliament's having a debate at all. We may as well let the men at the Ministry and the quangos take all the decisions.
  I join my hon. Friends in expressing incredulity at the claim that the limit on movements at Heathrow has nothing to do with the continuing debate about airport capacity in the south-east. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that it is central to that debate. If we agree to put this arbitrary limit on the statute book, we shall be tying one hand behind our backs and, with a commitment to deny a second runway to Gatwick— surely the most obvious and logical development—we effectively tie the other hand.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is keen to take part in the debate and I say to him that I understand—we all understand—how passionately each community feels about the pledge that it claims to have received. However, we must remember that wider issues are involved. I do not have an airport in my constituency and I can speak with what I hope will be regarded as a genuine interest, untrammelled by constituency interests.

  363
  It is a tribute to the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he seeks to fulfil a promise which he believes was made. However, times and circumstances change and, just as no Parliament can bind its successor, so we must reserve the right in the national interest to review earlier decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said how important Heathrow is as a national asset. We cannot lightly play with it, but, if circumstances change, decisions that can be changed must be changed.
  When the Government introduced the idea of the 275,000 movements limit, they proposed that there should be a review of that limit in the light of the new noise regulations which are due to come into force shortly. My right hon. Friend has told us that that pledge took into account the new regulations, but I suggest that it did not take into account the fact that there have been about 20,000 additional domestic movements as a result of the Government's policy on deregulation. Those extra movements involve aircraft which are not as noisy as those which are causing the problems.
  My right hon. Friend has assured us that the Bill has been brought before us not only to redeem a pledge, but because Heathrow is full up. We are told that it has run out of runway capacity. I simply do not believe that to be true. Nor do the airlines that use Heathrow, 45 of which have protested to my right hon. Friend at this imposition. Nor does IATA, which yesterday released a critical statement from Athens about the Bill. I spoke to the chairman of the Heathrow scheduling committee this morning and he told me that the committee has planned for 283,800 ATMs for the year ending 31 October 1985. What will happen to all those agreed schedules?
  Even according to the CAA's figures—assuming the present mix of 18 per cent. small and light traffic and 30 per cent. heavy aircraft— the capacity is 330,000 movements, a full 20 per cent. more than the proposed limit. We are, therefore, being asked to approve a measure which will lead to a major national facility operating at 20 per cent. below capacity. Ministers have much to say about that sort of inefficient use of resources in other areas of the economy.
  In my view, and in that of the professional operators, including the Heathrow scheduling committee, the 330,000 limit understates the true position, because I believe that the CAA has taken an ultra-cautious view of runway utilisation. There is increasing demand for more frequent services, which has boosted demand for feeder liners, such as the SD330 and 360 and the Dash 7, which are not only much quieter, but do not need the full 12,000 ft main runways at Heathrow.
  If the Government give the go-ahead for the docklands STOLport, that will take some commuter traffic from Heathrow. However, more imaginative use could be made of the Heathrow site itself.
  At the meeting with the CAA in July this year we were told that the use of runway 23/05—the 7,500 ft long south-west/north-east runway— as a separate access landing system was not on. The Select Committee on Transport said in July this year:
  "A study of the proposal had concluded that 'the loss of runway capacity on the two parallel runways at Heathrow associated with one arriving and one departing STOL aircraft per hour on the cross runway 23/05 would be 2·8 movements per hour.' The BAA therefore concluded that the use of this runway would decrease rather than increase the runway capacity of the airport."
  364
  I do not wish to seem uncharitable towards my friends in the BAA, but they are not the best judges and they are not impartial, given their fervent espousal of the Stansted cause. I had to take their view on trust until September of this year, when I spent 30 minutes in the control tower of Chicago's O'Hare airport, the busiest airport in the world. About 650,000 movements will take place there this year— three times the number at Heathrow. The site is larger and there are four parallel runways at O'Hare, but we can learn some lessons from the American experience.
  At Heathrow runway 23/05 is already used when the cross-wind component on 28 is too high. I see no reason why 23 should not be available for take-offs and landings without safety being impaired. At O'Hare one radar screen is devoted to the parallel approach. The full-time job of two controllers is to monitor the parallel approach to ensure that no aircraft strays from one approach to the other. I asked the controllers whether they had any problems and I was told that it was the most boring job in the tower because they never had any problems. A similar scheme could be used at Heathrow.
  If that proposal is too taxing, will my right hon. Friend examine the possibility of a new STOL runway and terminal to the north of Heathrow between the A4 and the M4? Such a proposal has not been considered. The Minister owes it to the House, given the strength of feeling among all hon. Members, to commission an independent report before continuing with the Bill.
  I am profoundly unhappy with the proposals. Not only is the 275,000 limit arbitrary and wrong, but we are asked to give my right hon. Friend a blank chitty to secure from the BAA proposals for implementing the limit. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (M[r. McCrindle), I fear that the vital United Kingdom domestic feeder network into Heathrow will be the casualty and that those who have brought enterprise and innovation to the United Kingdom airline industry— including some regional British Airways operations, particularly that at Birmingham—will be the casualties.
  My constituents who use Birmingham international airport will suffer. The west midlands is a vital industrial area. Birmingham international is needed because of the access which it gives to international markets. If implemented, the proposals will result in the loss of domestic feeder services at Birmingham and other regional airports. They are vital in providing a link to the worldwide network out of Heathrow.
  I shall not say too much about the Bill's other proposals, because I am so against them. The chairman of the United States Civil Aeronautics Board has spoken against auctioning slots because that will keep out those who most need to be kept in— the airlines which provide the feeder network. He opposed buying and selling landing slots because smaller operators would be pressured out of prime time operations, which might also affect small community services. The United States has experience of deregulation and we can learn from what has happened there.
  On the evidence, and from what I have heard tonight, unless I hear something satisfactory from the Minister I shall have to follow my hon. Friends and vote against the measure, which is not in the national interest.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Tom Sackville: I am not convinced of the need for movement limits. Many hon.

  365
  Members with experience have spoken convincingly about there being no need for limits. Even if they were needed, north-west Members with an interest in Manchester international airport would be concerned about how they were imposed. About 10 per cent. of Heathrow's traffic has its origins or destinations in the Manchester area. Basing limits on domestic movements will have a detrimental effect on north-west consumers, the business community and, indirectly, on the area's economy. If the limits are imposed in a balanced and fair manner and spread over the five higher-volune international routes, considerable benefit could be gained for Manchester international airport.
  A large number of flights could be transferred to Manchester from Heathrow to fulfil demand originating in Manchester. For example, it is estimated that there could be five additional weekly return flights to Geneva, four to Munich, five to Dusseldorf, seven to Paris, seven to New York and two to Los Angeles.
  Heathrow would benefit from 5,500 fewer international traffic movements as well as 1,700 fewer domestic movements as a direct result. We do not know what the Secretary of State intends to do. The Bill has been described as a blank cheque. We must know what the Secretary of State intends before we can make a serious judgment about the Bill. I ask the Minister to try to fill in some of the blanks tonight so that we may have a better idea of whether we can support the Bill.
  In the north-west we are understandably sensitive about the Government's attitude to Manchester airport. In the last two years the Government have not appreciated the regional economic aspect of airports policy. We were particularly disappointed by the recent refusal of the Singapore Airlines' request for routes direct into Manchester. We need such a service. The request was turned down to protect British Airways' interests.
  Decisions must be taken within the context of regional airports policy and not on the basis of the profitability of south-east airports. Nothing in the Bill encourages me or other north-west Members to support it. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the limitations. We shall listen with interest. Perhaps we can learn what the proposals mean for Manchester and whether there is any point in supporting the Minister tonight.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) will forgive me if I do not follow him because of the shortage of time. I wish to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who said that we had to live with the mistakes of the planners. Douglas Jay, who was a Member of the House from 1945 to 1983, told me that when he was a civil servant at the then Board of Trade in 1944 he and two other civil servants decided, in the space of half an hour, to put an airport at Heathrow. That is in sharp contrast with the massive, agonising procedures, inquiries, debates and lobbying that take place over years and years in the present generation.
  There have been impressive speeches in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthome (Sir H. Atkins) spoke vividly about the impact of aircraft noise on communities close to Heathrow. Some five hours ago he referred to 275,000 flights a year meaning 753 flights a
  366
  day, and spoke of what that meant to those living near the end of a runway. On a typical day, there is a flight every two or three minutes. We cannot ignore the impact of that. It impairs the quiet enjoyment of people's homes and gardens, especially in summer when people spend time in their gardens or have their windows open. It interferes with the work of schools, hospitals, offices and churches.
  Most people are annoyed when interrupted every two or three minutes. If people are talking or using the telephone, they must stop. The annoyance does not last for only a few seconds: it continues for up to three quarters of a minute, and then happens again two or three minutes later. Many people find that absolutely intolerable, so some restraint must be imposed.
  All hon. Members, including Opposition Members, are concerned with welfare. The House cannot ignore the social evil that hurts those living around Heathrow. The consultant psychiatrist to the West Middlesex hospital has shown that it is detrimental to mental health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier this year that the Government were "determined to bring relief' to those affected by aircraft noise. Relief means less noise, not simply keeping it at its present level. It is no good proposing policies that merely continue the existing noise level. Those living around Heathrow need a substantial and permanent reduction in noise.
  There is a strong feeling that aircraft noise should be reduced and that a limit of 275,000 movements a year—753 a day—is too great. Terminal 5 must not be built. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has asked me to speak for him also. The Government have given a pledge. There is no point in mincing words— a pledge is a pledge is a pledge. Those living around Heathrow expect that pledge to be kept.
  A great deal of the argument about noise has rested on the assumptions contained in the formula for the so-called noise and number index—the NNI. I was pleased to note in a letter from the Department of Transport that the NNI is being reviewed. That is right, because it is out of date and leads to inaccurate conclusions. The NNI is a formula for assessing noise nuisance that dates from 20 or 25 years ago, when the number of flights was far fewer. It contains two components—one for noise and one for the number of flights. The formula gives more weight to the average peak loudness of each flight than to the frequency. That did not matter during the 1960s when both the elements in the formula were increasing together. As we went through the 1970s, the number of flights continued to increase but a growing proportion of aircraft became quieter— a trend that has continued into the 1980s. Therefore, to give more weight to loudness than to frequency, when the frequency annoys more than the loudness, is quite wrong.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, the number of flights causes the greatest annonyance. If someone is sitting in his garden or is trying to use the telephone in his house, a 747—a relatively quiet aircraft—can be as annoying as a louder aircraft. In the 1960s the number of flights was far fewer, so it was right to give less weight to frequency. However, the position has changed and the frequency is now very important. It is ridiculous for hon. Members to say—as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)—that

  367
  the noise nuisance around Heathrow would become 85 per cent. less based on the formula. That is to base projections on an outdated formula.
  I realise that, with time so short, I should not mention road congestion, but that is also a major factor around Heathrow. The Department of Transport's technical evidence in paper No. 25 to the Heathrow inquiry said that both the M25—which is not yet complete, but will be in one year—and the A4-M4 Cromwell road radial route will be overcrowded. If both the main radial and orbital routes are severely overloaded, that will mean much more traffic on the lesser main roads in west London, which will damage the environment of those living, working and trading in the area.
  Mr. Patrick Ground: Did not the report also state that the A4 was unimprovable?
  Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The A4 is heavily congested now at peak hours, and will become severely overloaded and congested throughout the day if there is no restraint on the traffic through Heathrow. Heaven knows, we have not yet begun to see the effect of terminal 4— let alone a fifth terminal. When the 275,000 movement limit is imposed—
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend referred to traffic congestion. If the Bill is passed, and the logical area for expansion is Stansted, will my hon. Friend accept that, although there is a beautifully free run down the M11, it stops at Redbridge? What happens then?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that interventions make it difficult for hon. Members to respond to my request for brevity.
  Mr. Jessel: I am not familiar with the M11.
  The number of passengers currently going through Heathrow is 26 million a year. With the fourth terminal in operation, it will be 39 million. If there is no limit on the number of flights, and if a fifth terminal is built, the number will rise to 52 million— double the current number. The western side of London cannot take that. There should be a sharing out of the traffic. It is essential to the environment of those living in western London that the Bill is passed.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate which is really about the future structure of the aviation industry. Clearly, this subject has caused many interesting reactions among hon. Members. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said that we were stirring up a hornets' nest and that the Government were out of touch. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said that he would probably vote against the Government. One certainly gets the impression that the Government have it wrong and are out of touch with the feelings of the House and the various airport authorities.
  I have a particular interest in this matter, because I represent a constituency in Hull which is close to the Humberside airport. That successful airport is beginning to expand. It is crucially important to the local economy because of the industry that is developing. Anything that impairs that development would be regarded seriously by all of us.
  Today, all hon. Members who represent the Hull region received a telex from the airport manager of Humberside
  368
  airport in which he expressed his strong reaction to this measure. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is in the Chamber. He received a copy of that telex, which was also sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who is abroad. The airport manager said:
  "To say the least, the Bill is badly timed and would do little but close off options relating to the future development of the London airport's system at a time when the inspector's report on Stansted/Heathrow terminal 5 is awaited."
  He continued:
  "it could have serious implications on the future development of Humberside airport."
  It is worrying when a man in that position has to send such a telex. I am sure he feels that there has not been adequate consultation on this matter.
  Clause 1 empowers the Secretary of State to impose a limit, or limits, on the number of aircraft movements. There is a limit of 275,000 movements at Heathrow, and I understand that the movements at that airport are almost up to that level. The airport is congested with air traffic. Any extension of Stansted would result in more demand being sucked into the area.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposition put to the Department of Transport by the Manchester international airport authority that the transfer from London to Manchester of 5,500 international movements would save 1,700 domestic movements? Is not that kind of thinking a much better way forward than this Bill, which has been so comprehensively savaged by Conservative Members?
  Mr. Randall: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing that out. I was aware of the figure of 1,700 domestic movements. Not only Manchester airport, but the north of England regional consortium, which is a consortium of local authorities, has put forward some cogent arguments and clearly expressed the case for extending the regional airports. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) applies in this case. I believe that the legislation will have a devastating effect on the regional airports. The figure of 1,700 domestic movements shows the powerful case for moving traffic to the regions and the magnitude of the traffic involved.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) suggested that we should not bring traffic into this debate. I believe that a profound argument can be made on the vehicle traffic around the airport. Clearly, an excess number of flights into Heathrow generates unnecessary traffic.
  The Secretary of State said that the consultative document suggested that the airports should be allowed to compete for slots. I understand that airports such as Manchester, Birmingham and even Humberside could compete for movements. What does the suggestion do to help the smaller airports, which operate small planes to keep down their overheads, to expand and develop? Clearly, that proposal would have a serious effect and limit the development of services in the area. The Government should be creating the right legislative environment to enable the small airports and airlines to develop and thrive. Does the Secretary of State really want the regions to suffer? The Government are supposed to have a regional policy. It is odd that they are talking about providing the opportunity to ensure economic development in the

  369
  regions, yet at the same time ensuring that parts of the infrastructure— aircraft movements, and so on— are constrained.
  Earlier in the year, one of the airlines in the Humberside region—Jenair—went into liquidation. At that time, the alternative airline—Air UK Ltd.—which works from Humberside, was unable to operate the Humberside-London route. It was difficult for the airline to do so because of the arrangements at that time, but the new arrangements would make that operation possible. That aspect makes us realise the significance of the link between Humberside and London. Without that route which provides so much revenue and is growing considerably, the economics of the airport were severely hampered. We must ensure that licences are available to allow that operation to take place.
  In the operation of smaller businesses with smaller aircraft, Humberside has shown tremendous enterprise in developing links with Denmark and Amsterdam. It is interesting that British Airways helicopter flights to oil rigs have proved to be an expanding business and led to a further extension of the airport facilities.
  It is thought by many that fishing is Hull's sole industry. In fact, there are a number of multinational companies in the area. Fishing is still important, but Hull has lost much of its distant water fishing fleet. The House will be aware that Reckitt and Colman has its head office at Hull. Failure to provide multinationals with comprehensive airline schedules would be inconsistent with the region's development. Humberside county council controls the airport, and it has proved to be enterprising in making great efforts to develop the airport.
  The Government's approach to the Bill is ill thought through. The Bill does not command the support of the House. I hope that the Government will seriously rethink their policies and ensure that they create the right legislative framework to provide the opportunities necessary for smaller airports in the region to thrive.
  9 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: Many concerns have been expressed on both sides of the House about the Bill, especially from the Conservative Benches. Many suspicions have been voiced and there is a feeling that the Bill's timing was linked with Stansted developments. There are also suspicions about the Government's motives for producing the Bill.
  I cannot add to the eloquent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). As I know that some of my hon. Friends still wish to contribute to the debate in the few minutes that remain, I shall make only one brief point.
  Over the past few years the British Airports Authority has made various forecasts of passenger usage at Heathrow which have proved to be wrong by being on the high side. There is no reason to believe that the BAA's forecasts will not be wrong in future. It projected, for example, that by the 1990s it will have a shortage of usable space of about 15 million passengers per annum. Lo and behold, it has suddenly discovered that that capacity of 15 million passengers can be taken up by Stansted airport, which is designed to cater for 15 million passengers per annum.
  370
  The authority has stated that 80 per cent. of passengers coming to Heathrow and Gatwick—I believe that the figure is on the high side but let us accept it for the moment—intend to stay in the south-east. That means that at least 20 per cent. intend to go to other destinations in the United Kingdom. Nothing has been done to push out the 20 per cent. to other regional airports. It is unfortunate that the Government have not been able to do more to untangle us from the host of bilateral arrangements and agreements of the sort which prohibit Cathay Pacific or Malaysian Airlines System from operating lines and routes out of Manchester.
  If regional airports were allowed to expand to their full potential—as well as Manchester and Birmingham, for example, I include the next tier of smaller regional airports such as Dundee, Leeds, Newcastle, Norwich and the splendid little service operating from Carlisle, which is affectionately called the flying postbox but which performs a vital service—many benefits would accrue. However, if these small regional routes are strangled at birth, we shall do untold and unnecessary damage to the regions. The smaller regional routes can survive and compete. They can provide a good service in addition to the main services that are provided at Heathrow.
  This is a thoroughly bad Bill and I shall not vote for it when the Division takes place.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I have been a member of this place for almost 11 years and this is the first occasion in my experience when a Bill has been met with virtually universal condemnation on Second Reading. If my arithmetic is correct, no fewer than 22 hon. Members have participated in the debate, apart from Front-Bench spokesmen. Only two hon. Members have spoken in favour of the Bill, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins), who was kind enough to send me a note telling me that he could not be present for the Front Bench replies. The other 20 hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have been unanimous in their condemnation of the Bill. Not surprisingly, I am on the side of the majority.
  Like the 20 good men and true whom I mentioned, I consider that this is the wrong Bill and that it is being introduced at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. Again like the majority of hon. Members who participated in the debate, the Opposition think that it is right to express their concern, particularly about the future of regional airports, and about the future of aviation in general if the Bill eventually gets on to the statute book.
  As recently as 31 July this year a consultation document was issued on air traffic movements at Heathrow. For the Government to bring forward this piece of legislation now is not just muddle-headed, but—I choose my words carefully—arrogant, to say the least. I honestly cannot believe that the Secretary of State could not perceive the row that the introduction of such a Bill would engender. Inevitably, people will say that the Bill is deliberately designed to pre-empt the Stansted inquiry.
  If the Secretary of State knew that that conclusion would be drawn when he brought forward the Bill, he is guilty of doing the House and his party a great disservice. If he did not know that, he is guilty of enormous naivety, not normally a vice—if that is the right term—which I attribute to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS:

  371
  "Where is he?"] My hon. Friends ask where he is. I am sure that wherever he is he is beavering away for the good of the nation, although I am bound to say that on his track record, if he is writing any legislation about any of the matters under his control, controversy cannot be too far away.
  The Bill has appeared without consultation with the BAA, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. Like the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I have a copy of the letter written by Mike King, the airport director at Heathrow. I hope that I do not prejudice the hon. Gentleman's future career, but I thought that his speech was not only lucid and courageous—we have come to expect both those attributes from him when he speaks on these matters in the House—but the most blistering indictment of the legislation that I heard in the debate. I shall quote, as he did, from that letter, the second paragraph of which states:
  "The BAA was not consulted at all during the drafting of the Bill. As a result we have a number of major concerns."
  That shows the depth of the Secretary of State's arrogance in introducing a measure such as this.
  Until the speech by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), I was waiting for a mention of the passenger— the consumer. One or two Conservative Members referred to the concern—I make no complaint about this—felt by the airlines about the scope of the proposals, but until the hon. Member for Brentford and Ongar spoke no one had mentioned the interests of the consumer. It must be admitted that it is not easy to ascertain consumer's views. It is less easy to ascertain their views if one rushes in with such legislation within a few weeks of a Queen's Speech which made no mention of such proposals.
  Mr. McCrindle: In an attempt to ascertain the view of the customers, as I referred to them, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Air Transport Users Committee, which is the only representative body of those who use airlines, has come out strongly against the proposals in the legislation?
  Mr. Snape: I do not generally cite the views of that committee, as I do not regard organisations with air vice-marshals and the like as full-time officials as typical of the ordinary passenger or consumer, but on this occasion I am prepared to concede that even that body happens to be right in its view.
  What a sad end this is to the bright new dawn—the new golden age of aviation—heralded by the Secretary of State just a few short months ago. At that time he was bringing politicians together on these matters. Before the summer recess my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I stayed here until 4 am to participate in a debate in which the Under-Secretary of State was adamant that decisions of this kind rightly fell within the purview of people other than politicians. He believed that the Civil Aviation Authority would be taking these nasty decisions while the Secretary of State remained Mr. Clean and, above all that, a distant, somewhat ethereal figure looking down on his children below as they made their decisions.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: He is certainly distant now.
  Mr. Snape: Yes, he is certainly distant in terms of attendance in the Chamber, but whether he is ethereal may be better judged when the results of the Division a:re announced.
  The burden of the legislation will fall almost entirely on the domestic airlines, as hon. Members on both sides have said. We all know that there can be no question of auctioning off international arrivals and departures at Heathrow to the highest bidder. If the Under-Secretary of State agrees with me on nothing else, he will be the first to concede that if we tell Alitalia—to pick a name at random—that unless it pays £X the 4 o'clock flight to Rome will not leave, a reciprocal reaction can be expected from the Italians. The burden of paying for the slots will thus fall exclusively on the domestic airlines.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and his hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who is no longer present, on their albeit paid defence of the airlines. Under the rules of the House there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, one likes to see Tories living up to the view so often expressed by their party that there must be greater productivity and that the working men and women of this country must go out and earn then-corn. I congratulate both hon. Members on having earned theirs today. Having listened to the glittering list of airlines represented by the hon. Member for South Hams, I am amazed that there is anything left for the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
  The main aim—indeed, the only aim—of the Bill is to get the Secretary of State off a hook of his own making. Since he started to dabble in these matters the fanfares have been one thing, but the realities have been something else. He talked about an open skies policy for travel to the United States. When the Opposition warned him of the dangers, we were accused of being against cheap fares. They are not exactly cheap now—or if they are, one has to pay a surcharge at the airport, thanks to the activities of the Secretary of State.
  The right hon. Gentleman's achievements, if they can be dignified with that term, in the American market have been simple and stark. He has managed to give the British monopoly of cheap fares to a one-aircraft airline called, appropriately enough in his case, Virgin Atlantic. That airline and People Express are the only airlines through which it is possible to book a cheap flight to the United States. That is not an open skies policy to boast about. An airline with one aeroplane has a monopoly of cheap flights to the United States. The grand initiative of a few months ago has run into the sand under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Deep concern is felt on both sides of the House about the future of regional airports. The difficulties faced by, for example, Manchester were starkly set out by my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Mr. Carter Jones) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) also referred to the fears of successful international airports such as Manchester.
  Only today, presumably together with other hon. Members, I received a submission from Manchester airport which pointed out the dangers of the Bill. The submission stated:

  373
  "The Bill provides for the BAA to put forward a scheme for the implementation of the movement limit including any reference to the pricing or surcharging of movements. Although the Secretary of State must approve this scheme"—
  that is no great consolation—
  "the very fact of the BAA being asked to prepare such a scheme strengthens their hand … This effectively allows BAA to, if they get their way, place a tax on particular airports by pricing out domestic movements."
  I always thought that the Conservative party believed in free enterprise and competition. Of course, Herbert Morrison said long ago that that is only what they profess to believe in. Actually, they believe in monopoly capitalism—money in any shape or form.
  We have heard a great deal from our absent but well-beloved Secretary of State— [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]. If the right hon. Gentleman arrives in time, I shall have a few words to say to him. The concern expressed by organisations such as Manchester international airport shows up the Government's apparent lack of Tory principles. The Government boast about their desire to abolish as many quangos as possible, yet, at the same time, they hand over more and more powers to those quangos. It is no secret—although it has not yet been mentioned by Conservative Members— that the Government believe that, if during the run-up to privatisation BAA became even more prosperous, that could be a good thing.
  The Secretary of State has had his knuckles rapped after the mess-up over British Airways and the fragmentation of the brave new BA world that we were promised. He must have been asked to step round to his old office at the Treasury, where he must have ended up on the mat in front of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not suppose that that confrontation was anything but painful for the Secretary of State. Another mix-up on similar lines, prejudicing the prosperity of the BAA, will no be very acceptable to the Prime Minister. I am sure that if she has heard about the week that the right hon. Gentleman has endured, she will be worrying about the wisdom of appointing him in the first place. We shall return to the right hon. Gentleman who has now condescended to join us. He might be a little jet-lagged if he has just flown in, whether on Virgin Atlantic or any other airline. We will give him time to recover.
  Manchester international airport is not alone in expressing its anxieties about the effects of the Bill. Other airports and some hon. Members have been equally outspoken and worried. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) illustrated starkly the fears of Humberside airport, which are especially apposite bearing in mind the collapse of Jenair only a few months ago. Its collapse was virtually caused by the withdrawal of one slot from Heathrow. If such an event causes the collapse of an admittedly fairly small but nevertheless essential airline, it is easy to imagine what will happen to small airlines if there is a wholesale interruption, reduction or abolition of slots into Heathrow. The principle of interlining is what such airlines depend on for their profitability.
  I should have thought that "interlining" was a buzz word which would appeal to Conservative Members. They are always going on about profitability and private enterprise and how inefficient the state sector is, yet some of them intend to support a Secretary of State who appears,
  374
  perhaps by accident in his case—it would be unfair to accuse him of plotting anything, because he always gives the impression that he never knows what will happen—to want to cripple the profitability of independent airlines and terrify people who have the problem of running regional airports.
  Yet another submission that I received today came from Birmingham airport. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) mentioned it. It draws attention to the fact that it has spent more than £60 million on a bright new airport terminal. It has discovered, it believes to its horror, that the Bill will have a crippling impact on its profitability. The airport's director of finance wrote:
  "The imposition of a ceiling on ATMs out of Heathrow will have a major effect on regional airports. Domestic 'feeder' services from Birmingham and other regional airports are vital in providing a link to the worldwide network of services at Heathrow. Such a ceiling could severely restrict these 'feeder' services thereby reducing the opportunities for international, particularly business, travel from the regions."
  I realise that the Minister is not responsible for the Bill—he has not been in the Department long enough to be responsible for it—but I hope that during his summing up he can come up with something that will go some way to assuage the fears that are rightly felt by people at regional airports. The director of finance at Birmingham airport concludes his letter by asking me to put the following question.
  "What assurances are therefore given by the Secretary of State that domestic 'feeder' services will not be threatened by the imposition of the ceiling and that the Government will ensure that regional airports are fully utilised, as an aid to achieving any ceiling before more development"—
  such as Stansted—
  "is authorised"?
  The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said that he wanted to know where the target of 275,000 ATMs came from. The House will be aware that in 1978 an inquiry was held into terminal 4 at Heathrow. A ceiling of 260,000 ATMs was recommended. However, all actions of recent Conservative Secretaries of State for Transport have been designed to push up the domestic content of ATMs at Heathrow.
  Not long ago the Secretary of State was bragging—as Conservative Members have been doing—about his success in duplicating airlines on domestic routes. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, one would have thought that egg and bacon in the morning was unheard of in Scotland until British Midland started its shuttle in competition with British Airways from Heathrow. The Conservative party can judge whether such competition is desirable, but it is precisely that competition that has pushed up the domestic content of ATMs at Heathrow to the present level, which the Secretary of State says is so high that he must have this panicked legislation to cripple independent airlines to combat it. Yet he was responsible for it in the first place.
  I am familiar with this Government's Ministers being a collective of Pontius Pilates where legislation is concerned. They are in favour of private enterprise and competition except when it adversely affects their Departments, as are Back Bench Conservative Members except when it adversely affects their constituencies. The Secretary of State has no excuse for bumbling his way through his introductory speech to this appalling piece of legislation or for trying to shuffle blame on to other people. The blame lies fairly and squarely on him.

  375
  Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), have expressed anxiety about the future of the East Midlands airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) talked about the problems and the dangers that the Bill will bring to almost every airport in Scotland. I am delighted to see him considering these matters with great expertise. I hope that the Minister will answer those points when he replies.
  The powers in the Bill are dangerous and dictatorial. I appeal to Conservative Members to hesitate before voting for legislation which gives the Secretary of State a chance to impose almost any limit that he wishes at Heathrow and elsewhere "as he thinks fit".
  The legislation has been referred to as an enabling measure. Some political activists in my party continually refer to enabling legislation. They expect people like me who are elected to the House to pass enabling measures within a few days which will abolish the House of Lords or capitalism and all its evil works, or which will ensure that England wins the next World Cup or that the sun shines every August. I confess to those people that I do not know what an enabling Bill is and that I do not believe that in a British democracy the Labour party would be prepared to vote for one. Yet the Conservative party is being asked to vote for just such a measure tonight.
  I know that voting for a Bill such as this will not bother the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is the first high profile Member that that constituency has had for about 40 years, but I hope that it will bother some Conservative Members.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State asked for the maximum time possible to reply to the debate. He deserves it, because no fewer than 20 of his hon. Friends will vote against the Bill, or at least not vote in favour of it. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's persuasive powers are, but it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Transport is not replying, because we would get 60 of his hon. Friends in our Lobby, and then we would be home and dry.
  I must not mock the right hon. Gentleman too much. In his way he has had a typical week. On Monday he went to the Bus and Coach Council and saw his plans for buses ripped apart by almost every speaker, including the Tory chairman of the Association of District Councils— a well-known militant and Left-winger. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman went to the Conservative party Back-Bench aviation group and, as I understand it, was torn to pieces—these leaks take place—by no fewer than 19 of his hon. Friends. So convincing was he at that meeting that we now know that the chairman, the vice-chairman and the secretary of that group will all be in the Lobby opposite him this evening.
  The great triumph of the week—a wet Wednesday for him— is when the right hon. Gentleman appears before the House with this piece of legislation, which has been attacked by no fewer than 20 out of 22 speakers. To describe the right hon. Gentleman as a walking disaster would be untrue. No wonder he is known up and down the country as "Nutty Nick". The fact is that he has proved to be a flying disaster.
  9.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): Having listened to almost every speech in what has been by any standards an
  376
  impressive, not to say for me daunting, debate, may I say straightaway that the Government take seriously many of the points that have been raised. I shall do my best in the time available to answer the points in some detail.
  I listened with great care and attention, first, to what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. We had a little lecture on competition from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)— a strange source for such a lecture, but we welcome all converts. I hope to say a little about competition later.
  I listened also with equal care and attention to what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said. It turns out that on this occasion the Labour and Liberal parties are in agreement. They do not know whether they are for or against a limit at Heathrow, but they will vote against the Bill. I imagine that the Labour party will find some of its supporters in the Tea Room. They have not been much in evidence tonight, although some of them popped in. We all thought that was to listen to the forceful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), but it turned out that they wanted to talk about something else. There would not have been much of a market for ''slots" among members of the Labour party in the debate.
  The matter became so embarrassing that at one point my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) intervened. He was perhaps referring to himself and some of our hon. Friends when he said that someone had to provide the opposition. I must concede that most of the opposition has come from my hon. Friends, and the House will forgive me if most of my remarks are directed towards the points that they have raised.
  I have a suspicion that I shall not please all my hon. Friends. I should have to be a bit of a gymnast to do so. Let us take, for instance, the supposed effect of the Bill on domestic airlines. My hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), for South Hams and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) were in favour of domestic airlines at Heathrow, while my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was against them. Unfortunately, there is no way in which I shall win that one, except to say that the Bill is, in effect, completely neutral on the matter. It depends upon which of the optional methods of implementation my right hon. Friend chooses to put to the British Airports Authority.
  There is no necessity today to talk of removing anyone, because the limit has not been reached. Even when terminal 4 comes into action, we shall have 7,000 ATMs in hand because of the cessation of the helicopter air link at that point.
  Mr. Tony Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me on this important occasion for him. In common with many Members in the north-west, I have a lurking suspicion that the Bill could be a civil servants' plot in favour of Stansted. My right hon. Friend's assurance that there will be a debate on Stansted has gone a long way towards allaying those fears. Can we have his assurance that there will be a decision on the docklands STOLport application before the final Stansted decision is made? That is extremely important, because, as he will be aware, the inspector recommended 650 movements a week at docklands STOLport— 35,000 movements a year. That will go a long way towards solving the problems at Heathrow and putting Stansted to bed once and for all.
  Mr. Spicer: The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, (Mr. Favell) have been consistent. As this is a planning matter, my right hon. Friend has a quasi judicial role, but the building of the STOLport would have only a marginal effect on this issue.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that if a charging policy were introduced the rates would double. That falls into the same trap of assuming that a particular option will be chosen. My right hon. Friend said that there were real problems with the charging option. As charges are a low element in total airline costs, the effects of any charging policy are likely to be negligible.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: As the Secretary of State has not said what he intends to introduce, it is virtually impossible for the House of Commons to take a decision. If charges are such a low percentage of the overheads, why do the Government intend to increase prices to keep airlines out of Heathrow?
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. Her hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East made all sorts of accusations against my right hon. Friend and said that he was arrogant, yet the hon. Lady is now attacking my right hon. Friend for consulting the House of Commons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and others spoke with great eloquence and sincerity about their pride in Manchester international airport. He and they are right to be proud. Over recent years Manchester airport has grown at a faster rate than any other airport in this country, if not in Europe. In 10 years, passenger throughput has more than doubled to about 6 million. That is considerably higher than the passenger throughput at Brussels. But within that success surely lies the answer to many of the anxieties and suspicions of hon. Members.
  Manchester airport is a success and I have no doubt at all that it will go from strength to strength as the market expands. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich suggested that we should take—by "take", I assume she meant force— 5,000 movements from Heathrow to Manchester. That is not the way in which the Conservative Government do things. The nearest we have come to such a policy is to tell Singapore Airlines that we would be delighted for it to go to Manchester if it switched one or more of its daily flights from Heathrow.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I was grateful to hear the Minister's praise for Manchester airport. He said what a success story it had been compared with other airports. Why then do so many members of the Conservative party want to see that great success of municipal enterprise given away into private hands?
  Mr. Spicer: One of the basic beliefs of the Conservative party is that all sorts of advantages are gained through privatisation. It is not a matter of dispute between us that Manchester airport can grow and get even better. It is already a success story upon which we can build, and there is no point in being depressed about Manchester. The reverse is the case. We should be encouraged by it and look forward to its future growth.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale referred to a matter which was also raised in a recent Adjournment debate—the possibility of United States airlines, under the Bermuda 2 agreement, being allowed
  378
  into Manchester. The responsibility for identifying new United Kingdom gateways for United States originating air services rests in this case with the United States Government. They have made no such proposals about Manchester. If they do, we shall consider them when they arise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) made an extremely powerful and eloquent speech. I am afraid that time does not allow me to deal with every aspect of it, but part of his argument was that Governments had broken pledges in the past, so what was another pledge between friends? That way, surely, lies anarchy. No credibility could be attached to what any Government said, and that would be of especial concern in the planning process.
  Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a shameless travesty of my argument? I was trying to say that if the Government wished to argue that circumstances had changed in determining their airports policy for the future, not just some but all policies in the past should be regarded as wiped off the slate.
  Mr. Spicer: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I caricatured or in any way misrepresented him. That was not my intention. My intention was to show that when a Goverment made a pledge it had to be taken extremely seriously in the planning process.
  The main justification for the Bill is to enable the Government to honour a commitment given to the House on 17 December 1979 by Sir John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Trade, and this has to be a partial answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). Sir John Nott referred to the decision letter on the planning application by the British Airports Authority for the fourth terminal at Heathrow airport. The letter announced the approval of the application and included the statement that the Secretary of State
  "proposes to specify a limit of 275,000 air transport movements to take effect from the opening of the fourth terminal. This limitation on ATMs will be subject to review in the light of progress on the prohibition of the noisier aircraft and the introduction of quieter aircraft."
  That is extremely clear and categorical. That commitment is accepted by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, not just by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), but by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), for Brentwood and Ongar and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who spoke against the Bill.
  Mr. Colvin: Why did the then Secretary of State not accept the inspector's recommendation that there should be only 260,000 movements? May I suggest that it was simply because, in the intervening period of a year or so, there was already a trend towards larger and quieter aircraft—a trend which has continued and accelerated since and which, if projected, will get very near the 330,000 limit about which we have been talking?
  Mr. Spicer: I defer to my hon. Friend's knowledge and experience. I would say only that the trends have been extremely cyclical, particularly for wide-bodied aircraft. One could not draw any conclusions from that particular recommendation, but I shall return to that point if I have time.
  Mr. Hayward: My hon. Friend referred to a comment that I made earlier. He said that the 275,000 limit was referred to by the then Secretary of State in his statement on 17 December 1979. I am willing to be corrected, but I have been through that statement several times and, as far as I can discover, the reference to the 275,000 was made not in this Chamber but in a press notice that was issued separately. This Chamber never had an opportunity to comment on that figure.
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point but it is clear from Hansard that the Secretary of State referred to a decision letter, not a press notice, which was perfectly reasonable at that time.
  In addition to providing the Government with the powers to implement the limit on air transport movements at Heathrow, the Bill has two other objectives. As has already been said, it amends the Civil Aviation Authority's licensing duties under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to give greater weight to airports policy in the licensing process. It allows the CAA to write down its debt to the national loans fund in connection with the privatisation of the authority's aerodromes in the Scottish highlands and islands.
  It is perhaps not surprising that the debate has concentrated on the proposed limit at Heathrow airport. That is an issue which, as the House has heard tonight, directly and indirectly affects the lives of many hon. Members' constituents, particularly those of my hon. Friends.
  As I have said, the powers themselves are necessary to implement a commitment that the Government made when giving approval for the construction of a fourth terminal at Heathrow. That commitment was reaffirmed in evidence at the Stansted inquiries. Some of my hon. Friends have said that they accept that, but ask why the Government should introduce the Bill now. They have, in effect, asked whether this is part of some deep-laid plot—a word that has been used several times tonight—to build Stansted by stealth and, therefore, as some have suggested, to deprive Manchester airport of its inheritance.
  Many of my hon. Friends have, directly or indirectly, taken that line. It is fair to say that that lay very much behind the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. The truth is more anodyne, if not downright dull. We are seeking to legislate now so that the necessary powers to implement the limit are available in time for us to announce the initial measures by the time the airlines meet next June to discuss the allocation of slots for the winter period following the introduction of the limit.
  I give hon. Members the categoric assurance that the powers in the Bill will not in any way prejudice future decisions on Stansted. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced when opening the debate, the Government intend to publish the inspector's report on the Stansted inquiry when it is received so that the House may have the opportunity to give its views on that subject.
  Mr. Adley: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the House in 1972. If he was, he may recall that on the Maplin Development Bill I moved a new clause enabling the Government to change things any time they wanted in the light of developments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came into the Lobby with me on that day. Therefore, in view of what my hon. Friend has just
  380
  said, may I assume that on Report the Government will accept an amendment that is virtually identical to the one that I moved in 1972?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is both knowledgeable and experienced, but he is referring to legislation, whereas at the moment we are discussing the planning process, which is a different matter.
  Several hon. Members have suggested that the limit should be raised because circumstances have changed since it was first proposed in 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar mentioned that point. A number of hon. Members have also said that aircraft generally are becoming much quieter as airlines re-equip their fleets in preparation for the forthcoming bans on noisier aircraft. I accept that, but to review the commitment now would be to undermine the spirit of the original commitment.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Spicer: No. I must get on.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Give way.
  Mr. Spicer: The Government recognised in 1979 that quieter aircraft would be introduced as a result of the forthcoming bans and took that into account when setting the limit at a level which is actually higher—
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spicer:—than the—
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Spicer: I must keep going, because I have a lot to get through.
  The limit recommended by the inspector in his report on the fourth terminal inquiry was 260,000. Nevertheless, it is clear that when the then Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment announced the air transport movements limit they also said that it would be subject to review. That has subsequently been confirmed by the Government on a number of occasions. One possibility that has been mentioned—we shall certainly bear it in mind when the time comes to review the limit—is to relate the limit more closely to the amount of noise generated. That must surely be the major objective of hon. Members representing constituencies under the Heathrow approach routes.
  A number of hon. Members have made it clear that it must be accepted that an ATM limit is a fairly crude instrument for controlling aircraft noise at an airport. For example, 275,000 jumbo jet movements would undoubtedly cause more disturbance than 275,000 small, turboprop aircraft.
  A control related to, say, the noise and number index—which I know causes problems for my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham—might reduce noise, but, at the same time, allow airlines to operate more flights into Heathrow. Presumably my hon. Friends representing constituencies around London believe that that would be the greatest gift to those living near the airport. However, I have to admit that a noise-related scheme would not be wholly straightforward. Monitoring and enforcement, in

  381
  particular, would pose difficult problems, but I am happy to give an assurance that we shall give serious consideration to such a scheme if and when we have to review the limit.
  Setting the ATM limit is one thing; ensuring that airlines have a fair and equal opportunity to use the limited resources of Heathrow runway capacity is quite another. That explains the need for the first two clauses of the Bill.
  The scheduling committee at Heathrow, which relies on the co-operation of the airlines, has done an excellent job of matching the demand for slots with the capacity of the airport. However, until now the committee has had to cope only with the problems of excess demand at peak periods. If an airline has not been able to operate at a time that it preferred, there has always been the possibility of a slot at some other time of the day. The problem posed by the limit is, of course, a different one. The scheduling committee has not had to refuse an airline a slot altogether, and it is that prospect with which the Bill deals.
  Whatever view one takes about the ultimate physical limit at Heathrow, and several variations of the limit have been proposed, no hon. Member on either side of the House has seriously suggested that such a limit might not ultimately exist, and no one has seriously questioned the fact that the present level of movements is well on the way to approaching that physical limit.
  The only real arguments about Heathrow are about when we should impose a limit, and how. I beg my hon. Friends who are thinking of voting against the Bill or abstaining to think about that. Whatever one's answers to these questions, the powers in clauses 1 and 2 would be needed at some point in the near future, given the present growth in traffic. Whether we like it or not, we are nearing the time when physically no more room will be available at Heathrow.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the professional advice of the Civil Aviation Authority is that runways are not a constraining factor? Since the CAA seeks an upper limit of 330,000 a year, is it not extraordinary that the Government should seek to impose their arbitrary limit against all the advice from the airlines, the CAA, the BAA and the director of Heathrow airport?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend knows the business too well for me to think that he fully believes what he says. The limit of 330,000 is the total movement, from which one must subtract 20,000 business movements as well as other movements. There is a physical limit which must be applied.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The 275,000 figure seems sacrosanct. If we continue to make progress in noise control, will that figure still be sacrosanct?
  Mr. Spicer: We have always accepted that a review might be necessary. My point is that ultimately Heathrow will hit the limit. According to most calculations, if one disregards business movements, we are only 10 per cent. off the generally accepted physical limit.
  We shall announce our proposed scheme shortly. We have a number of options. We have not yet settled the precise mechanism. In the consultation paper of 31 July we made it clear that in our view the best form of allocation is that which relies to the maximum extent on
  382
  market forces. At the same time, we recognise the genuine concerns of the airlines already established at Heathrow, some of which have operated services there for a long time.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have raised great issues tonight. They will have a chance on a future occasion to debate them. I hope that for that reason alone my right hon. and hon. Friends who so ably represent constituencies around Stansted, in the north and in London, as well as those who have simply spoken from the heart, will be able to support this modest but necessary Bill, the Second Reading of which I commend to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 154.

  Division No. 14]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Alexander, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Amess, David

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Ancram, Michael

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Arnold, Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Gale, Roger

  Baldry, Tony

  Galley, Roy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gorst, John

  Benyon, William

  Gow, Ian

  Best, Keith

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

  Blackburn, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Harris, David

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

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bright, Graham

  Heddle, John

  Brinton, Tim

  Henderson, Barry

  Britten, Rt Hon Leon

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Browne, John

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Holt, Richard

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hooson, Tom

  Budgen, Nick

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Jessel, Toby

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Colvin, Michael

  Lester, Jim

  Conway, Derek

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Coombs, Simon

  Lightbown, David

  Cope, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Crouch, David

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lord, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, John

  Dunn, Robert

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Durant, Tony

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Dykes, Hugh

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Evennett, David

  Major, John

  383

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Malone, Gerald

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Marland, Paul

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Marlow, Antony

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mates, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Speed, Keith

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Spence, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Spencer, Derek

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stanley, John

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Stern, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Moore, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Sumberg, David

  Mudd, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Murphy, Christopher

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Needham, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Neubert, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Norris, Steven

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Trippier, David

  Pawsey, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Pollock, Alexander

  Waddington, David

  Porter, Barry

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walden, George

  Powley, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Price, Sir David

  Waller, Gary

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walters, Dennis

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Ward, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Watson, John

  Renton, Tim

  Watts, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wheeler, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Raymond

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rowe, Andrew

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryder, Richard

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Benn, Tony

  Adley, Robert

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

  Alton, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyes, Roland

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Barnett, Guy

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Beith, A. J.

  Caborn, Richard

  Bell, Stuart

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  384

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McCartney, Hugh

  Churchill, W. S.

  McCrindle, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  McGuire, Michael

  Clarke, Thomas

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Clay, Robert

  McKelvey, William

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McWilliam, John

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Madden, Max

  Corbett, Robin

  Marek, Dr John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cowans, Harry

  Maxton, John

  Craigen, J. M.

  Meacher, Michael

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Michie, William

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Deakins, Eric

  Millen, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dewar, Donald

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dicks, Terry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dixon, Donald

  Nellist, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Douglas, Dick

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dubs, Alfred

  Park, George

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Patchett, Terry

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Penhaligon, David

  Eadie, Alex

  Pike, Peter

  Eastham, Ken

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Ewing, Harry

  Prescott, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Radice, Giles

  Faulds, Andrew

  Randall, Stuart

  Favell, Anthony

  Redmond, M.

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, George

  Foulkes, George

  Rogers, Allan

  Freud, Clement

  Rooker, J. W.

  George, Bruce

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Golding, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hayes, J.

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Haynes, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Hayward, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Strang, Gavin

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tinn, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Wainwright, R.

  Howells, Geraint

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Wareing, Robert

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Weetch, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Johnston, Russell

  Welsh, Michael

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Wilkinson, John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wilson, Gordon

  Lamond, James

  Winnick, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Litherland, Robert

  Mr. Roger Thomas.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  Supplementary Benefits (Strikers' Dependants)
  10.12 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler)rose—
  Hon. Members: Resign!
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what this is about, but I want to make a protest in terms of House of Commons procedure. I object to statements at 10 o'clock at night.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you not consider, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter of such importance, where the Government have acted in a sadistic and vindictive fashion, the Prime Minister should be answering questions—
  Hon. Members: Sit down!
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Fowler rose—
  Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious issue that will deprive the people of my constituency of certain moneys. It is important that we should debate the issue rather than receiving a statement. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, not to accept the statement. Let us debate the issue so the kiddies in my area will realise what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Speaker: The matter is not debatable as such. I understand that a statement was especially asked for, and that is what we are about to hear.
  Mr. Fowler: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the deduction made from benefit payable to the dependants of those involved in a trade dispute. In accordance with section 6(2) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980, I today made an order stating that the specified sum under section 6(1)(b) of the Act will, with effect from 26 November 1984, be £16.
  Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Welsh rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. I ask the House to allow the Secretary of State to make his statement. None of us knows what is in it. It is no good shouting at him.
  Mr. Fowler: The specified sum is that amount by which the supplementary benefit provided for the
  386
  dependants of people involved in a trade dispute is reduced. The uprating of the specified sum is a statutory requirement and—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Fowler: And the formula by which the—
  Mr. Helfer rose—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
  Mr. Terry Fields: Animals. [Interruption.]
  Grave disorder having arisen, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 27 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting), suspended the sitting of the House for 10 minutes.
  Sitting suspended at 10.16 pm
  10.26 pm
  MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker: I say to those hon. Members who are standing in front of the Table that this statement was specially asked for by the Opposition, and the House has a right to hear it. I ask those hon. Members, and those hon. Members who are standing by the Mace, please to resume their seats.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Nellist: It is not going to affect the Secretary of State's family.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a place where we argue out our differences. This kind of behaviour is quite intolerable.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Terry Fields: We are standing up for millions of workers.
  Mr. Speaker: Order! I am not prepared to have an argument from hon. Gentlemen standing at the Table. I appeal to them once more.
  Mr. Nellist: It is not going to affect his family.
  Mr. Speaker: Order! This statement was asked for by the Opposition and, in my discretion, I granted it. I ask hon. Members now to resume their seats.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Grave disorder having arisen, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 27 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting).
  Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
ENERGY
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Irradiated Fuel (Exports)
  Irradiated Fuel (Exports)
  Magnox Reprocessing Line, Sellafield
  Magnox Reprocessing Line, Sellafield
WALES
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
TRANSPORT
  Road Construction (Compensation)
  Road Construction (Compensation)
  Passenger Rail Services (Privatisation)
  Passenger Rail Services (Privatisation)
  Archway Road (Inquiry)
  Archway Road (Inquiry)
  Blindness Allowance
  Blindness Allowance
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Customs Officers
  Customs Officers
  Isle of Man
  Isle of Man
  Money Transfer
  Money Transfer
  Low Tax Areas
  Low Tax Areas
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  MIRAS (Abuse)
  MIRAS (Abuse)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  White Electrical Goods
  White Electrical Goods
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Film Policy
  Film Policy
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Mexico (Ministerial Visit)
  Mexico (Ministerial Visit)
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Regional Economic Development
  Regional Economic Development
  Greater Manchester
  Greater Manchester
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  New Technology
  New Technology
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  USSR
  USSR
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  High Technology Products (Exports)
  High Technology Products (Exports)
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  British Telecom plc
  British Telecom plc
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  COCOM Agreement
  COCOM Agreement
  Alvey Programme
  Alvey Programme
  Exports
  Exports
  Cosmetics
  Cosmetics
  Chemical Products
  Chemical Products
  Chemical Industry
  Chemical Industry
  Currys Ltd. (Takeover)
  Currys Ltd. (Takeover)
  Wine Sales (Standard Measures)
  Wine Sales (Standard Measures)
  Exports and Imports (Middle East)
  Exports and Imports (Middle East)
  Israel
  Israel
  Johnson's Cleaners (Takeover)
  Johnson's Cleaners (Takeover)
  Opencast Workings
  Opencast Workings
SCOTLAND
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Police (Statistics)
  Police (Statistics)
PRIME MINISTER
  British War Widows and Associates
  British War Widows and Associates
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Probation and After Care Service
  Probation and After Care Service
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Prisoners (Discharge Costs)
  Prisoners (Discharge Costs)
  Prisoners (Cost)
  Prisoners (Cost)
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Police (Establishment)
  Police (Establishment)
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Nuclear War (Washington Conference)
  Nuclear War (Washington Conference)
  Unfit Commodities
  Unfit Commodities
  Fishing Policy
  Fishing Policy
ENVIRONMENT
  Sports Funding
  Sports Funding
  Thamesmead
  Thamesmead
  House Sales (Computer Services)
  House Sales (Computer Services)
  Mining Exploration
  Mining Exploration
  Tenants Charter
  Tenants Charter
  Local Authority Grants (Contractors)
  Local Authority Grants (Contractors)
  Housing (Repairs and Improvements)
  Housing (Repairs and Improvements)
  Building Firms (Complaints)
  Building Firms (Complaints)
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
  Rivers (Pollution)
  Rivers (Pollution)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Embassies (London and Moscow)
  Embassies (London and Moscow)
  Israel (Arms Embargo)
  Israel (Arms Embargo)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Peace Education
  Peace Education
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Skillcentre Courses
  Skillcentre Courses
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Employment Transfer Scheme
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Wages
  Wages
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital
  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Social Security Advisory Committee
  Social Security Advisory Committee
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Gerald Bowskill
  Mr. Gerald Bowskill
  Births
  Births
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Social Security Reviews
  Social Security Reviews
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Cattle (Exports)
  Cattle (Exports)
  Health Centres (Union Flag)
  Health Centres (Union Flag)
  Timber
  Timber
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  Foyle and Craigavon Bridges
  Foyle and Craigavon Bridges
  Richmond Centre
  Richmond Centre

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Message from the Queen
Lord Maclean: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

NHS Management: Griffiths 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 whether they will make a statement about the Griffiths Report on management in the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services gave a full statement of the Government's objectives for management of the Health Service in a written reply in another place on 4th June. At the same time he issued guidance to health authorities on implementing the recommendations of the Management Inquiry Report. Good progress is being made in carrying forward the changes required, including the appointment of general managers.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask him whether he is aware of the great deal of concern there has been over the fact that during this last period the chairman of the management board in the Department of Health and Social Security has not been in post? Is the Minister also aware that the districts are concerned about the future and their reorganising? They have no real guidance about the general management. Particularly concerned in these matters are the clinical managers who have run their own department since the initiation of the National Health Service.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as the chairman of the National Health Service management board in the DHSS is concerned, it is important to fill this post with the right person. That is more important than to make the appointment quickly because, as the noble
570
Lord realises, the appointment is a crucial one. It requires a rare mixture of quality and experience. It has certainly taken longer than we had hoped to make the appointment. However, good progress has been made in implementing other aspects of the Griffiths Report, despite the delay in appointing the chairman of the board itself. So far as clinicians are concerned, I was surprised to hear what the noble Lord said. Of course, clinicians will play a very important role. They do now, but they will play an even more important role in future. I think that their particular use will be felt not just at regional and district level, but also when it comes to the appointment of general managers for units.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to accept that since the period he mentioned there is now grave apprehension and consternation among all levels of staff within the National Health Service? Rather than have the Government, of all people, issue a form of diktat, will the Minister be prepared to consider with his right honourable friend in another place whether perhaps, together with the British Medical Association (who are willing), the Confederation of Health Service Employees (who are willing), and the Royal College of Nursing (who are willing), discussions could now be held on what has happened so far, so that some of the ructions that are expected in future could be avoided?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the ructions to which the noble Lord refers are not nearly so serious as he seems to think they are. My right honourable friend is in touch with all the bodies to which the noble Lord refers.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord please inform me on what criteria the unanimously approved appointment of an administrator in the West Midlands was turned down by the Department of Health and Social Security; whether East Anglia have yet appointed their administrator; and how many regions have appointed their district administrators?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly cannot give the noble Baroness information about the specific appointment to which she referred. However, among regional general managers appointed so far there are an ex-regional medical officer, an ex-regional nursing officer and two former treasurers. Of the 38 district general managers who have been appointed, one is a former district treasurer and three come from outside the health service altogether. So the situation is not as bad as some people think it is.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord say, in answer to Lord Hunter's question, why there is such delay in finding a chairman for this very important post? Will he tell us whether he does not foresee some conflict of interest between the accountability of consultants to district general managers and their professional accountability outside?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter's earlier question, the important thing is to obtain the right person for the

571
job. Without that, the whole scheme would probably founder. In any case, appointments at this level are made by the Prime Minister. I understand the selection process is not yet complete, but we certainly hope that an appointment will be made soon.
With regard to the noble Lord's second question—that is to say, about the conflict of interest—the guidance circular, with which the noble Lord will be familiar, made clear that authorities must make proper provision to continue to receive authoritative professional advice. It is for authorities to formulate their own proposals, which will then be scrutinised by Ministers.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I put one or two questions to the Minister? First, will the Minister confirm that the advertisement for the chairman of the board nationally first appeared on 30th April? Does the Minister not feel that seven months is an extraordinarily long time in order to find the right person? Would it not have been easier for the whole operation to have been carried out at regional and district level after the national appointment had been made? Finally, will he say whether he thinks it is a good thing that the Secretary of State should interfere too much in the regional appointments? Do not the regional people know best? In how many cases has the Secretary of State called in short lists that have been drawn up by the regions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord quotes 30th April. I am afraid that I do not have with me the exact date when the appointment was advertised, but it must have been round about then. The reason is exactly the same as the one I gave just now to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. People who possess the quality that this responsibility requires do not come easily and it is absolutely essential that we get the right person. As I explained, it was perhaps unfortunate that the delay has been so long but it was necessary in this particular case. As I said, the appointments are made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The noble Lord asked another supplementary question. Perhaps he will repeat, it, and then I can answer him.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said in response to my first question. My second question related to regional appointments and to whether it was wise that the Secretary of State should become involved in them. Is it not best that they should be made by the regions themselves? In how many cases has the Secretary of State called in a short list to seek to add names to it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a figure off the top of my head. Of course, Ministers remain ultimately responsible for the management and efficiency of the health service centrally and that is why it is important for Ministers to scrutinise many of these appointments.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, are the Government not starting at the wrong end with these appointments? Is the noble Lord aware that noble Lords on these Benches are broadly in favour of the principle of
572
named individuals being given specific management responsibilities for specific areas of the service? Does he agree that for them to be of benefit to the consumer—that is, the patient—these people must operate as close to the grass roots as possible? Therefore, it is much more important for managers to be appointed at district level rather than in the regions.
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I would not agree with the noble Lord. The cascade principle of appointing regional managers, to be followed by general managers, to be followed in turn by district general managers (of which many appointments are now under way), ultimately to be followed by the appointment of general managers for units, is the way that we should go. It is clear from discussions that we have had with regional health authority chairmen that they prefer that way, too.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the appointment of general managers is a sensitive matter within health authorities? When they are all appointed, will the Government do as much as possible to encourage all sections of the health service to work in harmony for the good of patients?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is a sensitive matter, because it involves a fairly substantial difference, and, I am quite sure, it is one in the right direction. I entirely agree with her that everything ought to be done to promote harmony within the service.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint at any rate to some of the managerial posts people from outside the service? If so, are the salaries comparable to make it worth while for businessmen to apply for such posts?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is very much a matter for them to decide whether the salaries are comparable. There are those who have come from outside, and I shall be happy to let my noble friend have the figures.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, if the chairman of a board has yet to be appointed, who in fact approves or vets the appointments made at regional level?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the appointment of regional general managers is for regions and for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Schools' Inspectorate: Independence
2.46 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 intend Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools to remain independent.
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that encouraging and unqualified reply. Is he aware that Mr. Stuart Sexton, a special adviser to the Secretary of State, is reported as wanting to reconsider the criteria on which HMI worked to make a link between spending and educational quality? Is that not in danger of infringing HMI independence? Can the Minister give us an assurance that HMI annual reports on the effects of local authority expenditure policies on educational provision will continue to be published annually and without interference from Ministers?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I can certainly give an assurance on the latter point. In fact it was this Government who ensured that those reports were published, and the Government intend to go on doing so.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in view of the rather alarming statement by the Minister's special adviser, his reply today will give a great deal of satisfaction to many of us who are concerned about the quality of education? Is he also aware that there is a great deal to be said for keeping the present arrangement whereby inspectors are appointed, each one by name by the Queen in Council, and the inspectorate remains independent of the DES but close enough to it to give advice on educational matters which would otherwise be lacking?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am delighted to give comfort to the noble Lord, and indeed to the noble Baroness, in what I have said today.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the very real disquiet that has been aroused by the criticisms of the inspectorate, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend whether he is prepared to make the same unequivocal reply which has just been given to this House but in a much fuller and more public way so that it may be generally appreciated and understood by all in education?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I understand that my right honourable friend did just that in a debate in the other place the other day.
Baroness David: My Lords, as we are having such an encouraging time, can the Minister further assure us that HMI reports on individual schools and authorities will continue to be published, in spite of opposition from Conservative chairmen and members of education committees, one of whom is quoted in The Times Educational Supplement as saying:
"To report on a school or college is one thing. To define a link between education and spending is quite another … HMI are simply not qualified to do what they are setting out to do"?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not know honestly how many more commitments I can give. As I said before, this Government introduced the publication of HMI reports and I think it is something in which we can take great pride. We intend to go on seeing that this happens.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the Queen's Speech there was a firm
574
pledge to raise educational standards during this coming Session? Would he agree that the existence of an independent inspectorate and a very strong inspectorate is absolutely essential if this is to be achieved? Can he say whether the inspectorate is to be increased in order to achieve this higher standard?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about a strong and independent inspectorate, but I am afraid I have no details about the numbers of inspectors. If the noble Lord puts down a Question on that, I should be delighted to answer it.

A-Level Courses: Girls' Studies
2.51 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of reports that only 6.8 per cent. of girl students opt for A-level physics, they are satisfied that this untapped reservoir of talent in the country's educational system is likely to be properly exploited in the foreseeable future.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government are anxious to encourage more girls to pursue studies in mathematics and the physical sciences. These subjects are key areas in terms of employment opportunities and preparation for new technological skills. I am glad to say that participation by girls in post-16 mathematics and physical science courses is already growing. We shall continue to do what we can to stimulate that growth.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Has he any information, please, on how many girls receive encouragement to follow careers as technicians in industry and on the importance of such work for translating policy into fact?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government are conscious that many job opportunities will be in science and the new technologies, and in this context noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the Equal Opportunity Commission's current campaign, supported by the Government and the Manpower Services Commission, to encourage girls into science and engineering careers. In fact, this is the 1984 Women into Science and Engineering Year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say what research has been conducted into the reasons why girls do not opt for mathematics and the physical sciences at A-level, and in particular can he say whether there are any differences between single-sex and co-educational schools in this respect? Does he think there is any truth in the allegation which has been made in some quarters that because more teenage boys tend aggressively to demand the attention of teachers, they tend to get an unfair share of the attention of the teachers in laboratory work? If that is one of the

575
reasons why girls are discouraged, could not advice be given to teachers on the means of correcting that imbalance?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, yes; there have already been two research projects on Girls into Science and Technology and Girls and Technology Education. These have helped to identify ways in which curriculum content and planning in schools and the organisation of the option system often fail to meet the needs of girls in science. Particular attention needs to be given to the style and methods of teaching, to the curriculum content, to timetabling arrangements, and finally, but most importantly, to careers advice.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the Minister agree that his reply is slightly complacent, in view of the very low percentage of girls in fact taking these subjects? Would he tell us what steps are being taken to follow up the researches? It is all very well to have a research programme, but I should like to ask whether anybody is doing anything as a result. It has been shown that some influences in the schools are adverse to girls taking these subjects. Finally, would the Government consider taking positive action to increase the number of women physicists, as is permitted under Sections 47 and 48 of the Sex Discrimination Act?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my original reply was not meant to be complacent; it was supposed to be encouraging, which I hope it was. Yes, there are a number of practical measures that we can take to try to increase the number of girls studying A-level physics. One thing we must do is to increase the number of girls studying science before they reach 16. The Government have already made clear their view that all pupils, including all girls, should be properly introduced to science in the primary school and should continue to study a broad programme of science throughout the first five years of secondary education. There are a number of other measures, such as in-service courses for teachers of these particular subjects and the introduction of computers into schools. These are among a number of things that we are doing to try to help with this problem.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that among the various wastes now taking place the greatest of all is that of intelligent women who are not at present being trained to the extent that they could be or employed to the extent that they could be? Is this not a particular point of priority where heavy pressure should now be put, as well as a direction in which Her Majesty's Government should indeed be moving?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords; and my experience of intelligent women is that they tend to take their own line of country and you cannot coerce them into doing otherwise.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Minister agree that, in the light of the fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred—that there is statistical evidence that girls are keener to take these
576
subjects and do better in them in single-sex schools—it would be a good idea to encourage local authorities to preserve single-sex schools where they exist and, subject to resources, to introduce new ones?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think I shall have to write to my noble friend about that. I have no statistics on single or multi-sex schools.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, can the noble Earl assure us that there is no longer a shortage of teachers capable of taking physics and mathematics at sixth-form level in girls' schools?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, again, as I said, I am not sure of the difference between girls'-only schools and schools for both boys and girls. We are endeavouring to bring teachers up to a higher standard than that at which some of them are at this moment.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, will the noble Earl perhaps write to me about this? This was a particular difficulty in girls' schools. It may have been cleared up now, but I doubt it.
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, to us on these Benches it seems rather complacent that the noble Earl gives us all nice answers to the questions. But we have student unrest thoughout the country because of the cut-backs and non-availability of places. Would not the noble Earl agree that today the demonstrations throughout the country are showing quite clearly that the students themselves are not getting enough grants? How on earth are we going to fill the places for girls and boys in science if we have to have these continual cuts?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that is a very different question. If the noble Baroness wishes to put down a Question on those lines, I shall be delighted to answer it.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if I can now get my question in, I should like to ask the Minister whether he would not agree that it is much better to tackle the problem within the context of the existing schools, along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has suggested? Would not that be the best line of attack in the first place—meeting long-term problems? But would the noble Earl the Minister indicate whether in order to overcome short-term problems the Government have any intention of providing special facilities for the conversion of girls with A-levels in arts subjects to take them over into the science and technological subjects?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should have thought that was very much a question for individual establishments and the way that they are run. I would agree with the noble Baroness that the way through must be first of all to encourage them to start studying science from an early age. Then, it is to be hoped, they will go into that branch of learning.

District Salmon Fishery Boards (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the establishment of district salmon fishery boards in areas of Scotland where none presently exists; to enable the amalgamation of district salmon fishery boards; to extend the franchise for, and membership of, district salmon fishery boards; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Thurso.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in accordance with Standing Order 73, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of appeal, be named of the committee:—

Beswick, L.

Caccia, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Diamond, L.

Ferrers, E.

Glenamara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Seear, B.

Shackleton, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President)

Wigoder, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Research Councils
3 p.m.
Lord Sherfield Lord Sherfield rose to call attention to the work of the research councils and the resources available to them; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Some of your Lordships may recall that earlier in the year I moved a Motion calling attention to the first joint report of the Associated Board for the Research Councils and the Advisory Committee on Applied Research and Development. We had a wide-ranging debate which was wound up in a very encouraging and positive way by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. When the question of moving the present Motion arose, I thought at first that it might be premature to revert to an aspect (although a very vital
578
aspect) of this broad subject, until I found that the debate had taken place over nine months ago—a sufficient period of gestation for Government policies as well as for human beings.
I sense a continuing feeling of unease and concern in many quarters at the direction which our policies for science are taking and, in the context of this Motion, especially but not exclusively, our policies for basic and strategic research, for they and applied science are coming closer together in many respects. The number and standing of noble Lords taking part in this debate is eloquent testimony to this concern.
The recent annual reports of the MRC, the AFRC and the SERC emphasise their particular anxieties. There is the report of the Scientific Policy Research Unit of Sussex University, with its gloomy conclusions. There was even a recent "Horizon" television programme, which some of your Lordships may have seen.
The research council system as it exists today has evolved in a pretty haphazard way. I shall not attempt to deal with the position of any individual council. Among the speakers today are many noble Lords who will speak with an authority which I do not command. But it may be helpful if, by way of introduction, I remind your Lordships briefly of how we came to the system as we find it today, and then make one or two general observations on which I hope the Minister will comment when he comes to reply.
I shall not waste your Lordships' time on the situation as it existed in the 1950s and early 1960s. This, as your Lordships will recall, consisted of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and three research councils working under the aegis of the Lord President of the Council, assisted by an Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and. from 1964 onwards, by a Chief Scientific Adviser. But three points are to be noted about this system. First, science policy was represented at a high level in the Cabinet. Secondly, a distinction was made at the outset between research done and sponsored in departments and that done in the DSIR and research councils. And, thirdly, defence research and development remained in the first category, which emphasised its separation from civil science. This has been a continuing cause for concern and I shall return to it later.
A change at the top was made in 1959 when a Ministry for Science was set up under the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the Atomic Energy Authority was added to the birds under his wing. This arrangement worked rather well, but in 1964 a committee was set up under the noble Lord, Lord Trend, to review the whole organisation of civil science. The committee recommended, first, that the Ministry for Science should be abolished and that basic science should be brigaded with education in a single Ministry; and, secondly, that the DSIR should be abolished and its functions distributed. Thus, the Science Research Council would take over the funding of graduate places in universities in physics and astronomy; and NERC would take over the Nature Conservancy, the Geographical Survey and other work. Thirdly, the Council for Scientific Policy would be abolished and an advisory board for the research councils would be set up to oversee the work of the research councils and to advise the Secretary of State

579
for Education and Science on the distribution of the science budget. Fourthly, the committee recommended the establishment of an industrial research development authority to deal with applied science.
When the Labour Government of 1965 came to implement this report, they accepted the recommendations on the organisation of basic research, but rejected the recommendation on the applied side and shovelled this increasingly vital activity, with the National Physical Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory and other functions of the DSIR, into the capacious maw of the Ministry of Technology—that monstrous bureaucracy so ineptly inaugurated by Messrs. Wedgwood Benn, Cousins and Snow.
Although we are principally concerned today with basic and strategic research, I venture to comment that, in spite of the valiant efforts of ACARD and the sponsorship of the DTI, the organisation of applied science has never fully recovered from the rejection of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Trend, on the applied side.
Next, in 1971, came the Rothschild Report, which led to the development and definition of what came to be called the "customer/contractor" arrangements. And finally, after a number of intermediate reports which I need not mention, in 1981 came the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Government. The Government, while accepting the main thrust of the report, and adopting some of the recommendations in a different form, rejected a number of others. I shall not rehearse the story today, but I shall refer to one or two of the recommendations towards the end of my speech. However, 1981 was also the year of the cuts in higher education, and the year when the science budget—which in the 1960s and the 1970s was increasing at varying rates year on year—was, in effect, frozen. This had unfortunate consequences on the resources available to the research councils, and to these I shall now turn.
The resources rest on a tripod, the three legs of which are the science budget, commissioned research and the operation of the dual support system. The science budget, from which the research councils receive their grants in aid, was, according to the original Government position, to be maintained at a constant level in real terms. I do not know whether the Government would now claim that this has been the case; I think that they would not do so, but perhaps the Minister will express a view on the matter.
In 1983 the Advisory Board for Research Councils put forward a powerful case for an increase in the science budget, which was turned down by the Government. This was, in fact, a major rebuff. Moreover, the councils, with their reduced income, are faced with constantly rising costs—for example, for superannuation and pensions and for salary levels usually above the 3 per cent. allowed for in Treasury forecasts—a situation which I regret to say I understand is called "de-indexation".
The budget for 1985–86 was announced in another place on 12th November. As I understand it, increases over the draft budget have been announced in three areas: restructuring of the research councils, the
580
financing of research projects and, in the university context, the equipment grant. There seems to have been no new money provided, the increases apparently having been made possible by a decrease in student support grants. I ask the noble Earl the Minister to enlarge on this statement. In the context of the need, the increases seem to be at the margin. I cannot truthfully say that I think that they go to the root of the problem. Nevertheless, in my view, the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on having had, in a hostile environment and at the cost of incurring considerable odium in some quarters, the courage to dip into his own budget and take three steps back from the brink.
Nowadays the Treasury enforces cuts by the imposition of cash limits. I have no objection to that policy. Indeed, when I was at the Treasury I was inclined to be critical of some of my colleagues who endeavoured to double guess the expert departments in their own expertise. Clever though my colleagues undoubtedly were, I did not think that that was a very sensible or profitable approach, and I was even then inclined to the policy of telling applicants how much money was available and letting them decide on its distribution.
However, there is a corollary to that. Some Minister or agency, other than the Treasury, should monitor the long-term effects—both political and economic—of the cash limits policy. Further, the Treasury imposes these limits on individual departments and organisations, thus reducing the flexibility of the system as a whole and the possibility of redistributing resources through virement to which—in my day at any rate—the Treasury were in any case very much opposed.
The second leg of the tripod is commissioned research, mainly from departments under the Rothschild criteria. But, as was demonstrated by Sir Ronald Mason's Report on Commissioned Research, which was published a year ago, this system has not worked as intended. Moreover, and perhaps more seriously, the general cuts have led to a reduction in the amount of research commissioned in the past two years. Indeed, it has fallen sharply—in the case of NERC by 30 per cent. in a year.
The success of the Rothschild system was, in a nutshell, dependent on strengthening the science component in the commissioning departments, and this has not happened. No provision has been included—as was intended—for strategic research in the contracts; and the bureaucracy of the commissioning arrangements has not been demonstrated to be cost-effective. I ask the Minister to tell your Lordships what action has been taken to meet these and other criticisms in the Mason report and to follow its recommendations.
The third leg of the tripod is the dual support system, by which the University Grants Committee finances the research infrastructure in the universities—that is, the salaries of the staff and the equipment of the laboratories—and the research councils provide earmarked funds for particular research projects in the expectation that the work will be carried out in a well-found university department. This expectation can no longer be relied upon owing to the cuts in the UGC grants. This has meant that the

581
research councils have had to devote a higher proportion of the funds available to them to shoring up the other half of the system. The £10 million now added to the equipment grant of the UGC is a step towards meeting a very large shortfall indeed which has built up over recent years.
A wag put the situation to me the other day as follows: university research was cut off at the knee, thus unbalancing the system; the research councils were then similarly treated, which helped to restore the balance, though at a level considerably nearer the ground, thus bringing to mind the lines from the Ballad of Chevy Chase:
"For Witherington"—
and for Witherington your Lordships may substitute any research laboratory or council of your choice—
"For Witherington I needs must wail
as one in doleful dumps,
For when his legs were smitten off
he fought upon his stumps".
But, seriously, the tripod has become destabilised. The science budget leg has been reduced in real terms; the Rothschild leg is not working properly, with commissioned research sharply down; and the dual support system is crumbling.
How have the research councils dealt with this situation? They are redeploying their resources to the best of their ability. Since 1981 they have in any case been evolving with the times. Thus, the SRC have turned into the SERC; the ARC have turned into the AFRC; and the Social Science Research Council have turned into the Economic and Social Research Council—all denoting a change of emphasis in their research objectives and priorities.
The councils are of two kinds: the first typified by the SERC, which are mainly grant-giving; the second by the AFRC and the MRC, which mainly run institutes. It is obvious that it is much easier to cut grants than to close institutes. There is mounting evidence that on the research grant side an increasing number of high grade graduate students are being turned away and that others do not think it worthwhile applying. There are of course no grounds for suggesting that every research institute should be a permanent fixture, and it may well be that some research projects are allowed to continue for too long. However, the closing process costs money, reduces the funds available from the science budget, interrupts research programmes and lowers morale. The bad effects may be short-term, but in many advanced technological fields time is of the essence. The additional grant by the Government to meet restructuring of costs seems to be designed to meet this problem, at least in part. This running down process is taking place at a time when our main industrial competitors are gradually increasing their expenditure on basic research.
Members of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, during a recent visit to Washington, were made aware of the extent to which President Reagan has increased the United States budget for basic research. In Japan we met the members of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Councillors, the upper house of the Diet. We were told that in the opinion of that
582
committee Japan was not devoting sufficient resources to basic research.
Comparisons with other countries as regards effort in this field are made, which show that the United Kingdom comes out quite well. But these usually include the Ministry of Defence "spend" on research and development, which, if I am not mistaken, is over 50 per cent. of the total. A very high proportion of this goes on development; for example, of new weapons. If this is subtracted, as it should be, from the total, the comparison with other countries as regards expenditure on basic research puts us in a very much worse light. Moreover, the report of the Science Policy Unit of the University of Sussex, to which I referred earlier, has measured a decline in basic research in the United Kingdom. If the Minister has seen this report, I should very much like to know what he thinks about it.
I must briefly mention the international dimension, and our membership of collaborative scientific organisations like CERN and the European Space Agency. This is managed by one or more research councils, and it involves the consideration of foreign, and particularly of European, policy. I have not the time to expand on this today but it is a factor of great importance requiring special and probably separate treatment and finance, and it might form the subject of another debate in due course.
Who, I wonder, spoke up for science and technology in the recent Star Chamber? I expect the answer will be that it was the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but I venture to make three observations here. First, the science function in the department is minimal in relation to its other responsibilities. In his statement about expenditure on science and education in another place on 12th November the first 21 paragraphs dealt with education, and only the 22nd dealt with science.
The staff dealing with science in the department is relatively very small. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, told us forcefully last week that the efficiency of an organisation is not to be measured by the number of its staff, and I heartily agree with him; but there is such a thing as a critical mass, and I suggest that the staff in the department, however able, is still sub-critical.
Thirdly, there is no scientific adviser in the department. Your Select Committee recommended that the chairman of the ABRC should be invited to perform for the department more of the functions—and I emphasise "more of the functions"—of a scientific adviser in another department, but this was turned down by the Government on the grounds that it would detract from his independence. But would it? I think it was rather a specious objection.
Anyhow, it was with this and other considerations in mind that your Select Committee recommended in 1981 that there should be not a Minister for, or of, Science and Technology, but a Cabinet Minister designated to speak for science and technology in addition to his other responsibilities, advised by a Government chief scientist and a council of science and technology covering both basic science and its

583
applications. This was rejected by the Government, but I still think that there is much to be said for it.
For example, the Minister would be able, as I suggested earlier, to monitor the long-term effects of the cash limits imposed over the whole field of activity. Secondly, I believe that the received doctrine is that departmental organisation is vertical and the research council organisation is horizontal. In a horizontal organisation, especially when money is tight, there are bound to be disagreements between departments and councils which the ABRC may have difficulty in resolving but which a Minister, assisted by a council, would be able to settle. I have little expectation that the Minister will tell us today that the Government have changed their mind. But, let me say that in the meantime the ABRC/ACARD interlocking arrangement is, I believe, working as well as can be expected.
I conclude by asking the Minister two broad questions. First of all, are the Government fully conscious of the disquiet and anxiety at the decline in Government support for basic and strategic science; and, if so, do they regard it as being without justification? Secondly, it seems to me that the policy of the Government in regard to science and technology is running fundamentally counter to their main and wholly admirable objective of restoring and improving our industrial performance and our competitiveness as a trading nation. Indeed, it is, I suggest, actually undermining that central policy. We are falling behind in basic and applied research at a time when, to meet the objectives, and in order to catch up with the competition, we ought to be increasing it. Are the Government aware of that fundamental inconsistency? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, we are doubly in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield: first, for enabling your Lordships to discuss this vitally important subject and to listen in the course of the debate to many distinguished scientists and others with great experience on these matters; and, secondly, for the masterly way in which he has introduced the subject, running briefly but fully through the earlier history of scientific research in this country, then bringing us to the present situation, and finally making some pertinent suggestions for improving the situation. I am sure that I am only expressing the views of all your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord for what he has done.
There is general agreement that since the end of the last war we have experienced in this country a decline in our traditional industries: in heavy engineering, in shipbuilding, in textiles, and in matters of that sort. At the same time—and this is generally accepted—there has been a general decline, a relative decline, in total industrial production, and above all in our share of world trade.
The only reason why our balance of payments is not in serious difficulties today, and why sterling retains the low level that it does instead of sinking still lower, is because of North Sea oil. But North Sea oil, as we know full well, is a diminishing asset. Most experts tell us—and I have no reason to disbelieve them—that by the turn of the century, at the latest, the production of
584
North Sea oil will have peaked and will be starting to decline. When that happens the strain on our balance of payments, the strain on sterling, the cost of our imports, is going to rise in a truly terrifying manner unless we are able to develop alternative means of production and of export.
The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, reminded us last week that we are now entering, in a new industrial revolution, the age of high technology, and we must consider where we should look in order to redress the imbalance which will otherwise arise when our oil supplies start to diminish. We must concentrate on developing all our industries based on high technology and building up an export trade and a productive capacity that will ensure that we at least retain our present position in the economic world, and I would hope improve it still further.
What are we doing in order to bring this about? We start, of course, with an enormous advantage. We have in this country magnificent places of learning—old places, new places, departments of scientific research of all kinds—which are second to none in the world, and we have teachers who are able to attract young men from all over the world to share their experiences and to profit from what they have to tell them. This is based, of course, on an age-old tradition, a tradition stemming from Newton, from Rutherford, from J. J. Thomson and very many others. The father of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, was one of the great pioneers in this respect. So we do have these enormous advantages over any other country in the world.
But on this foundation that we have, we are not building—we are not building as we should. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, mentioned the report of the team from Sussex University Science Policy Research Unit, and it does give some very disturbing facts. It says, for instance, that it is in the strategically important areas such as applied and solid state physics, metallergy, optics, analytical and physical chemistry, polymers and chemical engineering, that our decline has been most marked, and it goes on to point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, just touched on, that, compared with our other industrial rivals, particularly the United States, Japan and West Germany, we are lagging far behind. They all spend 50 per cent. more than we do on science and on engineering research. Now that is a very frightening situation. Why is it taking place now?
Well, of course, the short answer is shortage of money. Industry here is notoriously reluctant to spend on R & D compared, for instance, with the United States, Japan or West Germany, as I have said, and perhaps it is an indication of that that the only regret I have about this debate is that there are few, if any, noble Lords from industry who are speaking in it today. Is that—I hope it is not—an indication of the lack of interest of the industrialists of this country in this subject?
It is not only industry which is dragging its feet. The Government are beset by financial stringency.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I can in fact count nine noble Lords who are heavily involved in industry taking part in the debate.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am very glad to be corrected by my noble friend and I hope that they will make it very clear to us that they at least, so far as their own industries are concerned, are doing all that is necessary to promote industrial research in their particular field.
However, it is with the Government side of the matter in particular that I am concerned, and one is tempted to ask why, after five years in office, we are still suffering so much from financial stringency that we are not able to afford the money which is necessary for this type of enormously valuable and essential work. But I shall forbear from asking that question because I do not want to bring party politics into a debate which transcends in importance anything of that kind. There can, though, be no getting away from the fact that the financial stringency argument, while it is not actually killing the goose that lays the golden egg, is undoubtedly so starving it that it can only produce a fraction of the eggs of which it is capable, and those eggs take far longer than the nine months of gestation to which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred.
My only personal experience in these matters is with agricultural research, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I point out some of the effects that these cuts are having on agricultural research, though I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will go into this with far more knowledge and detail than I can.
In the 'thirties, my Lords, in the days when there was plenty of food in the world—at least so far as we were concerned—and there was no question of food shortages, we spent a considerable amount of money for those days on agricultural research. And not only on agricultural research, but on basic research which, so far as could be told at the time it was started, had no bearing whatsoever on agriculture. I am thinking, in particular, of the Low Temperature Research Laboratory in Cambridge and the work that it did then, which made possible the freezing of semen. This was developed by that very great practical scientist, Dr. Hammond, and his colleagues, in Cambridge between the wars and led to artificial insemination. As a result of the low temperature research work, the work of Hammond has been able to have a far greater impact than it could possibly have had otherwise. Also, the types of selective herbicide which are now universally used to such very great effect throughout agriculture—which we shall be discussing in rather more detail tomorrow afternoon—stem from basic work which was carried out in this country in the 'thirties, and my goodness they were of value to us in the years immediately following upon the war when food was really short.
Now, in cash terms, as I understand it, the funds of the Agricultural and Food Research Council are static, but we must not forget that, to their activities, the letter F has been added. Quite rightly, they now have to concern themselves with research relating to food and not to agriculture alone. They also have, quite rightly, to pay more attention to environmental questions, which are becoming increasingly important, and, of course, there is money to be paid out for redundancies in many of their research institutes. So, while it may be possible from the book-keeping point of view to say that there has been no
586
reduction in the amount of money that they have, in point of fact, so far as the institutes themselves are concerned, the reductions are very significant.
Now may I ask your Lordships to look for a moment with me at the work done by the Institute of Animal Physiology, also near Cambridge? In passing, it is worth mentioning that it is because of the original basic research done there many years ago that kidney transplants became possible and, from that, all the other types of transplant about which we read so much in the newspapers today. That is the type of interlocking research—the result of basic research—which cannot be foreseen at the time. But, although in some ways it may be said—I know that some rival institutes say this—that the Institute of Animal Physiology has got off relatively lightly, this year it has had to make enforced savings of £400,000 as a result of reduced cash limits. It succeeded in doing this only by freezing vacancies, and by some redundancies. Next year it expects cash limits to be at least £200,000 short of the sum needed to continue its existing reduced programme, and there is a likelihood of still further cuts in the years to come.
It is hardly surprising that it is now scarcely possible for it to plan new research enterprises or to recruit well-qualified staff to tenured posts. The effect of that on the whole of agricultural production, and possibly on other forms of activity, including medical research, is quite impossible to quantify.
The other Cambridge research institute with which I have close connections is the Plant Breeding Institute. Here, for instance, in the current year 1984–85 it has had a cash reduction of £120,000. In 1985–86 this will probably be of the order of £160,000, and it may well be that in the subsequent year that cut will increase to £250,000. All these are very significant sums in the budgets of relatively modest institutes—institutes which are making a very real contribution to the economic welfare of one particular industry, albeit a very important industry. They have had to meet these cuts by, for example, abandoning work on the genetic engineering of certain types of wheat which would make them resistant to aphid infection—a very important factor which would reduce costs and, incidentally, reduce the use of herbicides—where great advance has already been made. That is one of the areas which has been singled out for cuts. There has also been a serious number of staff redundancies.
These are the things which are happening in just two institutes. But more important than the actual cuts in the work is the effect on morale. There is now far less security than there was; there are far more redundancies; and there is a squeeze on necessary equipment. Your Lordships can well understand the almost impossible task that is imposed on the directors of these institutes—directors who are primarily scientists, and extremely distinguished scientists—when they have to spend so much of their time not only effecting these cuts but in trying to keep up the morale of the staff as a result of the cuts. And there is always the question: "Where will the axe fall next? Will it be in the department in which I work? Will I find myself without a job?" So it is no wonder that many of the best young scientists are not looking for work in this country, but are looking for work

587
overseas, particularly in the United States, and that the middle aged scientists, who are still relatively footloose, are tempted by offers coming from overseas, particularly offers to those who have already made their reputation.
Just one final word. There is no hard and fast link between basic and applied research. Applied research cannot prosper without basic research, and it is impossible to tell what basic research will be useful and what will not. They are completely interwined, and any attempt to cut the one but maintain the other is bound to fail. If we are to meet the challenge of the coming years, if we are to preserve the value of sterling, if we are to maintain a healthy balance of payments, we must build on the industries of high technology and on our great scientific tradition, and we must not starve those centres of research either of funds or of the top quality scientists who work in them.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I should like straightaway to get an expression of gratitude and a declaration of interest off my chest, as well as an apology. I am afraid that as a result of a very long-standing engagement I am unable perforce to attend for the whole of this debate, which is on a subject of great interest to me. Perhaps I should add the avowal that the occasion for my enforced absence happens to be the unveiling of a remarkable portrait delineating the remarkably handsome features of a Member of your Lordships' House. Modesty compels me not to reveal his identity.
We are all grateful for the gift to this House of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. We should be particularly grateful to the noble Lord, a mentor of mine at one time, for focusing our attention on the growing erosion of the science base in this country and on the grave position with which the research councils are faced at the present time. On these matters the noble Lord brings to our discussions a marvellous wealth of experience, as demonstrated this afternoon in his wide-ranging, powerful and pungent speech.
I am by nature a sedentary gentleman, but I get around the world a bit these days as chairman of an organisation called the British Overseas Trade Board. Time and time again it is borne in upon me that our ability to earn our keep in a very competitive world, our ability to pay our way in the world through our exports, depends in very large measure on those of our industries and those of our companies which have a high scientific and technological content. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has just made. But first-class technology calls for a first-class scientific base, and without that base we shall not be able to hold our place in the manufacturing and exporting sun.
However, it is as chairman of one of the research councils, the Medical Research Council, that I wish to make a modest contribution to the debate. It is as such that I declare my particular interest, and I propose stringently and strictly to restrict my comments to that particular research council. As a result of that, my remarks will be niggling and microscopic, but perhaps for that reason illustrative, because I am only too well aware that the stresses and strains with which we are
588
faced at present in the Medical Research Council are not unique to that council. They are common to them all, and to some of them in perhaps an even more accentuated form.
The prospects for medical research in this country (and there are noble Lords who will be speaking after me who know a great deal more about this subject)—an area in which Britain has made a proud contribution to the alleviation of human suffering—should be very bright. In the past year, for example, we have been able to take important initiatives in four important areas, establishing new programmes in neurobiology, in psychiatry, in tuberculosis and, not least, in that hitherto unduly neglected, rather mundane, area of medical research; namely, dentistry.
There are other, rather extraordinary possibilities almost within our grasp, possibilities which could bring great benefit to the health and therefore the economy of our nation. Moreover, for reasons which I do not fully understand, we are at present faced with an unusually high degree of really first-class, alpha applications for grants for medical research within the university world. Our ability to implement, to give effect to, these opportunities depends upon cash—and spare cash is just what we lack.
That may sound a rather curious statement from the chairman of a council with a budget funded from the science Vote which comes to the not inconsiderable sum of around £120 million a year. Yet despite good housekeeping—and I can vouch for the good housekeeping—the MRC's room for manoeuvre is desperately limited these days. Many of our commitments are necessarily medium or longer term. For example, let us take out-house research: as the grants to universities terminate, the money is recycled into new grants; but the resulting cash is insufficient to meet all the good applications for good, new work. Or take in-house research. Even if we close research council units in which the council employs its own staff—and we have closed 20 units in the past eight years; we are not very static about this—the money derived from these closures flows slowly to us because of the commitments to existing staff.
Again, in medical science, as in other branches of science, the sophistication and the cost of equipment is rising explosively. Thus, even in good times our margin for manoeuvre—for new initiatives—is limited. But these are hard times and we have already suffered a serious reduction in our income, and we are perhaps facing a further reduction. It is true that our grant-in-aid for the present year was more than for the past year, but only in false cash terms. Given inflation, this has meant a significant reduction in our budget in real terms. Moreover, a number of extraordinary items of expenditure—rather exceptional—beyond our control, have further reduced our disposable income, and by a substantial amount. I shall not worry your Lordships with all the details of these abnormal—apparently quite trivial—cuts in expenditure. Like most matters of budgeting, they are incredibly boring.
They relate, however, to four areas. First, salary increases following a university pay award well in excess of the Government's cash limits; secondly, an increase in our superannuation contributions—a demand on us which came out of the blue following a

589
recommendation from the Government Actuary, which was no doubt accurate. Thirdly, a loss relating to what is politely called "rounding down" in our grant-in-aid by a kindly sponsoring department; and last but by no means least, increases in our subscriptions to certain international bodies—for example, the quite excellent International Agency for Cancer Research—resulting in large part from exchange fluctuations over which we, let alone the Treasury, have but little control. Be that as it may, these cuts, together with a cut in real income, mean that our already marginal room for manoeuvre has been virtually eroded.
Not only is the council's ability to fund new work now in question but, even worse, our capacity adequately to meet our existing commitments is now very much in doubt. For example, the council have been forced to impose an overall cut of over 21 per cent. in the running expenses of our units. We have also been unable to support over half of the top class, alpha, high-scoring applications for long-term grant support. What worries me—and what I think should worry all of us who have the future of medical research, and all research, in this country at heart—is that while the present prospect is stark and difficult, the future could well become grimmer still. This is because for us, at least, the advisory board for the research councils has imposed fines—the polite term is so-called levies—of an additional £1 million and £2 million in our grant-in-aid for the next two years. These sound small sums, but when your margin of manoeuvre is limited they are very significant. Those fines have been imposed on us to help bail out other research councils which perhaps find themselves in an even more invidious position.
Let me make one point clear. I am not criticising the advisory board. It is an admirable institution with an admirable chairman. I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said about the higher organisation of science and the science Vote. What I am trying to focus on—admittedly, through a very narrow lens—is the now pretty critical situation for scientific research in the country as a whole.
I should like to illustrate that situation—again on a narrow, microscopic front—by mentioning some of the stark expedients which have been forced upon this particular research council, the Medical Research Council. In the coming year we shall be cutting in half our normal provision for capital equipment. We shall be severely curtailing our capital building budget. We shall be reducing by 25 per cent. and by 7.5 per cent., respectively, the support which we give for long-term grants and shorter project grants to the universities. That is serious enough. It is even more serious given the cuts in the University Grants Committee support for university research in recent years. Those are two legs, the second leg of which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, spoke.
Finally—and no less serious—this year we have been forced to make a reduction of about a third in the number of training awards which we make to the university sector. If this goes on we shall be faced with a situation in which our ability to exploit new opportunities in medical research will be hamstrung by a shortage of trained workers. It is precisely the
590
situation with which this country is faced at the present time in information technology. It seems to me cavalier needlessly to incur it in medical research.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl (whose speech interested me greatly) whether there is any strong reason presented for these cuts which are being imposed?
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I think that it is some of these Tibetan philosophies which have something to do with it—which a noble Earl spoke to your Lordships about not long ago. But they come from a desire—and a desire with which I align myself—to curtail so far as it is possible Government expenditure. That is the simple reason. I greatly hope that the gravity of the situation will be matched by a response from the Government. It would be churlish not to mention small mercies like the recently announced decision to increase the science Vote by £14 million; and in this context I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, in the tribute that he paid to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It was deserved because it was a difficult and brave decision. I note that £6 million of this Vote is to go towards major restructuring. Therefore, may I ask my noble friend who will be replying whether this gets SERC and the MRC off the levy hook next year and beyond that? As for the future, I urge the Government to build these additional funds into the science Vote baseline and to do all that they can to ensure stability for basic scientific research—stability in real terms.
In addition, there are a couple of shorter-term, circumscribed, microscopic palliatives which I should like to suggest to my noble friend. They are palliatives which at least give additional first-aid and a little bit more room for manoeuvre, certainly to one research council. For example, the Treasury in their benevolent way could help to fund the MRC pension scheme as they have helped in the past.
Secondly, the Government could revert to the original position with respect to the funding of international medical research organisations whereby items outside a particular research council's control, such as inflation or the exchange rate, do not cut into and emasculate councils' budgets. Thirdly, I would repeat this point. The Government could relieve the MRC and the Science and Engineering Research Council of the levies imposed upon them for the next two years in order to help out some other research councils—admirable bodies—in their even greater difficulties. It seems quite wrong in principle——
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, could the noble Earl possibly put a figure on these additional grants for funding that he would like to see given by the Government? I admire his optimism; and of course his reference to "restructuring" is only a polite word for cuts and redundancies.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I am always very polite. I find it terribly difficult to retain figures in my elderly head, but I would assure noble Lords that the funds which I am referring to are microscopic. In the foreword to the latest report of the Medical Research Council, Sir James Gowans, the Deputy Chairman

591
and Secretary, and I stated unequivocably—and I quote our words—that,
"in medical research, the science base of the United Kingdom is in danger of being severely damaged".
We did not use those words lightly: nor were we just referring to the ability in this country to produce Nobel prize-winners in this field of research, as we have done in the past. I am proud that my particular council has in one particular laboratory—the molecular biology laboratory at Cambridge—no fewer than six Nobel prize-winners. I do not think there is any laboratory in the world which can equal that, and I think it is a just cause for national pride.
But we had other things in mind. We had in mind the great opportunities now before this country for medical research. I shall cite just two almost random examples. There is, for example, the money required to fund new research in the fascinating, opening and expanding field of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging—a field in which we are still world leaders and from which a large commercial dividend stands to be won. But this will need money. There are, not least, the great possibilities opening up for us in transferring our accumulated experience in molecular biology, where again Britain is in the world lead, directly into the clinical and medical sphere, and particularly in the field of preventative medicine. And money for that, too, is needed—not vast sums.
But Sir James Gowans and I had more homely fields also in mind. For example, absence from work due to sickness robs this country of some 150 million man days of productivity each year. There is also the cost of caring for the 700,000 people—a formidable and frightening number—in this country who suffer from senile dementia, which amounts to over half a billion pounds. These two are areas where the MRC needs more cash for its continued attack upon these problems. The danger to the future of medical research in this country is now, I believe, real, and so are the glittering opportunities. I would express, in conclusion, the very strong hope that the Government will continue to ponder very hard indeed both the dangers and the opportunities.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for introducing this timely debate this afternoon. As a contribution to this debate, I should like to say something about the importance of the work of the Science and Engineering Research Council; but before I do so I want to say a few words about the problems which set the scene and underline the significance of this research council. I doubt whether there is anyone in the House this afternoon who is not aware that last year we went into negative balance of trade in manufactured goods for the first time in recorded history. But I wonder how many of your Lordships are aware of the alarming rate of change from positive balance to negative balance. In 1981 we had a positive balance of £5 billion; in 1982 we had a positive balance of £2 billion; and in 1983, a negative balance of £2 billion. So far this year, including the third quarter, we have already recorded a negative balance of £3 billion, and the third quarter,
592
if projected at an annualised rate, is running presently at a negative balance of £5 billion.
For a nation that has to import one-third of its food and nearly all its raw materials, that is a very unsatisfactory state indeed. In normal circumstances that would spell bankruptcy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be drafting his letter of intent to the IMF, pleading with them to bail us out, and we would all be suffering a drastically reduced standard of living. But this is not so. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has pointed out, we are awash with North Sea oil: £20 billion sterling of it per annum at present market prices. It is like a thumping big win on Ernie but, like wins on Ernie, it does not last for ever and in the next few years North Sea oil will peak out. Of course it will not disappear overnight and we shall certainly be dragging the dregs out of the North Sea well into the twenty-first century. But that top slice, which presently balances our books in terms of overseas trade and which is the surplus over our own requirements that we presently sell around the world for dollars—and very useful dollars they are—is the bit that disappears first and probably it will all have gone by the early 1990s.
I will readily admit to being a pessimist in this circumstance, but I should like briefly to comment on what the optimists claim. First, they claim that we are in a post-Industrial Revolution decline and that the service sector will take over from the manufacturing sector. I would suggest to your Lordships that this is rubbish. For the service sector to take over the role of our manufacturing industry we in this country would have to provide half the services of the whole of the Western world. It is just not credible, and I wish that people who keep repeating this nonsense would really have a good look at the facts.
Secondly, it is suggested that the dividends and interest of the millions which the institutions have invested abroad instead of in British industry will somehow replace the bonanza of North Sea oil. The increase expected (according to the Bank of England) in dividends and interest between now and the early 1990s is approximately an additional £2 billion. That does not seem to me to equate either to the £10 billion credited to North Sea oil sales abroad, or to the £10 billion lost in trade in the manufacturing sector. In any case, I wonder how many of those marvellous investments, in view of the world debt crisis, will turn out to be bad debts rather than good dividends.
But it is the third claim of the optimists that worries me most. This claim is that as North Sea oil runs out, the value of the pound will collapse, our goods will become more competitive on the world markets and we shall restore our balance of payments position. Well, we currently have an outstanding example—an experiment to prove the rule—in that the pound has halved in value against the dollar. The pound has dropped against the dollar more than any other of the principal currencies in the Western world. So to the Americans our goods are now incredibly cheap, and the Americans, because of the strong dollar, are sucking in imports at an unbelievable rate. This year they are heading for a trade deficit of 130 billion dollars, which makes ours look like village post office economics. But are they sucking in imports of British goods? The answer to that is, yes, but at a much lower

593
rate than our principal competitors. Great Britain has increased its trade in its principal market, where we have a common language, at less than half the rate of our continental competitors and a quarter of the rate of the Japanese.
If one looks at the areas where our exports are increasing, one has only to walk round the shops in America to see woollen goods, fine china and the occasional Jaguar, which left the drawing board 20 years ago. We are not exporting to America goods with a high technological content. I believe that this in itself spells danger. I believe that as a nation we are becoming technologically obsolescent: a creeping disease that is so insidious that when you are living in it you hardly notice that it is happening, but for those looking at us from outside it is becoming only too apparent.
The Cabinet Office last year published a joint report on research and development which points out the importance of high value-added manufactures to the United Kingdom, but they go on to say that over a wide range of products the unit value of United Kingdom exports is now less than that of the corresponding imports, and there are whole sectors of products based on high technology which are now wholly or substantially met by imports. If we are to stop this creeping malady, there can be no question but that we have to increase basic research, applied research, product development and the supply of well-trained, capable people to support a campaign to recover the ground that we have lost, which is turning us into a technologically obsolescent nation. This drive to regain our lost place in the world's trade of manufactured goods starts with basic and applied research. That is why the work of the Science and Engineering Research Council is of such great fundamental importance to the future economic well-being of this nation.
Furthermore, it is quite impossible to have centres of educational excellence without underlying centres of research excellence. There is no way you can attract people to universities of quality to teach our future scientists and technologists, who will prevent this country from sinking into an economic abyss when North Sea oil starts to decline, without a research base of recognised international excellence. It really is totally illogical to be cutting or restricting our basic research in science and engineering when our trading partners are providing a dramatic increase in order to cancel out Great Britain in the world trade market.
It is a nonsense to send the seed corn of the future to the miller to pay for the tax cuts of today. It simply must not be allowed to happen. Any Government which do so will be condemned in history for evermore.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I hope that I, too, may be forgiven if I leave this interesting and important debate before the end, but I have a long-standing and inescapable engagement in a good cause. As a natural scientist, or perhaps in honesty I should say once a natural scientist, as well as once a member of two of the scientific research councils, I first thought of talking about the areas I know most of; but I guessed, correctly, that there would be no shortage of noble
594
Lords who would say all that I could, and say it better. I therefore decided that I would talk about that least favoured, and in some quarters decidedly least loved, of the research council quintet; namely, the ESRC, or, to give it its current full name, the Economic and Social Research Council. I also want to talk about the ESRC for another reason, namely, that in the last 15 years I have become increasingly involved in complex social problems, where good research leading to an understanding of the problems is sorely needed by society.
My first encounter with that sort of problem was at the BBC. It involved, among others, someone I used to meet there from time to time, Mrs. Whitehouse. She and her colleagues feel, as do many others, that television violence, whether as fictional violence or simply the news coverage of violence, goes on to cause real violence. It was an accusation which troubled me and the board of governors, and no doubt it continues to do so. We looked at such research evidence as there was—some of it good, some of it not good—and the foremost conclusion that one could scarcely fail to reach was (and I suspect still is) that violence has no single cause and is a very complex social problem that is far from being disentangled. In all probability its causes are a complex of social attitudes on the part of those who resort to violence, together with a complex of attitudes and behaviour on the part of those against whom violence is directed.
One would be bold and unwise to say that television has no effect, but my guess, for what it is worth—and much more research is needed—is that television's effect is only part of the wider effect on society of swift modern communications, which include, of course, radio, the press, the telephone and quick travel. Nowadays, in contrast to 100 years ago, we all know what other people, miles away, are thinking and doing and getting away with. But, of course, the reaction is equally speeded up. I doubt whether the present widespread revulsion against pithead violence, for instance, would by now have built up to the level that it has were it not for modern communications.
My second encounter with a complex social problem was when I took on, after leaving the BBC, the chairmanship of a research institution, the Technical Change Centre, as it is called, financed in part by one of the large charitable research trusts and in part by two of the research councils. Its concern, briefly, is to investigate why Britain has, with rather few exceptions, fallen so far behind in adopting the new technologies. As the Wall Street Journal concluded not long ago in a rather brutal survey:
"No European country ranks as the leading source in any technological area. In most fields the top European country—usually West Germany—ranks as a distant third. All other European countries virtually cease to register as widely recognised sources of technology leadership".
This is not the moment to talk about the research that the Technical Change Centre has done in its, so far, three years, though I believe it has been valuable. But, just as with violence on the BBC, it leaves me in no doubt that we are dealing once again with a very complex problem where there is no single solution, and there are certainly no simple solutions.
The universities are often enough blamed for the innovative inadequacies of British industry—it is a

595
point of view I am sure we shall hear more of this afternoon—and as an erstwhile vice-chancellor I cannot but regret that British universities have been very slow in building links with industry, even though they have moved a long way in recent years. In the last resort, however, universities are not companies and they do not have the resources to carry their research, be it pure or applied, very far into the stage of development. And they most certainly have no direct influence when it comes to taking the crucial managerial and financial decisions that a company has to take if it is to embrace the new technologies upon which national wealth now depends.
Why, then, has Britain made such a poor showing? The reasons can only be complex and must lie deep in the attitudes and capacities of management, and in the attitudes of workforces. It is this web of interrelated factors that the Technical Change Centre is trying to unravel in a variety of ways. Once again the roots are multi-causal, complex and ill-understood. As I found myself commenting in the foreword to our last annual report:
"The problems are not so much scientific and technological as human, centring in a variety of ways round the economic and social. It is ironic, therefore, and not always fair, that these disciplines, which are so crucial to our industrial well-being, have acquired in some circles a rather poor image".
It is in a quite different area, however, that I have had to look most closely at research in the social sciences. A few years back I took over the chairmanship of a Government committee on the educational needs of Britain's ethnic minorities. It has been known for quite a time that some minorities, most notably the West Indians, have been seriously under-achieving at school, thereby exacerbating yet further their economic and social deprivation, caused in the first instance by prejudice and discrimination in the employment and housing markets. Much the same is true of the Bangladeshis, whereas other Asian groups do broadly as well at school as the indigenous whites. Why is this and what should be done about it?
Having taken much written and oral evidence, we turned to published research for its answer. I myself read extensively for months. There is some very good research but there is much that ranges from the not-very-good to the decidedly poor and parti pris. In the course of my reading, one essay stuck in my mind. It was by Dr. Bhikhu Parekh, a former member of our committee, who left his British university to become, on secondment, vice-chancellor of a university in India. In his essay, Dr. Parekh first lists the many factors which have been thought by different research workers to contribute to ethnic minority under-achievement. He notes six major factors and about as many minor factors; I need not trouble your Lordships with what they are.
Dr. Parekh goes on to note the defects of the research debate that has gone on in recent years. His list is revealing. First comes what he calls the fallacy of the single cause. Second comes the assumption that a factor which affects one group must necessarily affect another group in the same way. Thirdly, the debate is conducted at too abstract a level to relate to the reality of the school or the child, to permit sensible discussion or to have clear policy implication. Fourthly, most
596
participants are deeply committed to specific theories and either ignore others or dismiss them with a bundle of sweeping generalisations. Lastly, the debate on so sensitive an issue—where every possible explanation points an accusatory finger at someone—rapidly becomes politicised.
Dr. Parekh believes (and so do I) that one can extract at least some fairly reliable conclusions from the better research. But his critique of the general picture is, I am sure, only too accurate. This will not surprise opponents of the social sciences—though I should interject here that I believe the ESRC's record in this area is a good one—and such opponents will no doubt go on to argue that the whole exercise is not worth the money that is spent on it. I must disagree, for reasons which I shall try to explain.
Your Lordships may very well say to all this, "Yes, we agree that there are many important economic and social problems, and it would be a great help to society if we understood them better. But social scientists have been spending Government money studying them for quite a long time and we are not much wiser. And, in useful practical terms, what has emerged? Rather little." I would have to agree in large measure—and, I believe, so would most social scientists. But they would surely add a proviso, and so would I.
In terms of the growth of knowledge and the development of the science, these are early days. To go on from their present embryonic state to argue that the social sciences will never become as practically useful as the natural sciences does not follow, and the whole weight of the history of the natural sciences argues very much the other way. Had research in the physical sciences been dependent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on government funding in the way it is now, one can hardly doubt that voices would have been raised about the desirability of cuts. And, had medical research been so funded, one must doubt whether it would actually have received any money at all. One is bound to suspect that even half way through the last century a medical research council would have been regarded as a prime candidate for pruning. Fortunately for posterity, money came in other ways.
It has to be remembered that the scientific knowledge we now take for granted took a long time and much effort to acquire—and the nearer we get to biological systems, the longer it has taken and the more difficult it has become. Human societies are not only the most complex of all the biological systems; they tend also to be the least susceptible to what is perhaps the most powerful of the scientific methods—namely, the controlled experiment. So, if it took until the latter part of the last century for medicine to begin to prevent and cure disease, we can hardly be surprised that the social sciences are only now beginning to accumulate the understanding they need in order to become practically useful. No scientist can seriously doubt that the methods of science which have proved so immensely powerful in understanding the natural world will, in time, unravel the complexities of man's economic and social activities.
We ought to remember also that the political and dogmatic overtones of the social sciences which so infuriate politicians and others—understandably—as well as their tendency to oversimplify, have their

597
parallels in the early history of the natural sciences. They, too, had their tenaciously-held dogmas—if less obviously political in the current sense of that word. Indeed, one can perhaps detect dogmas even in present-day natural science, though they tend to melt away as they are subjected to the advance of knowledge—and early science certainly oversimplified. Indeed, I believe that these defects, as we now see them, are probably an inevitable phase in the development of any science.
I do not think, therefore, that we should worry too much about economic and social science dogmas. They, too, will melt away in time—and more rapidly, the faster the subjects develop. They are regrettable of course—chiefly, because they tend to hold back the key advances—and they are liable to squeeze new minds with new ideas. But the remedy is not to give up hope and support but to encourage and support the best and most rigorous research. By this, I do not necessarily mean copying the precise methods of the natural sciences and I do mean fostering ideas which do not necessarily fit into established wisdom. The ESRC could do worse than try to list the dogmas in its area—be they dogmas of technique or concept—and build into their peer review system an academic counterbalance and some detached outside viewpoints. Perhaps they do; I can only hope so.
In short, I believe that we should spend more and not less than we do on the smallest and cheapest of the research councils. The ESRC consumes only £22·4 million out of a total research council expenditure of £516 million—just 4 per cent. If there is no money overall—and I profoundly hope that there will be—then I at least would prune just a little off the others; 1 per cent. all round, perhaps, for a start.
I say that for two reasons. In the first place, I believe that, given time, the social sciences can do as much for our society—albeit in a different way—as the natural sciences have done and are doing.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I put a question to the noble Lord? There are many people who are well-disposed towards these studies who would prefer to call them social studies and not social sciences. In other words, has the noble Lord considered the possibility that the whole phrase "social sciences" is very misleading?
Lord Swann: My Lords, I agree in large measure, but I would also say that there is no clear distinction between what one might call the social end of the biological sciences and the biological end of the social sciences. If one wishes to remove the word "sciences", I see no objection: "science" really only means "knowledge".
Secondly, I believe that the key factors limiting the growth of the national wealth—on which the total research council budget ultimately depends—are, as I argued earlier, not so much scientific and technological as economic and social. The ESRC is presently putting great weight on research into these areas and in the long run it can only be to the advantage of the other research councils to forgo a little now.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I start, as did my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, by declaring that I have a close involvement in today's subject as chairman of one of the research councils—in my case as chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. Also, like my noble friend, I must declare my indebtedness to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who once again has drawn our attention in a masterly way to the erosion of the science research base in this country.
It is a matter of some consolation that your Lordships' House returns to this subject quite frequently. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, reminded us that it is nine months since we debated a subject allied to today's debate. I believe that it is very appropriate that we should have such a debate. The noble Lord explained very clearly—I do not think anyone need reiterate it—how, whatever might have been the hopes of the present Administration that the science Vote be maintained and with it the research thrust, sadly this simply has not been the case. We had the cuts in the UGC some four years ago and we have had also the in-built momentum caused by the cost of research itself. It appears to be an immutable fact that research, machinery and technology get ever more expensive and with it just to stay in the same place appear to come costs which we fail to recoup. The result—by whichever measure one wishes to choose—is that the research that we are undertaking in this country is diminishing. This again, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, pointed out, has been clearly expounded by a paper at Sussex University.
The sad fact is that we are now having to decide which of our growth industries we are able to underpin with research; and this at a time when we live in an age of high technology. It is the unenviable role of the Advisory Board for Research Councils to have to make some of those decisions. The ABRC pointed out to the Government in 1983—again, very clearly, I felt—that it simply was not adequate any more even to attempt, albeit unsuccessfully, to maintain the science Vote if we were to try to achieve for research what we had tried to achieve since 20 or 30 years ago—the adequate underpinning for technology which was becoming ever more expensive and ever more complicated. There had to be increased expenditure and an increased priority given to research expenditure. This point was not taken.
The expenditure which was given to the science Vote for the ABRC to give advice to the Secretary of State remained static at first and I maintain, as would others, that in practice it has diminished. With it has gone an opportunity. Whatever other public expenditure costs the Government (who I have to say I support from these Benches) wish to pare, the one that I, as a farmer, would suggest we simply cannot afford to cut—the seed corn—is, by this inability to answer the 1983 recommendations of the ABRC, the area that I fear, by default, the Government have chosen.
There is perhaps one area in which insufficient advice is given to the Government—and, goodness knows, plenty of advice is given in this area of research priorities. It is the balance between defence research and civil research. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord

599
Sherfield, who reminded us that over 50 per cent. of research expenditure in this country goes on defence. That may be right; I do not know. But I wonder whether the Government are satisfied that the mechanism which reviews the balance between civil research and defence research is adequate. Certainly I know that there was some concern that the spin-offs from defence research were inadequately finding their way through into industry. The Secretary of State for Defence addressed himself to this problem and, again, I should be very interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister when he replies as to whether the Goverment are satisfied that real progress has been made in interlocking industry into defence research.
Wider than that, if we accept the premise, which so many other speakers have made, that we are under-funding research and that whole blocks of industry are going to suffer, are we right to assume that we can still afford, unlike most other countries, I believe, to put over 50 per cent. of our research investment into defence?
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred to the tripod, which is the funding arrangement for research councils, and I should like in particular to address myself to the commissioning leg of that tripod. I must take up the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to address myself in particular to agricultural and food research simply because it is certainly the area which I know best. I must say that I believe that those other research councils which derive part of their funding from commissioning face exactly the same problems. These problems, again, were referred to in a previous debate. At the time the customer-contractor principle was being adopted—that is, the time when Lord Rothschild's report was adopted, albeit in a modified form—I remember that in that interesting and long debate in your Lordships' House grave concern was expressed as to whether research could adequately be funded through the commissioning procedure and whether the funding was likely to be affected by the vagaries of Treasury support or political whim. It was pointed out then that even applied research implies a time-scale which does not fit in neatly with the year-by-year expenditure through normal accounting procedures. Then, as often since, assurances were given that the requirement to give continuity of funding of research was understood and that the department would be able to undertake this responsibility adequately.
Of course, if one now looks at the agricultural departments—I do not refer just to MAFF; I also refer to DAFS and to the department in Northern Ireland—one sees that they are, for reasons which I think we all understand, under very close scrutiny on public expenditure. It may well be that the changing emphasis in our policy towards agricultural production requires an assessment as to how expenditure within those ministries should be best deployed. It is certainly the case that an increase in output is no longer a prime objective. But if for the moment we look at the requirements of the producer at a time when we recognise that the common agricultural policy has led us up something of a cul-de-sac, that systems of agriculture have been supported which now perhaps look untenable, that the prices the
600
producers are going to receive for some commodities will be reduced somewhere down to world prices and that in other commodities there will be constraints put on production levels, as is the case already for milk, I think there is a very firm onus on those commissioning departments to give to the producer the options which research and development are designed to provide. Indeed, it is exactly there where the research service and the development services are finding themselves under great pressure in a farming industry which is in great confusion, after years of expansion, suddenly finding that priorities have changed. To have the research capacity reduced at this time could be seen as a final blow to an industry which has been so responsive in the past to technological changes.
I am sure that I do not need to remind the Minister of the debate we had not so many months ago about cuts at the Welsh plant breeding station. The noble Baroness, Lady White, will remember that she and others in this House forcefully pointed out that there were many areas of agriculture which were suffering great difficulties and that they looked with great suspicion at the concept of achieving quite modest economies in research at a time when the industry would need all the support it could get.
Yet another debate—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will refer to this when he speaks to his Select Committee's report—emphasised how we must improve the agricultural and environmental research interface. Great concern has been expressed, not only in this House but also elsewhere, on the environmental impact of agriculture and allied industries. The Government quite correctly gave a commitment to increase their research capacity in this area.
Later this evening there will be a debate on animal welfare or subjects allied to it. I am sure that it will be the wish of the public as a whole to see the research capacity in this area maintained if not increased.
To take a further area, perhaps not so much the Ministry of Agriculture as the Department of Health and Social Security has produced several reports—one is this report I hold in my hand, the Diet and Cardiovascular Disease Report—suggesting that there should be changes in the diet of this country: we should reduce the amount of fats that we eat. I understand that this report has in the main been accepted by the Government and there are implications there not just for the producer but also for the food industry and the consumer.
There have been recent reports on the sad state in which the food industry finds itself. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has already referred to the Advisory Committee on Applied Research and Development's report on the food industry. Again, the Government, quite correctly, in my mind, have said that, yes, this is a strategic industry which finds itself in some difficulties, perhaps because the industry failed to support its own research adequately some years ago. Nevertheless, the case is that we are now losing market share. The fast moving technology is not being adequately developed in this country. There must be further expenditure in this area.
All the areas I have quoted come firmly under the category of commissioned research. As others have explained, that is not to say that the science Vote itself

601
is not being eroded. However, it is the commissioned area to which I was particularly addressing myself. I would make the very strong plea that before yet further cuts are forced on the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues in Scotland and elsewhere, very careful consideration be given to these and other issues, which the public, and indeed the farmer, are expecting to be funded.
It must not escape your Lordships' notice that it is rather ironical to have two speakers from these Benches pleading special reasons why cuts in public expenditure, however many there should be, should not affect their own vested interest. I think there is a very firm onus on the research councils and others to look at the possibility of perhaps developing a fourth leg—I suppose it will no longer be a tripod; perhaps I should now call it a table—to the funding of research councils. Something which the Secretary of State for Education and Science has suggested to universities and others is that they should be looking at increased funding from industry and from alternative areas.
I would say that all research councils do receive quite considerable sums of money from other such areas. For instance, I think the European Commission has fairly imaginative proposals. But if I can suggest one palliative to add to those which have been suggested earlier, there is a strange concept called attribution. For example, if you get money—in some cases, not always—from a source such as the European Commission, as, for instance, the head of a research institute of whom I spoke earlier, you then find that you have that sum of money docked off your budget. I know this causes great frustration. It really is counterproductive in every sense of the word. It certainly discourages managers of research institutes from going flat out for such funding from Europe. I ask the Minister whether he can assure us that the Treasury are going to take a more enlightened view on this rather small area.
While I am talking about palliatives, there is just another small one. The Rayner Review has pointed out areas where, by better housekeeping, research councils can make ongoing savings in both running costs and once-and-for-all costs. Those once-and-for-all costs tend to be capital sales. Again I am sure that the Rayner Review proposals are sensible. However, very often the research councils will find that if they make those sales the money is clawed back. I suggest that, at a time when we all recognise that capital is short in research, every inducement should be given to these research institutes or research councils to reinvest those capital sums which they have been able to redeploy.
What other sources would make up the fourth leg? I am very excited by the prospects of the Agricultural Genetics Company. This is tapping City money for what is admittedly the glamour area in agricultural and food research, biotechnology. But the intellectual property is very valuable and certainly many see value of an enormous commercial excitement coming out of these research programmes. Our own Agricultural and Food Research Council's programme is five years old. Certainly there will be funding from that source. I am sure that this principle of inviting industrial and City funds can be exploited further.
602
The story of pyrethroid insecticides is one of the great success stories in the agricultural industry. I think I am right in saying that the value of these pyrethroids is expected to be something like one billion US dollars this year. The royalties from that—which I hasten to say do not come straight back to the research institute, which is Rothamsted, but go into the Treasury—are very considerable.
There will be others following. There are programmes which follow it precisely. But there will also be others in slightly different areas of agrochemicals which will be great money spinners. Again, when we harness the commercial potential to the research requirements, I see opportunities to make up at least part of the deficit in funding about which we have all talked so much today.
There are other more mundane opportunities to which perhaps I could draw the attention of the Government, which affect the Agricultural and Food Research Council. The National Seed Development Organisation, which is really the rent collector for plant variety rights, which are bred by the public sector, is, I know, up for review at the moment. I am sure the opportunity should be taken to look very carefully at the opportunities to put some of those royalties—which again disappear into the Treasury or into the Ministry; I am not sure which—back into research. It is a good principle if you can give people encouragement by letting them see royalties go back to their institute. It seems to me good management. The agricultural engineering industry and the food industry are both sectors which rightly look to public research to help underpin them, but they should in turn be prepared to invest more than they have in the past. I say no more on that.
Lastly, it leaves the agricultural producer, who again, quite frankly, is at the moment being asked to fund a bit more of his development service. A figure of 20 per cent. has been suggested by the Minister of Agriculture. I have no doubt he will be asked very soon to fund part of his marketing in the form of giving support to Food From Britain. I make no apologies for adding to the shopping bill which that producer is going to be asked to fund and saying that he should be looking carefully at his contribution to research. He has done well out of research over the last 20 to 30 years. As I have said before, industry is technology led. Yet, compared to other industries, his contribution is not very impressive. That is entirely true of all sectors. The sugar beet grower and the hop grower are small areas of agriculture. Nevertheless, they pay large sums of money towards their research. There are individual groups of farmers and the like who do likewise.
However, I would suggest that particularly the sectors of agriculture which are well organised—I refer to milk, for which we have the Milk Marketing Board, meat, for which we have the Meat and Livestock Commission, cereal, for which we have the Home Grown Cereals Authority—all have the structure which already exists to make a contribution, if they so wish, towards their own research and development. I suggest that for the very parochial reason that it is very difficult to ask the Minister of Agriculture to fight fiercely to retain this research capacity against these other competing claims if he cannot at the same time

603
point out that the industry itself expects to pay as other industries would.
We have heard much from many speakers—I am sure we shall hear more during the course of this evening—about the lack of stability and the low morale at present existing in research institutes. We have to recognise that there will be times when difficult decisions have to be made as to what are priorities in research. It is going to cause difficulty. It is the job of research managers to overcome those problems. However, I think we are entitled to say, "Let us have at least a figure which will be the final funding level for research in whatever sector and thereafter the funding will be protected".
This is the requirement which I go back to and which was mentioned at the time of the Rothschild Report. If we continue to keep research in some degree of turmoil, the research results will suffer. That is most certainly the case today; it is certainly the case in the Agricultural and Food Research Council; and I have no doubt that it is the case in the other research councils as well.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Todd: My Lords, I should like first of all to echo earlier speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, not only for bringing before us the subject of the research councils but for presenting the general problems to us in such an admirable way. I could touch on a great many points that he made but it is quite unnecessary after his exposition. I was particularly pleased that the noble Lord should bring this matter forward. The research councils are a vital component of the provision that we make in this country for promoting research. Especially is that true of university research, which is the area with which I personally have been most concerned in my career. They do that by being a part of what is called the dual support system—a system which has been described to us already this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield.
That system was for long the envy of scientists in most countries. It depended on the University Grants Committee making, in the course of setting the general grant for individual universities, provision for each university to maintain an adequate research base—that is to say, to fund properly equipped laboratories and other facilities. The research councils then came in by providing from the Science Vote money necessary to provide the extra expenditure called for particularly good forward-looking projects, described in the official literature as researches of "timeliness and promise".
I said that that system was the envy of scientists in many countries, but I am afraid that it is not working very well today and it has not indeed been working well for some years. It is almost exactly five years ago that in a presidential address to the Royal Society I drew attention to this very problem that we are talking about today; but nothing much has been done during those five years. Accordingly, the problems which were clear enough then are, if anything, clearer today and more urgent.
604
There is not much point in our bemoaning the alleged weakness of this country in technological innovation if we are not prepared to tackle seriously the problem of funding the research on which technological innovation today almost invariably depends. Our deficiencies in financial support for research were set out in general terms today by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and in one particular instance, the case of the Medical Research Council, they were set out admirably and in detail by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
I could say, as we all could, "Let us have more money for these councils". That is all very well. It would be very nice, and I hope very much that they will get more money; but I think that I should like to look at some aspects of the system as we have it now to see whether we are doing all that we can. In other words, I should like to ask what has gone wrong with the dual support system. That is a pretty complex question, but I at least think that I can identify three major causes of our troubles. The first two involve consideration of that sacred cow of our university system which goes under the name of academic freedom.
I have mentioned that the Government, through the UGC, always included a sum in the university grant which was to provide the basic requirements for the maintenance of research and scholarship. No precise sum was ever mentioned. It could not be because that would have interfered with academic freedom. One must never tell a university how much of its grant it may spend on anything, so no precise sum was specified. But I think that it was assumed that about 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. of the total grant would be devoted to this purpose.
When the financial winds began to blow cold, as they did first some years ago, I am afraid that some universities at least found it a good deal easier to absorb the cut-backs by raiding this part of the budget rather than other parts of it where they would have the awkward and tiresome business of dealing with people. This of course simply meant increasing pressure on the research councils—and, incidentally, on the charitable foundations which were called upon to make up the deficit. That is the first of my three causes.
The second is related to that. When the Robbins Report on Higher Education was implemented—and that implementation is a matter which, as many of your Lordships know, I opposed at the time—the form of implementation led to the creation of 20 or so new universities, most of which proceeded to follow as closely as possible the traditional pattern of university education which in this country is set largely by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was accordingly assumed that all of them would be free to pursue what research they wished; that they would all have the basic support necessary through the UGC; and that that could then be topped up by the research councils.
Although I think it was a foolish decision, this might have been all right if money had been unlimited, but money was not unlimited. As we all know, money has become tight recently, and it shows every sign of getting tighter. The difficulty caused by that is going to be just that much greater because of this belief that all

605
the universities should be free to develop research as they wish.
The third reason that I have to explain the difficulties of our dual support system concerns the size of the Science Vote from which the research councils are financed. It is to the credit of Government that they have sought—with varying degrees of success, but they have certainly sought—to maintain the value of the science budget in real terms; that is, at a roughly constant level. That, however, has not been enough to prevent very serious hardship. First, we have the combined effect of the two causes that I have mentioned already, but there is a third which is at least equally important. That is the ever-increasing sophistication in equipment for research which has been mentioned by one or two earlier speakers this afternoon. As research advances, so does the sophistication of the equipment needed to carry it out; and this rate of increase is far beyond that of the retail price index.
Let me give your Lordships one little example that I happen to know. About 25 years ago or a little more, I as an organic chemist came across the fact—a new one to me—that in physics a phenomenon had been discovered and was being looked at called nuclear magnetic resonance. I thought that that might be useful to what I was doing in chemistry. I tried to find out about it, and I discovered that there was an instrument—the first instrument of this type—being made commercially in America. I thereupon managed to rake together the money to buy one. I may say that I did not get it from a research council. I obtained it in fact from the Wellcome Trust, but that is neither here nor there. I acquired the money. I cannot remember the exact sum, but I think it was about £12,000, which was quite a lot of money in those days. But I bought this instrument.
Since then nuclear magnetic resonance has become an indispensable tool in chemistry and, as we have heard today, it is now penetrating into medicine. As it has become essential for all the chemical schools to have these instruments, they descend upon the research council for the money. Of course, instruments have been getting steadily more and more sophisticated year by year. Only the other day I was asking my successor in the chemistry department in Cambridge what their new instrument, which they are purchasing at the moment, is going to cost them. He said, "A little over a quarter of a million". With that rate of increase in sophistication, just to keep the money supply to a research council at the level dictated by the Retail Price Index is not going to help a great deal.
These are the kind of reasons that got us into trouble. What are we going to do about it? I should like to look first at research funding, which is met by the university grant and which has been steadily eroded for various reasons, some of which I have just outlined. I have already drawn attention to the vast increase in the number of our universities which occurred in the 'sixties. In all these universities, as in the older ones, the view seems to be held that teaching can be of university standard only if the teachers are engaged in research and that all university teachers, and hence all departments, are capable of first-class research.
606
I do not accept either of these views. There are good departments and bad departments, and there are academics who are effective in research and academics who are not. There is, in my view, much scope, and indeed need, for selectivity in research support. Not all departments in all universities should be supported, in my view, as potential centres of excellence in research. I should even consider it possible, under certain circumstances, that a hierarchy might be developed in the university system in which some of the universities devoted themselves essentially to teaching and that research would not be universal in all departments in all universities but would be distributed, perhaps even in a limited number of universities. This is not the first time I have said this, and I do not expect that that view would find a great deal of favour with some of my fellow academics. But sooner or later they have got to face up to this problem. Money is tight, and it may well get tighter.
Let me turn to the other vital component, the research councils, which are financed through the science Vote of the Department of Education and Science. They are being hard hit financially and although individually they differ in the extent of work which is carried out by their own staff in institutes or in units associated with universities, they are, overall, the main source of extra funding for research in universities both through provision for research expenditure and for grants to postgraduate students. I cannot go into detail about all of them, but for various reasons the Medical Research Council seems—if all I hear from my university colleagues is correct—to be peculiarly badly hit and a number of important MRC units in universities widely acclaimed for their work in a variety of branches are in dire straits. I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, would confirm that.
As a chemist, my own contacts have been much more with the Science and Engineering Research Council, or, to be more precise, with its earlier manifestations: the Science Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I should like to draw attention to some of its problems.
The sorry pass to which the council, the SERC, has come—and through this deficiency the sorry pass to which the country has come—is highlighted by the steady growth in the percentage of first-class, so-called alpha research grant applications which have to be turned down because they simply have not got the money. In my own subject for some time now well over 20 per cent. of such applications have had to be refused out of hand. In this situation, and in the light of the knowledge that large increases in the science Vote are not very likely in the immediate future, I think it is about time that we looked at our priorities. Already the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has drawn attention to the very large defence research budget. I shall not touch on that. I was looking at the annual review of Government-funded R & D for 1983, which was issued this year by the Cabinet Office. In it I see, on page 26, that out of a total disposable SERC budget of £191.8 million in 1982–83, £49.9 million went to nuclear and particle physics, £38.9 million to astronomy, space and radio, £41.3 million to engineering and £47.3 million to the rest of science. I find this distribution a little bit odd, especially when I remember that the whole of medicine, through the

607
Medical Research Council, gets just a little over £100 million a year.
This disproportionate spending, or apparently disproportionate spending, on nuclear and particle physics in particular is not new. As long ago as 1964, if you look at the final report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, of which I was at the time chairman, you will find that we were very much concerned then with the cost of nuclear and particle physics. Compared with what CERN proposes to do now, it may seem rather humorous, but at that time the great problem was: should we take part in a terrific scheme to produce a 300 GeV machine?
If we take the present situation about expenditure on nuclear physics and the new proposals for CERN, I have no doubt whatever that a very strong case can be made out for going on with them—a very strong and reasonable case for high expenditure to keep in the forefront of nuclear physics. But an equally strong case can be made out for many other branches of science and I would repeat now what I said in 1964. Government should not, and must not, try to control or decide what research is done, but they must surely decide how much they propose to spend on various kinds of research; in other words, they must determine national priorities.
Now, as back in 1964, we have got to ask ourselves, and the Government must ask themselves, whether, assuming that they have no more money available than they have indicated they will give, it is reasonable to devote such a large proportion of it to one particular area of science—an area of science, I believe, which is likely to be of much less immediate value to us as a country—rather than to a number of the other areas of research which are now being starved of resources. My Lords, I believe that in this matter we have got our priorities wrong.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords. I step into this debate very gingerly. I am neither an academic nor a scientist and I have no connection with any research council or research institute. My sole justification for taking part in this debate is that I am a politician and it seems to me that it is pointless to have a debate of this type unless one is trying to get across a message to the Government, and the message that is coming across and which should come, in view of the distinguished contributions that we have had to the debate, concerns the danger of a country in our situation cheese-paring about producing what is essentially the seed-corn for future development. Whatever developments we may have in the future, industrially, technologically, medically, agriculturally and so on, will depend largely upon the basic research that is done now. It is a fairly self-evident proposition that a country should spend that proportion of its resources on research that need dictates. When one looks at a country in our position—and we had a pe-eminent industrial position but, technologically, we have fallen steadily behind other countries—it seems to me that the need is obvious.
It clearly emerges from the debate so far that this is not a subject which lends itself to across-the-board economies. When one decides what type of research
608
one requires, it seems to me that the across-the-board economy which is so often applied by the research councils is inappropriate.
I want to concentrate my few remarks this evening on one particular aspect of research about which I know a little—that is, agricultural research. Our minds have been directed recently by the famine in Abyssinia to food production and its difficulties in various parts of the world. It so happens that, during the publicity that has been given to the Abyssinian debacle, I learned that we are now producing enough food in this world to feed adequately the 4 billion people who live in it. That is a great development that has taken place over the last two decades.
The reason why we have famine in areas like East Africa, Abyssinia and so on is connected not with the production of food world-wide, but with the difficulties of distribution, and it arises particularly in those areas where they have benefited the least from agricultural research. There are other areas of the world which were very much subject to famine—for example, the Far East. However, as a result of the "green revolution", and so on, their agricultural production has increased enormously and they are therefore able to look after themselves.
I am told that, if one translates world food production overall into the production of reasonable meals, we produce the equivalent of 12 billion reasonable meals per day—enough to provide each person with three reasonable meals. I mention that fact because it seems to me that it stems from a great deal of the agricultural research work that has been done in this country.
I know of one agricultural research station—the Welsh Plant Breeding Station at Aberystwyth—and its particular contribution. I know that, because of the research done there in the early years of this century, in the 1930s and so on, particularly by Sir George Stapleton and the distinguished team which he controlled, that station was able to advance the production of grasses and forage crops probably more than any other station in the world. I have been assured by scientists from Cambridge that Aberystwyth is still regarded as pre-eminent in the world for research on grasses and forage crops.
We know now that the research carried out by Stapleton on the production of improved grasses and the techniques he used have resulted in them being copied in various parts of the world. I mentioned in a previous debate his influence on Australia, New Zealand and on the green revolution in other parts of the world. As a result of research started at that station, there have been produced drought-resistant and disease-resistant grasses which have enabled the world to develop enormously.
From the national point of view, there has been perforce, as with most agricultural research stations, an across-the-board cut which has now resulted in the Aberystwyth station, for example, being reduced to a budget of £3 million per annum, which is not enough to carry out its national research as the essential grass breeding station for this country. Most of our grass grows in the western area but this station serves not only Wales but the western region altogether. Quite apart from that, its research, which has such an influence on the rest of the world, is affected. That is

609
one example where I have knowledge of the eventual effect of the across-the-board economy. If this is going on in different areas and in different departments of which I know nothing, its eventual result would tend to suggest that this country and the world will suffer.
Our country has surely made a pre-eminent contribution in basic research to the development of mankind in industry, technology, medicine and agriculture, to give only a few examples. I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, when he said that basically we are concerned in this whole matter with the question of attitude. A confident country that is developing has confidence in its research and it goes ahead with its research programmes in confidence, although some of its research will inevitably prove to be barren. On the other hand, a confident country also goes ahead with its research programme in the knowledge and confidence that it will benefit from it eventually. It appears to me that basically what is wrong is our attitude towards research, which affects us in so many ways.
I said at the commencement of my remarks that I was speaking in this debate because I am a politician. I am fully aware of the fact that one cannot in a democracy get people very excited about the government curtailing scientific research because few of the populace appreciate its importance for their future and their children's future. But we in this House do appreciate that, and that is surely the message that we want to get across to the Government.
5.18 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, after having been brought so refreshingly home to our political base by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, perhaps I should apologise to your Lordships for reverting once again to a scientific intervention. I speak as a member of the Natural Environment Research Council and not, I must emphasise, from the elevated position of chairmanship, as have two noble Earls who have spoken previously from this side of the House. I do not in any way speak for the Natural Environment Research Council, which has not put forward to me any particular points that it wishes to be made. I speak from my personal experience.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, mentioned in his introductory remarks, this particular research council, for historical reasons, consists (to use the noble Lord's term) of a somewhat haphazard mix of institutes: the BGS (the geological survey) is very large; the Institute of Virology is very small. Nonetheless, it has a coherence and a cohesion. However much the leader writer of Nature may thunder, as he did recently, I remain convinced that there must always be in the national interest a strong and vigorous research council devoted to the science of the natural environment.
I draw your Lordships' attention to a small selection of subjects of vital national importance that fall into the area of the NERC responsibility. First, we are an island, or islands; our coastal and shelf seas receive run-off from one of the world's major industrial centres. In national terms it is vital for us to be informed of the robustness of this system, its capacity to absorb inevitable amounts of pollution, and the stability and productivity of the biotic elements within it.
610
We must understand the interlinkages of the living marine systems with the non-living processes, such as sedimentation. We must understand the roles of the oceans in the cycling of gaseous pollutants—sulphur dioxide, the nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide. Oceanic processes are involved in releasing these to the atmosphere and, perhaps, in the case of carbon dioxide, in providing an ultimate sink system for the permanent fixation of this potential pollutant. Again, we must pay attention and have regard to the potential of the sea as a disposal site. This is a controversial issue, but if we accept that on land pre-emptive neutralising disposal is permissible, why, prima facie, should it not also be excusable and useful at sea?
Those are just some examples of the areas of research of the Natural Environment Research Council in which I see a vital national and international need. But this afternoon we are talking primarily about the resources that are available to our research councils, and attention has been concentrated on material resources rather than on intellectual resources, and it is with these that I shall deal.
As has been mentioned sufficiently often this afternoon, the Department of Education and Science allocation—the so-called science Vote—has remained more or less stable. Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, have drawn attention to a number of problems, including one which I myself have mentioned on a previous occasion: the problem of pay awards which breach cash limits. After cash limits have been set, pay awards are permitted by the Government outside the control of research councils that make a nonsense of the cash limits.
Mention has also been made of the excess of alpha grade research applications that cannot be funded. I have satisfied myself in this quarter that in the Natural Environment Research Council this is not because there has been a drift in the assessment of applications. It is not that the alpha has been enlarged; it is genuinely that the resource has become limited in relation to the number of applications.
However, as again has been emphasised often enough this afternoon, it is in the area of commissioned research that the problems are greatest. From my experience in NERC, I doubt whether we can any longer accept that the system is working as it was intended to work. At meetings of the council I have heard the head of an institute describe the present system as "chaotic". Institute directors find that frequently the proportion of their funding which is due to come from Government commissions is not known to them until partway through, half-way through or even later through the financial planning year. It is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to operate in a balanced fashion if funding is as unpredictable as that.
On the other side of the coin, I have heard in council a department representative describe the system as a "morass". So I am forced to ask—and I should be grateful if my noble friend could take note of this in his reply: is it made clear to departmental heads exactly what are the mechanics by which they must go about commissioning research from the research councils? What arrangements are made at departmental level to ensure that the National Environment Research

611
Council Institute directors are used as a point of first contact when it is decided to commission research in relevant fields?
A particularly cogent example that is before us all at the minute is the problem of acid precipitation. At a time when NERC scientists had identified this as a priority for scientific research, and at a time when on a wider scale the whole of the environmental movement in this country and elsewhere in Europe saw it as a pressing international, political and environmental problem, Government funding was initially low; it sunk to a negligible level; and then suddenly there was an enormous turnabout. It is now a band-wagon to be jumped upon, and one has to ask why. Where is the long-term planning for Government research? Is this a political panic? Has it suddenly sunk in on someone that this is an issue? In which case, is this an uninformed response to some rather poorly evaluated stimulus? Did someone somewhere see a TV programme and think, "My goodness, we must do something about it"?
In the NERC, as has been made clear by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and doubtless in the other research councils, the response of institute directors to declining commissioned income has been to look for it outside Government funding. I am surprised that, speaking from his position, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, did not refer to this as a quadruped rather than as a table. But NERC has set up its own internal marketing agency and is actively devoting considerable resources to seeking commissions outside its normal field of support. It has had some very successful commissions abroad. It has found work in Indonesia and, like so many other research organisations, it sees the growth and outward-turning of China as an area of great potential support. This is stimulating for NERC scientists. It is good work; it is competently done; it earns foreign currency for the nation.
But I seriously question whether or not it is the proper function of a national research council to be out there in the market. From where I sit in the NERC and from outside it I very seriously doubt whether our national research institutes should primarily be concerned with doing research which is in our own national priorities or whether they should be looking outside for it. Is it right that these research institutes should be competing with other agencies in the private sector?
Moreover, I seriously wonder whether it is right that the senior scientists and directors of NERC institutes should be devoting their time, or requiring other people to devote time, to the preparation of competitive bids which inevitably have only a limited expectation of success but which, nonetheless, in order to be competitive, must be properly and carefully prepared. It is an expensive occupation. Is it right that our national research institutes should be in this field competing with the private sector?
Personally, I believe that the principal customer for our research councils in the contractor-customer system should be the Government through their departments, local government and Government agencies. In the case of the NERC, the Nature Conservancy Council springs to mind. This will
612
require closer co-operation than at present appears to exist both from my own evidence and from the evidence produced, in the case of AFRC, by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. There must be the capacity to review the problems before they are right in our laps and to plan and commission research on a proper timescale. Long-term exchanges must be the forerunners of the actual commission itself. There must be an atmosphere of confidence between the principal and the agent.
Like other institutes, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, suspected, the NERC has been applying across-the-board economies. The NERC has been slowly shedding staff by a policy of only partial replacement through natural wastage. If needs be, I have no doubt that the NERC can, and will, undertake more radical reforms in order to adapt to current financial climates as they are seen. But if the Government seek a leaner, fitter NERC, I believe that the Government must themselves review their procedures for commissioning research to provide the stability and the confidence that will be needed. Only if this confidence exists will the research councils attract the good scientists and let these scientists do good science and not get bogged down in financial and managerial problems which seem at the minute to occupy so much time.
I come to the final question. Let us go back to the beginning and ask just what happened to the good intentions of the Rothschild arrangement? What happened to the proportion of commissioned research which was to be devoted to strategic elements? What happened even to the 10 per cent. over FEC—full economic costs—which were supposed to be there in commissions?
5.31 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I speak as a university scientist, and perhaps I should add that I have at the moment no formal connection with any of the research councils and so I have to speak from a general point of view without any very particular knowledge of the kind that we have had already from noble Lords. May I add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for bringing this debate to the House this afternoon, and say that I agreed almost entirely with everything he said. I have also to apologise to the House as I, too, have an engagement which I have not been able to avoid, and I am afraid that I shall not be able to stay to the end of this important debate.
The plight of the research councils, indeed the plight of basic science in this country, has become a national issue. The Royal Society, the Science Policy Unit at Sussex University, reference to which we have already heard, television programmes, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, all in their own ways are telling the same story—that we can no longer claim to be holding our own among the leading scientific countries of the world. One has to ask why this should be so. Certainly the curtailment of expansion and now the actual contraction of funds available for the basic science enterprise must have played a part.
I do not now want to question the size of the science Vote, but rather to ask whether we are getting value for the money that we spend. I find it inconceivable that if we ordered matters aright, we should be unable to

613
have some world-class science for a spend of close on £1,000 million, and nor do I claim that we have yet reached that sorry state. Indeed, there are notable recent successes to our credit. But I am concerned that the present ways of organising basic science in this country and strategic research create a danger of money being less and less efficiently spent.
We can still praise, I am glad to say, the basic science that the research councils do, but nevertheless I think we can ask—at least ask—whether some of their mechanisms for doing it are ideal. Additionally, I am persuaded that the Government avoid a major responsibility by failing to provide strategies and policies designed for this particular period of contraction with an understanding of the problems faced by the research councils and the universities—policies which I believe must have as a clear aim maintaining the quality of the scientific endeavour of this country.
The Government's apparent unconcern may be either on principle or because there are few in Government who have first-hand knowledge of how science works in this country. But the effect of this "vacuum at the centre", already noted three years ago by your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology, adds greatly to the adverse effects of purely financial cuts.
For the truth is that the research councils and the universities, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, have not been any more exempt from the syndicalism of post-war years than have the nationalised industries or the Government services itself. I do not think we can reasonably expect them to be any better at dealing with necessary contraction.
Multi-layered committee structure, management problems, centralised wage bargaining, unionisation of the work force and increased liabilities for redundancy and retirement are just as much problems for the research councils and often make it difficult to reallocate their resources in a way best calculated to preserve the quality of scientific output.
In the last year, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has told us, we have seen the Medical Research Council cut expenditure on consumable supplies, chemicals, radio-isotopes and such like necessities, so hard that some work actually had to stop, and now, so that it can begin again, it has had to plan large reductions in support of research at universities and support for training fellowships. These damaging plans had arisen because the council's disposable income was to have fallen by £4 million in 1984–85.
Work at MRC institutes had already been damaged—and now there were to be further reductions in university work. These proposed reductions had partly been caused by money directed to the AFRC for its reorganisation. In order to reduce the AFRC, itself one of the smaller research councils, the MRC, SERC and indirectly the universities were to have borne a heavy cost. One shudders to think of the knock-on effect on universities if, as may well become necessary, the SERC or the MRC themselves have to be restructured.
Yesterday's announcement from the DES seems to go some way to recognise these dangers, but the science community has some excuse for feeling that it
614
is living in a world of hasty and ad hoc expedients, imposed by a Government who seem only at the eleventh hour to grasp the nature and consequences of their acts. We must be thankful, and indeed are thankful, for the extra money for the research councils which has just been announced—and it is reassuring to hear that it will go towards restructuring and towards university work—but I have to say that already students at Cambridge, and I believe elsewhere, are today demonstrating about the new charges on their parents which will provide this new money.
If we are to see, as I fear we shall, more students forced into debt by the inability or even the unwillingness of their parents to pay, it will not comfort us much at the university to think that their hardship is supporting the research councils. If this charge were in turn to discourage some from going to university to read sciences, the decline in our science base would be reinforced.
It is interesting, my Lords, to look at your Select Committee's Report on Science and Government and to read the following comment from its conclusion:
"From one Government to the next adjustments of the machinery to fit the people available makes obvious sense. The present Government has chosen to do without a Minister for Science and Technology, a Chief Scientific Adviser (in name) or a Council on Science and Technology. But many of the functions which the Committee have identified as necessary are in fact being carried out by one means or another".
Three years on the consequences of our Government's choice are plain to see and I believe that your Lordships' committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, would not today be so willing to believe that one means or another was good enough.
5.39 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, like all the rest of us, I, too, am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, not for the first time, for having taken an inititative in bringing this extremely important matter before your Lordships' House. I am also grateful to the two chairmen of the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research Council respectively for two most impressive speeches. I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who is to reply to the debate, was listening with serious attention to those speeches, as well he might. He could hardly have had a better exposition of the problems which face those responsible for the research effort in this country than was contained in the contributions from the two noble Earls I have mentioned.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, made a reference to Sir Keith Joseph's announcement last week, which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, just now, I have been surprised that otherwise little attention has been paid to this initiative, because from a political point of view it really is a most remarkable exercise. Sir Keith has publicly hypothecated, for the benefit of the research Vote, the money to be drawn from better-off parents of students in higher education; and this is, to say the least of it, an unusual political gambit. It is a courageous one, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, indicated. Is it perhaps the boldness of despair? This is not the occasion to discuss the equity of imposing such charges on the families of students already committed to university courses, though this factor will undoubtedly add to Sir Keith's

615
political problems with some of the supporters of his own party. But one cannot help asking oneself what happens to the science Vote next year, or the year after, if the politics go wrong, which is not entirely inconceivable. However, that is a matter for the future.
The significance of the exercise, however, seems to me to be that it illustrates the recognition in the Department of Education and Science that Britain is slipping badly in the international league table of scientific and technological research and development, so that even unorthodox measures have now become politically admissible. The immediate question before us surely must be, therefore: will Sir Keith's initiative work? Is it too little? Is the sum of £24 million to be added to the science Vote and the UGC equipment grant next year a mere bagatelle? I think it was intended to be more than that.
As a stopgap for the year 1985–86, to which the announcement referred, the answer must be that it will be a significant but temporary alleviation of the otherwise nearly intolerable pressure on the research councils' budgets. In particular, I had understood that the £6 million to be set aside primarily for restructuring by the AFRC, and to a lesser degree for the other research councils, would be likely to remove the threat of a special levy on the Medical Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council, though I was interested to observe that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is not as yet convinced of that. I had understood that that was the intention. It certainly signals the fact that the DES accepts that restructuring can be not only painful but costly, as anyone concerned with implementing the corporate plan of the AFRC is by now acutely aware.
So this bonus announced last week is necessary and welcome as far as it goes. So also is the £8 million to be used partly to top up funds to cover the "alpha quality" applications for research grants which SERC in particular, but also the other research councils, have recently been obliged to turn down to a most disturbing degree. One has only to read the relevant passages in the SERC and the MRC annual reports to grasp the need to spend more on encouraging our potentially best scientific brains. The rest of the money announced by Sir Keith as a bonus will go to funding other urgent priorities. The £10 million to be allocated to the UGC for additional equipment grant is likely, so we are told on the grapevine, to be distributed very selectively indeed. We can all, I think, guess at some of the favourite sons who will be receiving the bulk of that money. Again so far as it goes it will no doubt be a helpful supplement, but I am afraid that it will leave a great many university institutions still bereft of necessary funds for updating equipment or for securing equipment without which they cannot adequately carry on the research in prospect.
This announcement of extra money for the research vote has been designated by the top people in the Research Councils—I quote some of the phrases that I have heard them use in the past few days as providing—"a breathing space", "a stay of execution", "a brief respite"; a brief respite, my Lords, before the slow erosion of British scientific endeavour starts all over again. This was the warning that some of us received at a meeting held in your Lordships' House last evening.
616
Why the pessimism? Because some of the basic factors in our slow but persistent decline over the last few years remain with us. Reference has been made to them by several noble Lords during the course of this debate. The realisation of the prognosis by Sir David Phillips, the chairman of the Advisory Board of the Research Councils, that, unless there is a commitment by Government to at least a steady state of funding in real terms, the erosion which we have been suffering over the last few years will continue, means that, in the next decade, public support for scientific research and development in this country could be reduced by up to 25 per cent.
Now, that is a very striking and shocking figure. This estimate was made before the recent announcement of the extra £24 million for 1985–86 but, as has been pointed out, it simply postpones that estimated reduction by a couple of years at best. The cumulative effect year by year of persistent under-funding of costs, of allowing only 3 per cent. for salaries and pension indexing, when even the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits to an inflation rate of between 4 and 5 per cent., repeated regularly year by year, can undermine a very significant proportion of our national research effort. This has recently been coupled with a decline in the value of sterling which affects a field where some of the action is necessarily international. There is indeed a danger that Britain will be regarded more and more as an unwelcome partner in international co-operative efforts because we can appear keener on cost-cutting than on exploiting the new frontiers of knowledge. This can be extremely serious in certain endeavours where the very scale of the work demands an international rather than a national effort.
It is now fashionable to quote the words of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, who we are delighted to have with us on this occasion, because his remarks are indeed so apposite. In his much admired speech last week he surely put his finger on the root cause of many of our current ills—the failure of the present Administration to recognise the essential difference between recurrent and capital expenditure, between spending and investment.
This is what bedevils much of our science research policy. Cost effectiveness, corporate plans and a degree of selectivity are necessary and desirable, but only against the acceptance that a considerable proportion of research, including especially basic and strategic research, as opposed to day-to-day problem solving, is investment and should be treated as such. The Government are selling off our capital assets without adequate re-investment in our physical infrastructure. Even the CBI appears to have noticed that. If the Government continue to regard our intellectual infrastructure in scientific and technological research and development as annual expenditure, which can regularly be eroded, then the politically courageous manoeuvre of the Secretary of State for Education and Science will provide only the very briefest respite. In three years' time we shall be, in real terms, back where we were.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the report of the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, which pinpointed some of the hazards which we face as a nation. The recent OECD report on Science and Technology Indicators—indicators of the national

617
resources devoted to research and development—suggests that Britain has now dropped to the bottom of the list of major R & D countries within the OECD area. If one takes other bases of calculation by proportion of GNP devoted to research and development or by expenditure per head of population, we are markedly insecure in relation to our competitors.
While we welcome Sir Keith's brave gesture, the sooner the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the road to Damascus the better. If he does not, our medium and long-term outlook is bleak. As has been suggested in particular by my noble friend Lord Gregson, we shall be back in the position where some of our ablest people will be tempted to look elsewhere and where great multinational companies, which regulate so large a proportion of the world's industrial and technological research, will regard Britain as an assembly area and not as a main source of exciting initiatives and fruitful ideas.
However, we ought not to despair. We still have a good and very highly regarded scientific community. We need not drop behind, still less sink down, if we make up our minds to use our resources intelligently and are not beguiled by the prospect of pie-in-the-sky tax cuts, so evident in the Chancellor's statement last week.
I have taken this line because I feel passionately that those who are wrestling with these problems of national research and development deserve the support of interested lay persons like myself who see this as a real threat to the long-term future of our nation. That is why it is fair to put this point of view to Her Majesty's Government, who are, after all, responsible as the guardians and trustees of our future prosperity and the quality of our society and our economy. Unless we get this right, the various details which have been touched on in this debate, important as they are, do not really matter all that much.
There are one or two relatively minor points, of which the Minister has received notice, that I want to touch upon simply because I have a particular personal interest in matters concerned especially with the natural environment. I entirely support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about the aspirations of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station—with which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I am quite sure, is by now adequately familiar—but I am also concerned with the work of certain bodies for which continuity is of the essence. One cannot study long-term trends in the natural environment unless one has available an adequate continuum of data. Such work is not as exciting as high technology, and is perhaps not economically so important, but it is an essential basic tool for the natural scientist.
In this I am thinking of work such as that carried out by the Geological Survey and the Soil Survey (both of which have their current apprehensions) and also the adequate monitoring of certain natural conditions. Such areas are tempting to those seeking inconspicuous economies. But as the history of acid rain (as it is popularly called) shows, such economies can be at a much larger ultimate cost.
Finally, there is another point of minor interest in the total picture, but important for some of us. I should like to know from the Minister what has happened to
618
the fair promises given last July in the debate on the report on the relationship between agriculture and environmental research, presented to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. In particular what coordination has been achieved, not only between DoE and MAFF with the Natural Environment Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research Council and their respective satellites, but also with the stated intention to bring in the Economic and Social Research Council? I believe that there has recently been a meeting which may have had some fruitful results.
Time is getting on and I shall not pursue any of the other matters which might well have been raised in this debate, but I reiterate our considerable gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for having initiated a discussion which must be impressive by any standards.
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the noble Baroness has taken the words out of my mouth. I, too, express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Sherfield, but, as the time is late, like her I will not dwell on its expression.
Of the 55 years that have elapsed since I attained my majority, 24 have been spent serving on the Science Research Council and the Medical Research Council, and a further 12 as chairman of the Meteorological Committee. Two-thirds of my adult life has been concerned with the subject we are debating this afternoon. In the course of that time I have developed some strong opinions of my own on certain aspects of it. My opinions are not necessarily those of others and I do not expect everybody to agree with me. I can only state what I believe myself, as I did to Mr. Reginald Maudling 20 years ago.
At that time a new government had come to power and was wrestling with the recommendations of the Trend Committee and with the problems that arose out of setting up Mintech—the Ministry of Technology. At the same time, the Conservatives were then in opposition but they put on their thinking caps and were preparing to think what their attitude to all these vexed questions was. Mr. Reginald Maudling convened a colloquium of interested parties, to which I was invited and to which I spoke. After it he asked me whether I would be good enough to put my views in writing and send them to him.
This I did. I told him that the impossible structure of DSIR was owing to its trying to run all the government research laboratories, which were the proper responsibility of government, together with an industrial university axis, as it were. The trouble with the Ministry of Technology was that after shedding the university side it was trying to operate on an industrial and defence axis. In my view, no fewer than three big departments at the apices of a triangle could correctly represent what needed doing—the Department of Education, which became the Department of Education and Science, Defence and Industry, with the 40 industrial research associations that it had inherited from the old DSIR.
Inside that triangle I suggested that there should be a system of advisory councils doing what my noble friend Lord Todd has emphasised must be done,

619
settling priorities as between one demandant and another. The different client states of each Ministry would all make their own demands and the Minister had to decide what priorities should be assigned to each of them. Outside that lies a field for executive action, if necessary through executive councils, one of which would be a research council, of which a number were brought into being. I emphasised that the characteristics of a research council were that it should be executive, making its own decisions within the limits of the budget allowed it by its Minister, but it must be regarded as non-initiatory: it would not be there to start projects; it would be there to receive and to respond to demands for research funds primarily from universities. Its function would be to be selective, to pick for support those research projects of special timeliness and promise. There was a very real public relations problem in adjusting the relative demands of big science and little science—big science being nuclear physics and astronomy and little science being the others.
In order to establish that justice was being done the peer assessment of projects put forward was strictly judicial. The research councils ought not to embroil themselves in running research stations, possibly in competition with work going on in the universities. After grappling with the grouping of all the rest of the Government establishments under one of these three headings, there was still quite a substantial number of them out on a limb. I could not see any natural collective grouping under which one could compose them. I saw absolutely no reason—and here I quarrelled with the established doctrine entirely—why each should not be the responsibility of one relevant Ministry. To illustrate my point—and I must talk in terms of the ministerial structure of the time when I was giving this advice—let the Road Research Laboratory be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport; let the Building Research Board be the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing.
It was always thought that research was something so misunderstood by arts graduates that they could not possibly be entrusted, within the framework of the Civil Service, with responsibility for a research laboratory. I challenged this. I said, "This is nonsense! If you give a man a responsibility to discharge, he will, as a responsible person, discharge it to the best of his ability. He is not required to do research if he is responsible for it; he is merely responsible for seeing that he gets it done. He can have a research council, he can have an advisory council, to keep him on the straight and narrow path. They can help him find a good director for his laboratory and so on; but, for the rest, I see no reason to suppose that it is necessary to group these all under one Ministry and there is no indicated Ministry to do it under."
I further added the rider that the two cultures must not be kept so apart that they are not allowed to collaborate and to meet one another. They will always remain apart. The best thing to do is to put them together into one organisation and let each understand that the other is not, as Lady Caroline Lamb said of Byron, "mad, bad and dangerous to know".
The recommendations that I made to Mr. Maudling at that time in fact very largely came to
620
pass—although whether or not as a result of my making them I have not the slightest idea. But, at a due point in time, the Department of the Environment came into existence and my triangle became a square with four Ministries, one at each of the four corners, but with the same internal structure as I had advocated from the start. A relevant National Environment Research Council was set up.
So I felt that things were going very well—it was exactly what I wanted to see—when a new principle was enunciated, cutting right across the whole thing. That was the customer-contractor principle, as expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. This seemed to me entirely to cut across the Halsbury principle of straight-line responsibility from Ministry through to research laboratory. I was very much against it from the outset. Its first casualty was the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, which had been a protégé of mine for many years and whose solvency I had successfully ensured by making it an industrial research association. It simply became insolvent while the DTI was wondering what to do about it. It just had to fold up—no money. If it had been a company limited by guarantee, like so many of these things, I should have gone to prison for running a business knowing it to be insolvent.
So far as the Medical Research Council was concerned, apart from going through the motions of pretending that we were adopting the customer-contractor principle, it was a dead letter from the word "go". And nothing is heard of it now. Its latest casualty is the Geological Survey—and I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is not here to listen to what I am going to say, but I am sure that he will read it in Hansard tomorrow. This I am very interested in because it involves another old protégé of mine. When I was on the DSIR advisory council, it had much too much work to do to carry out all its supervisory responsibilities in council, so it deputed them to one of its members. I was told off to be a visitor to the Geological Museum, with the result that I paid regular annual visits to Sir William Pugh, then the director—and I am talking of back in the 1950s, a long time ago. It was very convenient because I was also the chairman of the advisory council for the Science Museum next door; so that, whenever I visited one on business, I visited the other for fun as well. I got to know that Geological Museum very well. Of course, it has now been transferred out of the ambit of NERC and has been telescoped with the National History Museum on terms that nobody quite knows. The structure of the future joint organisation has not been worked out; and it is not good for morale for people to be there not knowing exactly what is going to happen to them.
What went wrong with the Geological Survey as opposed to its museum, its interface with the public which had been taken away from it? It reached the point where 75 per cent. of its funds were going on commissioned research. That was far beyond any principle that the Rothschild Report indicated and it is a very dangerous situation to be dependent for 75 per cent. of your work on commissioned research. This was reflected in the staff employed. When the system started in 1965, they were employing 380, I believe. By 1979 they were up to 1,150, of whom three-

621
quarters were on commissioned research. And then the blow fell. The NERC decided that it wanted to spend less on geology and more on biology—although, for heaven's sake, there are three other research councils concerned with biology. The ARC is concerned with biology; the MRC is concerned with biology; the SERC is concerned with biology, and so is the NERC. Biology was not really being badly under-represented in this sense.
Then the whole system collided with the most disastrous mistake that the research councils had inherited from the soft hand of the early 1970s. This was the soft, wet period in our history when a most unwise understanding was come to between the research councils, and the scientific Civil Service generally, and the trade unions by which there would be early tenure establishment of employees of the research councils. I think it is absolutely wrong to take a young research assistant and give him tenure for life in some particular job which you have got to hold open for him for ever. Tenure should mark a commitment by both sides, employer and employee, to be dedicated to one another. Tenure in the universities is by committed academics, to ensure their academic freedom for all time.
What happens with a research council whose numbers have increased during a growth period from 380 to 1,150? What happens when it gets the treble incidence of this unwise arrrangement—which the Treasury should never have allowed it to make—with the trade unions about tenure of establishment; a reduction in Government purchasing power, leading to cuts in research budgets generally; and the NERC decision to spend less on geology and more on biology?
I can tell you what has happened. They have just managed to knock down staff numbers to 920 established staff, whom they cannot get rid of except on ruinous terms. The average salary of a geologist in the office is £12,000 a year; but if you want to have a geologist in the field you have got to add another £6,000 a year for his residential expenses, his travelling expenses and any instrumentation that he wants, and so on. The only way that the Geological Survey can be solvent at all is to withdraw all the geologists it possesses from the one place in the world which furnishes their raison d'être and put them into offices in London instead of out in the field in Scotland—great areas of which are marked "not surveyed in detail", and have been so marked on the popular geological maps that one buys.
This really is an absolute tragedy. I am reminded, in the context of management of research councils and so on, of a very popular sketch in one of Dick Emery's ever-popular reviews. It is of an overgrown idiot who is engaged on some fairly simple but, it is hoped, remunerative operation with his father. He has just one simple thing to do and he always manages to misundertand it and do the exact opposite. As he and his father survey the havoc that he has wrought, he looks up with a bright smile and says, "Dad, I think I've got it wrong again". That is exactly how we have been handling our research councils for all this time. councils for all this time.
What is to be done about it? I do not know, but I know what I would do. I would take the Geological Survey and the Ordnance Survey and put them
622
together as one organisation, out of the scope of the National Environment Research Council, and make them the departmental responsibility of the Department of the Environment. That is what they ought to be, and if you have no split responsibility—there was a whole consortium of Ministries supporting this and then they withdrew their concerted support—make it a straight line responsibility of one Minister and you will get some sense out of the system. But as things now stand, I give it up!
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I just point out that in fact the Ordnance Survey is under the Department of the Environment, and they are not making a very good job of it?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the sooner somebody kicks the Permanent Secretary and makes him make a good job of it, the better. That is what "line responsibility" means.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl has not gone on longer because he has entertained us more than any other speaker this afternoon and this evening, and he has also spoken very wisely as well. Like all previous speakers, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for having called attention to the research councils and their resources. I have been involved, not as long as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, but for some 20 years since I was Parliamentary Secretary to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he was Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science, and later as Under-Secretary of State for Science and spokesman on these subjects, both science and technology, in opposition.
As I think I have said on more than one occasion—the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, reminded me of this only the other day, and I certainly said it when we were drawing up our report on Science and Government under his admirable chairmanship—I have always thought that the arrangement whereby a Minister for Science (who then happened to be the Lord President of the Council) was responsible for both basic and applied research worked very well. The Minister then had a relatively small office of some 60 people—it was not, I would emphasise, a department or a Ministry—in Richmond Terrace, responsible for following the work and answering in Parliament for the research councils, and with close relations with the noble Lord, Lord Todd, as chairman of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, who also made some very wise remarks this afternoon. We had close relations with him, and also with the DSIR, including the industrial research associations, as well as the Government research establishments, and, of course, with the Atomic Energy Authority itself, of which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was then chairman.
We might conceivably go back to that sort of arrangement, or we could, as was recommended in the report on Science and Government, at least have a Cabinet Minister, a Secretary of State in the Cabinet, speaking for both science and technology. The noble

623
Lord, Lord Adrian, quoted the relevant passage, and I will not repeat it.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and I have worked together for many years with different hats on, before, during and since the second world war; and there is no one in your Lordships' House who has a higher opinion of his remarkable qualities and ability than your humble servant. During one period, which I should like to mention this evening, when we worked together in West Africa, we both served the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Swinton, whom I am very glad is to reply to this highly important debate. I know how much his grandfather, looking down on us from on high, must appreciate the fact that he is sitting on our Front Bench.
It has always seemed to me extraordinarily difficult to decide what proportion of Government funding should go into basic and what proportion should go into applied research and development. During most of the period in which I have been interested in this subject—and indeed I wrote a book about it, commissioned by the Clarendon Press, covering, inter alia, the complex problems of priorities—I have worried about this. At that time we in Britain seemed to put a much higher percentage of our GNP into basic and purely curiosity-orientated research than a country such as Japan, which spent only a very small proportion of its national income on basic research and put most of its funds into application and development, with considerable commercial success, as we all know, all over the world.
In saying this, I am certainly not advocating any reduction in the expenditure of our five research councils; and indeed with many of your Lordships, I was particularly gratified to learn last night, at a meeting with Sir David Phillips, the chairman of the Advisory Board of the Research Councils, and Professor John Kingman, the chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council, that the work of the councils was now about 60 per cent. applied and only 40 per cent. basic. That seems to me to be a trend in the right direction. I recognise, of course, that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has admitted that the cuts in university funding in recent years have fallen more heavily on research than on teaching, and that the effect on research is apparent in a reduction in departmental and laboratory expenditure by universities from their recurrent income over the three years 1979 to 1982.
It is clearly for this reason, among others, that, as I see it, the Government have encouraged the shift of this year's higher education intake into the public sector, and I am glad to see that the funding of the research councils from the science budget has increased quite considerably, as has already been indicated, over the past four years. I see, for example, that the budget for the Agricultural and Food Research Council has gone up from £29.5 million in 1979–80 to £46.5 million this year; that the budget of the Economic and Social Research Council has gone up from £16·8 million to £22 million; that the budget for the Medical Research Council of £57·2 million has virtually doubled to £117·2 million, and that, adding in another two or three million pounds from the Department of Health and Social Security, this then
624
goes up to the figure which was given by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, of £120 million. Then, the Natural Environment Research Council has gone up from £36·6 million to £65·9 million; and the SERC, as I say, from £175 million to £278 million, an increase of over £100 million.
Even taking into account inflation and the more expensive and sophisticated equipment mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, these increases are not wholly insignificant. I am glad to learn, too, that there are thése contributions made direct from departments—not only from the Department of Health and Social Security but also to other research sectors from other appropriate departments. Only last week it was announced the funds would be made available for science and research additional to those anticipated for 1985–86; that for universities the UGC would decide on the distribution of an additional £10 million a year to modernise laboratories and equipment, this being an immediate, if only interim, response to the UGC's advice that the equipment grant should immediately be increased to the level indicated by the equipment grant model.
I also note that the Advisory Board of the Research Councils will advise the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the allocation of £14 million, of which £6 million will go on restructuring (as I think has been mentioned) in order to allow for more cost-effective use of resources in the future. Moreover, the capacity for scientific research in universities has been expressly assisted by the Government's £4 million "new blood" scheme, which has funded 200 posts in the natural sciences and technology.
Whatever other noble Lords may say—indeed, whatever the noble Baroness may say, who, as usual, made a most interesting, useful and slightly controversial contribution—or whatever was said on the BBC 2 "Horizon" programme, which I watched attentively, these additional funds are significant. I see that both the UGC and the Advisory Board of the Research Councils have agreed that better value for money could be obtained from research support services. I see also that the Rayner-style committee reported in September 1983 that savings could certainly be made in stores, purchasing, estate management, workshops and library services, with a total saving of £3.3 million a year, and that a once-and-for-all £5.3 million could also be realised.
I know, too, that the UGC is seeking to be more selective in the allocation of research resources and is considering ways of improving targeting and control. In that connection, noble Lords should look at the ABRC/UGC joint report of 1982.
With these figures in mind, I must admit that I felt I could safely support the Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench in their present policies concerning research and higher education. However, I should be glad to have my noble friend's comments on a paper which I received on Monday from the Natural Environment Research Council—not from my noble friend Lord Cranbrook but from the secretary of the council—in which they recognise that, although the Government have sought to protect the real value of the science budget, reflation has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of our sciences.

625
Although the NERC told me that every effort would be made to increase value for money—my noble friend Lord Cranbrook more or less indicated this—the NERC believe it to be most unlikely that the level of scientific output can be maintained and consider that the council will have to withdraw from important areas of work, including many of commercial and international significance. The support of training and research in universities and polytechnics will have to become much more selective. I should be grateful for my noble friend's comments—as, no doubt, would my noble friend Lord Cranbrook—and also for my noble friend's comments upon commissioning and the other points which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook made in what I thought was an excellent speech.
Much as I understand the qualms of highly respected Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors of certain universities and of the chairmen of certain research councils, I think that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has pursued as wise and sensible a policy as is possible within his budgetary limits. The more I look at basic research the more I feel that this should perhaps be conducted upon an international basis, in the same way as fusion research is carried out at Culham—the Joint European Torus—and in the European Strategic Programme of Research in Information Technology—ESPRIT—and, maybe, also through CERN, which I do not believe we should leave.
However, overall, I support the Government's policy regarding the research councils. Frankly, I am not so worried about the work of the research councils as I am disturbed by the facts given in the full-page advertisement of the Engineering Council which appeared today in the national dailies. This is the most disturbing page I have seen in any national daily for weeks. I do not believe that these facts have been mentioned by noble Lords. However, I believe that they should look at them very carefully in order to see how the percentage of the market in so many industrial sectors in the world has fallen dramatically over the last two generations. It makes me want to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Stockton in his maiden speech in your Lordships' House:
"What is happening to our beloved country?"
All I can say is that I hope that as a result of such cries of anguish, such cris de coeur, this trend will now be reversed, especially in the new technologies: in information technology, in what I call AI—not artificial insemination but artificial intelligence, although I wonder whether the two might not ultimately be brought together in some way—and in other technologies such as space and application satellites, which can be commercially attractive.
So far as the research councils are concerned, let them carry on as best they can, with the Government funding them as generously as they can.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I also should like to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for a most brilliant introduction to this debate. At this late hour I wish to make only one or two points. All the main points have been made, some
626
more than once. This has been one of the most brilliant debates to which I have listened in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred to the fact that in the 1960s the science Vote grew at the rate of 10 per cent. and that although its growth rate declined towards the end of the 1960s it remained positive. This occurred against the background of low industrial productivity and increased inflation. The reason for this was, I believe, because of the unquestioned belief that money spent on science represented a wise investment which would yield economic dividends.
What actually happened during the late 1960s was a crisis of confidence. Events seemed to fall short of expectations. In Westminster and Whitehall the mood was growing that the liberal support of science and its reorganisation, following the Trend report, had not delivered the goods and that the time had come to rethink the relationships between science and government. One of the questions which faces us in our debate today is whether this confidence has been restored.
As we know, two things happened. The Secretary of State for Science, Mrs. Thatcher, set up a CSP committee under the chairmanship of Sir Fred Dainton, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, set up a central policy review body under Lord Rothschild, whose first study concerned government research and development. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has said, the situation today is compounded by the action of the Government on their reports. The CSP report was completed in 1971 and was available to Lord Rothschild while he completed his report. The CSP report classified research as basic, strategic and tactical.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has said, the real difficulty occurs over strategic research. This is likely to increase the understanding of basic science and to generate knowledge; but the outcome cannot be predicted, as noble Lords have said, particularly at the time the work is undertaken. The MRC are, in my view experts in strategic research, as the number of their Nobel prizes indicates. This point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
Because of the mood in Government and Whitehall that the scientists had not been delivering the goods, judgments were made by Government following the Rothschild Report which form the background to this debate. One question is whether the Chief Scientist's proposals have worked well and whether Government departments are the proper source to initiate strategic research. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has already mentioned this important factor. Has the customer-contractor principle of Rothschild succeeded in this strategic area, albeit against the background of financial stringency? Is our machinery the wrong machinery? The Rothschild recommendations included, as noble Lords will remember, the transfer of very substantial sums to various departments to deploy as they thought fit, and the funds were taken from the ARC, the NERC and the MRC. For some reason the SRC, as it then was, remained relatively unscathed, in spite of its strong engineering and technological connections.
In the end, as noble Lords know, something of each of these reports appeared. The CSP's proposal resulted

627
in the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and Rothschild's proposals for a Chief Scientist were accepted in 1972. We now have just over 10 years' experience of this system. What happened between the long-standing and prestigious research council, the MRC, and the DHSS? What problems faced its Chief Scientist? There was a conviction that the MRC gave full weight to the need of the DHSS for strategic research. In consequence, the Government returned to the MRC the money which had been removed, about nine years later. There is a view that a Chief Scientist is probably not necessary in the DHSS, because they have such a close relationship with the MRC. Some feel it would certainly avoid a great deal of bureaucracy and paperwork.
What of the other research councils? There is some evidence that the chief scientist's organisation is a positive bar to easy relationships with the relevant research councils. The Government must not have been very happy with all this, otherwise they would not have set up the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Chilver. As noble Lords will know, his board has vitalised the situation, and they now have joint membership with the ABRC—and we recently saw a joint report by the two chairmen.
What should happen in our penurious state? Should funds for strategic research be returned to the research councils? Certainly your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology received evidence in one of their inquiries that departments could not find the money for strategic research, such was the pressure of immediate events and the shortage of resources. But there is the other point that strategic research does not fit easily within departmental boundaries because the concepts are so often wider. As has been said by many noble Lords, the fundamental policy of the Government in this field contrasts with that of many governments abroad—our rivals—who are pouring money into strategic research.
There is a new look in the universities. Strategic research has a new prominence, as indicated by the public statement of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, when he was chairman of the vice-chancellors' committee. Perhaps we have all learned an important lesson in the past decade.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this debate is of such importance that we in the Alliance seriously considered devoting to it one of the very few days allocated to us for debates of our own choosing. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has been able to obtain an earlier date than we could have offered. We congratulate him on that, because there is real urgency in arousing the awareness of the public and of the Government to the severe threat to our basic research base, which could have very important implications in the future for the health and prosperity of the nation.
I want to speak mainly but not entirely about the MRC, to whose plight several noble Lords have already drawn attention—notably, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lords, Lord Todd and Lord Adrian. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, said that
628
the MRC was particularly badly hit, and we have to remember that the figures given recently by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, were cash figures and not figures in real terms.
I want to get down to brass tacks. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will no doubt recall that I addressed a Starred Question to him on 1st August concerning a proposed grant-in-aid to the MRC for 1984–85. The noble Earl made two statements then which I subsequently found hard to reconcile. At column 788 of the Official Report for that day, the noble Earl said:
"the Medical Research Council's grant-in-aid for 1984–85 represents very approximately the same share of the science budget as in 1983–84. However, the council is having to accommodate within its cash limits some unavoidable increases in expenditure",
which he then detailed. The noble Earl continued:
"Therefore, it faces a drop in disposable income, which it estimates might be about £2 million".
Later, when I pressed the noble Earl, he stated at column 790:
"As to this great fuss about the cuts"—
and I ask your Lordships to note those words—
"I must point out that the council's 1984–85 grant-in-aid is £117.2 million compared with £113.7 million in 1983–84".
When I asked the noble Earl whether this did not represent a cut in real terms, he answered:
"My Lords, I think that is just about level pegging".
But how can the noble Earl reconcile his claim to level pegging with his earlier admission of a drop in disposable income of £2 million? In fact, the figure is nearer £4 million if inflation is taken into account. After all, it is disposable income that counts. I assume that the phrase "level pegging" is a slightly more colloquial version of the ABRC's planning guidelines to the MRC on the basis of "level funding". But whichever phrase one uses, surely it is clear that it is not being met.
I would suggest to the noble Earl that the real situation at the moment is that the increase from £113.7 million to £117.2 million represents a growth of about 3 per cent.—which is at least 2 per cent. below expected inflation. That is just the position this year. Over the next two years there is the additional requirement mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the MRC should contribute £2.7 million to redundancies in the AFRC and the NERC. Can it conceivably be right—I have asked the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, this question before, and I ask it again—that monies voted by Parliament for scientific research should be syphoned off to pay for redundancies in other councils? Surely restructuring should be treated quite separately.
Why is it that the research councils are not receiving the same help with their redundancies as the universities? Why is it right that the universities should receive additional government funds for redundancies but that the research councils should not? The logic of this defeats me. It is possible that the £6 million to be provided for restructuring, and to which several noble Lords have referred, may be applied for that purpose. I hope this will be the case, and I look forward to hearing the noble Earl's reply on that point.
Our concern cannot be limited to this year or next year. There is a growing danger that cumulative under-funding will eventually cripple our research effort. If

629
the MRC is to be confined to 2.5 per cent. cash-limited increases over the next 10 years as against inflation forecasts of 5 per cent. and 6 per cent., this is estimated to lead to a minimum decrease in real income of 17 per cent. over the decade. I have seen estimates of decreases as high as 25 per cent. in real terms. How can the council plan ahead or even make the most cost-effective use of its units and staff under the shadow of such grim expectations? The brief respite to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred will do little to allay those grim expectations.
Turning to more specific concerns, I want to discover from the Government how much importance they attach to medical research in relation to preventive medicine. This must surely be a very high priority in the programme of any Government concerned to contain National Health Service costs due to demographic and other demands. To mention only a few fields, the MRC is working on transplantation immunology (think of the failure rate there!); on cardiovascular disease, for which there are 230,000 admissions annually; on AIDS, that terrible scourge; and on environmental medicine. In the field of community care, they have funded a highly relevant care attendants' scheme on the subsequent progress and re-admission rates, etc., of elderly patients who have been discharged from hospital, and the financial implications of community care. This kind of research is crucial to the success of the Government's own care in the community policy.
I should like to mention one other area, which is currently the cause of widespread public concern. I refer to cot deaths. At present, it is the subject of controversy and appalling worry to young mothers. I understand that suggestions that suffocation and, in some cases, infanticide are among the most frequent causes are unfounded. Only on Monday in the Guardian Dr. David Southall, a senior lecturer in paediatrics, explained why more, not less, research into cot deaths is required. Few people perhaps realise that it is the commonest form of death in the first year of life, affecting between one in 500 and one in 1,000 babies.
I am aware of a particularly interesting project at Manchester in which new methods of preventing respiratory distress syndrome in the pre-natal infant are being pioneered. If such children are born prematurely, there is a greater likelihood of cot death; but there is no guarantee for the funding of this research beyond the next 22 months. Would it not be a tragedy if it had to be terminated, or if some other line of inquiry of equal quality had to be turned down by the MRC because it was funding redundancies elsewhere? What would the young mothers and the future mothers of Britain think about that?
There are many things of great promise that the MRC would, I understand, want to pursue if funds permitted. There is one that I want to mention in particular because it would build on and, in effect, become the application side of the well-known molecular biology fundamental research at Cambridge. This would require new money—not fast money as I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said—because it involves a new hospital centre for molecular medicine. But we have to realise that some capital and recurrent expenditure will have to be made
630
if we are to become internationally competitive on the applied side of this rapidly expanding field. As my noble friend Lord Walston said, starving geese do not lay golden eggs.
We must not confine our concern to the MRC alone; or I must not. There are five councils, to all of which short-term uncertain funding is damaging. On the whole, research is cumulative and the spin-off, whether in commercial developments or the better use of public funds, is dependent on that accumulation. A longer and much more consistent look at funding is therefore required. A five- to ten-year plannning framework is preferable in research terms and almost certainly more cost-effective than short-term, one-off grants. No one is asking for tenure for life. I hasten to assure the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that we are not in favour of that, either. But a very worryingly large number of highly qualified PhDs—potential high flyers—are still on short-term grants well into their thirties; living literally from hand-to-mouth and from one short-term project to the next.
The team I mentioned earlier in relation to cot deaths is led by a highly qualified young woman PhD who, since starting her career, has been on one 18-month grant, one two-year grant and two three-year grants. At 32 she has no formal career structure whatsoever. There is little possibility of lateral movement into commerce or industry. With those prospects the word is spreading that "research is dangerous". The young hopefuls are speedily demoralised, and the more prudent aim at the Civil Service or something else which is more secure.
Is that the climate we want to foster; a climate in which the best people are discouraged from going into research and those who have gone in are discouraged from staying in the game long enough to exploit the full potential of their work? There has been talk of the brain drain—I think my noble friend Lord Walston spoke about it—by which talented people are syphoned off from the system and rescued by other countries. But is there not an earlier problem, which might be called the brain barrier, which simply discourages people from entering the system in the first place?
It is not only the position of talented individuals that should cause us concern. It is especially the case in preventive medicine that the shorter the term, the less worthwhile will be the results; the more sophisticated the technology, the longer will be the training time required to master it. I am reliably informed that on a three-year project one spends the first year getting the method right, the second getting some results, and the third shopping around for new funds to continue the job. The productivity of highly trained people is, therefore, severely curtailed by reliance on three-year grants.
On these grounds one had hoped that the MRC would not be forced into following the growing practice in other councils of reducing their five-year programme grants in order to fund cheaper three-year projects with a reduced salary bill. So it is alarming to learn from the MRC's letter to the vice-chancellors that a main ingredient in their "package of stringent measures" will be to reduce long-term programme grants to universities by 25 per cent. as against the 7·5 per cent. reduction of three-year projects. It is

631
devastating to hear—no, I do not think that "devastating" is too strong a word—from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and others, that over half the high scoring alpha applications for new programme grants will have to be refused. It is not a question of turning down the dross, but rejecting the créme de la créme! It is clear that the council has only taken this drastic course through force majeure, and I hope we shall hear from the noble Earl that the Government have finally realised the gravity of the decisions into which they are forcing the MRC and other councils. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred to a similar situation in the NERC.
The MRC case is very telling and has received powerful advocacy—much more powerful and weighty than any I can deploy—and so I want to say a few words about the reconstructed ESRC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred, which has the smallest budget of all and is doing increasingly valuable work. I was amused by the first sentence of the review of a book of Professor R. E. Pahl's in New Society on 18th October:
"British social science has taken a bashing in recent years, for being trivial, boring, irrelevant and stuffed with pat-a-cake ideology and prefabricated jargon".
The reviewer goes on to contrast this with the post-Rothschild social sciences which are slimmer, fitter and committed to a more muscular and rigorous research programme. I think many of us will welcome this development, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, who wants to trim 1 per cent. off all the other councils in order to fund further developments there.
I am extremely interested in the Centre for Health Economics and the Centre for Addiction Research; others will welcome the Industry and Employment Committee's new project on competitiveness and the new research into the use of computers in schools. But I want to ask the noble Earl one question in this field. All disciplines need the tools to carry out their jobs. Data collection is a very expensive business. Social scientists say that laymen do not appreciate the cost of surveys. The United Kingdom Government Statistical Office has been extremely helpful in the past, but cuts in staff have made it less accessible. Therefore, social scientists, including economists, are making increasing use of the data archive held at Essex University. This is partly supported by the UGC and partly by the ESRC on short-term research contracts. This inhibits investment in hardware and makes it difficult to take full advantage of the new information technology. Does the noble Earl not think that this is shortsighted, and can he give us an undertaking to see that this archive, which has been described to me as the Rutherford Laboratory of the social sciences world, is securely funded on a regular basis in future?
Finally, what of the advice given to the Government by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the proper level of scientific research spending? I found it pretty scary to read Professor Sir David Phillips, who has already been referred to several times this afternoon, in evidence to the Commons DES Select Committee on 19th June this year, on page 5. He says:
"Even if one accepted the need to restrain public expenditure"—
632
I would not want to speak against that—
"the inescapable conclusion one comes to. looking at the forecasts, is that for those departments which support basic and strategic science there is likely to be an erosion in the funding over this period and we read this document"—
I think he refers to the Green Paper on Public Expenditure—
"as telling us that we must look forward to something like a 25 per cent. decline in scientific research over the next 10 years".
Later Sir David explains that the breakdown of types of research varies according to the branch of science in question; but in the case of the MRC it is roughly 25 per cent. basic, 40 per cent. strategic and 35 per cent. applied. But one cannot have the applied research without the other two.
Later, in the same evidence, Dr. Bodmer says:
"It is our responsibility to support the basic science base and the basic science base is ultimately the source of all science that has application".
He says that no one in their right mind would support biotechnological research into cancer simply for its commercial application; but,
"unless we see that basic research continues to be supported we shall see the loss of the source of innovation that is needed for applications that are commercial".
He criticises the Government document referred to by Sir David Phillips for not even deigning to mention science as important for the economy of the country; and this is a point made by the MRC in another submission where it expresses its hope,
"that the ABRC will impress upon the Government the longer-term benefits that a small shift of resources"—
a small shift of resources—
"in favour of the science Vote at this particular time would confer on the future welfare and prosperity of the United Kingdom".
Later, at a session of the evidence on 19th June, Dr. Roberts said,
"Just to be ludicrous, and this is the magnitude of it, if we talk about withdrawal from an area such that we can find 25 per cent. savings, it probably means withdrawing from medical research. I am not advocating that but I believe that we are glossing over the magnitude of the problem".
Those were Dr. Roberts's words.
These are weighty comments from serious men, which it would be folly for the Government to disregard. It is high time the public were informed of what is going on, and I hope they will at least get an inkling of it from this debate. It is absurd to apply the pudding basin principle to public expenditure cuts—half an inch off all round, snip, snip, snip. In some cases the locks may be too long and in others too short already. The tragedy here is that only a tiny amount in relative terms is required to preserve our national pre-eminence in scientific research. The noble Earl, in the exchange I quoted at the beginning of my speech, referred to, "this great fuss about cuts", as if it were much exaggerated, much ado about nothing. I hope this debate has convinced him that this is not the case, and that he will represent to this right honourable friend the Secretary of State, with all the force and urgency he can command, the strong and authoritative views expressed this evening on all sides of your Lordship's House.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, can be well satisfied with this debate.

633
Perhaps it may be appropriate if I were to say what was the origin of the debate. It was the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who was so concerned about the situation in the medical research council that he was really demanding action and—and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, will confirm this—possibly action by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, on Science and Technology. However, the House of Commons are also looking at the research budget. Lord Sherfield, as chairman of the committee, initiated a debate which, as always on this sort of subject, has been of a very high class indeed.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is not here. He made a coy remark at an earlier stage saying that he had to attend the unveiling of a portrait of, I would say, a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. Everybody got the message that it was the unveiling of Lord Jellicoe's own portrait that he had to attend. So we think it is quite right that he should be with us in spirit even if he is looking at his own picture.
I always find it interesting to wind up a debate, especially when the facts have been so brilliantly deployed. I am bound to say that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, really needs reading again on publication, as do many others. I look at those who have taken part. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said it was a pity that industrialists, people from industry, were not taking part. I stretched it a bit hard when I said there were nine, but I do regard him, as a farmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, as representing very successful, important sectors of industry. Perhaps equally important, there were eight distinguished scientists. Again I include the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I wish he were here.
Noble Lords: He is here!
Lord Shackelton: Oh! he is here. He once had a research fellowship in bacteriology. We have four Fellows of the Royal Society. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, represents both categories because at one time he was head of the research department in Decca and I think I am right in saying he is responsible for the long-playing record, and he has filled almost every scientific post. I am very grateful to him for saying that one does not have to be a scientist in order to take part in discussions of this kind. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that it is vital that all those of us who have tried to take an interest in these matters should continue to do so. To take Lord Halsbury's speech, if I may say so, I always find great trouble with Lord Halsbury. He is one of the most articulate and convincing people. When he has finished speaking, I think he is absolutely right. Luckily, after a while it wears off. Unfortunately, some of his ideas wore off other governments.
I really must say something to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I will give him 100 per cent. full marks for loyalty. Either the department, doing their best, or the Conservative Central Office gave him a paper which purported to say just how well the Government were doing; whereas it must be obvious that, for good or for ill, the situation is anything but satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who has just been
634
speaking, has given all the figures and others have given them before.
I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will not attempt to ride off by saying that really the science budget has all been retained and everything is splendid, when all the evidence shows the opposite. We cannot all be wrong. Not only have these distinguished scientists taken part, but we have also heard members of our own Science and Research Committee, no fewer than five of whom actually held chairmanships of particular committees. They have come to the same view. Since the Minister has covered such a wide field, I would urge him to read those two admirable journals, the New Scientist and Nature, which do a splendid job in educating those of us who are not scientific. Nature, which is very objective, does say that the impoverishment of the British research enterprise is not in question. This is in the light of the extra funds that have been available.
I suppose one should congratulate the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Since he is a member of this Government, I suppose it is fair to say he has done rather well, but at some price: others are having to be sacrificed. However, there is no doubt that the evidence is pretty damning and that we do see potentially a real decline in the scientific effort. I am talking about the basic scientific effort. I think one of the messages that has come out today is the importance of the basic research.
For instance, I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, spoke up for the Natural Environment Research Council, which is quite severely threatened these days, especially since the occurrence of these particular problems with the geologists. Incidentally, I am very glad the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the geological situation, which is a result of the decline in the commissioned research, if I may say so, a direct consequence of the acceptance of the Rothschild Report. Both the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook (I think it was Lord Selborne), have said that when we debated the Rothschild Report before there was a kind of easy guarantee that the money would be forthcoming and we now know it is not forthcoming. This is having a shattering effect on the long-term functioning and the continuity of research councils and other bodies, the universities, and indeed the scientific and academic worlds. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Todd. He will know that we have been debating these issues for practically a generation, and they are important.
However, I think we are clearly in a more difficult and dangerous position than we realise. If I may quote the position on NERC's income, in 1980–81—and this is for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—it stood at a peak of £102 million. That is at 1984–85 prices. In 1984–85 it was set at £92 million; and another £5 million, much to my pleasure, has been devoted to Antarctic research, which has come out in addition. There is no doubt that those figures pose a serious threat to the efficient functioning of these bodies.
I do not propose to talk very long on these matters because I think the case has been very fully made. However, again if one looks at the AFRC, this year, despite the extra money—I do not know whether the

635
noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned this—there will be 400 to 500 redundancies.
When we come to consider "restructuring"—it is a lovely cover word—I should like to say something about it. Restructuring in industry is quite different from restructuring in a university or government establishment. It means, in effect, that one has to pay out fairly large sums in redundancy. Almost certainly one has to drop certain forms of activity. It may even be desirable to drop some of them because other things come along.
In industry, restructuring should always improve profitability. I have been involved quite recently in the restructuring of a company where the numbers were dropped by 40 per cent. Very generous redundancy was paid; and higher production and profits resulted. That is not happening in the restructuring in government. Again it is an anxiety that government departments have been cut to the bone. Certainly we watch with great anxiety what is happening in industry.
I have no need to refer to the Sussex University study, which has already been well referred to. I think that it is apparent that whatever else is happening, there is a decline in our position in the world share of research and development.
I want to stress that however hard the department has tried—and I give it full credit for what it seeks to do—it is constrained in a strait-jacket. Those people in the general world who press for this, that or the other in industry or elsewhere may not appreciate the fact that we are to a large extent talking about academic work in this debate. But it is the academic work—the strategic research—that is in danger of being seriously reduced. The theme of Sir Andrew Huxley at this year's parliamentary and scientific dinner was that our research effort is in danger of being seriously reduced. Our research effort has been one of our great glories. Obviously there is a limit to the amount of money one can spend on research in this tremendously expanding field. There are so many striking opportunities for scientific development in industry, in science and in the laboratories that one cannot begin to meet the opportunities. But there is a real danger that if we start cutting back at this moment we shall damage the whole operation.
When one looks at, for instance, the Jack Lewis study on research grants and the effects of these, the situation is very alarming. I expect that the noble Earl has read it. If he has not, I ask him to look at what is said there:
"The science board has experienced great difficulties in managing a complex portfolio of grants, studentships, central facilities and international agreements. It has consistently maintained that research grants should have the highest priority of funding, but nevertheless has equally consistently had to provide less for this item in its budget than it would have wished because of financial pressures. Morale in most areas of the academic community is low because of the unfunded alpha-graded problem".
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of it, but I wish to draw his attention to the fact that it is appalling that those projects for research which have been graded Alpha—which means that they are the highest quality—are not to receive grants. The figures and the statistics are there. Some of the statistics can be qualified, and that qualification is explained. The
636
trouble arising out of the delay and uncertainty is the loss of continuity. Again one needs to stress that.
What are the other ill effects? One of them has again been referred to in the recommendations. It is that there is a real and potential movement of research workers away from the United Kingdom. This should be monitored systematically. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, some years ago when we were confronted with this problem, we sent the well-known writer William Cooper (Harry Hoff) to America to help draw people back to England. I hope that the Government will examine that.
There are many other problems which I do not have time to go into. I should particularly like to draw attention to an area which has not been satisfactorily dealt with except on an ad hoc arrangement—multi-disciplinary activities crossing the borders of different councils, as Browning said,
"on the dangerous edge of things".
That is an area which I hope will be given further attention.
I have already mentioned the geologists. I should like to come back to what my noble friend Lord Gregson said when he referred to the fact that as a nation we are confronted by the most serious problems. Even this year the price of a barrel of North Sea oil has dropped by a dollar. I give the Government full credit for sincerity in pursuing their policies. I do not agree with them in a lot of respects, but they are concerned and they believe that economy in public expenditure will lead to a more vigorous and successful country. But cutting or allowing a decline in this area runs entirely contrary—if I may have the attention of the noble Earl who is about to reply——
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am listening.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Earl was also talking at the same time, but he is very clever at these things. The Government should be consistent in their policy to make this country more effective industrially and to make economies in public expenditure. But this is a field which cannot be funded overall by private enterprise. There is no solution down that path. That is not to say that we should give a blank cheque to the universities or to the research councils. But basically, if they are to sustain their policies, out of that £1,500 million—£1½ billion sounds a bit more—which is set aside for tax cuts, a relatively small proportion (and I know that everybody is saying the same thing) would make all the difference to something which is fundamental to the development of our national prosperity.
I hope that when he comes to reply the Minister will take note of the arguments that have been put forward, particularly those of the noble Lords, Lord Gregson, Lord Todd and Lord Adrian, who have asked the Government to give rather more of a lead and for there to be selection in this area. I should also have liked to ask the Government, although there is perhaps not time at this stage, about their attitude to supporting co-operation in Europe. Incidentally, nobody, as far as I know, has mentioned Scotland in the debate. I do not know how much Scotland is suffering. The research councils' writ does not run over all the research establishments in Scotland. Basically I ask the

637
Government to reckon that the year of grace, which is really only a very partial year of grace, is not adequate. We hope that they will introduce a sustained policy for the support of science and particularly of basic science.
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, like noble Lords who have already spoken, the Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for initiating this debate. His contribution and those of other noble Lords have been thoughtful and of great interest. I look forward to reading what they said in my own time, and I shall also draw my right honourable friend's attention to the debate.
I shall try to respond to as many of the points made as possible, but I am sure your Lordships will all agree that it has been a long and wide-ranging debate. Among the subjects that have come up are pyrethroid insecticides and herbicides; TV violence; senile dementia, which I am sure is not a problem for any Member of this House; and 20-year-old Jaguar cars, which may well be. Seriously, if I miss out any noble Lords or Baronesses, I shall do my best to write to them.
Before responding, however, I must briefly set the scene. The research councils are often thought of as five identical bodies, differing only in the areas of science they support. While there is a grain of truth in that, the differences between them are almost as striking as their similarities. Some of the councils operate largely by awarding research grants to university scientists; some operate mainly through their own institutes. Again, some are funded entirely by grant-in-aid from the science budget of the Department of Education and Science; some receive substantial income, in addition to their grant-in-aid, from other departments, from overseas countries and from bodies such as the European Community in respect of commissioned research. I might add that many of those contracts, especially overseas ones, are won on merit against stiff opposition. Yet again, some councils conduct or support extensive work in other countries; some virtually confine their work to the United Kingdom. Nor are their histories comparable one with the other. Where, however, they do closely resemble each other is in their determination to promote and support science of the highest quality—a determination which is shared by the Government.
I should here like to pay tribute to the way the councils—by which I mean not only the chairmen and members of the actual councils but also their Staffs—have steadfastly pursued excellence and continue to do so in spite of some unavoidable difficulties in recent times—difficulties not of their own choosing. I should also like to commend the councils for the part they play in maintaining the high regard in which British scientists are held by their peers in other countries. The dual support system for university research, of which the research councils are one leg, is a peculiarly British arrangement and has its critics. But it nevertheless appears to suit our national temperament and it has no doubt played a part in fostering British science to the point where it is held in high esteem internationally. But by far the greatest factor in this is, of course, the skill and inventiveness of our scientists themselves.
638
The noble Lord's Motion is in part concerned with resources and most noble Lords have spoken on that theme. In one sense this debate is timely, therefore, as it was only last week that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that the science budget for 1985–86 will be £587 million, which includes £14 million additional to previous planning figures. My right honourable friend went on to say that he intends £6 million of the additional money to be used for restructuring of certain of the research councils. I think this may come as good news to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough went into some detail about the finance arrangements. I am grateful to him for this and also for the kind remarks he made about my late grandfather. I do not think, therefore, that I need to go into details on the financial statements, about which he was thoroughly accurate. My right honourable friend now awaits the advice of the ABRC on how the enlarged science budget should be distributed between the research councils and the three other smaller bodies which are also funded through that budget. I understand that that advice is likely to reach him shortly. I should add that in formulating its advice the ABRC goes through each research council's plans for the next three years in considerable detail as part of the "Forward-Look" exercise. The head of each council plays a major part in this dialogue.
This additional money is hard evidence of the Government's determination to maintain their support for basic science at a particularly difficult time for public expenditure. At the same time, the Government would wish to give the research councils every encouragement in the endeavours they are making to attract money from the private sector. I welcome the comments made by my noble friend Lord Selbourne along these lines. I recognise the difficulties in this, and there is no question of our wishing to substitute private for public sector funding on a large scale. But it would be wise of the councils to recognise that the public purse is not bottomless—indeed, from what the chairmen and other noble Lords have said today, I am sure that they know this already—and that some easement may equally well be secured by increasing their income from the private sector, even if only marginally.
Obtaining the best possible value for money demands tight management. I am glad to say that the heads of the research councils are co-operating fully with my right honourable friend and with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in seeking to increase efficiency, to transfer technology to industry, to publish corporate plans and to translate into their own operations the principles of the Government's financial management initiative. The councils are also active in seeking international collaboration wherever that is possible and desirable. The Government will continue to look to the councils to promote these and similar measures so as to maximise value for money.
I turn now to some of the points raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, asked what the Government are doing by way of response to the report by Sir Ronald Mason. This report was addressed to the chairman of the ABRC and it is

639
therefore for that body to decide whether to respond to it, and, if so, how. I understand that the ABRC has discussed the Mason Report and that its recommendations are influencing the board's thinking and the general thrust of its work. I might add that I understand that the report has also been discussed by ACARD.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and also, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Todd, asked about research in the universities and UGC funding. Research is considered an area of particular priority by this Government. In 1984–85 the DES will be providing over £1,000 million to research, about £550 million for the science budget and about the same amount through the grant made available to the UGC. The Government, however, acknowledge that there is some evidence that the reductions in the grants allocated to the universities have fallen disproportionately on research. It is because of concern expressed in a number of reports about the effect on research that my right honourable friend invited the UGC to consider, in putting their advice to him on the future development of higher education, what measures might be undertaken to increase the resources devoted to both fundamental and applied research for the sake of the quality of our science and for its contribution to the economy.
My right honourable friend also referred to the need, in the light of the pressures on public expenditure, to consider the case for greater selectivity in the funding of research activity and greater specificity of funding, including recognition of institutions' success in seeking research monies from external sources and increased co-operation with the research councils. I have read with particular interest the UGC's recent advice to my right honourable friend about research provision and, like him, welcome the committee's proposals for a more systematic and selective approach to the allocation of the UGC block grant to the universities. This should reinforce the selectivity already in force on the research council side of the dual support system.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe and a number of other noble Lords, but particularly my noble friend, drew my attention to the state of the MRC and its budget. The council's 1984–85 grant-in-aid from the science budget is £117·2 million as compared with £113·7 million in 1983–84. I know that the council regards its current allocation as representing a £2 million drop in disposable income because of inescapable increases in outgoings, and that the ABRC and, in turn, my right honourable friend will take account of this when deciding the allocation of next year's science budget. The council must, of course, operate within whatever grant-in-aid it receives in 1985–86 and later years, even if this means painful decisions about priorities.
As to the future, the MRC's allocation for 1985–86 and beyond has not yet been announced. I am aware that the ABRC, in their advice last year, provisionally recommended that the MRC and the SERC should contribute to the restructuring costs of the AFRC and the NERC and that the MRC have discussed their financial position with my right honourable friend. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was making very forcefully. The
640
allocation in the science budget of £587 million recently announced for 1985–86 will be a matter for advice from the ABRC, after which my right honourable friend will decide on the level of funds to be made available to the MRC. I have no doubt that he will take the MRC's representations into account.
My noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, asked about defence research and development. The Government are committed to maintaining expenditure on defence, including research and development related to defence needs. In our view, the balance between defence R & D expenditure and other areas of R & D expenditure is about right. Most defence R & D is in the fields of applied research or development. An insignificant part of that budget is devoted to basic research. Nevertheless, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Education and Science are concerned to minimise any duplication that may exist between research council-supported work and work undertaken for the Ministry of Defence. Some of the latter is in any case carried out in universities on a contract basis. The annual review of Government R & D expenditure published by the chief scientific adviser in the Cabinet Office gives the Government an opportunity to review the balance of R & D provision across all departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, made fairly strong comments about high-energy particle physics. I hasten to add that I am in no way a scientist. I do not think I got even an O-level in any science subject, so I may be slightly out of my depth here. The SERC expects to spend a total of £52.6 million on high-energy particle physics in 1984–85—about 19 per cent. of its allocation from the science budget, of which some £35.6 million is the United Kingdom subscription to CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research.
On 22nd March this year my right honourable friend published the 1983 advice that he had received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. This contained a careful discussion on the case for keeping under review the competing claims of current and new areas of scientific research. He also announced his agreement to the ABRC and SERC jointly undertaking a review of United Kingdom participation in high energy particle physics, under the chairmanship of Sir John Kendrew, the President of St. John's College, Oxford. I understand that Sir John expects to be able to report to the chairmen of ABRC and SERC by Easter next year.
In giving his agreement to the review, my right honourable friend made it clear that should the ABRC recommend any change to the United Kingdom's relationship with CERN, this was a matter for Her Majesty's Government, to be considered by due process and in consultation with other members of the organisation.
A number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, drew my attention to the Lewis Report on the rejection rate of alpha-rated research grants. Research grants are the main way by which the SERC supports research in the universities. In recent years the council has had to reject an increasing number of research grant applications on financial grounds. The rejection rate is now some 30 per cent. of

641
applications which the council has graded alpha. This is a matter of serious concern to the council and the Lewis Report was produced to identify the consequences of this phenomenon. I might add that the additional money in the science budget in 1985–86 should allow a better acceptance rate.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked about agricultural and environmental research. The relationship between agricultural and environmental research and the useful report on the subject prepared by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian—who we were glad to hear earlier this afternoon—was discussed very fully in the House in July. I know that since then the research councils and the ABRC have been looking carefully at the recommendations which concern them.
The Agricultural and Food Research Council has established a working party under the chairmanship of Professor D. C. Smith, who was an adviser to the Select Committee. I understand that the AFRC's working party will be taking into account the views of NERC and of other bodies and will seek to define the areas of research which the Select Committee thought were grey areas and to define the respective responsibilities of councils in these areas. I expect the ABRC will be consulted on the group's findings in due course, and the group is expected to complete its work in the spring.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, mentioned the transfer of control of the Geological Museum from the NERC to the Natural History Museum. I understand that this transfer of control will take effect from 1st April 1985 and that the decision to merge was made principally on the grounds of science and museum management and practice. I understand that the British Geological Survey's library will remain in the Geological Museum building for a short period after 1st April 1985 until the NERC have made alternative arrangements for access by London-based organisations to the reports and maps now held in the library.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked me to comment on a letter which he had received from the NERC. I think that he quoted a pessimistic passage based on an assumption that over 10 years the science budget may decline by 25 per cent. in real terms. This is a worst case assumption based on maintenance over 10 years of level funding, which is in reality less because of pay settlements and the numerous reasons that your Lordships have raised this afternoon. The NERC are not yet at the point where they are seriously considering withdrawing from a major area of work, although like all research councils they are under heavy pressure. A further assumption is that commissioned research will decline at the same rate as the science budget. I hope that the real picture will be much less severe.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned cot deaths. I understand that the Medical Research Council, through its research grants scheme, supports much work which may turn out to be relevant to sudden infant death syndrome or "cot death", as it is commonly known. I am aware that the incidence of cot death is increasing, and this is clearly a very worrying problem. The MRC spent £244,000 in
642
1983–84 on work on problems of this kind. The DHSS is, I understand, sponsoring a study into cot death based at Sheffield University. In addition to this work a registered charity, the Foundation for the Study of Infant Death, promotes research into the causes and prevention of cot death by means of grants to individuals. I hope that noble Lords will agree that substantial effort is being devoted to solving this dreadful problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also asked about the ESRC's data archive. I understand that the ESRC are discussing the future of the archive both internally and with the Government, but I cannot at present say what will be the outcome.
I must emphasise the confidence felt by the Government in the research councils as eminent bodies with great prestige and with a high degree of independence conferred on them by their charters. The peer review system, whereby scientific priorities are essentially decided by scientists rather than being decreed by the Government, is the cornerstone of the research council system. It has stood the test of time and has survived intact through successive Governments of both main parties. This Government have no intention of seeking to change that basic tenet of the civil science system.
I would recommend to noble Lords the 1983–84 annual reports of the research councils, copies of which have been laid before your Lordships' House. These give an idea of the immense spread of scientific activity which the councils in aggregate cover. I shall not attempt to describe the spread in detail; an example or two must suffice. One or more councils support research into the distant parts of the universe; the most basic particles of matter; climatology; plants and animals; medical matters (both laboratory-based and clinical); robotics; information technology, and so on. Indeed, noble Lords, have referred to some other areas in the course of this debate. Experimental work is carried out throughout the earth's surface, including in Antarctica, where British science is pre-eminent, on the sea-bed, in the oceans, and in space.
Finally, I would again make the point that, within the limits of overall public expenditure constraints, the Government will continue to give the fullest possible support to civil science and in particular to the research councils.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I should like first to thank all noble Lords who have taken such a spirited part in this debate, many of them at considerable inconvenience to themselves. Their contributions have combined to make a very interesting and comprehensive debate and they have, incidentally, been far too kind to my own contribution. Secondly, I thank the Minister for his reply. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, I had the privilege of acting as the Foreign Office adviser to his grandfather when he went out as the Minister Resident in West Africa in the summer of 1942. I have many memories of that experience, both serious and amusing, and I certainly benefitted a great deal from the experience.
I have to say that the range of my expectations of the Minister's reply was not high, and the result was well

643
within the middle of the range. Perhaps it was an error for me to have raised the question of whether or not the science budget has been maintained in real terms, because it has proved to have been a bit of a hare and has produced a large number of rather confusing figures. There is no doubt that in the last two or three years the amount that has been spent on research, as opposed to things like superannuation, restructuring and pensions, has fallen, and that is the crucial point.
As regards international collaborative research, which we did not discuss in detail, it is perhaps important to make the point that, although international collaborative research has many and important advantages, it does not follow that it is a means of saving money. It may probably have the opposite effect, and this is a point which must always be borne in mind.
In conclusion, I express the hope that the noble Earl the Minister and his colleagues will reflect on the points made in this debate in the context of our future as an industrial nation. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Experiments on Living Animals
7.31 p.m.
Lord Somers Lord Somers rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the withdrawal of the White Paper on Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (Cmnd. 8883).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a most distinguished debate this afternoon on the question of research, and I can only hope that nothing that I say this evening will be interpreted as casting any disparagements on that very distinguished and splendid part of our civilisation. In fact, I can say that I owe a good deal to research because without it I very much doubt whether I should be standing here speaking to your Lordships. Of course, whether the Government think that that privilege is worth paying any money for, I must leave to them to decide.
However, this evening I shall deal with only one small area of research, and that concerns the Government's White Paper on Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. I am not usually one to get excited over the question of vivisection. Of course I detest it, as I think anyone with any sensibility would do. But I believe that those who campaign so very earnestly against it are sometimes apt to forget the horror of human suffering. I have seen enough of that to realise that while vivisection is able to do anything to relieve human suffering, it must be accepted.
However, I cannot look at it as anything except a necessary evil and one which needs the most strict supervision and control. At this point let me say that I wholeheartedly condemn the fanatical approach of some misguided persons who think that they will gain public opinion by doing harm to others. That is absolutely unforgivable and, incidentally, it defeats their own end because it simply puts people against them.
A good deal of emphasis has been laid on the necessity of developing alternatives to the use of five animals, and I, too, should like to see them not only developed but, where they have been proved capable of doing that for which they were designed, made compulsory. However, one must admit that at the moment their capacities are limited. Professor D. H. Smyth in his book Alternatives to Animal Experiments, which is published by the Scoler Press, lists them as follows: (a) Dummies; (b) Models and computers; (c) In vitro methods; (d) Tissue cultures; (e) Use of lower organisms; (f) Man as an alternative; (g) Using fewer animals; (h) Mass spectrometry and gas chromotography; (i) Audio-visual aids; (j) Saturation analysis and radioimmunoassay; (k) Alternatives in the cosmetic industry; (l) Alternatives in the behavioural sciences; (m) Alternatives in bacteriology, virology and immunology; (n) Alternatives for teratogenicity testing; and (o) Some miscellaneous alternatives.
That is quite a formidable list. I shall not weary your Lordships by going right through the list, but I should just like to mention one or two. The chief use of dummies, of course, is for teaching. They make it unnecessary, until perhaps the very last stages, to dissect a living animal.
In vitro methods are interesting. They can take an entire organ, such as a heart, a liver or an intestine, and keep it alive for a short time separate from the body, performing its normal functions. I believe that they can continue to do this for several hours, providing opportunity for much useful research.
As to tissue cultures, which are so often quoted as an alternative to the use of live animals, they have many advantages, but they also have their limitations. Professor Smyth points out that after a time the cells in these cultures begin to change and are no longer of use. He also points out that all the cells in our bodies are not the same and that a drug which is perfectly innocuous to one group of cells may be absolutely toxic to another. So, of course, one must make certain that one has the right group of cells.
However, one thing is essential: if these alternatives are to be of any use, they must be made compulsory, unless it can be shown that the desired result cannot be obtained without the use of live animals. Where the latter are used, the very strictest supervision is necessary if we are to make certain that no abuses are being made.
The White Paper, which I am asking Her Majesty's Government to withdraw, does not tighten the controls at all; instead, it relaxes them. In the Introduction in paragraph 2 it says that the new controls,
"will give better protection to animals used in scientific procedures".
In fact, in many cases the result will be the exact reverse. Let me give a few instances of the changes. In paragraph 7(8) we see that microsurgery on living animals, which was formerly banned, is to be allowed, under anaesthetic, for the purpose of acquiring skill. I suppose that that is allowable in that it prevents students from going abroad and perhaps picking up even worse practices there.
Paragraph 27 gives the purposes for which a live experiment can be carried out. These purposes cover

645
practically everything. For instance, the words "scientific research" would be an excuse in any conditions whatever. Paragraph 43 says that an animal need not always be destroyed after experiment; it may be re-used. That was not formerly the case. The condition that it must be kept under anaesthetic may easily be abused.
Paragraph 44 says that curare and other similar agents known as muscle relaxants, but which may equally well be called paralysing drugs, are to be used with permission. This means, of course, that an animal can be paralysed so that it is incapable of moving but at the same time be completely conscious. Therefore, it may be suffering excruciating pain but be unable to move. On the subject of pain, if anybody doubts whether animals are capable of suffering pain I have here a learned study by Professor Patrick Wall of University College, London, if anybody would like to have a look at it. It is completely convincing that animals can suffer pain.
Paragraph 30 deals with tests for cosmetics. It says that the obnoxious LD50 test and the Draize shampoo tests are to continue. Tests for cosmetics are absolutely unnecessary. There are several firms now which produce perfectly good cosmetics based chiefly on vegetable sources. Not being very experienced in the use of cosmetics myself, I consulted a friend who uses them. She tells me that they can be obtained at most health food shops, and that they are entirely satisfactory.
Many eminent doctors and scientists have protested against the provisions in this White Paper. Among them, one which has met with very general criticism is the one in paragraph 51, which says:
"Provision would be included to make unlawful unauthorised disclosure of confidential information."
The people have a right to know what is going on in these institutions. A cover-up policy does no good whatsoever to the scientific profession; it merely arouses suspicion.
Some will no doubt say, "Why make all this fuss about a few small animals when there is so much suffering in the world?" My reason is this. I feel that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on any creature which is unable to defend itself. That, in my opinion, is contrary to the law of justice. Incidentally, it is no matter of "a few" small animals. The figure for 1983 in Britain alone was over 3½ million.
I am not a scientist, but neither am I a crank. I am perfectly ready to accept the opinion of a distinguished scientist, such as Professor Smyth, that it is impossible at present to do without animal experiments. But he has mentioned a great many alternatives, and I feel that these could and should be developed. But to achieve this, pressure must be brought to bear on scientists to do so, and this pressure can only be brought about by making it more difficult—I say more difficult, not less—to obtain permission to perform a live experiment. I should like to quote here from the
notes which the RSPCA made on this White Paper.
They say:
"Some areas of work are particularly appropriate for increased replacement of the use of animals, such as the production and testing of vaccines.
646
"We believe that the Home Office should give greater encouragement to the search for alternative techniques, particularly at the stage of licence application, and that licences should not be granted where alternative techniques could be used to achieve the same ends".
Many of your Lordships may have heard of the organisation known as FRAME—which is, of course, an initialised abbreviation of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. They are doing excellent work, and I am glad to see that they have the approval of the Government, who are intending to give them quite a useful grant before long.
I shall end by emphasising this point. I am not pleading for the abolition of vivisection at present. I hope that science will advance to the point where it is no longer necessary, but until that time I am prepared to accept it. But I make two conditions: first, it should be kept to a minimum—that is, to those cases where it is necessary for the prevention or cure of disease—and, secondly, it should be kept under the strictest possible supervision. This White Paper provides for neither of these conditions.
Any Government, of whatever party, can make mistakes: they are, after all, only human. But my experience has been that the one thing which is completely beyond the power of any Government is to admit that they have made a mistake. How much more we should respect and admire them—how much more we should trust them—if only they did!
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that there will be three things upon which this House will be united in regard to the Unstarred Question so usefully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, because he has enabled this House, once again, to discuss the matter of cruelty to animals and vivisection. First, I imagine that each one of us is a lover of animals. The basis on which I was brought up was to mistrust, and indeed to have a prima facie dislike for, anyone who was not a lover of animals. The second thing that I imagine unites us is an overwhelming desire that we should advance that part of science which does not destroy human life but prolongs human life and lessens suffering both among human beings and among animals themselves. The third thing, I suppose, is a desire to see that a proper, fair and equitable balance is made between those two considerations.
I mention that this is not the first time by any manner of means that your Lordships in your wisdom and in your mercy have contributed to a discussion of this serious subject. The legislation upon it goes back to the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, never amended, never revoked; and now we are again looking at a White Paper which discusses that Act, 108 years after it was passed. How many extraordinary changes have taken place since the passing of that Act! Indeed, when it was passed it was literally true that there were only a few hundred experiments carried out. Certainly only a few hundred animals were involved; and most of the experimentation, if not all of it, was done in regard to matters relating to surgery.
I noted the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. If I heard him aright, he mentioned a figure of 3½ million as the number of animals currently annually

647
involved. The figure that I had for 1980 was 5 million. I do not know whether the figure has rapidly decreased to 3½ million. If it has, all of us will at least welcome some improvement in that rather dreadful statistic. Not only has the number of animals involved been so varied between 1876 and now, but the whole nature of scientific experiments and the nature of these experiments has altered, too. Therefore, it was not difficult for your Lordships on several occasions to take the view that it was about time we had some up-to-date legislation.
Whenever this matter has been debated in your Lordships' House, whenever there has been an opportunity to discuss it, that great friend of animals my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby—I nearly called him Lord Houghton of Assisi—has addressed your Lordships with a conviction, a principle and a fervour which has always commanded your Lordships' respect. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has played a very honourable part in the discussions upon these matters. He has advanced views not always agreed with by all your Lordships, but nevertheless one knows that he, too, is a man possessed of great scientific knowledge, with such an ordered brain, and at the same time a man of infinite mercy.
It was indeed because of a Bill that the noble Earl brought before your Lordships' House, the Second Reading of which took place in October 1979, that that Bill was referred to a Select Committee which reported in April 1980. I have had the benefit of reading that report, and, if I may say so as somebody who had nothing to do with it, it is truly a magnificent report and is a great credit to your Lordships' House.
That Select Committee had the benefit of a departmental committee which was set up in 1963 and of which the chairman was Sir Sydney Littlewood—a very distinguished solicitor. That departmental committee made 83 recommendations. It is odd to think that 83 recommendations were made 20 years ago. Some of them have been carried into practice, but none of them has yet been carried out in a change in legislation. The Government is committed, as I understand it, to legislate. They made that declaration in November 1979. I have no doubt that they collected a few votes on it, because it was repeated in a recent manifesto, and, if all the items in their manifesto were as warm and as merciful and as kindly, they would receive no criticism from my Bench or from my noble friends.
This White Paper, upon which one imagines legislation is going to be based, was issued in July 1983: there was to be consultation upon it and representations were invited. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Lord the Minister when he replies, what is the extent of the representations that have been received and what effect, if any, on the Government's thinking, by way of variation of what is said in the White Paper, there has been in response to those representations.
There were four main items of concern in relation to the 1876 Act. The first was that many uses of animals cannot now be interpreted as experiments. The second was that legislation protecting consumers was now
648
more stringent and the third that there were some purposes for which animals were used which could really be described as trivial. The question arises and concern is felt as to whether ethically those experiments should be permitted and who should be the judge. Lastly, there were rare instances—and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has referred to some of them—where animals were used in a way completely repugnant, not only to members of the public, but indeed to scientists as well.
Now, my Lords, we all have those concerns, and we all want to produce a balance. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, intimated, neither mankind nor animals nor good causes are served by fanatical extremism, and indeed I know that that too is a matter upon which all your Lordships will have a unanimous view, especially at this moment.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I did find much that was worthy in the White Paper. I did find that there were some improvements in the existing conditions and indeed on existing practice, and it is worthy of note that the Government have gone further in the White Paper than the European Convention. The European Convention permits us to go further, and we have taken advantage of that permission. In some respects, as I said, we are better off than the European Convention would have us be in regard to the question of consideration for animals.
My Lords, if I may, there are just some questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord the Minister arising out of what I have said. I do not think it a useful exercise of your Lordships' patience for me to summarise the recommendations in the White Paper, because I have taken it for granted that all your Lordships who have been good enough to wait for this debate, and certainly those participating in it, have studied the White Paper and need no paraphrase of it from me.
The questions that I think do arise are the following. I mentioned the European Convention. It is very important, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I think intimated, that there should be such a convention because otherwise it would mean that we should legislate but all that people who wanted to carry out certain experiments not permitted under our legislation would have to do would be to make a short journey abroad into the Continent of Europe. So this European Convention is very important.
My first question to the noble Lord the Minister is to ask him how far that convention has gone and, secondly, because it is related, is he able to give the House any intimation as to when this long-awaited legislation is due to come before Parliament?
Under the present Cruelty to Animals Act, the maximum penalty, I believe I am right in saying, is a fine of £100. If I am right in that, or anywhere near right, can the noble Lord the Minister intimate whether or not, in the legislation that is to come before us and in the thinking of the Government as shown in the White Paper, it is intended to have penalties which are much more commensurate with public feeling on this particular question?
It is mentioned in the White Paper that there will be an increase in the number of inspectors. Now, the White Paper, as I read it, did not say that there will be

649
an adequate increase in the number of inspectors. Can the Government intimate to the House that there will be? Upon this vital matter and in regard to the very important duties that they have to carry out, will the Government see to it that the addition to the number of inspectors will be adequate to allow them to carry out their important duties?
The Government mention in their White Paper the question of guidelines, and it is mentioned in connection with the very difficult matter that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, briefly but, if I may say so, very effectively, referred to—that is, the pain and suffering of animals and certainly the severity of it. Can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House upon what lines that guidance is going to be issued? Who will be advising on it, and, my Lords, will the guidelines have the statutory effect that a breach of them will in fact be a matter of offence under any proposed legislation?
My last two questions—I promise the Minister—are directed to what is happening elsewhere and in particular in Sweden, Canada and the United States, but I propose to concentrate for only one minute before I conclude upon the United States. Are the Government aware of the proposal by the United States of America to require the appointment at each research institution of an animal research committee which will consider both the care and the use of animals and will be required to review any research proposals in which animals are likely to be exposed to severe pain and distress? Does he know of the interesting requirement in that proposal that there should be at least one member of that committee who is a representative of the public? Would not the Government consider that such a proposal, if legislated for in our country, would mean a great lessening of the burden upon the Home Office and upon inspectors and would ensure that the projects were examined on site by the committee, which would mean that they came forward in very much better form when an application was made to the Home Office under the proposed legislation?
Lastly, I turn to the question that worried the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and has troubled everyone of your Lordships present in this Chamber tonight and the public outside—that is, the use of animals for experiments with cosmetics. In that connection, I ask whether the noble Lord the Minister is aware that in 1983 18,037 experiments were apparently carried out on animals for cosmetic and toiletry purposes? Is not that a matter which should be looked at more than closely? Would not the Government agree that if such experiments are allowed—I am not saying in using those words that I think they should be—they should be limited to research on the most severe and serious skin complaints and those only?
I hope that in posing these questions I have not put too great a burden upon the Minister. As I have said, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for making possible yet another discussion on this important matter, and I believe that possibly the House can best be served on this occasion by the asking of questions on this important White Paper.
8.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I have already apologised to my noble friend the
650
Minister and I want to apologise very sincerely to all your Lordships for having to leave the House for a long-standing engagement probably before the end of this debate, unless we are all very brief as I dare to hope I shall be.
I am among those, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who finds it difficult to see why the noble Lord, Lord Somers, wants this White Paper withdrawn. Studying it as intelligently as I can, I cannot have it in me to be other than grateful that, as we have heard, more than 100 years after the 1876 Act a real attempt is being made to update the law. That surely must be good news.
If the noble Lord, Lord Somers, reckons that it is not intending to update things enough, at least we may take comfort that such of the provisions as may find their way on to the statute book would be steps in the right direction. Private Members' Bills against cruel experiments on animals failed at the Second Reading stage in 1973 and again in 1977. Her Majesty's Government are now seeking, through this White Paper, I believe, to pave the way for new laws on this emotive subject. For the life of me, I cannot see why this move is not to be welcomed.
We have already expressed our abhorrence of the extremists' actions in recent months. I hope that no extremist from either side would be allowed to become a member of the animal procedures committee outlined in paragraph 16. This would need very careful scrutiny when the Committee was made up. People can easily disguise their extremism when it suits them. One would also like to see those appointed to include, first, a lawyer; secondly, someone specifically to represent the ethical viewpoint; and, thirdly, a person expertly, not just amateurly as so many English people are, concerned with animal welfare.
The inspectorate is obviously a key element in the greater supervision of animal use in experiments which is envisaged. It is significant, I am afraid, that after some quite fulsome words about the inspectorate's expanding task in paragraph 19—I noticed this as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—one had to go right through to the end to paragraph 54 before there was any mention of adequate funding. I doubt whether the implication in paragraph 54 carries with it sufficient funding. The paragraph says that a small increase of manpower will be necessary if new legislation is to have any impact at all. I say amen to that.
The clauses in paragraphs 24 to 26 are perhaps the nub of the matter. I hope that the important line in paragraph 24, line 4 I think it is, will be written firmly into the new Act; namely, that the word "pain" should be very broadly interpreted to include,
"disease, other disturbance of normal health, adverse change in physiology, discomfort and distress".
That seems to me to be a good package and brings home to me, and I am sure to many other people, how much pain is inflicted in the name of scientific advance on animals at the present time. All honour to the work of the RSPCA in seeking to curb this. To curb one aspect I am glad that project licences will not be issued to persons under 18, with the consequence that under the new proposals experiments in schools, with all their hazards, will be against the law.

651
I welcome too the general provision that each person should be individually licensed and carry his or her own responsibility for the animals used. I am bound to say, however, that in the user establishments clause I do not think that the phrase "adequate care and accommodation" really means a thing. Rather there should be a code of practice setting out in detail, for example, the minimum freedom of movement to which an animal should be subjected.
I am glad that so many of the proposals set out in the report Animals and Ethics, made by a working party convened four years ago by the Dean of Westminster, Edward Carpenter, have been accepted in principle. Like the Council of Europe Convention, the Animals and Ethics report recognised that it simply is not possible to give animals all the ideal environment requirements, but where such deviations are absolutely unavoidable then efforts should be made at the other end of the business, as it were. In other words, is there unnecessary duplication of experiments? Could not information gained in one experimental laboratory be fed into a computer which would then be checked when further applications were received? My Lords, I welcome, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, the general plans outlined in the White Paper; improved, I hope, in some of the ways I have touched on, all of which will need money: I do not doubt that there's the rub! But if my noble friend Lord Somers is afraid that at present we are only in the realm of lip service and are seeking to draw attention to this matter by the wording of his Motion, then, of course, I go along with him. I believe that the Government are intent on much more than lip service. I prefer to be optimistic.
Concern for the welfare of animals brings out many of the best features in people. One might not think from the attendance in your Lordships' House tonight that English people love animals as much as we do. But we do love animals and, without being smugly self-satisfied. I should have thought that there were very few countries in the world that care for animals as we do. Care for the rest of creation, especially for those parts which cannot answer for themselves, is engendered and encouraged by our bothering about animals; by a sensitivity to our kinship with the animal kingdom and, indeed, for the mystery of life itself; by the awareness that there are moral imperatives which cannot be dealt with simply in utilitarian terms. The extremists, as we have heard and as we all agreed, are not to be pandered to; but the general public interest in minimising cruelty to animals is, I believe, a very strong one and one which we shall do well to heed and promote in this House. Therefore, I oppose the thrust of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and welcome the White Paper as being generally on the right lines.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I am pleased to be following the right reverend Prelate in saying what he said; namely, that personally I welcome the White Paper and believe that as a result of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Somers, (for whom I have particular affection and regard) will be satisfied that the course
652
that is now before us is the best course available. I took part in the important debates, which have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and which led up to the completion of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury's Laboratory Animals Protection Bill, and we are looking forward to hearing the noble Earl when he speaks later in the debate. At that time I described some of the reasons why I myself though not a technical man, believe that I am qualified by experience to take part in a debate of this sort. I need not emphasise that I have been fated to be involved with animals at work and in play since I was brought up by an eminent professor of physiology and took some part, (despite being quite a little boy) in helping him with some of his work in the University of Glasgow which led up eventually to the solution of the cause of rickets. From the Army, where I found myself for one brief period involved with a large number of remounts from South America—a terrifying experience, but I worked with shoeing smiths and vets and I consequently had a valued and varied experience there—I then went to work in India, where I became concerned not only with field sports, including whipping in to a pack of fox hounds, but also in industrial and agricultural processes involving the use of animals.
I feel that this might be the juncture at which to emphasise one of my feelings about the criticism of people who are working with animals. It simply does not pay to hurt them. Nobody can say that it is worthwhile for pain (which it is very difficult to evaluate) to be applied to animals. It was after I retired to this country that I became chairman of a pharmaceutical company with its own animal laboratory. In the course of the later years of my life I have studied shooting dogs, particularly pointers, and have shown dogs of my own breeding and won prizes at Crufts. I have undergone anti-rabic treatment as a result of being bitten by a rabid dog and, what with this and that, have rubbed shoulders with men and women who know about animals and have lived with them. Therefore, I regard myself as competent to contribute to this debate in which, as I have said, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Somers that the Government need hesitate to go forward with the programme which they have in mind based on this White paper.
Subsequent speakers will refer to the need of our association with Europe. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already mentioned it. I assure your Lordships that our connection with animal research in the world-wide spectrum of the healing sciences is without parallel. I feel that it falls to me to emphasise that in all my long and varied experience I have been impressed by the tenderness, the consideration and the kindness of veterinary officers, doctors, researchers and the menials who help to look after animals in applying to their tasks the care for animals which they themselves felt and which, under the existing regulations, they were compelled to observe, even if they did not like it.
Perhaps this is the moment to refer to the word "cruelty" which is always applied to the Act of 1876. I can only say that it might be worthwhile studying what went on in the debates on the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in respect of this word "cruelty" and how it ever came to be mixed up with an

653
accusation, as it were, in respect of medical research. I will not suggest that this is an occasion to talk about pain and the evaluation of pain; but our Government are committed to replace the White Paper in due course.
But, my Lords, to dismiss it now, I believe, would be to throw away much of the work that has already been done. So my first point is to emphasise that the people concerned with research and with the care of animals, whether it be in terms of medical research or to help man with his agriculture or the like, feel that it just is not worth while to inflict upon animals pain which can be avoided. That is my first point.
My second point is a little complicated. It is a complaint about the extent to which the "antis", who have already been referred to, interfere with necessary and legitimate work which is directed in the long run towards the avoidance of suffering. That is what we are up to in medical research. But where do they get the money from? My Lords, they get it from legacies. I do not know at all, but perhaps the Minister may know, the depth of the pockets of these associations so that they are enabled to pay high salaries to individuals conducting opposition to research work. Is it that the substantial sums at their disposal have got to be spent in accordance with the wishes of the donors, namely, in dealing with experimentation, vivisection, or the like?
My feelings in this respect are supported by what we have heard in the debate on research which immediately preceded this one. It seems that there is a tremendous lot of research which is limited by the availability of resources. I wonder whether there are any means whereby people could be persuaded, if indeed there are adequate funds to support the work of "antis", to support research such as has been referred to this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned cot deaths. Oddly enough, that is a subject which I raised in this House the other day and I have in my pocket a letter which arrived only this morning, pointing out something which I did not understand, which is that the Department of Health and Social Security and my noble friend Lord Glenarthur have no control over medical research in Scotland. That is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I mention this only because there is a possibility that we can use this means of getting in touch between the two departments. Obviously, from what has been said in this Chamber today, an enormous amount could be done if more money was available. I believe that there are a large number of people who have subscribed and will continue to subscribe to anti-vivisection movements and others of that nature, who could have their money diverted to (shall we say?) important work such as that of the Battersea Dogs' Home.
That, then, is my second contribution to the debate. First, I wished to emphasise my impression of the natural feelings of the people dealing with animals who like to be kind and do not like to be unkind; and secondly, to wonder where we could go if only we could persuade people to leave more money for research, such as I know they do to, say, cancer research today.
654
I have one or two notes here on points which I will briefly mention. One is to remind your Lordships that when they talk of "an experiment", a diet is an experiment. If you put two dozen mice on a diet, that is 24 experiments; and it is as well to remember that this question of anaesthesia in experiments is an interesting one. We had an old rabbit in my pharmaceutical company who lived to a great age. He had "an experiment" several times a week when a drop of blood was drawn from his ear—because he was "bloody" and could be used to check the output of a narcotic in that way without any anaesthetic.
I see I also have a note of a point which may be interesting to your Lordships from the veterinary angle: that is the use, in dealing with horses, of what is called "a twitch". That is a short stick with a loop on it which you put over the bottom lip of a horse and twist it like this. It looks awful—I was watching my daughter doing it to one of her horses the other day—but the fact is that it is painless, and not only is it painless but it allows the horse itself not to feel—am I not right?
That is my contribution to this most fascinating debate. I think we owe an expression of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for raising it. I am sure the right reverend Prelate was right in saying that there is no point in suggesting a withdrawal of the White Paper. Let us go ahead, as we are doing now, and I look forward with the keenest anticipation to hearing the speakers who are going to follow me in making my rather amateurish contribution.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, it may be that sooner or later someone will say that, with my name, I ought to be taking an interest in this subject, and I therefore thought that I might as well say it myself and get it out of the way! I think it is my only qualification, really, for taking part in this debate, and I see on the list of speakers who are to follow me the names of distinguished scientists, so I will confine myself to just a very few points that have occurred to me in reading the White Paper.
I quarrel with paragraph 9, in which it is said:
"It will also be a feature of the new controls that no animal should be subjected to a level of pain greater than is appropriate to the procedure in question".
I simply do not understand how anybody can contemplate the deliberate infliction of pain on an animal as being "appropriate". I very much prefer the words of paragaph 26. I hope that these, and not the words in paragraph 9, will appear in the Bill. It says there:
"the new system of control will ensure that in no procedure will the level of pain be permitted to exceed what is unavoidable to achieve the intended results".
Paragraph 32 deals with what I suppose one might call random research. It says:
"Research with no immediately clear application has led to many of the greatest practical advances".
That is undoubtedly true, and I suppose a good example of it was the discovery of penicillin by Sir Alexander Fleming. Sir Alexander was not looking for penicillin when he made the discovery, and in his modest way he said: "Penicillin simply flew in through the window of St. Mary's Hospital". But I wonder +78how

655
many experiments Sir Alexander had conducted and how many kindred experiments had been conducted by his colleagues all over the world before penicillin "flew in" through Sir Alexander's window.
I would say that if scientists wish to pursue research with no immediate objective in mind, let them do so to their heart's content if they confine themselves to creatures without the higher sensitivities. But to subject animals with sophisticated nervous systems to experiments in the interest of purely random research, in the hope that a spin-off like penicillin or something of that kind might eventually arise, should not be permitted. I hope that paragraph 32 will be reconsidered before the Bill is presented.
There is a curiosity in paragraph 41 which deals with applications for project licences for education and training. It states that,
"procedures for the purpose of education and training should be permitted only if their objective cannot be achieved by effective audio-visual or any other suitable methods or combination of methods. This will be met by requiring applicants for project licences for this purpose to certify that the objective could not effectively be achieved by such means".
I hope that when the Bill is published no applicant for a licence will be allowed to certify anything at all. I hope that the certification will be a one-way traffic from the authority which gives permission for the licences. That is the intention of the White Paper, as expressed in paragraph 38. I do not want there to be any possibility of the authority sheltering behind a certificate arriving from the applicant. Let the applicant make his representations, but let the authority do all the certification.
Paragraph 43, which is the only other topic that I want to mention, appears to look forward to the day when people will no longer be able to say that laboratory animals never come out, because the 1876 requirement that experimental animals must be killed in every case is to be repealed. The advisory committee look forward to these better times, too, when they say in paragraph 79:
"A dog may have undergone surgery from which it has recovered sufficiently to be taken home as a pet".
This must be so. Pet animals nowadays undergo serious operations from which they recover and return home, just like their masters. It is an absurd idea that every laboratory animal should be regarded as being incapable of being released, given a good home and able to live out its life in the natural and normal way.
However, I can foresee one or two administrative problems. It is very important that the laboratory should find a good home for every animal that is released. How will this be controlled? What is "a good home"? It is not a very easy subject with which to deal. Will laboratories be allowed to sell the animals which they no longer require? Will they be allowed to undersell the professional breeders of pet animals? And if they derive an income from the sale of animals, will they be less economical about the number of experiments that they conduct than they are now, when they have no income to alleviate the expenses of running the laboratory? These are some of the administrative problems which may arise from this new policy. We need to think about these matters before the Bill is introduced.
656
That is all I have to say, apart from saluting the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for the very moderate terms in which he introduced this subject.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, legislation for the protection of animals in Britain predates that of any modern state and I, for one, have tended to think that we have nothing to learn from others who are attempting to catch up. The essential framework of our legislation has not changed, though experience over the years has led to many improvements. In recent years the anti-vivisection lobby has become more demanding and militant. Now that the legislation is being reviewed, it behoves us to consider whether the legislation is still on the right lines and to cast a glance or two at what others are doing. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for raising the matter at this time.
The first fact one discovers when one looks around is the heightened awareness by experimenters of the responsibilities associated with the use of animals: an increased sensitivity to their needs and their capacity to suffer. This awareness will do more than any legislation, but it is this awareness which has prompted important developments in Sweden, Canada and the United States.
It would be fair to say that there has been a notable reluctance among British experimenters to discuss the moral implications of animal experiments. Both I and many others who have held a Home Office licence feel that we operated within the law. The regulations and permissions were carefully monitored by the Home Office inspectors. Some scientists honestly believe that only they can appreciate the issues and that discussion with others might not be very profitable. The Research Defence Society has done a wonderful job in defending the situation against the extremist anti-vivisectionists, but the new factor is a general interest and concern by a broad section of the rational general public. A "low profile" approach has not stilled the protests of the anti-vivisectionists.
What responsibility do scientists have to be accountable to the public for their actions and activities? Would sharing the responsibility with informed members of the public not only lighten the burden of decision but inform the public on the issues in a way which has not been attempted before? Surely the informed public have a role to play in countering the extremists. Moreover, the public must know and understand how scientists are striving all the time to devise new methods of testing which do not involve animal experiments.
Looking around the world, we find that scientists are less inhibited in this debate about the ethics of using animals in experimentation and that they have invited participation by the public at large. Is it time for scientists involved in research with animals to consult that section of the general public which has a genuine concern to avoid unnecessary suffering? Animal experiment review committees could contribute a valuable dialogue with the general public. Now is our chance to look abroad, because these experiments have already started.
The question, then, is: will lay input encourage scientists to be more reflective in their management

657
and use of animals and in experimental procedures without detriment to worthwhile scientific investigation?
In July 1979 local ethical committees for the review of animal experiments were made mandatory in Sweden. As originally conceived, the committees were not to be mandatory but advisory bodies, encouraging consultation between investigators and other experts. The greatest threat to the usefulness of the Swedish committees is posed by the strength of the anti-vivisection lobby striving for the unobtainable. By demanding the immediate abolition of the use of animals for experiments, they are hampering the amelioration of animal suffering that is possible now. That is what is happening in Sweden.
In North America, scientists are currently trying to come to terms with the new guidelines on laboratory animal welfare proposed by the National Institute of Health, which were mentioned this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As he said, one of the major proposals requires that each institution appoints an animal research committee. This will consider both the care and the use of animals and will be required to review any research proposal in which animals are likely to be exposed to any pain or distress. Most controversial of all among these proposals is a direction that at least one committee member must be unconnected with the institution; in effect, a representative of the general public.
Failure to comply could deprive the research institution concerned of money from external sources, because most funding agencies traditionally defer to the National Institute of Health in the matter of regulations. So this is a profound revolution on the American scene. Veterinary surgeons have been in the van of the United States' initiative and their diploma in laboratory animal medicine is increasingly accepted as a suitable qualification for those employed in animal care. It is too early to say how this NIH initiative might work, but surely we should be studying this experiment closely. Current proposals allow the appointment of outside members but the committees will want to appoint people from the community with sufficient objectivity to be credible as representatives of public opinion. In Canada, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, representing 36 member organisations, proves an effective mouthpiece for welfare concerns.
It would be wrong of the United Kingdom not to consider these developments with the greatest of care. We must accept that we have something to learn. In fact, the expression of concern for improvement in laboratory animal welfare in Canada has outstripped legislative provision here. We have a fine Home Office inspectorate with a history of which they can be proud. Through them, we could have an excellent means of supervising institutes based on ethical committees. Of course, their full-hearted co-operation would be vital to the successful functioning of the committees—but by this means, we could avoid some of the snags and disappointments which have occurred in Sweden.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, when I first saw the Question on the Order Paper by the noble Lord. Lord Somers, I was a little doubtful whether this
658
was the time to have a debate on the subject. This was in view of the fact that so much work is now in progress following the publication of the White Paper last year, the difficulty of defining the present position of the Government on some of the proposals in the White Paper, and also the difficulty posed to those of us who have been within the range of discussions and consultations in bringing them before your Lordships' House. So it struck me that this was a difficult time for some of us to discuss the subject.
Nevertheless, I think that so far this has been a most fruitful occasion—and by the end of the debate I am sure it will be more so. A number of valuable comments and criticisms have been made, which I believe will come timely to the Government's further consideration of the White Paper. I withdraw the reservations I had in my mind about dealing with the matter at this particular time.
That does not mean to say tht I am going to inflict a long speech upon your Lordships and deal with the matter in any detail tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, does not of course expect the Government to give an affirmative answer to his question. It is an art form of procedure when one asks the Government to consider withdrawing something—and do not expect that they will do so. In fact, most people probably hope that they will not. I would not join with the noble Lord in asking the Government to consider withdrawing the White Paper. We do not want to start all over again. Indeed, there is so much in the White Paper that is good, we would only have to re-write it if we did start all over again. We have to go on from here.
What we want are improvements. This is no reflection on the White Paper, because White Papers are published for the purpose of seeking constructive proposals and comments in order that a final revise of the proposals and of the approach may be made in the run-up to the legislation.
I am not going to ask any questions of the Minister except one. I asked this question during the debate on the Queen's Speech, and it has been asked by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. My question is this: can we really rely on the Government introducing this legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
I read in the newspapers of the difficult and controversial legislation that is blowing up in the field of social security and in other areas, which is going to impose enormous burdens on the time of both Houses of Parliament. I ask myself about building societies, farm animal welfare and swans—and I could list a number of other topics which are all clamouring for the attention of the next Session of Parliament. That next Session is going to be a really busy one, and many controversial matters will come before us.
My difficulty is the privilege I have in being within the range of consultation and discussion on the White Paper. I am chairman of the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experiments, and have been since it began. That committee has been working in a joint effort with the British Veterinary Association and with a body that has been referred to already—FRAME, which exists for the purpose of finding alternatives to the use of animals in medical experiments. This combination of CRANE, the BVA and FRAME has proved to be a most useful one. I might even say that

659
it has been a most formidable one, because within the range of those three bodies there is probably as constructive and moderate an approach to this matter as one can find anywhere in the spectrum of animal welfare at the present time.
We are most anxious that when the Government's revised proposals are made, much that has been recommended to them from that source will be adopted. I do not want to anticipate what the noble Lord the Minister will say or to prejudge anything connected with his remit tonight, but we are expecting another memorandum from the Government some time in the New Year which will give their opinions about the matters which have been referred to them as a result of their request for information, proposals, and criticisms of the White Paper. We look forward to that memorandum.
As far as the three bodies I have mentioned are concerned, we have had much to say about many of the proposals in the White Paper, and I will not go into that aspect now. Some of the weaknesses of the White Paper have already been picked on in the course of this debate, and others have not. But what we have done—the three bodies acting jointly, to which I have referred—is to make the crucial issue of the forthcoming legislation the minimisation, the control and, wherever possible, the complete elimination of pain to animals in laboratories, That was the central issue of the 1876 Act in the context of that time. It is the central issue of the next piece of legislation in the context of our time.
In this connection we have to have regard to many procedures on animals which have long ceased to deserve the name "experiment". They are not experiments; they are procedures. To a very large extent they are routine procedures. In 1876 animals were not being used by the million for the testing of toxicity in substances of all kinds, from the kitchen to the garden, to the farm, to the lavatory and to the dressing table. These are substances of an infinite variety which are tested on living animals for dangerous side effects. Although the existing legislation talks about the control of pain, unless to relieve it would defeat the purpose of the experiments, there are thousands upon thousands of animals going through a most distressing experience by having substances pumped down their throats to see how much one can inject into them before they die. That is not a pleasant thing to be doing to any animal yet in the case of LD50, and in other ways, animals are being subjected to excessive doses of irritation, possible infection and other side effects of substances in order to satisfy the safety syndrome of the consuming public.
There is probably no problem upon which the public have two sets of values, their own and those of the animals. They are very reluctant to reconcile the two. People can go from a meeting on the protection of animals straight into a chemist's shop and buy something which is there because it has been stuffed down the throat of a helpless animal so that they can buy without fear that it will do them harm. If the public want to save animals from these dreadful experiences and agonising death, they have a simple remedy—stop using the substances that give rise to this very dreadful use of living creatures for the service of
660
mankind. But we know that is an impossibility because we are all dependent upon substances, drugs, medicines, household utensils and all the rest of it.
We have much reconciling to do before this legislation is ultimately approved by both Houses. I beseech the Minister to make sure, in his discussions on the future legislative programme for that Session, to allow us adequate time. I must say that it is a great comfort to know that it will be a Government Bill. We will be out of the tricks and the devices of the Private Member's procedure, with people getting fussy and fidgety as the calendar goes on. It will be the Government's job to see that Bill through, however long it takes. It will not take anything like so long if the Government make up their mind that they must get the highest common denominator in their approach to the different controversial matters in it.
Therefore, my message to the Minister and to your Lordships' House is that when this Bill appears it will represent five years of work and waiting for the fulfilment of the pledge given by the Conservative Party during the General Election of 1979, and renewed since. After all that time this Bill had better be good. Upon my word, it had better be good! Throughout that time public opinion on this question has been hardening. When one leaves a problem unresolved for too long the price goes up all the time. History has proved that time and again. If you do not do it when you should then later on you have to satisfy stronger demands. The public are hardening towards a more drastic curtailment of the use of animals for numerous, seemingly trivial or unnecessary purposes.
I think that so much that might have been regarded as significant progress in 1979 will by next year be scorned as political palsy, or even worse. The unfortunate experience that some of us are having is that while this is all going on not only are the Government being attacked but the militant movement inside some organisations is being directed against those of us who are trying to steer a steady and constructive course in this debate and in the approach to the new legislation. We are already under fire. We can stand for that, but we certainly cannot stand for what is going on now in the name of animals, animal welfare and animal liberation. I dissociate myself completely from the frantic behaviour which we are at present witnessing. I associate myself with the criticisms that have been made.
I sincerely hope that the people concerned will stop it. It is not doing any good. It will be a great shame if the pedestal of public respect and compassion that animals have at present is dragged into the mire of public indignation and condemnation. It will be bad for them and also for those of us who are trying to improve the condition and treatment of animals in society. I beg of these people—I do not know them and I doubt whether I have any influence on them—that it would be very desirable for them to stop what they are doing and let us get on with the constructive work which is now in progress.
There, I think, I can draw my remarks to a conclusion. I look forward to the publication of the further document in the new year. I hope to be pleased with it, as do many of my friends who have been working hard to assist the Home Office to come to conclusions in that document which will command

661
widespread support. Let us get on with it. Let us have the Bill ready for the next Queen's Speech so that the moment Her Majesty utters the promise that a Bill will be introduced to update, review or reform the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 we can have it the next week and start on it, with the whole of that Session before us to see it through. That will be the day. I only hope that, with my ambitions in life, I live to see it.
8.58 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Somers for putting this Question down for debate because it gives me an opportunity to ask the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government a couple of questions on his forward look for the Bill arising out of any representations that have been made to him about the White Paper.
Those I shall come to later, if I may, because I should like to bring a little comfort if I can to my noble friend Lord Somers and also to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on where I think they are distressing themselves unduly by failing to take certain factors into account; the failure to do which tends to get people to catch hold of the wrong end of the stick. All the factors of self interest operate on the side of the animal. Alternative methods are cheaper—I repeat, cheaper.
At one time I was chairman of the Institute of Cancer Research, which used 100,000 mice per year at £1 each. I had to find that. We were an unendowed organisation. I had to find someone willing to give me £100,000 with which to buy those animals. So if there had been an alternative method it would have been much cheaper.
For heaven's sake, all the alternative methods are much cheaper. But as somebody once remarked, if you want to do research into teratogenesis, which is the production of monsters during pregnancy, nobody has ever seen a pregnant test tube and you may have to use an animal for this purpose. but generally speaking, where you can have alternative methods they are very considerably cheaper.
The next point to observe is this. I expect nearly all your Lordships have a driving licence. Very few of you would want to do something which would risk the loss of your licence. Still, if you were no longer allowed to drive a car, you could take a taxi. But if you have your licence taken away by the Home Office for doing something you should not do to a mouse, you do not just lose a means of transport, you lose your livelihood. So the last thing you are going to do is try to pull a fast one on the Home Office inspector.
Furthermore, your employers will be on the side of the inspector. They will not want to pull a fast one and risk getting caught, because all your work will be terminated and there is no resale value for half-completed research. So from that point of view the employer will be on the side of the inspector, the licensee will be on the side of the inspector and all three of them will be on the side of the mouse for that reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to muscle relaxants which he said are really paralysants. He referred to curare in this context. It is quite true: curare is a South American arrow poison, and it kills by
662
paralysing the muscles you use for breathing. But short of a lethal dose it does relax the muscles. I hope nobody in the House is over-squeamish about surgical operations. When you have made a hole on the outside of a human body you have only begun. You have to open up that hole by pulling, and you bruise the tissues very considerably. So to be able to use a muscle relaxant based on research on curare is a very valuable addition to the tools of the surgeon. The two most commonly in use are hexamine and decamine. I had one or other—I cannot remember which—in the course of an operation, and I was not bruised at all. So they are very valuable tools in the hands of the surgeon.
It is a great mistake always to use a pejorative word in this context. Vivisection is a pejorative word. It means cutting up alive without anaesthetics. But you never get a licence to do that from the Home Office. The word was coined before anaesthetics existed, and nobody would be allowed by the Home Office to cut up a live mouse without anaesthetics. It would never be permitted. So really we all have a self-denying ordinance. So do not use the word "vivisection" it means surgery without anaesthetics, and nobody will ever get a licence to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I think was a little disturbed at the idea of random experiments out of random curiosity. Scientists do not do that sort of thing. I do not pick up a mouse by its tail and drop it in to a bottle of sulphuric acid to see what is going to happen. I know what is going to happen: I shall inflict a very nasty death on the mouse. We do not do that kind of thing. It is quite unnecessary to take precautions against it.
Take LD50. Why do we use LD50s? Why do we not use LD1s, for instance; that is, something that would kill 1 per cent. of the batch of mice instead of 50 per cent? It is because it can be shown mathematically that for a given level of significance you use fewer animals on an LD50 test than on an LD25 or an LD75. It is in fact the minimum use of the animal. Why do we do it at all? It is because some very important drugs have a very low chemotherapeutic index. That is the ratio between the lethal dose and the therapeutic dose. Some of the cancer resolving drugs (carcinolytics, as they are called) have very low chemotherapeutic indexes. In giving a therapeutic dose you are very close to the lethal dose. They do make people very ill: hair falls out, skin comes off and so on. It is most important to know, in this range of drugs with a low chemotherapeutic index, what it is safe to give, where is the LD50, and so on. This is very important to know. That is the context in which things of that kind are done.
You do not use LD50s on experiments with cosmetics like cold cream. You use what we call a limit test. You ask yourself what is the largest quantity of cold cream a child could possibly swallow, from its mother's dressing table, as a percentage of its body weight. You give that percentage of its body weight to a mouse and if nothing happens, you are okay. That is what is called a limit test.
Take safety testing. You do not normally test something on an animal for safety, believing the substance to be dangerous. You believe it to be safe, but you want confirmation. Probably 99 times out of

663
100 you are quite right; nothing at all happens. For example, is it a particular cosmetic carcinogenic? You put in on the skin of a mouse. If nothing happens, then it is not. So the mouse has not suffered in any way. It is freely available for re-use for another carcinogenic test and so on. All these safety factors are operating the whole time on behalf of the animal. It is always receiving the benefit of human self-interest in the course of that sort of work.
The word "cosmetic" is of course again a sort of pejorative term; you feel it is decoration for prostitutes, or something like that. But scar tissue, as I have said before——
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, you have.
The Earl of Halsbury: but not to a House of the same composition. Scar tissue has a high tumourogenic potential; it is more likely to produce a tumour than others. So a cosmetic is to hide a scar; call it beautification—that is another emotionally laden word. It is to hide a scar, but it is particularly important that you know that that cosmetic is not carcinogenic because the scar is particularly liable to engender it. So it is tested, and so on. But this all works in general in favour of the animal.
The Draize test is a case in point. This is another pejorative term. The Draize test is no longer used. It was invented because specific eyebrow black used in the United States was suspected to cause blindness in human beings. I think that the man's name was Draize. He fixed up this test in which the cosmetic was applied to the eyeballs of rabbits, and they did go blind. It is no longer done that way. The test was rigged up in an emergency. It got a bad name for itself. People talk about it as if it was an everyday practice at Boots, or something like that; not a bit of it! There is now a microscope through which one can look at any sign whatsoever of damage to the cornea in a rabbit.
There is a specific reason for using rabbits. They have corneas that do not blink, or something like that. I have forgotten the actual reason. But nobody would use a rabbit at £5 if he could use a rat at £3 or a mouse at £1. Those figures are ones that I carry in my head from of old.
The reason that I am going on like this—and I am nearly coming to the end—is simply to give a little comfort to my noble friend Lord Somers and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the sort of things that scientists do in the laboratory are such that we are not really as black as we are painted.
There was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made about the adequacy of the number of inspectors. How long is a piece of string? One hears that the number of animals being used rather than using alternatives is 3 million. It was 5 million in days gone by; so the number has gone down. How on earth does one inspect 5 million? The imagination boggles at it. But they are concentrated into only 600 establishments, and I think that there are 17 or so Home Office inspectors. That gives about 30 establishments per inspector. Most establishments are working on a small number of standard procedures which have all been agreed with the inspector in advance. A person
664
plotting his course on a new experimental line always fixes it with the inspector first to make sure that he will get permission to do it within the terms of his licence.
That again comes back to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, about some beastly scientist, drunk in charge of a mouse, who proceeds to do something horrible to it. Scientific laboratories are not run in that way. We have an immense corpus of knowledge which makes it quite unnecessary to do random experiments.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not remember having said anything like what the noble Earl said just now that I said. But he is not suggesting, is he, that this White Paper does not envisage the deliberate infliction of pain upon animals in certain circumstances?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, we deliberately inflict pain on ourselves in certain circumstances. As a student I used to prick myself with pins to compare one pain with another and one area of my body with another from the standpoint of sensitivity. I think that I shall be answering the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, if I now put my two questions to the Government.
The first is that I think there is a right and a wrong way of introducing a pain clause into the Bill. I should far sooner keep a pain clause out of the Bill and put it in as a licence condition. But there is a half-way house between the two, as represented by the old Schedule A to the Companies Act, which was a model form of memorandum and articles of association which one could follow. There is no reason why there should not be scheduled to the Bill a model licence which would have a model pain clause in it, and then there could be put in the Bill a condition that any licence not issued in those terms should be subject to report to the advisory council and comment thereby. That would be a happy medium.
The reason that I want to keep the pain clause out of the statute in rigid form is that probably another 108 years will go by before we get another Act of Parliament, from a still more enlightened age. In the meantime, all sorts of things can happen. Once that clause is put into the Bill, there is nothing that can be done about it. But if it is put into the Bill as a model licence and it is then required that any variation from the model licence will be reported in exceptional circumstances, that would be a happy medium. I hope that the noble Lord will get that under his belt, forward it to his advisers and see whether something on those lines cannot be agreed.
My other point is the question of the council. Generally speaking, the White Paper follows the lines of the Bill that I piloted through the House twice, unamended, having been previously amended by the Select Committee which studied it. But in my Bill it was a statutory council, and that means that the Minister has to publish its report. If we are to have just an advisory council appointed by the Minister, with no statutory obligations, there is no reason that he should follow its advice, publish its advice or anything. He need not be bound to follow its advice even if it is a statutory advisory council, but at least he would have to report to Parliament once a year that he had overruled his own advisory council for reasons which seemed good to him as a Minister. I attach great

665
importance to having a statutory council and not an unofficial one appointed by the Minister. Again, I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if he could include a reference to that in his reply.
9.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, directs our attention to a very sensitive and a very important issue. It is one that has recently been much in the public mind, and not all of the public concerned with animal welfare is as intemperate and irresponsible as the sham poisoners who strutted into the limelight during the last few days.
Responsible supporters of animal welfare are concerned to achieve the best standard of animal welfare achievable in our present and developing circumstances, and that is the Government's aim also. The circumstances include the state of both medical and veterinary science, the identified and unidentified threats to both human and animal health and, in the wider context, the state of the law on such matters in all the European countries.
Within that context, as my noble friend Lord Ferrier has ably pointed out, there is a balance to be struck, and it is the duty of the Government to strike it and to embody it in law. I need scarcely remind your Lordships that the human population of this country was. until quite recently, subject to the lethal scourge of diphtheria. We can remember, too, the crippling and often fatal attacks of polio. If it had not been for medical experiments on animals we should not be able now to protect our children—and adults—from these two killers; nor would this country's 230,000 or so diabetics be alive today, let alone able to lead normal, useful lives. The past contribution of these experiments to human health is therefore a fundamental part of the health of the nation.
And much the same is true of animal health, for it is medical experiment with animals that has enabled us to isolate and counter many animal diseases as well. Before the last world war, I remember as a child being deeply grieved by the death of a puppy from canine distemper, and in 1959 I lost a beloved Airedale—in this case a terrier!—to leptospirosis. But both those diseases have now been controlled as a result of experiments on animals, as have blackleg in sheep and cattle and many other animal diseases.
So, although there are some people who believe that there is no balance to strike because no animal experiments should be permitted, I do not believe that they are among your Lordships. In this House we recognise that governments must ensure—and statutes must permit—that, where human life can be protected or saved by medical experiments with animals, then it should be.
But that bald statement is not enough. There can be no question of the unbridled exploitation of the animal kingdom for trivial reasons; nor is this often distressing kind of work something that should be undertaken by just anyone who feels like it, in any place or conditions they choose. The Government have an overriding responsibility for the welfare of the people of this country but they also have a moral responsibility for the welfare of its animals.
666
That is a responsibility which we have been pursuing to considerable purpose in recent years, and abroad as well as at home. Our domestic legislation is already ahead of that of the rest of Europe. Your Lordships may also know that we played a leading role in drafting a European Convention which will require other European countries to improve their standards. Even then, I fear, there will be less stringent control over pain levels elsewhere than in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is a start, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we hope it will be agreed early in 1985.
I mention that only in an aside to begin to establish our credentials in this matter. It ought not to be necessary to do that, but from some of the propaganda one sees being generated these days one might think the Government were not seriously concerned and seriously active in these matters. So let me also mention that we are the first British Government to provide government money to fund specific research into non-sentient alternatives to animals as the subject of this sort of experiment; and I gladly acknowledge the valuable work in this field of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, as well as that of a number of individual companies.
In spite of the impressively long list of alternatives which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, gave from the late Professor Smyth's admirable book, we shall never, I fear, find a means of doing entirely without animals for experiment. But the 1983 statistics do show that the number of experiments in that year was again lower than that in the previous year and was in fact the lowest since 1959. Various of your Lordships wanted to know the actual figures. They were 5·6 million in 1971, 4·6 million in 1980, and 3·6 million in 1983, which was the lowest ever. Many factors may have contributed to the decline in numbers but I think that the Government's constant exhortations to licensees to develop and use alternatives and the helpful work that I have spoken of have had a considerable effect.
I turn now to the White Paper. It was published in 1983 as a means both of airing our proposals for further legislative progress and of opening up this whole subject to debate. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, rightly said, is what White Papers are for; and it seems to have been remarkably successful in both respects.
I should like to start my commentary by acknowledging the considerable help we have received from the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has asked me to pay a warm tribute, which I willingly do, to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for his ready participation in discussions, and to say that consideration of the pain condition, with which he is particularly concerned, does continue.
It seems to us that what is needed is not so much a definition that will satisfy students of semantics, but something that will give practical help to those in the laboratory who must be able to identify both a threshold of pain and the moment at which it is passed. That is what we are now working on and we are considering, as the noble Lord says, publishing a supplementary document on this and other important

667
developments in Government thinking after Christmas.
I should also acknowledge both the help and the approval of important public bodies, including the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, FRAME, and the Royal Society.
Since the White Paper was published we have received the views of thousands of people and we are grateful to them. Their letters covered the whole range of opinions, from the view that all animal experiments are evil, to the belief that increased control would prevent the sort of discoveries that have brought great benefits to both humans and animals in the past. A large number of people who wrote did so in identical words—they had, I gather, been put up to it by animal welfare societies—demanding a total ban on particular types of experiments. Many also suggested—again in identical terms—that the proposals in the White Paper actually relaxed controls which are presently in force under the 1876 Act.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the whole spectrum of comments offered on the White Paper have been read and considered with great care. We are glad to see that many people who do not want to see all animal experiments abolished have welcomed its proposals. There is wide acceptance of the need to tighten controls.
The Cruelty to Animals Act has been sufficiently flexible to control the kinds of research which could not have been foreseen in 1876. But we do now need to give statutory force to controls which are already imposed by administrative means. We also need to embody new additional controls in statute so that all who are concerned can see the framework within which—and within which alone—the Government will permit this very sensitive work to be done.
Anxiety about the White Paper proposals comes mainly from two opposite directions: from those who believe that they do not go far enough, and those who think that they go too far. To start with the latter, your Lordships should know that some scientists have expressed reservations because they feel that administering a tougher system of control will mean an increase in bureaucracy. Even they have generally welcomed the principle of tighter controls with a wider application. They support the continuation of the present pain condition attached to each licence. This is designed to ensure that no animal under experiment may suffer sever pain which is likely to endure.
Some scientists have also taken the initiative in drafting guidelines on pain and its relief. The Biological Council has already issued guidelines on this matter, and the Royal Society is drafting a code of practice which will contain detailed guidelines on the relief of pain or distress in animals. We have studied the guidelines issued by the National Institute of Health in the United States of America about which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me, and I understand that the Royal Society is taking into account both them and the Canadian guidelines in this work. Their work will be particularly helpful if the Government decide to issue a code of practice themselves when new legislation comes into force.
668
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has conducted a full-scale field trial of the new system proposed in the White Paper. He has been aided in this by a large number of licencees, for whose co-operation he is most grateful. A report of the trial has been considered by his Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments, chaired by Dame Mary Warnock. In the light of the trial, some details of the proposals, notably the requirement for an independent sponsor for every project, are now being reconsidered.
Much of the anxiety about the White Paper proposals which has been aired this evening involves, I believe, a misconception about the proposals. It may be that some of it can even be traced back to misinformation generated by pressure groups. I gladly assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that there is no truth whatever in the allegation that curare or similar muscle relaxants, which are at present permitted in some circumstances, would be permitted in place of anaesthetics. The use of curare is not prohibited under the 1876 Act and the noble Earl has made clear why this should be.
Curare or curariform substances may at present be administered with the special permission of the Secretary of State, but only after 48 hours' notice has been given to the local inspector, so that he may attend the experiment if he wishes. Under the new legislation these purely administrative controls will be given the full force of statute law and be put on the face of the Act.
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the White Paper will provide positive extra protection for laboratory animals. The proposed system of licensing projects and individuals separately will give us tighter control than ever before over programmes of research work. The new legislation will bring under control for the first time procedures such as those involving the use of animals in the production of serum and antibodies. It will, for the first time, bring under control the use of embryos and foetuses at specified states of development.
Again, as the law now stands animals suffering from potentially painful genetic defects can be bred freely and without control. For the first time they also will be given the protection of the Act. There will, also for the first time, be regulation of establishments which breed and supply normal animals for laboratory use; and the inspectorate will be strengthened to enable them to apply the new controls effectively. I do not echo the words "How long is a piece of string?", but my right honourable friend is determined that the inspectorate shall be sufficiently strong to make its inspection effective.
The White Paper proposes that scientific procedures which may cause distress, suffering or lasting harm to live animals may be permitted for the particular purposes which it specifies. These purposes are those which appear in the draft European convention. Noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in particular, have criticised the list as being so broad that it would cover virtually any purpose for which a researcher wished to use an animal. Again, I can reassure your Lordships that all research work will require specific authorisation and it will always be at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not a project licence to carry out the work proposed is granted.

669
Research may not always have an immediate application to medical treatment, but it must always have a clearly defined scientific purpose. I hope that that is as reassuring to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as the reference of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to mice and sulphuric acid.
A proposed project would have to meet the criteria of permissible purposes. But that would be only the first test; there would be others. The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied of six further things: that the aim of the project was worthwhile; that its design was good; that no non-sentient alternative to animals was practicable; that only the minimum number of animals necessary to achieving an objective was to be used; that there would be no infliction of unnecessary pain; and that appropriate measures would be taken to reduce any pain and suffering which did occur. Not until he was satisfied on all six counts would he be prepared to issue a project licence. In reaching that decision he would be advised by members of the inspectorate (who will, as now, all hold medical or veterinary qualifications).
Nor is that all. Further specialised advice would be sought wherever necessary from a specialist assessor acceptable to both the applicant and the Secretary of State. If the issue was sufficiently important, this advice would come from the Secretary of State's Animal Procedures Committee.
Those are the proposals for legislation which we shall introduce as soon as parliamentary time allows. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is an old enough parliamentary hand to know that whatever is in my mind, I cannot say anything stronger than that. We expect to provide substantially increased penalties to see that the law bites. A breach of the guidelines would not, I believe, be an offence, but it would be admissible in evidence in prosecution.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—and I pause to acknowledge the great value of the noble Earl's ability to combine lucidity with direct personal experience—has produced a spread of ideas about the pain clause which I shall certainly undertake to bring forward to my right honourable friend. I can also tell the noble Earl, in regard to the council, that there will be a statutory animal procedures committee whose annual report the Home Secretary will be required to publish, and I refer him to paragraph 17 of the White Paper. I understand that it is virtually identical to what he has himself proposed.
I understand the acute disquiet that many people feel about experiments on animals for purposes such as the testing of new cosmetic ingredients. But the testing of these, as of other chemical substances, is a crucial part of the environmental protection measures for people who work in factories for which the trade unions have rightly campaigned for very many years. Workers who manufacture cosmetics and other goods are exposed to levels of contact with their products scores of times higher than are their eventual customers. The girl who makes cosmetics has to be protected as well as the girl who wears them, and many cosmetics of course are used by their users every single day of an adult life. No Government could contemplate the discovery in 25 years' time that a deodorant, which had not been adequately tested in
670
1985 or 1986 was in fact a carcinogen when it was accumulated over a lifetime.
For those of your Lordships who nevertheless find cosmetic experiments the least acceptable of this kind of work—and I understand that feeling—I point to the steady decline in the extent to which they are done. There were 31,300 experiments in 1980 and that number has declined in every subsequent year. In 1983 it had fallen to 18,000, a reduction of 13,000 or about 42 per cent.
The LD50 test has been a matter of long-standing public concern, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of it. It is on the way out, scientifically speaking, in many areas. There are occasions when it is necessary to have a precise measure of the toxicity of a substance. For instance the therapeutic dose of some anti-cancer agents is quite close to the lethal dose and doctors must know if they are going to kill or cure.
Again, LD50 tests are necessary in order to standardise biological products and living infectious agents for which there are no means of chemical assay. But for many purposes formal LD50 tests are no longer necessary, and, where they can be shown to be unnecessary, the Government are working to get rid of them altogether.
Your Lordships raised the matter of the reuse of animals. I would reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said that there are some procedures such as pyrogen testing where the animals appear to suffer nothing at all, and it seems wrong to order the death of ten animals who have had their temperature taken ten times without showing the slightest concern. In fact the animal may be less concerned the more it becomes accustomed to the procedure. I could give other examples. We do not, however, intend, although these animals may go into private homes, ever to permit their sale from the laboratory which we think would not be proper.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hunter of Newington, put before us the idea of ethical committees. I shall refer briefly to this before I conclude. David Britt's intereresting article which I think figured in the researches by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and I see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon was indeed an interesting article. But the Government do not intend to impose a system of formal reviews either by fellow scientists or laymen on all establishments where animal experiments take place.
We know that it is a growing development for fellow scientists to be involved in reviewing animal experiments. We consider this to be a valuable supplement to the guidance and control of the Home Secretary's inspectors. Although we can well understand the arguments in favour of formal reviews, at the moment we would agree with the views given by Sir Andrew Huxley, President of the Royal Society, in his excellent anniversary address on 30th November last year. If I may quote from him, he said:
"Apart from the need for the subject's consent and his opportunity to bring an action all experiments on humans in this country have to be approved in advance by local ethical committees, and it is often said by representatives of the animal protection societies that analogous ethical committees should be set up for animal experiments. This has been done in some other countries such as Canada and Sweden, and it seems to me that it can be a

671
satisfactory alternative to a system such as we have in Britain in which approval is given by a government department acting chiefly through a team of inspectors."
I continue to quote:
"But in my view"—
Sir Andrew said—
"it would be superfluous and tiresome to have both. Our Home Office Inspectorate is effective and its rulings are generally accepted as appropriate, so I see no advantage in switching to a totally different method of regulation which has its own pitfalls and which is not supported by the long tradition of satisfactory operation that our present system has".
That concludes the quotation.
It would be wrong to leave this reference to Sir Andrew Huxley without paying tribute to his initiative in establishing the Royal Society's Steering Group to compile guidelines on animal experiments to be published jointly by the Royal Society and the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare. The drafting of these guidelines has already begun.
I return to an earlier theme. Each year, new medicines, new vaccines and new surgical techniques are developed which prolong life, alleviate suffering and protect against illness and infection. Millions of people of all ages benefit from this work; so too do domestic pets and farm animals, but it is the welfare of human beings that gives us greatest concern.
A few moments ago, I mentioned polio, diphtheria and diabetes. Their control represents the merest fraction of what animal experiments have resulted in for the human race. These experiments have also given us the techniques necessary to carry out heart surgery and kidney transplants. The treatment of pneumonia, of heart disease, of cancer, of leukemia and of hypertension have all been developed as a result of experiments on animals. So has the use of anaesthetics and pain-relieving drugs.
The Nobel Prize for Medicine this year went to Dr. Cesar Milstein of the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, for his work on monoclonal antibodies. This work may revolutionise the treatment of many painful diseases, including cancer, and that work is the result of experiments on animals over the past four decades.
We have been considering questions that are of great moral importance. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells has made that clear enough. They are also of enormous practical importance to the millions of users of everyday products and thousands of victims, present and future, of painful and lethal diseases.
There is, therefore, a balance to be struck, and it must be struck responsibly. It is not easy, to strike it responsibly in the environment created by campaigners who too often seem to be determined to look at only one side of the scales, even though, had it not been for the other side, they might not even be alive on this earth to do their campaigning. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is right to rebuke those extremists who perpetrate the, to me, disgusting paradox of using violence and causing suffering in support of the good and gentle cause of reducing violence and suffering for animals.
672
As a Government, we are responsible for the welfare of all members of our society. To protect them we believe that some experimentation must be carried on. We are also responsible for the welfare and protection from suffering of the animal kingdom that Providence has placed in our care. To protect them we believe that this experimentation should be carefully restricted and controlled and rendered, where possible, unnecessary. The balance we now propose gives a perceptibly tighter control than has been on the statute book before.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asks whether the Government will withdraw the White Paper. The answer, my Lords, is that we will not; but, as I have said, we are considering adding to it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will carefully consider everything said in this debate, and we are grateful to the noble Lord for providing the occasion for it.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: AID COMPARISONS
  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: AID COMPARISONS
  HONG KONG: REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
  HONG KONG: REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
  SHOPS LEGISLATION: REPORT
  SHOPS LEGISLATION: REPORT
  MINISTERS' POWERS: AFFIRMATIVE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
  MINISTERS' POWERS: AFFIRMATIVE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
  ENERGY INDUSTRIES: INSURANCE AND SUBSIDIES
  ENERGY INDUSTRIES: INSURANCE AND SUBSIDIES
  STARRED QUESTIONS
  STARRED QUESTIONS